>A lot of this stuff has nothing to do with what i consider computer science.
Then you, sir, clearly haven't the foggiest clue what computer science is.
>(I have been programming for 10 years).
Programming is to Computer Science as scrubbing test tubes is to Molecular Biology. How many molecular biology majors pride themselves on how many years they've been cleaning the dishes after dinner?
>Why do I need to prove that the PowerSet of Set A >intersection Set B is the same as the PowerSet of >A intersection the PowerSet of B (P(A inter B) = >P(A) inter P(B)).
Because... much of Computer Science *is* mathematics... and if you don't understand basic set theory, you haven't a prayer of surviving since all of modern mathematics is based on set theory.
You are of the, depressingly common, opinion that computer science is about writing programs. For the last and final time: this is wrong. Period.
Programming is a trade skill. Like plumbing. Its a skilled trade, to be sure, but its a TRADE... it is not a science.
Don't blame your computer science program because *you* are massively ignorant of the subject in which you have chosen to major. This is your own fault, not theirs. They are trying to teach you science, when all you want to learn is a trade.
Drop out, and go to one of the many fine trade schools out there that will teach you "C++ programming in 6 months". If all you want to learn is the craft of programming, you are simply going to be miserable in a computer *science* program.
Its rather analogous to taking a degree in Physics to learn how to operate a microwave oven.
Erdos himself had the following to say on the Collatz problem:
"Mathematics is not yet ready for such problems."
And I agree with you 100%... thats what makes it so interesting... there are more interesting open problems than one could even read about in a lifetime... let alone solve.
>The second, apply existing problem-solving algorithms to a very specific question no-one has gotten around to answering yet.
Sadly, this is the course that 99.9% of most "science" done today takes. You are quite right.
> but you also need time in which to think broadly, in a non-burnt-out state.
Definitely true, but you *do* need to use that time to think. You can't just lay about waiting for inspiration to strike. Most good scientists I know are able to combine relaxation with work (as I said in my previous post, good researchers tend to be passionate about what they do). For instance, I find hiking in the mountains does wonders for clearing my head... and if I think about problems I'm working on at some point during that activity... I occasionally get a fresh insight. Which goes back directly to what you said about "freedom from work". Quite right, you do need opportunities to get away.
Essentially, I agree with you 100%. I did not mean to imply that good science requires 24/7 work and sacraficing your family entirely. What I meant to communicate is that being good at anything (including science) requires *some* sacrafice.
People who instead of working stupifying hours chose that thing called a family (yes even geeks finds Sig. others) or sleeping at night./quoth
The price of excellence is hard work. Period. In any field of human endevour. Its no different here than it is being a concert cellist. Do you think Yo-yo Ma got where he is by working 9-5 and taking weekends off? Do you think Churchill became a brilliant wartime leader by sticking to a strict work week of at most 40 hours? Do you not think they both made great sacrafices and had crappy jobs (like a Postdoc) at one point or another?
Why would you expect that being a good scientist would demand any less??
You must understand that to be a good researcher you simply *must* be passionate about your work. Passionate enough that you really enjoy doing it in your spare time... because thats when you're going to be doing it. 9-5 is for students, classes and admin... the real work gets done when the industrial bots are watching reruns of "Dawson's Creek" on the TV.
Thats not to say you can't have a family. I know many colleagues who have had families and raised wonderful children who think the world of them. It *does* mean you have to ration your time more than a guy who mops floors for a living. Instead of playing that Saturday afternoon round of golf with your buddies, you spend it with your kids. Then you have Saturday night to work on your research. That sort of thing.
No one said being good at something was going to be easy. Quite the opposite, its really freaking hard and requires incredibly large amounts of work. If you're not prepared to make sacrafices and work hard then you won't be particularly successful... and I simply don't believe this is exclusive, in any way, to academia.
Bottom line? The golden rule is: Put out, or get out. In academia, as in the rest of life.
You almost certainly suffer from Mitral Valve Prolapse. Your presentation is classic, from the feeling of a "rush" when your heart skips a beat, to it being exacerbated by caffiene. Almost out of a textbook. I can't believe the attending physician missed it.
