The key question to be asked is: "what *kind* of small, private university."
In my experience as a student, and in conversations with other students from around the country, filtering IS the norm at private universities with religious affiliations.
Both are good fields for everyone to know enough about to know when they're dealing with a moron, or worse are being lied to.
True. But the barrier to entry is much lower in the computer arena than the car arena.
If I fry a motherboard while I'm learning how to build/fix/troubleshoot, then I'm out a few hundred. If I bork the engine while I'm learning how to build/fix/troubleshoot, then I'm out a few grand.
I'd love to learn how to make repairs and mod my truck. But I don't have the money to replace it if I mess up. (Not to mention I have no idea where/how to learn. Suggestions?)
I also wonder why a game becomes M-rated because you *can* see some breast *if* you *patch* the game (and even then, nothing is done to erotise the situation, if you walk naked, nobody even look at you or say something) and not because you can kill human being with you bare hands, become a cold blood killer, summon demons,...
Puritanical/Biblical roots of the good ol' US of A. Slaughter of the injuns and other heathens/infidels/witches/gays/etc is ok in God's book, but a visible slice of female ankle skin is definitely not.
But I think that minimally the design of the clock should demonstrate the peak of the builder's knowledge and aspect of culture
Thus is exemplified the process of thinking too narrowly. The clock is not about showing us off to tomorrow, but about connecting us with them. It's a work of engineering genius, not a time capsule.
"Follow your heart and the money will follow." That was the most valuable piece of advice I got from my first CS professor at Berkeley more than 4 years ago.
Ok, so how do I pay my bills now that I'm a fresh graduate?? All the entry level jobs require buzzwords X,Y,Z. I can't count the number of openings I've gotten rejected to because I lack X or Y. They don't care that I know what a recursive function is unless I know how to do it in Y.
From the poster's website [www.pureimaginary.com/pi/]:
"UPDATE: it seems im getting a crapload of traffic from slashdot because apparently i put a link to the site in my post [1.5 years ago and its still here!]. so things may be a little slow. also, for you/. folk, if you care to know im no longer searching for the right college. im now at CMU studying CS and physics."
Ok, so say it's possible - even likely - that some set of humans in the far future has created a simulation that perfectly re-creates the year 2003. So?
Someone has to be the ancestor to these simulation-creating-"people". If people are able to perfectly re-create life, well they would have to exist in the first place. Which would neccessitate at least one bloodline existing throughout history. Even if our creaters were themselves merely a simulation, the creators' simulation would need a creator. Ad infinitum. But in the end there has to be one "highest creator".
This is by no means an appeal to a "god" of some sort. What I'm saying is that in order for humans to create the simulation, somebody has to exist in the REAL year 2003. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I'm going to live my life as if I were part of the real 2003, not just some simulation.
First, we won't ever have the computing power to simulate a universe. That's simple to find out: If you want to simulate something completely, Your computer hase to be bigger than what you want to simulate. Because somewhere you have to store all the information, and you'll need exactly as much quantums to store the information about them as you simulate. Conclusion: we won't be able to even simulate the earth.
How does this claim even make sense? Were the Las Almos' computers larger then the massive amounts of energy laying to waste Japan? What about the weather pattern simulation supercomputers? Surely even the huge server farms cannot compare to the size of a hurricane. Other similar examples abound.
Of course, none of these simulations are perfect. But they are improving constantly, with no increase in the size of the computers needed. (Quite ofte, the size has actually decreased.) Just pick up the latest tech journals and read how computers are getting smaller and faster. And how what they can simulate is getting better and "more real".
This is the year 2003, who knows what might be possible a century from now.
Of course, you're assuming that the maximise button will continue to exist when your 4 year old leaves school.
With the frenzied growth of technology, and the amazing inventiveness seen at every turn of the calender, there will always be tech support. Many 4 year olds will grow up and call up tech support to find out why their personal flying vehicle has stalled at a height of 5 feet.
Does it even matter whose jurisdiction the crime falls in?
If the crime is against anything/anyone in the US, they will come after you, no matter where you commited the crime. Just look at how the FBI handled the Russians.
"Mr. Sarnoff next gave a little talk, in which he cheerfully, and with enormous self-effacement, admitted that the real problem of television was not its mechanical vagaries but finding programs for it when it finally gets ironed out."
It seems to me that this is the very same problem facing us today with HDTV. History has shown us that this hurdle can be overcome (obviously). My only question is, why is it taking so long these days?
With the increase of the pace of technological change, why is the transition from TV to HDTV taking as long as the transition from radio to TV?
So with all of these way-overqualified former dot-commers taking up all the blue collar jobs...where does that leave me and my fellow struggling student workers looking for summer jobs? (Don't even get me started about the severe lack of the "necessary" internships.)
Even more troubling, where does that leave me once I graduate with a BS in EE?
~~as one famous philosopher once said: GADZOOKS!~~
Language barrier? What language barrier? With the web truely going global, we can all cheer "WASSSSSUUBBIIII" together!!
