I find it interesting that nobody seems to have mentioned the idea of going to school to learn how to program. We geeks are a self-taught breed by nature, but there are some things that you simply might never be exposed to if you tackle it all on your own. I just finished my BSCS, and the classes I had were way better than teaching myself.
You have to ask yourself why you want to learn how to program. Are you going for a career in software engineering, or do you want to write a database to keep track of your grocery list? It's a question of orders of magnitude-- anybody can learn how to cobble together a dog house. With a bit of study, some experience and maybe a mentor or two you can probably learn how to build your own house. But you're going to have to get some education from an external source if you want to architect skyscrapers.
I just graduated from Neumont University and happen to be very happy with the job I landed right out of school! Could I have learned it all on my own? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it because there were so many things my teachers brought up that I wouldn't have gone into on my own. Plus, to get to the level that I'm at now would have taken way longer than 2 years.
But again, this doesn't matter if you're just wanting to do a couple of fancy tricks on your home page. Or if you just want to run Linux because you feel it's the cool thing to do. I have absolutely nothing against recreational CS-- that's where I started too. But if you want a real career out of it, take the time and get a real education.
Despite anything you may read in this article, it was dumb and annoying. A VERY close second is Masters of the Universe that destroyed any pleasant childhood memories I ever had of playing with He-Man toys.
So I was sitting in my project room during my lunchbreak here at Northface University, and was glad to see that we finally made it to/.! About time! But a lot of the comments have been pretty derrogatory. I don't know that I can defend against the deluge of posts, but at least I can let you in on what it's actually like here.
Yes, Northface gets you through in 2 1/2 years as opposed to 4. We're also here at school, in classes, from 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. While the total number of years is less, I think the total amount of time in school (including homework) is quite comparable.
Yes, I'd like to see a bit more math. I personally love math, and have passed up to Calc II. That's the one thing I miss about traditional Universities.
Umm, not teaching critical thinking or hardware architecture? Okay, I agree there's no class specifically titled "Critical thinking" or "Hardware Architecture". But it's definitely there sprinkled in by the professors in their lectures. Dr. Halpin (ORM and databases) in particular puts a lot of logic problems into his assignments and lectures. Algorithm development has not been specifically taught yet (i.e., can you write a B-tree), but I'm only in my 2nd quarter here.
The software development cycle and software architecture are heavily emphasized. I'm in a project team now that's working on things that my brother-in-law (who graduated with a BSCS from the University of Utah) never dreamed of getting into. Homework assignments in the traditional setting get you to work on problems. Project work at Northface gets you to work on all those problems and then see how they interact with each other.
There's lots more to say. But there are probably a hundred other posts in the discussion that I need to catch up on. I emailed the other students here at Northface and encouraged them to post their experiences, so we'll see how this goes. It's no Ivory Tower over here, but I'll disagree with anyone who says we're not getting the people skills or the critical thinking experience that comes from a 4-year.
I've been going to Northface University for a few weeks now, and they seem to be pretty good about giving you the math, and putting it in the context of programming. I've had up to Calc II and a bit of Discrete at a community college. Both have been very useful to me, but the discrete would have been better it had been put into a CS context. Our Information Modeling class is kind of teaching us Discrete without mentioning that what we're really doing is math. I expect more advanced courses will expand on this.
Okay, so 12 apartments per floor, 4 floors. 48 apartments, and we'll assume they're using their own routers and cabling within the apartment if they have multiple machines.
First: What is the total number of wireless connections that a channel can handle? I'm going to say 8, just because it sounds like a nice number. Then you have I think 11 channels on 802.11b. That gives you, what, 88 possible addresses? Okay, that seems possible. But holy RF noise!
Next: What's the range on your 802.11b within the apartment? You guys are gamers, so lost packets are going to really mess up the whole point of this network. You'll need to make sure the access points are close enough to the apartments to not drop your packets.
Another point: Are you going entirely wireless? I.e., are you running a cable to the AP at the top of the building, or are you going to have it send all that information wirelessly to your central router?
I've raised more questions than I've answered (I've answered exactly zero), and I know I'm no guru when it comes to wireless. But maybe these are some points to discuss individually to get the ball rolling......
What makes me ill about the FCC allowing them to charge for this is that we're still going to be paying that $1 "number portability fee" 20 years down the road when all the carriers have long since paid off the expenses of "upgrading" their networks. Does anyone know if there's a date set for when they can't stop milking us on this anymore???
