Expecting the engineers to do more than design products ensures that the resulting products are lower quality. It helps to have some versatility, but work tends to be most efficient when everyone is able to do the job that they applied for (and thus, theoretically, have the most competence in).
You say that in jest, but professorship is one of the things you can fall back on if you're well educated enough and you find that working in industry is not your thing. It helps to have contingency plans.
Most professors don't "take summers off", though - they use them to write more incomprehensible papers:)
Our system of government was designed so that no part of it supersedes the other and more importantly the president was designed to be strictly regulated by the legislative branch.
Party politics effectively nullify the separation of powers.
That's precisely what I'm researching for my Ph. D. The technology is actually fairly far along, though there are a number of reasons why this won't replace radiologists anytime soon - many of them nontechnical.
If you plan on going into AI, you may as well skip the MS and go straight to a Ph. D. Lots of people don't realize they can do this, though it will probably put you at a disadvantage if you apply to very selective schools.
AI is very theoretical, and you will be better prepared for work in this area with a depth-oriented degree such as the Ph. D. You'll also get the feel of what it's like to do research in theoretical Computer Science, if you haven't already. Since many positions in AI involve research on one level or another, this is a good experience.
If you're more interested in robotics than AI, you may wish to consider an MS or MEng in Robotics, leading up to a Ph. D. in AI. This'll give you the engineering experience you need to build robots as well as the theoretical knowledge required to make pseudo-intelligent machines. It will probably come at the expense of more time - anywhere from 4 to 10 years is likely, so make sure you're prepared to devote that much time to your studies.
Faking research in other fields can cause problems when people like the ones I'm working with decide to apply that research to medicine. Then we get false results, which can cause people to die indirectly.
It's all linked. As the article said, a break in the chain can destroy the validity of everyone's results further down.
Components as simple and ubiquitous as the Windows Common Controls are tied to the IE version on the system. Installing IE is kind of like a minor OS upgrade - lots of stuff can break if something isn't compatible.
The AI problem is not a money problem - grants are everywhere (especially from the military) and the research generally requires little funding anyway. It's a problem of approach and limited understanding of what makes us intelligent. If you simply throw a massive amount of CPU cycles at today's AI software, you will never develop a true AI - this is why I am skeptical of the Singularity occurring anytime soon despite exponential growth in computing power.
Approaches such as emulating the human brain assume that we know how the brain works, which is very far from the case. Neural networks just simulate connecting a bunch of wires together, even if those wires are represented by mathematical functions, and hoping that they (somehow) result in consciousness. AI based on knowledge representation and reasoning from logical axioms (one of my areas of research) will never result in AI because what we think of as intelligence is not entirely logical.
If we want to create artificial intelligence, we should first study our own. We should also prepare for some unsettling answers as we delve further into the realm of consciousness and free will.
To summarize, lots of money is not the solution to this problem - it can be spent on better things.
The difference is that using the table "HTML hack" is syntactically correct and highly likely to show up properly on all modern (and even many archaic) user agents. Many of the CSS hacks rely on either improper syntax or improper parsing of correct syntax - which means you're disregarding standards on a much more fundamental level than if you had just used a table. You need to get syntax down before you can worry about semantics.
Hopefully CSS3 will make this discussion moot in the near future.
In general, you want to work around users' environments, not the other way around. That means if something you're using isn't compatible with a large number of your visitors' systems, you either work around it or use something else. Then your justification becomes "because it works". If you tell everyone to uninstall their antivirus software to use your site, I suspect you'll lose a substantial number of visitors.
If you're resorting to using AJAX only ameliorate your DB load, you may wish to try more conservative methods that will work on all client machines, such as optimizing your queries, first.
Unless their company is bigger than your company and can afford more experienced legal representation.
What I mean is using something like a particular arpeggiation or even a single chord that you may have heard before in a strategic section of a piece. For example, I liked the progression from a diminished seventh chord to a dominant major triad used in Beethoven's Sonata Pathetique and later found myself using a similar resolution in one of my own pieces. Trying to argue against using such a small element of music in an otherwise-original piece is like trying to argue that moving from V to I or resolving from a tritone is plagiarism. To avoid being influenced by these things is to ignore the last thousand or so years of progress in music.
I'm not talking about using entire measures from other pieces. That isn't inspiration. That's plagiarism. I suppose you can clarify the difference between the two by saying the former is a concept that can be expressed as a part of music theory, whereas the latter is an application of that theory.
