No, it's not Crawford's only paper. In fact, it's not even a Crawford paper. The business, press and distribution is all out of a neighboring town 50 miles away. They put the word "Crawford" in their title just to get this sort of attention. Looks like it worked.
Yeah, I saw that show. In fact I liked it so much I kept it on Tivo so I could watch it over again and again.
It was Stephen Hayes and the book The Connection that was being reviewed. That particular show Stewart skewered Hayes more sevearly than he usually does to his guests, but it was over his facts and writing style rather than his partisanship. The most explicit remark was toward the end of the interview.
Hayes used a lot of unsubstantiated data to make his case, and Stewart called him on it. Then Stewart had a question where he lists off some conditions:
1. WMD
2. Terrorist connections.
3. Human rights abuses.
then he asks "Who am I talking about? you don't know. it could be Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, Iran. So why Iraq?". Hayes replies that some proof on Iran was unsubstantiated. Stewart grabs the book, holds it up and says rather strongly "You're not one to be complaining about unsubstantiated data?" and then ends the interview rather briskly. It was the only time I've seen Stewart skewer someone even that much.
But yes, he didn't go into the 9/11 Commission report much. There was enough in the book itself and Hayes himself to skewer him on his own merits.
On the other hand, O'Reilly does that and worse to his guests all the time.
From all that, I gather that you don't have much control over what the other end gets in terms of numbers. But I didn't even read the article and I know that they certainly will not ever be able to get your number out of it.
The user fills out a simple Web form with his phone number, the number he wants to call, and the number he wants to appear to be calling from. Within two seconds, the system rings back, and patches the user through to the destination.
You bring up the web form, and they dial you up. Your phone rings, you answer, then they call the other end and patch the two calls together. At best, the far end of the call might trace it back to the anonymizer, but they won't be able to get any further than that without a court order.
Say what? Who said anything about vehicular manslaughter? Since when does a mechanic have the ability to control vehicular manslaughter (other than to stop the car from running completely)? That was not my analogy, and please don't put words into my mouth, thank you very much. And it is possible, though not common, for a person to be a mechanic but not have a drivers license.
The article is not about people who send spam and viruses, its about the people who's machines are the victom of same. If you can do DOS commands and do safe and routine maintenance on a computer to keep the baddies out, that's a lot like maintaining the oil and whatever your car to keep it running smoothly. You look for potential problems on your own machine, whether from within or without, and fix them. If your car breaks down in the middle of the road, it can cause problems, even hazzards, to people around you. Driving is more like programming or running your favorite app or game, not about maintenance.
Lets force everyone to know DOS commands before using a computer. That way, they would know enough to maintain their own system.
And while we're at it, lets force everyone to become an automobile mechanic before they are allowed to have a drivers license. That way they would know enought to take care of their own cars.
I agree that it would be nice if everyone were better at using computers so they could all do what we can do, but that is unrealistic. When I was in support, i made it my motto that it was not my job to teach everyone how to use their computer better, it was my job to make the computer do what they needed it to do. These people have more important jobs (from the perspective of the companies' needs) and should not have to spend their time learning and working the computers till they become Leet. They were their to run the company. I was there to make sure the computers ran smoothly enough so they could concentrate on doing their own jobs, not mine.
If you actually understood what you were linking to, you'd know that it is not applicable to the case at hand or airline security in general.
All of these posts saying that "following orders" is not safe are just lost. The defense of "following orders" is valid so long as the orders being given are valid and legal orders. The defense is only invalidated when the orders are illegal and the person carrying out the orders clearly knows that it is illegal and does it anyway. I don't believe that it was illegal to prevent someone from getting on an airplane because their name is on a list.
The military requires everyone to follow orders. It's one of the most important military laws. Failure to follow orders can land you in prison. The addition of the "Nuremberg defense" was only to take care of the most extreme cases where illegal orders were being given, and that actually does not happen often (at least in the US military). When that does happen, it is always a case that gets a LOT of legal attention.
The poor soldier trapped in the middle is usually screwed both ways, but the problem is not caused by the soldier but rather by the environment and orders given to the soldier. The soldier has the option, if they believe that their orders are illegal, to refuse the orders. They almost always land in court for doing it and they must defend themselves by having the orders declared illegal. It's not an easy situation for them so they don't do it often. Between the two, it is usually easier and safer for the soldier to just follow orders no matter what.