Don't take my word for it though, I'm just some jackass on Slashdot. However, if I were you, I would go see a doctor (*not* the one you mention above) and describe your symptoms and perhaps politely request a weekend with a halter monitor.
Its not the end of the world, but its something you *definitely* want to know about if you have it. Lifestyle changes can make a huge difference with this condition. Best of luck to you.
I played this one too... on a Mac Quadra if my memory serves me right (which it has been doing less and less frequently as of late). Just wanted to "me too" on the nostalgia and agree that it was one of the finest games I've ever played, hands down.
Well crap... thats what you get for leaving your account logged in.
Sorry about the parent post, it most explictly does *not* represent my views, and was not posted by me. (Not that I don't like the Queen and all... but that post is nothing more than ridiculous inflammatory rhetoric and was somewhat shocking to find listed under my comments...).
I guess I forgot the first rule of security: never leave anything unattended unless its attached to a high voltage shocking device...
Indeed. He was a most amazing man in that he was clearly a brilliant theoretician, but he had a keen interest in solving theoretical problems that were of *practical* value (who would've thought there were so many neat mathematical problems in OS design?).
The reason that the bulk of the comments here revolve around the whole GOTO thing is because, quite frankly, that is the only one of Diijkstra's contributions that the bulk of Slashdotters are capable of understanding and appreciating.
Most of these posts are quite equivalent to, upon hearing of the passing of Ghandi, saying "Gee, I heard that guy could go a few days without food".
But, to paraphrase the great man himself: in Computer Science most folks miss the science for the telescope. Some things never change.
Rest in peace Professor Diijkstra.
Troll Feedin' Time
on
Think Python
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Quite to the contrary, I believe it is you who does not understand my observations.
Given a countably infinite amount of time, one can set a Turing machine running on an input, and then simply observe whether it halts or not. Heck, you can set it running on a countably infinite number of words, and see if it halts on each one. In other words, you can solve the halting problem.
Likewise, you can get super-Turing power if you can compute with real numbers (not floating-point approximations, but the true continuum). But again, due to the physics of this world, we can't maintain analog values with an infinite degree of precision (due to thermal noise, etc.) This has even been published in the journal Science by Siegelman, et. al. a few years ago.
In any case, you've made it clear in your post that you are unable to think these things through for yourself. You simply read Feynman, and accept it as gospel truth, because it came from the mouth of a great prophet.
Re:Computer 'Science'?
on
Think Python
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Hmm... to be honest... the "Feynman Lectures on Computation" are just about as absurd as the "Goedel Lectures on Biochemistry" (these don't really exist... I'm just being sarcastic). The original poster's comments on Feynman had some merit.
The phrase that you quote here displays a mind-boggling ignorance about exactly what "Computer Science" is. Software Engineering is, indeed, "like Engineering" but there are many branches of Computer Science that deal *purely* with the abstract. I do Formal Language Theory and Automata Theory for a living and I just can't see how these fields are about "getting something to do something". Feynman, like most people, has missed the science for the telescope.
The real joke is that things like the Church-Turing thesis could not possibly be MORE about "natural objects". In the abstract, I can define a machine that can solve the halting problem. Heck, I can define a machine that solves any problem I want! The Church-Turing thesis tells us about a PHYSICAL limitation on computing. In this universe, you can only build a machine that will compute *these* functions.... But what if I live in a universe where time has no meaning? All of a sudden, I get a *very* different Church-Turing thesis.
There is no question that Feynman had some brilliant insights in physics, but I have to admit that when I read the Lectures on Computation, not only did I lose a small amount of respect for him... I found myself actually outraged. Many intelligent people will read these lectures and believe them... I mean, after all, they're written by Feynman, right?
Computer Scientist's have enough trouble trying to explain to people that, no, we don't just sit around installing Windows network drivers all day without a respected and intelligent person like Feynman adding to the problem.
No, I don't; but I hearily agree with the parent that 68.5% of medical and social "science" research that relies on externally invalid statistics is absolute and utter crap 95% of the time.
You are 100% correct. My bad. Although I disagree that "(I) seem to be confused...". Rather, I am using a colloquialism from my regional dialect of English (which, given the international audience of Slashdot, is inappropriate).