That's a risk when you write any music. VG music is fairly different from most radio music, however, so inadvertently copying songs from the radio isn't as much a problem as inadvertently copying songs from another video game.
What is more likely, however, is that you'll use some aspect of the music you liked in the original and fit it into the rest of the new piece. Then your piece is influenced by another, but it is not a copy - which, IMO, is fine.
Teach them how to use editors like vi or emacs for small programs, then show them how to use IDEs for larger ones. Let them make informed decisions about their development environments.
In general, you want to avoid laptops with IGP graphics, particularly those with ATI IGPs. Support is better for them now than it was a couple of years ago, though.
I use templates containing the HTML nowadays unless the HTML is very simple. There's a very nice Perl module, Text::Template, for using templates - you can embed Perl fragments in them too if you wish.
I not only validate my pages, but I also don't use any HTML or CSS "hacks". Sometimes this means using tables for non-tabular data. Sorry to trample on current web dogma, but users won't notice "semantic code" - they will notice a site that doesn't render properly in their browser due to CSS hacks. I didn't have to change a thing to make my sites work in IE7. If you use hacks, you probably can't say the same.
Besides, if you truly want a semantic web, you should code your pages in OWL! It's the logical conclusion of the current trend. I specialized in knowledge representation and reasoning and I could never understand what that language was getting at.
This sort of thing happened to me after I left my first technical job due to general exploitation and clueless management. Every time their network or website had a problem, they would hire me as a consultant for 3x my former salary. They're still looking for a replacement to this day (I left 5 years ago).
The bottom line is that if you really know what you're doing, employers may not have much choice but to give you what you're worth. Could they have found someone else? Probably. But not at less than 3x my original salary, or they wouldn't have kept hiring me.
I agree, though I would encourage learning one language from each major programming paradigm. Going from C++ to Java is easy. Going from C++ to Prolog is less so.
Complexity is important, but it should be taught in conjunction with algorithm design, simply because most existing algorithms have already been analyzed by someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Expecting the engineers to do more than design products ensures that the resulting products are lower quality. It helps to have some versatility, but work tends to be most efficient when everyone is able to do the job that they applied for (and thus, theoretically, have the most competence in).
You say that in jest, but professorship is one of the things you can fall back on if you're well educated enough and you find that working in industry is not your thing. It helps to have contingency plans.
:)
Most professors don't "take summers off", though - they use them to write more incomprehensible papers
For a TA, that is a good thing - more time to do research :)
This is a new platform that many of us will have to develop for. We'd like to see how it evolves.
That's precisely what I'm researching for my Ph. D. The technology is actually fairly far along, though there are a number of reasons why this won't replace radiologists anytime soon - many of them nontechnical.
If you plan on going into AI, you may as well skip the MS and go straight to a Ph. D. Lots of people don't realize they can do this, though it will probably put you at a disadvantage if you apply to very selective schools.
AI is very theoretical, and you will be better prepared for work in this area with a depth-oriented degree such as the Ph. D. You'll also get the feel of what it's like to do research in theoretical Computer Science, if you haven't already. Since many positions in AI involve research on one level or another, this is a good experience.
If you're more interested in robotics than AI, you may wish to consider an MS or MEng in Robotics, leading up to a Ph. D. in AI. This'll give you the engineering experience you need to build robots as well as the theoretical knowledge required to make pseudo-intelligent machines. It will probably come at the expense of more time - anywhere from 4 to 10 years is likely, so make sure you're prepared to devote that much time to your studies.
Faking research in other fields can cause problems when people like the ones I'm working with decide to apply that research to medicine. Then we get false results, which can cause people to die indirectly.
It's all linked. As the article said, a break in the chain can destroy the validity of everyone's results further down.
Components as simple and ubiquitous as the Windows Common Controls are tied to the IE version on the system. Installing IE is kind of like a minor OS upgrade - lots of stuff can break if something isn't compatible.
The AI problem is not a money problem - grants are everywhere (especially from the military) and the research generally requires little funding anyway. It's a problem of approach and limited understanding of what makes us intelligent. If you simply throw a massive amount of CPU cycles at today's AI software, you will never develop a true AI - this is why I am skeptical of the Singularity occurring anytime soon despite exponential growth in computing power.