Civil law is not too different. The punishment for disobeying orders is usually being fired, and there is even less chance to defend yourself from that than a soldier has in a courts martial. The punishment for following illegal orders is about the same, suitable to the crime involved.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Am I abnormal if I don't agree with what you say, and I also *refuse* to die for your right to say it? I mean, if you're a stupid fuck, then why should I die for you to have the right to spew your idiocy all over the place? Someone please explain that to me! I don't know why, but this quote always sticks in my craw.
First, you have to recognize that the right to speech is not about a specific message, whether it is smart or stupid. When you defend the right to speech, you are defending all speech, not just smart speech or stupid speech. That is not a distinction.
When you defend someone elses right to say something stupid, it is the same as defending your own right to say something smart. When you attack someone elses right to say something stupid, you are also attacking your own right to say something smart. The right to speech is the only point. Whether the message is right or wrong or smart or stupid is irrelivant.
So, as the quote says, I may not like what you are saying, but since I value my own right to the freedom of speech I must defend all freedom of speech no matter how poorly someone else uses that right.
By saying that you *refuse* to die for someone elses right to say it, I presume you mean you would not die for their message or their ideology. That is your choice, and I probably wouldn't die for most other peoples ideology either. But that isn't the point of the quote. They are not saying they'd die for the ideology or the content, but that they'd die for the right to speak freely reguardless of the ideology or who agrees with it.
And it's unlikely that a clerk at an airline counter is going to check some list of banned passengers when a Senator that (s)he recognizes stops at the counter in front of her. She'll issue the ticket without a second thought, unless she were a complete imbecile.
No, that not true. Counter personel will always check ths list and follow the rules, and act based on those rules no matter who is in front of them. If a ticket agent ignored the list and the rules and let someone on the airplane, they would be roasted.
Security personel are always drilled that you follow procedure no matter who is standing in fornt of you. If you don't follow procedure, if you act based on their own initiative, then you take all responsibility for your actions. If you follow the rules, no matter what those rules tell you to do, then the responsibility for what happens falls on those who wrote the rules and made the list. The agent is not responsible.
One dimension has two directions. And you don't seem to know much about corporate decision making.
Nothing's going to happen to existing IBM customers. It's more like Sun customers who already have and use sun hardware and software now buying IBM hardware to run their Sun software on. No loss for IBM there.
Customers don't but software based on their hardware choice, they buy hardware based on their software choice. If the software decision has been made ("we're using Sun software"), then it is only a matter of what hardware to buy to run it on, IBM or Sun.
If you think software cost is a consideration, then that cost decision would have been made long before the choice of hardware was even considered. If customers were going to move from IBM software to Sun software, there's nothing about hardware that will hold them back, no matter what Sun software runs on. They'll junk their IBMs and go buy new Sparcs in a minute.
I wouldm't say they were attempting to sell themselves.
As processor architecture and performance changes ofer time, it becomes more and more expensive to keep up. Many times before, we've seen companies switch processor and/or hardware because their old basis was not keeping up. Apple switched to PowerPC from 68k. DG switched from 88K (or something older?) to intel. NeXT switched was attempting to switch from 68K to 88K but jumped to intel at the last moment. HP is making the jump to Intel IA64.
Older processor families dissapeared because they couldn't keep up or were too expensive to keep up. Software moves on.
I bet Sun is seeing Sparc performance advantage fading away and a cost sink they can't keep up on. IBM is doing a lot of work to make POWER keep up, and they're doing a good job. Porting Solaris to POWER could be a precursor to Sun making POWER hardware themselves rather than just using IBM hardware. Or maybe they will cut back their hardware all together and go software only on IBM hardware. They still have enough software value to make a go of it.
In either case, it's not necessarily a dying gasp.
It's clearly IBM that Sun is after. First they say they will 'buy Linux' (i.e. SuSe) which is IBM's Linux vendor of choice and now they are saying they will also invade IBM's hardware. Good luck to Sun. Competition is good for everyone, except the losers of course.
Yeah, when all those companies start buying IBM hardware just to put Sun Linux or Solaris on it, IBM will be in a world of hurt..... I mean, big hardware sales and service without the cost and headaches of software support. Can it get any worse?