In Canada when one refers to a "college" it is automatically implied that one means "community college". For the purposes of my post, a 4-year undergraduate college in the U.S. would, in fact, fall under the category of "University".
Sorry for the confusion and thanks for pointing that out.
(Also in response to all of the comments/flames below)
A *huge* part of which is "better" depends entirely on the instructor. I've seen fantastic University professors, and fantastic college Instructors.
One thing is for sure though: College will be cheaper, and University will have more depth. I'm sorry to all the flaming college advocates, but in general you simply will not find hard-core mathematicians working at a community college.
If you want basic multivariable calculus, maybe a little bit of algebra.. yes, college is they way to go. If you are serious about a deep study of mathematics... you simply cannot beat training with people who are ACTUALLY ACTIVELY DOING IT. University professors, as part of their jobs, are required to engage in active research in their field of study. The same is not generally true of college instructors.
I'm *not* putting down colleges by ANY stretch of the imagination. I'm just saying that colleges tend to focus more on "pratical mathematics" (e.g. "here is the math you need to be an engineering tech"...) whereas a University math department will focus on "theoretical mathematics" (I feel silly typing that.. but you get the point). It really just comes down to what you're interested in learning, and what you want to do with that knowledge.
In any case, good luck to you and welcome to the wonderful world of mathematics!
>You do that in Graduate School? Up here in Canada that is second year undergrad material.
If your school is CIPS (Canadian Information Processing Society) accredited... which just about every University CS program is... I would be somewhat suspicious of this claim.
You may be confusing "Analysis of Algorithms" with "Complexity Theory" which are different (though of course, related) things. Yes, most programmes give an introduction to P vs. NP in second year, but I would be surprised if you are doing serious complexity theory simply because a 2nd year CS undergrad just doesn't have the mathematical tools to do this yet (not to mention that with the CIPS cirriculum requirements.. there isn't anywhere to *put* courses to aquire said background).
That being said: Prove me wrong. What school are you at, and are they hiring?;)
You are 100% correct. As is human nature, I made fun of something that frightens/upsets me.
I guess, deep down inside, I can't fathom just how stupid our lawmakers are that they continue to legislate and adjudicate on matters which they are completely ignorant. If I attempted to practice law, I'd be arrested and charged... but it seems its OK for elected officials to make decisions about issues where they have NONE of the requisite background whatsoever. This worked well hundreds of years ago when it was possible for one person to be reasonably well educated in a truly generaly sense...
I suppose my secret hope is that someone will finally realize, hey.. I really don't know enough about this to be [making new law/interpreting old law in this context/issuing a patent for this] and make a move towards maybe changing the system. I suppose thats pretty optimistic though (where `optimistic' is read `outrageously naive'.
In the end, as you pointed out... we're a cash-ocracy. Money == Power. Period. And we all know that the big pharmaceuticals companies aren't exactly strapped for cash...
Don't worry, I'm sure 'big pharm' will have E. coli and friends all classified as circumvention devices. Better start scraping that bacteria out of your stomach, lest Pfizer come knocking on the door...
The memory bandwidth of E10k's is a rounding error compared to an SX-6...
and... SPARCS aren't vector processors.
But since you think CPUs + RAM == net performance of a computer, I can safely assume you probably haven't the foggiest idea what a vector processor is, or how one could take advantage of it.
And its not a Cray anymore than the Dodge Stealth was truely a Dodge... the SX-6 is made by NEC and re-badged as a Cray for sale in NA.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you've picked up the Sonata to study anyways, when can we look forward to a video of your better performance (with correct tempi, of course)?
VM? LPAR? Parallel Sysplex? Haven't IBM mainframes been doing this since the '70s (okay, Parallel Sysplex has only been since the '90s)?
No doubt a "cloud" of UNIX boxes is harder to marshall than a couple of zSeries though.
>A lot of this stuff has nothing to do with what i consider computer science.
Then you, sir, clearly haven't the foggiest clue what computer science is.
>(I have been programming for 10 years).
Programming is to Computer Science as scrubbing test tubes is to Molecular Biology. How many molecular biology majors pride themselves on how many years they've been cleaning the dishes after dinner?