As the alien spaceship leaves its homeworld, it begins letting out a piece of string. It continues to let out string as it travels, stopping by the occasional asteroid to pick up more raw materials for string. When it reaches its destination, they use the string to communicate with the homeworld. No, dummy, not by talking into a tin can! That would require sound waves, which would be limited to the speed of sound. They tug on the string in Morse Code. Of course, they wouldn't call it Morse, 'cause the person on their homeworld who invented it would be named something like "Boeulrak". So they tug on the string in Boeulrak Code. Instant intergalactic communication! All brought to you by the miracles of a ball of string!
(Would this hypothesis of communication be called "String Theory"?)
Just curious-- has anybody actually tried this experiment? I'm sure you'd have to clear channels with the ASPCA, Humane Society and a few others, but I'd really like to see a page devoted to this one. I've heard that analogy so many times, but does it even work?? Surely there must be some French/. reader who would be willing to try boiling frogs immediately and gradually in the name of science. Or at least in the name of gastronomy.
Saying that the frog jumps out immediately from the boiling water assumes: a) the water is suffeciently shallow for the frog to push against the bottom of the pot (I don't know if the pressure exherted against water would be enough to propel a frog out of a pot); b) that the difference in height between the water level and top of the pot is small enough for said amphibious hopper to get out; c) that being submerged in boiling water does not immediately disable the frog's jumping capacities.
I've fried crickets before (yes, I eat strange things), and when you toss them onto a hot pan with some oil (mmm.... butter), they simply don't have time to react before the proteins in their muscles are hydrolized. Not to be morbid about it, but I really don't think our frog has a chance in the boiling water.
Conversely, how dumb do we really think frogs are?? I mean, come on-- if you feel your legs scalding, don't you generally get out of the tub? Admittedly, when the temperature is raised gradually your heat tolerance increases. Indeed, people get so comfortable in saunas that they post warnings about brain damage from being in there too long. But come on. Is the frog really going to sit there and pass on blissfully to oblivion? A fish, I can understand. As the water gets hotter, fewer gasses can be dissolved in it. Since the fish breathes the dissolved gasses, it gradually suffocates. Which is beside the point, since the fish can't jump out of the pot in the first place, but you get the idea.
Somebody, please! Clear up this confusion! In the name of all that is analgous! In the meantime, I'm going to get back to my cricket stir-fry.
p.s. True science and true religion never conflict. To have a complete understanding of science is to understand the universe as it is. True religion is the same. Religion covers the why, science coveres the how. Since our understanding of both is imperfect at best, it's pointless to argue about frivolous details that don't pertain to our salvation. One way or another when we're all dead and sitting around in the waiting room, maybe there will be a documentary video playing in the VCR (DVD? What format do celestial beings use?). Then we can all nod our heads and say, "Oh, duh! Of course." Until then, deal with the fact that currently neither science nor religion has a monopoly on the full truth of "how" things came into being. Let science debate the how of the universe, let religion inspire us with the why, and what our purpose in it is.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to ask yourself why you want to learn how to program. Are you going for a career in software engineering, or do you want to write a database to keep track of your grocery list? It's a question of orders of magnitude-- anybody can learn how to cobble together a dog house. With a bit of study, some experience and maybe a mentor or two you can probably learn how to build your own house. But you're going to have to get some education from an external source if you want to architect skyscrapers.
I just graduated from Neumont University and happen to be very happy with the job I landed right out of school! Could I have learned it all on my own? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it because there were so many things my teachers brought up that I wouldn't have gone into on my own. Plus, to get to the level that I'm at now would have taken way longer than 2 years.
But again, this doesn't matter if you're just wanting to do a couple of fancy tricks on your home page. Or if you just want to run Linux because you feel it's the cool thing to do. I have absolutely nothing against recreational CS-- that's where I started too. But if you want a real career out of it, take the time and get a real education.
Despite anything you may read in this article, it was dumb and annoying. A VERY close second is Masters of the Universe that destroyed any pleasant childhood memories I ever had of playing with He-Man toys.
Yes, Northface gets you through in 2 1/2 years as opposed to 4. We're also here at school, in classes, from 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. While the total number of years is less, I think the total amount of time in school (including homework) is quite comparable.
Yes, I'd like to see a bit more math. I personally love math, and have passed up to Calc II. That's the one thing I miss about traditional Universities.
Umm, not teaching critical thinking or hardware architecture? Okay, I agree there's no class specifically titled "Critical thinking" or "Hardware Architecture". But it's definitely there sprinkled in by the professors in their lectures. Dr. Halpin (ORM and databases) in particular puts a lot of logic problems into his assignments and lectures. Algorithm development has not been specifically taught yet (i.e., can you write a B-tree), but I'm only in my 2nd quarter here.
The software development cycle and software architecture are heavily emphasized. I'm in a project team now that's working on things that my brother-in-law (who graduated with a BSCS from the University of Utah) never dreamed of getting into. Homework assignments in the traditional setting get you to work on problems. Project work at Northface gets you to work on all those problems and then see how they interact with each other.