I notice that you currently use the name "I.P. Freely". Our research shows you never registered this name. Several years ago, I applied for a registration on the terms "I.P. Freely", "IPFreely" and "IP Freely" and these have been granted. Therefore I require you to hand over your title immediately, or face legal proceedings.
Yeah, I used Primes for many years until they died. It would be a lot of fun to be able to bring up an old PrimOS prompt again.
I don't recall them ever publishing enough on their architecture to be able to reproduce it. There was an architectural guide, but it was mostly overview and behavior, and not so much instruction set detail. The ISA had so many really complex behaviors, like the stack frame and fault frames, not to mention four different instruction sets. It would be really hard to reverse engineer all that without some inside help.
I guess the question would be, what software of value is still needed that was only available on Primes?
It must have been about 15 years ago. I hade a (at that time) old 8088 box with 10Mg MFM drive and CGA. The list of mistakes goes like this:
1. I had the case open while working on it with the power on.
2. I had the second drive cable attached to the mother board but not to a drive, hanging over the side of the case to keep it out of the way.
3. I was reaching over to get the working drive and move it.
That's when I nudged the loose drive cable. It flopped back into the case and landed right on top of an an open expansion slot. It must have aligned a power line in the slot with a power line in the drive cable, because when it hit, there was a massive spark. The lights went out in the appartment. It had blown a fuse.
So, after much tounglashing and laughing, we went and reset the fuse in the fusebox. I then started up the machine again, and it booted, came right up. I didn't actually test the affected slot or the second drive cable/controller. They may have been toast. But the rest worked fine.
It's nice to know that a PC motherboard could take more than enough to blow a house fuse and still work. I doubt a modern board could do that.
So when a mail like this hits Bush's email account
He'd call the justice department and tell then that the Terror level just went up to brown. Then he'd have them spring into action and postpone the presidential election.
Maybe what we need is a way to attach two numbers/accounts to a single phone.
When someone calls one of your numbers, the time goes against the associated account. When you make a call, you have to specify which account/number you are using when you dial. That would probably solve a lot of your problem.
Pretty soon, they'll start making chips with water ducts built in. You put the processor on the MB, attach water pipes directly to the in and out nozzels on the processor itself, and start up the water cooling pump *BEFORE* you turn on the CPU power.
I always thought there should be something in between HT and multicore.
How about a single core that had a lot more units, more integer units, more floating units, more execution units, more register sets, more of everything. Then you could configure it to support one to eight threads similar to hyper threading. If you want raw speed, configure it for one or two threads. Each thread will have plenty of resources. If you want throughput, configure it for eight way, and keep as many pipelines full as you can.
The real bitch will be the scheduler. That's probably the main reason something like that hasn't been done.
Remember those special days when family or some special friend is coming over to visit? You set aside your games and hobbies, clean the house, prepare something special for them, sit and talk, tollerate, act friendly and supportive. All the while, you hold back your urge to disappear into the computer closet or drag out the old hobbies because you know this will only last the evening. And when they are all gone, you collapse, rest and recover. The next day, its back to normal.
Well, when you get married every day is one of those special days.
When I was single, I'd play on the computer almost any time when I got home (40+ hours a week). Once I was married, my wife straightened me out that I needed to take some time out (20 hour a week). Then we moved to a house that required more maintenance (15 hour a week). Then the first kid comes along (8 hours a week). Then the second kid (4 hours a week). It's not just wife, there is a lot of stuff that will just take your time away. Important stuff.
I still like to game online. I get one evening a week and its after the kids are asleep, so its late hours. It's fun, and I'd like to game more, but there really is so much more that requires my time. It's not about compromise or giving in. There is just a lot more required of you as you go on, and you have to deal with it. Free time and gaming gives over to life maintenance.
release the damn theatrical cuts on the same day world-wide.
Easier said than done. One of the things that happens when a movie is released nation wide is that the movie company has to make several thousand copies of the movie on film. That is an expensive and time consuming process. It is also one of the reasons that movies releases are often staggered. The actual film copy is reused from one region to another for later releases.
Small or independant films don't even release nationwide. They make fewer copies of film and move them around to show them.
This is one of the reasons Lucas is pushing so hard to make digital releases: Low reproduction cost, and easier distribution. As richer cinema companies upgrade their projection systems, more movies can be distributed digitally. But its slow and expensive to replace thousands of projectors around the world. Many (most) can't afford it now or anytime soon. We'll be dealing with the expense and logistics of film stock for a while yet.