>Why do I need to prove that the PowerSet of Set A
>intersection Set B is the same as the PowerSet of
>A intersection the PowerSet of B (P(A inter B) =
>P(A) inter P(B)).
Because... much of Computer Science *is* mathematics... and if you don't understand basic set theory, you haven't a prayer of surviving since all of modern mathematics is based on set theory.
You are of the, depressingly common, opinion that computer science is about writing programs. For the last and final time: this is wrong. Period.
Programming is a trade skill. Like plumbing. Its a skilled trade, to be sure, but its a TRADE... it is not a science.
Don't blame your computer science program because *you* are massively ignorant of the subject in which you have chosen to major. This is your own fault, not theirs. They are trying to teach you science, when all you want to learn is a trade.
Drop out, and go to one of the many fine trade schools out there that will teach you "C++ programming in 6 months". If all you want to learn is the craft of programming, you are simply going to be miserable in a computer *science* program.
Its rather analogous to taking a degree in Physics to learn how to operate a microwave oven.
Alternatively, he could be seen as entirely correct.
>CRTC or whatever our version of the FCC is.
Industry Canada regulates the spectrum here.
CRTC is more about content, policy decisions and political patronage.
Erdos himself had the following to say on the Collatz problem:
"Mathematics is not yet ready for such problems."
And I agree with you 100%... thats what makes it so interesting... there are more interesting open problems than one could even read about in a lifetime... let alone solve.
>The second, apply existing problem-solving algorithms to a very specific question no-one has gotten around to answering yet.
Sadly, this is the course that 99.9% of most "science" done today takes. You are quite right.
> but you also need time in which to think broadly, in a non-burnt-out state.
Definitely true, but you *do* need to use that time to think. You can't just lay about waiting for inspiration to strike. Most good scientists I know are able to combine relaxation with work (as I said in my previous post, good researchers tend to be passionate about what they do). For instance, I find hiking in the mountains does wonders for clearing my head... and if I think about problems I'm working on at some point during that activity... I occasionally get a fresh insight. Which goes back directly to what you said about "freedom from work". Quite right, you do need opportunities to get away.
Essentially, I agree with you 100%. I did not mean to imply that good science requires 24/7 work and sacraficing your family entirely. What I meant to communicate is that being good at anything (including science) requires *some* sacrafice.
Quoth the poster:
/quoth
People who instead of working stupifying hours chose that thing called a family (yes even geeks finds Sig. others) or sleeping at night.
The price of excellence is hard work. Period. In any field of human endevour. Its no different here than it is being a concert cellist. Do you think Yo-yo Ma got where he is by working 9-5 and taking weekends off? Do you think Churchill became a brilliant wartime leader by sticking to a strict work week of at most 40 hours? Do you not think they both made great sacrafices and had crappy jobs (like a Postdoc) at one point or another?
Why would you expect that being a good scientist would demand any less??
You must understand that to be a good researcher you simply *must* be passionate about your work. Passionate enough that you really enjoy doing it in your spare time... because thats when you're going to be doing it. 9-5 is for students, classes and admin... the real work gets done when the industrial bots are watching reruns of "Dawson's Creek" on the TV.
Thats not to say you can't have a family. I know many colleagues who have had families and raised wonderful children who think the world of them. It *does* mean you have to ration your time more than a guy who mops floors for a living. Instead of playing that Saturday afternoon round of golf with your buddies, you spend it with your kids. Then you have Saturday night to work on your research. That sort of thing.
No one said being good at something was going to be easy. Quite the opposite, its really freaking hard and requires incredibly large amounts of work. If you're not prepared to make sacrafices and work hard then you won't be particularly successful... and I simply don't believe this is exclusive, in any way, to academia.
Bottom line? The golden rule is: Put out, or get out. In academia, as in the rest of life.
You almost certainly suffer from Mitral Valve Prolapse. Your presentation is classic, from the feeling of a "rush" when your heart skips a beat, to it being exacerbated by caffiene. Almost out of a textbook. I can't believe the attending physician missed it.