Approaches such as emulating the human brain assume that we know how the brain works, which is very far from the case. Neural networks just simulate connecting a bunch of wires together, even if those wires are represented by mathematical functions, and hoping that they (somehow) result in consciousness. AI based on knowledge representation and reasoning from logical axioms (one of my areas of research) will never result in AI because what we think of as intelligence is not entirely logical.
If we want to create artificial intelligence, we should first study our own. We should also prepare for some unsettling answers as we delve further into the realm of consciousness and free will.
To summarize, lots of money is not the solution to this problem - it can be spent on better things.
As another computer scientist (specializing in algorithms), I think this is inefficient and needs further research :)
The difference is that using the table "HTML hack" is syntactically correct and highly likely to show up properly on all modern (and even many archaic) user agents. Many of the CSS hacks rely on either improper syntax or improper parsing of correct syntax - which means you're disregarding standards on a much more fundamental level than if you had just used a table. You need to get syntax down before you can worry about semantics.
Hopefully CSS3 will make this discussion moot in the near future.
In general, you want to work around users' environments, not the other way around. That means if something you're using isn't compatible with a large number of your visitors' systems, you either work around it or use something else. Then your justification becomes "because it works". If you tell everyone to uninstall their antivirus software to use your site, I suspect you'll lose a substantial number of visitors.
If you're resorting to using AJAX only ameliorate your DB load, you may wish to try more conservative methods that will work on all client machines, such as optimizing your queries, first.
The Clay prize isn't given out until 2 (IIRC) years after publication, so there will be plenty of time for it to be reviewed.
What I mean is using something like a particular arpeggiation or even a single chord that you may have heard before in a strategic section of a piece. For example, I liked the progression from a diminished seventh chord to a dominant major triad used in Beethoven's Sonata Pathetique and later found myself using a similar resolution in one of my own pieces. Trying to argue against using such a small element of music in an otherwise-original piece is like trying to argue that moving from V to I or resolving from a tritone is plagiarism. To avoid being influenced by these things is to ignore the last thousand or so years of progress in music.
I'm not talking about using entire measures from other pieces. That isn't inspiration. That's plagiarism. I suppose you can clarify the difference between the two by saying the former is a concept that can be expressed as a part of music theory, whereas the latter is an application of that theory.
That's a risk when you write any music. VG music is fairly different from most radio music, however, so inadvertently copying songs from the radio isn't as much a problem as inadvertently copying songs from another video game.
What is more likely, however, is that you'll use some aspect of the music you liked in the original and fit it into the rest of the new piece. Then your piece is influenced by another, but it is not a copy - which, IMO, is fine.
Also, the set of rational numbers is denoted with a blackboard bold Q, not R. R is the reals, which Pi is indeed a member of. Is that what you meant?
Teach them how to use editors like vi or emacs for small programs, then show them how to use IDEs for larger ones. Let them make informed decisions about their development environments.
In general, you want to avoid laptops with IGP graphics, particularly those with ATI IGPs. Support is better for them now than it was a couple of years ago, though.
I use templates containing the HTML nowadays unless the HTML is very simple. There's a very nice Perl module, Text::Template, for using templates - you can embed Perl fragments in them too if you wish.
I imagine that PHP and Ruby have similar things.
...Until hardware starts to fail.
I not only validate my pages, but I also don't use any HTML or CSS "hacks". Sometimes this means using tables for non-tabular data. Sorry to trample on current web dogma, but users won't notice "semantic code" - they will notice a site that doesn't render properly in their browser due to CSS hacks. I didn't have to change a thing to make my sites work in IE7. If you use hacks, you probably can't say the same.
Besides, if you truly want a semantic web, you should code your pages in OWL! It's the logical conclusion of the current trend. I specialized in knowledge representation and reasoning and I could never understand what that language was getting at.
This sort of thing happened to me after I left my first technical job due to general exploitation and clueless management. Every time their network or website had a problem, they would hire me as a consultant for 3x my former salary. They're still looking for a replacement to this day (I left 5 years ago).
The bottom line is that if you really know what you're doing, employers may not have much choice but to give you what you're worth. Could they have found someone else? Probably. But not at less than 3x my original salary, or they wouldn't have kept hiring me.
I agree, though I would encourage learning one language from each major programming paradigm. Going from C++ to Java is easy. Going from C++ to Prolog is less so.
Complexity is important, but it should be taught in conjunction with algorithm design, simply because most existing algorithms have already been analyzed by someone else.