Babylon 5 is running $70 to $80 a season. That's a bit iffy. I already have the complete Bab5 on tape, recorded from broadcast TV. I'm not sure I want to go the extra mile for DVD, especially since I haven't watched much of it since I taped it.
I did end up buying all of the Stargate-SG1 seasons. They were only about $49 per season, and worth it at the time.
Programming is more like a fundamental skill than an end goal. You need to be able to read and write to get along in most environments. But reading and writing in itself is not an end goal. Thus it is with programming. Being able to program is like being able to write in a different context, environment or language. All by itself, it doesn't accomlish anything.
Math is similar. Math in itself does not accomplish too much. When it is applied to other topics, like science, engineering, economics, business, or whatever, then it becomes useful.
I'd say that you need to decide what major area that you would like to work with: Science, engneering (and computer science falls in here), economics, business, or whatever. Then choose the type of math and type of programming that suits those goals. Don't try to think first in terms of programming and math and then go into a field of work.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not Crawford's only paper. In fact, it's not even a Crawford paper. The business, press and distribution is all out of a neighboring town 50 miles away. They put the word "Crawford" in their title just to get this sort of attention. Looks like it worked.
It was Stephen Hayes and the book The Connection that was being reviewed. That particular show Stewart skewered Hayes more sevearly than he usually does to his guests, but it was over his facts and writing style rather than his partisanship. The most explicit remark was toward the end of the interview.
Hayes used a lot of unsubstantiated data to make his case, and Stewart called him on it. Then Stewart had a question where he lists off some conditions:
1. WMD
2. Terrorist connections.
3. Human rights abuses.
then he asks "Who am I talking about? you don't know. it could be Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, Iran. So why Iraq?". Hayes replies that some proof on Iran was unsubstantiated. Stewart grabs the book, holds it up and says rather strongly "You're not one to be complaining about unsubstantiated data?" and then ends the interview rather briskly. It was the only time I've seen Stewart skewer someone even that much.
But yes, he didn't go into the 9/11 Commission report much. There was enough in the book itself and Hayes himself to skewer him on his own merits.
On the other hand, O'Reilly does that and worse to his guests all the time.
You bring up the web form, and they dial you up. Your phone rings, you answer, then they call the other end and patch the two calls together. At best, the far end of the call might trace it back to the anonymizer, but they won't be able to get any further than that without a court order.
Say what? Who said anything about vehicular manslaughter? Since when does a mechanic have the ability to control vehicular manslaughter (other than to stop the car from running completely)? That was not my analogy, and please don't put words into my mouth, thank you very much. And it is possible, though not common, for a person to be a mechanic but not have a drivers license.
The article is not about people who send spam and viruses, its about the people who's machines are the victom of same. If you can do DOS commands and do safe and routine maintenance on a computer to keep the baddies out, that's a lot like maintaining the oil and whatever your car to keep it running smoothly. You look for potential problems on your own machine, whether from within or without, and fix them. If your car breaks down in the middle of the road, it can cause problems, even hazzards, to people around you. Driving is more like programming or running your favorite app or game, not about maintenance.
And while we're at it, lets force everyone to become an automobile mechanic before they are allowed to have a drivers license. That way they would know enought to take care of their own cars.
I agree that it would be nice if everyone were better at using computers so they could all do what we can do, but that is unrealistic. When I was in support, i made it my motto that it was not my job to teach everyone how to use their computer better, it was my job to make the computer do what they needed it to do. These people have more important jobs (from the perspective of the companies' needs) and should not have to spend their time learning and working the computers till they become Leet. They were their to run the company. I was there to make sure the computers ran smoothly enough so they could concentrate on doing their own jobs, not mine.
YMMV
All of these posts saying that "following orders" is not safe are just lost. The defense of "following orders" is valid so long as the orders being given are valid and legal orders. The defense is only invalidated when the orders are illegal and the person carrying out the orders clearly knows that it is illegal and does it anyway. I don't believe that it was illegal to prevent someone from getting on an airplane because their name is on a list.
The military requires everyone to follow orders. It's one of the most important military laws. Failure to follow orders can land you in prison. The addition of the "Nuremberg defense" was only to take care of the most extreme cases where illegal orders were being given, and that actually does not happen often (at least in the US military). When that does happen, it is always a case that gets a LOT of legal attention.