Don't take my word for it though, I'm just some jackass on Slashdot. However, if I were you, I would go see a doctor (*not* the one you mention above) and describe your symptoms and perhaps politely request a weekend with a halter monitor.
Its not the end of the world, but its something you *definitely* want to know about if you have it. Lifestyle changes can make a huge difference with this condition. Best of luck to you.
I played this one too... on a Mac Quadra if my memory serves me right (which it has been doing less and less frequently as of late). Just wanted to "me too" on the nostalgia and agree that it was one of the finest games I've ever played, hands down.
Well crap... thats what you get for leaving your account logged in.
Sorry about the parent post, it most explictly does *not* represent my views, and was not posted by me.
(Not that I don't like the Queen and all... but that post is nothing more than ridiculous inflammatory rhetoric and was somewhat shocking to find listed under my comments...).
I guess I forgot the first rule of security: never leave anything unattended unless its attached to a high voltage shocking device...
The U.S.A. of 1776 was a heaping lot of terrorists.
They were BRITISH CITIZENS and they took up arms and killed HER MAJESTY'S soliders.
What a fucking lot of hypocrites you all are now. Fighting a "war on terrorism" when your entire country was FOUNDED on acts of terrorism.
Indeed. He was a most amazing man in that he was clearly a brilliant theoretician, but he had a keen interest in solving theoretical problems that were of *practical* value (who would've thought there were so many neat mathematical problems in OS design?).
The reason that the bulk of the comments here revolve around the whole GOTO thing is because, quite frankly, that is the only one of Diijkstra's contributions that the bulk of Slashdotters are capable of understanding and appreciating.
Most of these posts are quite equivalent to, upon hearing of the passing of Ghandi, saying "Gee, I heard that guy could go a few days without food".
But, to paraphrase the great man himself: in Computer Science most folks miss the science for the telescope. Some things never change.
Rest in peace Professor Diijkstra.
Quite to the contrary, I believe it is you who does not understand my observations.
Given a countably infinite amount of time, one can set a Turing machine running on an input, and then simply observe whether it halts or not. Heck, you can set it running on a countably infinite number of words, and see if it halts on each one. In other words, you can solve the halting problem.
Likewise, you can get super-Turing power if you can compute with real numbers (not floating-point approximations, but the true continuum). But again, due to the physics of this world, we can't maintain analog values with an infinite degree of precision (due to thermal noise, etc.) This has even been published in the journal Science by Siegelman, et. al. a few years ago.
In any case, you've made it clear in your post that you are unable to think these things through for yourself. You simply read Feynman, and accept it as gospel truth, because it came from the mouth of a great prophet.
Hmm... to be honest... the "Feynman Lectures on Computation" are just about as absurd as the "Goedel Lectures on Biochemistry" (these don't really exist... I'm just being sarcastic). The original poster's comments on Feynman had some merit.
The phrase that you quote here displays a mind-boggling ignorance about exactly what "Computer Science" is. Software Engineering is, indeed, "like Engineering" but there are many branches of Computer Science that deal *purely* with the abstract. I do Formal Language Theory and Automata Theory for a living and I just can't see how these fields are about "getting something to do something". Feynman, like most people, has missed the science for the telescope.
The real joke is that things like the Church-Turing thesis could not possibly be MORE about "natural objects". In the abstract, I can define a machine that can solve the halting problem. Heck, I can define a machine that solves any problem I want! The Church-Turing thesis tells us about a PHYSICAL limitation on computing. In this universe, you can only build a machine that will compute *these* functions.... But what if I live in a universe where time has no meaning? All of a sudden, I get a *very* different Church-Turing thesis.
There is no question that Feynman had some brilliant insights in physics, but I have to admit that when I read the Lectures on Computation, not only did I lose a small amount of respect for him... I found myself actually outraged. Many intelligent people will read these lectures and believe them... I mean, after all, they're written by Feynman, right?
Computer Scientist's have enough trouble trying to explain to people that, no, we don't just sit around installing Windows network drivers all day without a respected and intelligent person like Feynman adding to the problem.
> Do you play a lot of videogames?
No, I don't; but I hearily agree with the parent that 68.5% of medical and social "science" research that relies on externally invalid statistics is absolute and utter crap 95% of the time.