"Dude, that was sooooo last year."
Slashdot Mirror
The key question to be asked is: "what *kind* of small, private university."
In my experience as a student, and in conversations with other students from around the country, filtering IS the norm at private universities with religious affiliations.
True. But the barrier to entry is much lower in the computer arena than the car arena.
If I fry a motherboard while I'm learning how to build/fix/troubleshoot, then I'm out a few hundred. If I bork the engine while I'm learning how to build/fix/troubleshoot, then I'm out a few grand.
I'd love to learn how to make repairs and mod my truck. But I don't have the money to replace it if I mess up. (Not to mention I have no idea where/how to learn. Suggestions?)
I also wonder why a game becomes M-rated because you *can* see some breast *if* you *patch* the game (and even then, nothing is done to erotise the situation, if you walk naked, nobody even look at you or say something) and not because you can kill human being with you bare hands, become a cold blood killer, summon demons, ...
Puritanical/Biblical roots of the good ol' US of A. Slaughter of the injuns and other heathens/infidels/witches/gays/etc is ok in God's book, but a visible slice of female ankle skin is definitely not.
Thus is exemplified the process of thinking too narrowly. The clock is not about showing us off to tomorrow, but about connecting us with them. It's a work of engineering genius, not a time capsule.
"Follow your heart and the money will follow." That was the most valuable piece of advice I got from my first CS professor at Berkeley more than 4 years ago.
Ok, so how do I pay my bills now that I'm a fresh graduate?? All the entry level jobs require buzzwords X,Y,Z. I can't count the number of openings I've gotten rejected to because I lack X or Y. They don't care that I know what a recursive function is unless I know how to do it in Y.
Yup. Especially in this day and age, the tongue matters so much more!
From the poster's website [www.pureimaginary.com/pi/]:
/. folk, if you care to know im no longer searching for the right college. im now at CMU studying CS and physics."
"UPDATE: it seems im getting a crapload of traffic from slashdot because apparently i put a link to the site in my post [1.5 years ago and its still here!]. so things may be a little slow. also, for you
Ok, so say it's possible - even likely - that some set of humans in the far future has created a simulation that perfectly re-creates the year 2003. So?
Someone has to be the ancestor to these simulation-creating-"people". If people are able to perfectly re-create life, well they would have to exist in the first place. Which would neccessitate at least one bloodline existing throughout history. Even if our creaters were themselves merely a simulation, the creators' simulation would need a creator. Ad infinitum. But in the end there has to be one "highest creator".
This is by no means an appeal to a "god" of some sort. What I'm saying is that in order for humans to create the simulation, somebody has to exist in the REAL year 2003. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I'm going to live my life as if I were part of the real 2003, not just some simulation.
First, we won't ever have the computing power to simulate a universe. That's simple to find out: If you want to simulate something completely, Your computer hase to be bigger than what you want to simulate. Because somewhere you have to store all the information, and you'll need exactly as much quantums to store the information about them as you simulate. Conclusion: we won't be able to even simulate the earth.
How does this claim even make sense? Were the Las Almos' computers larger then the massive amounts of energy laying to waste Japan? What about the weather pattern simulation supercomputers? Surely even the huge server farms cannot compare to the size of a hurricane. Other similar examples abound.
Of course, none of these simulations are perfect. But they are improving constantly, with no increase in the size of the computers needed. (Quite ofte, the size has actually decreased.) Just pick up the latest tech journals and read how computers are getting smaller and faster. And how what they can simulate is getting better and "more real".
This is the year 2003, who knows what might be possible a century from now.
Of course, you're assuming that the maximise button will continue to exist when your 4 year old leaves school.
With the frenzied growth of technology, and the amazing inventiveness seen at every turn of the calender, there will always be tech support. Many 4 year olds will grow up and call up tech support to find out why their personal flying vehicle has stalled at a height of 5 feet.
If the crime is against anything/anyone in the US, they will come after you, no matter where you commited the crime. Just look at how the FBI handled the Russians.
"Mr. Sarnoff next gave a little talk, in which he cheerfully, and with enormous self-effacement, admitted that the real problem of television was not its mechanical vagaries but finding programs for it when it finally gets ironed out."
It seems to me that this is the very same problem facing us today with HDTV. History has shown us that this hurdle can be overcome (obviously). My only question is, why is it taking so long these days?
With the increase of the pace of technological change, why is the transition from TV to HDTV taking as long as the transition from radio to TV?
So with all of these way-overqualified former dot-commers taking up all the blue collar jobs...where does that leave me and my fellow struggling student workers looking for summer jobs? (Don't even get me started about the severe lack of the "necessary" internships.)
Even more troubling, where does that leave me once I graduate with a BS in EE?
~~as one famous philosopher once said: GADZOOKS!~~
Language barrier? What language barrier? With the web truely going global, we can all cheer "WASSSSSUUBBIIII" together!! "Dude, that was sooooo last year."