The poor soldier trapped in the middle is usually screwed both ways, but the problem is not caused by the soldier but rather by the environment and orders given to the soldier. The soldier has the option, if they believe that their orders are illegal, to refuse the orders. They almost always land in court for doing it and they must defend themselves by having the orders declared illegal. It's not an easy situation for them so they don't do it often. Between the two, it is usually easier and safer for the soldier to just follow orders no matter what.
Civil law is not too different. The punishment for disobeying orders is usually being fired, and there is even less chance to defend yourself from that than a soldier has in a courts martial. The punishment for following illegal orders is about the same, suitable to the crime involved.
First, you have to recognize that the right to speech is not about a specific message, whether it is smart or stupid. When you defend the right to speech, you are defending all speech, not just smart speech or stupid speech. That is not a distinction.
When you defend someone elses right to say something stupid, it is the same as defending your own right to say something smart. When you attack someone elses right to say something stupid, you are also attacking your own right to say something smart. The right to speech is the only point. Whether the message is right or wrong or smart or stupid is irrelivant.
So, as the quote says, I may not like what you are saying, but since I value my own right to the freedom of speech I must defend all freedom of speech no matter how poorly someone else uses that right.
By saying that you *refuse* to die for someone elses right to say it, I presume you mean you would not die for their message or their ideology. That is your choice, and I probably wouldn't die for most other peoples ideology either. But that isn't the point of the quote. They are not saying they'd die for the ideology or the content, but that they'd die for the right to speak freely reguardless of the ideology or who agrees with it.
Nuff said. Too much answer, not enough question.
No, that not true. Counter personel will always check ths list and follow the rules, and act based on those rules no matter who is in front of them. If a ticket agent ignored the list and the rules and let someone on the airplane, they would be roasted.
Security personel are always drilled that you follow procedure no matter who is standing in fornt of you. If you don't follow procedure, if you act based on their own initiative, then you take all responsibility for your actions. If you follow the rules, no matter what those rules tell you to do, then the responsibility for what happens falls on those who wrote the rules and made the list. The agent is not responsible.
Nothing's going to happen to existing IBM customers. It's more like Sun customers who already have and use sun hardware and software now buying IBM hardware to run their Sun software on. No loss for IBM there.
Customers don't but software based on their hardware choice, they buy hardware based on their software choice. If the software decision has been made ("we're using Sun software"), then it is only a matter of what hardware to buy to run it on, IBM or Sun.
If you think software cost is a consideration, then that cost decision would have been made long before the choice of hardware was even considered. If customers were going to move from IBM software to Sun software, there's nothing about hardware that will hold them back, no matter what Sun software runs on. They'll junk their IBMs and go buy new Sparcs in a minute.
As processor architecture and performance changes ofer time, it becomes more and more expensive to keep up. Many times before, we've seen companies switch processor and/or hardware because their old basis was not keeping up. Apple switched to PowerPC from 68k. DG switched from 88K (or something older?) to intel. NeXT switched was attempting to switch from 68K to 88K but jumped to intel at the last moment. HP is making the jump to Intel IA64.
Older processor families dissapeared because they couldn't keep up or were too expensive to keep up. Software moves on.
I bet Sun is seeing Sparc performance advantage fading away and a cost sink they can't keep up on. IBM is doing a lot of work to make POWER keep up, and they're doing a good job. Porting Solaris to POWER could be a precursor to Sun making POWER hardware themselves rather than just using IBM hardware. Or maybe they will cut back their hardware all together and go software only on IBM hardware. They still have enough software value to make a go of it.
In either case, it's not necessarily a dying gasp.
Yeah, when all those companies start buying IBM hardware just to put Sun Linux or Solaris on it, IBM will be in a world of hurt..... I mean, big hardware sales and service without the cost and headaches of software support. Can it get any worse?
Don't be so stingy. When it comes to Internet Protocol, you have to give in order to receive.
Yours Sincerely,
IPFreely
I don't recall them ever publishing enough on their architecture to be able to reproduce it. There was an architectural guide, but it was mostly overview and behavior, and not so much instruction set detail. The ISA had so many really complex behaviors, like the stack frame and fault frames, not to mention four different instruction sets. It would be really hard to reverse engineer all that without some inside help.