There's lots more to say. But there are probably a hundred other posts in the discussion that I need to catch up on. I emailed the other students here at Northface and encouraged them to post their experiences, so we'll see how this goes. It's no Ivory Tower over here, but I'll disagree with anyone who says we're not getting the people skills or the critical thinking experience that comes from a 4-year.
I've been going to Northface University for a few weeks now, and they seem to be pretty good about giving you the math, and putting it in the context of programming. I've had up to Calc II and a bit of Discrete at a community college. Both have been very useful to me, but the discrete would have been better it had been put into a CS context. Our Information Modeling class is kind of teaching us Discrete without mentioning that what we're really doing is math. I expect more advanced courses will expand on this.
Okay, so 12 apartments per floor, 4 floors. 48 apartments, and we'll assume they're using their own routers and cabling within the apartment if they have multiple machines.
First: What is the total number of wireless connections that a channel can handle? I'm going to say 8, just because it sounds like a nice number. Then you have I think 11 channels on 802.11b. That gives you, what, 88 possible addresses? Okay, that seems possible. But holy RF noise!
Next: What's the range on your 802.11b within the apartment? You guys are gamers, so lost packets are going to really mess up the whole point of this network. You'll need to make sure the access points are close enough to the apartments to not drop your packets.
Another point: Are you going entirely wireless? I.e., are you running a cable to the AP at the top of the building, or are you going to have it send all that information wirelessly to your central router?
I've raised more questions than I've answered (I've answered exactly zero), and I know I'm no guru when it comes to wireless. But maybe these are some points to discuss individually to get the ball rolling......
What makes me ill about the FCC allowing them to charge for this is that we're still going to be paying that $1 "number portability fee" 20 years down the road when all the carriers have long since paid off the expenses of "upgrading" their networks. Does anyone know if there's a date set for when they can't stop milking us on this anymore???
and the tap water tastes like ass here
And you know this how??!
As the alien spaceship leaves its homeworld, it begins letting out a piece of string. It continues to let out string as it travels, stopping by the occasional asteroid to pick up more raw materials for string. When it reaches its destination, they use the string to communicate with the homeworld. No, dummy, not by talking into a tin can! That would require sound waves, which would be limited to the speed of sound. They tug on the string in Morse Code. Of course, they wouldn't call it Morse, 'cause the person on their homeworld who invented it would be named something like "Boeulrak". So they tug on the string in Boeulrak Code. Instant intergalactic communication! All brought to you by the miracles of a ball of string! (Would this hypothesis of communication be called "String Theory"?)
Saying that the frog jumps out immediately from the boiling water assumes: a) the water is suffeciently shallow for the frog to push against the bottom of the pot (I don't know if the pressure exherted against water would be enough to propel a frog out of a pot); b) that the difference in height between the water level and top of the pot is small enough for said amphibious hopper to get out; c) that being submerged in boiling water does not immediately disable the frog's jumping capacities.
I've fried crickets before (yes, I eat strange things), and when you toss them onto a hot pan with some oil (mmm.... butter), they simply don't have time to react before the proteins in their muscles are hydrolized. Not to be morbid about it, but I really don't think our frog has a chance in the boiling water.
Conversely, how dumb do we really think frogs are?? I mean, come on-- if you feel your legs scalding, don't you generally get out of the tub? Admittedly, when the temperature is raised gradually your heat tolerance increases. Indeed, people get so comfortable in saunas that they post warnings about brain damage from being in there too long. But come on. Is the frog really going to sit there and pass on blissfully to oblivion? A fish, I can understand. As the water gets hotter, fewer gasses can be dissolved in it. Since the fish breathes the dissolved gasses, it gradually suffocates. Which is beside the point, since the fish can't jump out of the pot in the first place, but you get the idea.
Somebody, please! Clear up this confusion! In the name of all that is analgous! In the meantime, I'm going to get back to my cricket stir-fry.
p.s. True science and true religion never conflict. To have a complete understanding of science is to understand the universe as it is. True religion is the same. Religion covers the why, science coveres the how. Since our understanding of both is imperfect at best, it's pointless to argue about frivolous details that don't pertain to our salvation. One way or another when we're all dead and sitting around in the waiting room, maybe there will be a documentary video playing in the VCR (DVD? What format do celestial beings use?). Then we can all nod our heads and say, "Oh, duh! Of course." Until then, deal with the fact that currently neither science nor religion has a monopoly on the full truth of "how" things came into being. Let science debate the how of the universe, let religion inspire us with the why, and what our purpose in it is.