83% of people know that 9 times out of 10.
> Using crime to make yourself heard makes one a "terrorist", as per U.S tradition
Unless those crimes are commited against the British Crown. Then you get to celebrate the crimes anually with fireworks displays... right?
Perhaps though, this is what you mean by "U.S. tradition".
You are 100% correct. My bad. Although I disagree that "(I) seem to be confused...". Rather, I am using a colloquialism from my regional dialect of English (which, given the international audience of Slashdot, is inappropriate).
In Canada when one refers to a "college" it is automatically implied that one means "community college". For the purposes of my post, a 4-year undergraduate college in the U.S. would, in fact, fall under the category of "University".
Sorry for the confusion and thanks for pointing that out.
(Also in response to all of the comments/flames below)
A *huge* part of which is "better" depends entirely on the instructor. I've seen fantastic University professors, and fantastic college Instructors.
One thing is for sure though: College will be cheaper, and University will have more depth. I'm sorry to all the flaming college advocates, but in general you simply will not find hard-core mathematicians working at a community college.
If you want basic multivariable calculus, maybe a little bit of algebra.. yes, college is they way to go. If you are serious about a deep study of mathematics... you simply cannot beat training with people who are ACTUALLY ACTIVELY DOING IT. University professors, as part of their jobs, are required to engage in active research in their field of study. The same is not generally true of college instructors.
I'm *not* putting down colleges by ANY stretch of the imagination. I'm just saying that colleges tend to focus more on "pratical mathematics" (e.g. "here is the math you need to be an engineering tech"...) whereas a University math department will focus on "theoretical mathematics" (I feel silly typing that.. but you get the point). It really just comes down to what you're interested in learning, and what you want to do with that knowledge.
In any case, good luck to you and welcome to the wonderful world of mathematics!
>You do that in Graduate School? Up here in Canada that is second year undergrad material.
;)
If your school is CIPS (Canadian Information Processing Society) accredited... which just about every University CS program is... I would be somewhat suspicious of this claim.
You may be confusing "Analysis of Algorithms" with "Complexity Theory" which are different (though of course, related) things. Yes, most programmes give an introduction to P vs. NP in second year, but I would be surprised if you are doing serious complexity theory simply because a 2nd year CS undergrad just doesn't have the mathematical tools to do this yet (not to mention that with the CIPS cirriculum requirements.. there isn't anywhere to *put* courses to aquire said background).
That being said: Prove me wrong. What school are you at, and are they hiring?
Yeah? Well, my Athlon XP hits 750' almost as soon as the juice from the power supply hits it...
They were knocked out by Germany in the quarter-finals if I remember correctly.
You are 100% correct. As is human nature, I made fun of something that frightens/upsets me.
I guess, deep down inside, I can't fathom just how stupid our lawmakers are that they continue to legislate and adjudicate on matters which they are completely ignorant. If I attempted to practice law, I'd be arrested and charged... but it seems its OK for elected officials to make decisions about issues where they have NONE of the requisite background whatsoever. This worked well hundreds of years ago when it was possible for one person to be reasonably well educated in a truly generaly sense...
I suppose my secret hope is that someone will finally realize, hey.. I really don't know enough about this to be [making new law/interpreting old law in this context/issuing a patent for this] and make a move towards maybe changing the system. I suppose thats pretty optimistic though (where `optimistic' is read `outrageously naive'.
In the end, as you pointed out... we're a cash-ocracy. Money == Power. Period. And we all know that the big pharmaceuticals companies aren't exactly strapped for cash...
Don't worry, I'm sure 'big pharm' will have E. coli and friends all classified as circumvention devices. Better start scraping that bacteria out of your stomach, lest Pfizer come knocking on the door...
Because....
The memory bandwidth of E10k's is a rounding error compared to an SX-6...
and... SPARCS aren't vector processors.
But since you think CPUs + RAM == net performance of a computer, I can safely assume you probably haven't the foggiest idea what a vector processor is, or how one could take advantage of it.
And its not a Cray anymore than the Dodge Stealth was truely a Dodge... the SX-6 is made by NEC and re-badged as a Cray for sale in NA.