I guess the question would be, what software of value is still needed that was only available on Primes?
That's OK. I don't live in the better parts of the world. I live in the US.
1. I had the case open while working on it with the power on.
2. I had the second drive cable attached to the mother board but not to a drive, hanging over the side of the case to keep it out of the way.
3. I was reaching over to get the working drive and move it.
That's when I nudged the loose drive cable. It flopped back into the case and landed right on top of an an open expansion slot. It must have aligned a power line in the slot with a power line in the drive cable, because when it hit, there was a massive spark. The lights went out in the appartment. It had blown a fuse.
So, after much tounglashing and laughing, we went and reset the fuse in the fusebox. I then started up the machine again, and it booted, came right up. I didn't actually test the affected slot or the second drive cable/controller. They may have been toast. But the rest worked fine.
It's nice to know that a PC motherboard could take more than enough to blow a house fuse and still work. I doubt a modern board could do that.
So when a mail like this hits Bush's email account He'd call the justice department and tell then that the Terror level just went up to brown. Then he'd have them spring into action and postpone the presidential election.
Maybe what we need is a way to attach two numbers/accounts to a single phone.
When someone calls one of your numbers, the time goes against the associated account. When you make a call, you have to specify which account/number you are using when you dial. That would probably solve a lot of your problem.
I wasn't too far off the mark. But it looks like Andy Glew thought of it first.
Pretty soon, they'll start making chips with water ducts built in. You put the processor on the MB, attach water pipes directly to the in and out nozzels on the processor itself, and start up the water cooling pump *BEFORE* you turn on the CPU power.
How about a single core that had a lot more units, more integer units, more floating units, more execution units, more register sets, more of everything. Then you could configure it to support one to eight threads similar to hyper threading. If you want raw speed, configure it for one or two threads. Each thread will have plenty of resources. If you want throughput, configure it for eight way, and keep as many pipelines full as you can.
The real bitch will be the scheduler. That's probably the main reason something like that hasn't been done.
Well, when you get married every day is one of those special days.
When I was single, I'd play on the computer almost any time when I got home (40+ hours a week). Once I was married, my wife straightened me out that I needed to take some time out (20 hour a week). Then we moved to a house that required more maintenance (15 hour a week). Then the first kid comes along (8 hours a week). Then the second kid (4 hours a week). It's not just wife, there is a lot of stuff that will just take your time away. Important stuff.
I still like to game online. I get one evening a week and its after the kids are asleep, so its late hours. It's fun, and I'd like to game more, but there really is so much more that requires my time. It's not about compromise or giving in. There is just a lot more required of you as you go on, and you have to deal with it. Free time and gaming gives over to life maintenance.
Easier said than done. One of the things that happens when a movie is released nation wide is that the movie company has to make several thousand copies of the movie on film. That is an expensive and time consuming process. It is also one of the reasons that movies releases are often staggered. The actual film copy is reused from one region to another for later releases.
Small or independant films don't even release nationwide. They make fewer copies of film and move them around to show them.
This is one of the reasons Lucas is pushing so hard to make digital releases: Low reproduction cost, and easier distribution. As richer cinema companies upgrade their projection systems, more movies can be distributed digitally. But its slow and expensive to replace thousands of projectors around the world. Many (most) can't afford it now or anytime soon. We'll be dealing with the expense and logistics of film stock for a while yet.
Babylon 5 is running $70 to $80 a season. That's a bit iffy. I already have the complete Bab5 on tape, recorded from broadcast TV. I'm not sure I want to go the extra mile for DVD, especially since I haven't watched much of it since I taped it.
I did end up buying all of the Stargate-SG1 seasons. They were only about $49 per season, and worth it at the time.
Star Trek is too proud of their stuff for me.
Programming is more like a fundamental skill than an end goal. You need to be able to read and write to get along in most environments. But reading and writing in itself is not an end goal. Thus it is with programming. Being able to program is like being able to write in a different context, environment or language. All by itself, it doesn't accomlish anything.
Math is similar. Math in itself does not accomplish too much. When it is applied to other topics, like science, engineering, economics, business, or whatever, then it becomes useful.
I'd say that you need to decide what major area that you would like to work with: Science, engneering (and computer science falls in here), economics, business, or whatever. Then choose the type of math and type of programming that suits those goals. Don't try to think first in terms of programming and math and then go into a field of work.