I'm not sure whether you're referring to cars or car transitions. Because I'm pedantic and this is a pet peeve, I'll explain.
Saving is what happens when one takes an action to reduce consumption or increase rate of accumulation. For example, if I spend two dollars a week on coffee, and then cut back to one dollar, I save one dollar per week.
It is impossible to "save" by consuming, only by *changing consumption*. How much money did I save by renting a movie on iTunes? None -- I *spent* $2. How much did I save by renting instead of going to the theater? Now we're getting somewhere -- I saved, say, $9.
A new urinal at work has a sticker on it, advertising that it saves 88% more water than other urinals. Wrong! It bothers me every time I see it. Other urinals don't save water; they just use it. This urinal uses less water than they do, so it does save water relative to them. It just doesn't save 88% more than they do because they don't save any at all. Likewise cars don't save fuel; they just use more or less than other cars. The savings is all in the transition to a different car.
It depends what programming languages area interests you. Carnegie Mellon and Cornell are good candidates. But be careful -- faculty at CMU, for example, are heavily into functional programming but find object-oriented programming completely irrelevant. Choose wisely...
You'll end up in a job you don't like, and have a miserable time in grad school, too. Think about the classes you've taken so far. Which were the most interesting/fun? Spend your time in grad school focusing on those areas. If there aren't any that you think are worth another year of your life, maybe it'd be better to defer grad school for a year or two until you figure it out.
Computer science is not about programming. If your CS education taught you mostly programming, then it's a failure. Programming languages change all the time, but the underlying concepts do not. You should know how to design algorithms and prove them correct; create robust, scalable systems; know algorithmic approaches to many common problems; design and implement programming languages; etc.
If you want a software engineering job, you should be able to learn whatever language you need there.
Every line of legal text is really a line of code, executed by the legal system. So of course it should be version-controlled, like any other complicated, group-created artifact. Bugs in the code are called "loopholes". Ambiguities in the phrasing are race conditions.
We should treat law as the complicated set of (poorly-defined) rules that it is.
It really doesn't matter how much they "pay themselves" - it's part of their product's design. If people don't like it, they are welcome to switch to another search tool that they find gives them better results. It's not a monopoly at all; they just happen to be very popular.
All you really know is that you have not yet found any cases where you dropped a ball on Earth and it did NOT accelerate at about 9.8 meters per second until it hits something. You cannot prove this mathematically. What you mean is that you have a model that lets you predict what will happen when you drop the ball. Models are useful because they are predictive. If you're not sure how long it will take for the ball to hit the floor, you can make a prediction using your mathematical model. But whether the model is correct is another question. Your model is incorrect if the ball is already moving very fast and it's in the atmosphere. Your model is incorrect if the ball is not very dense. But most of the time, you don't care, because your model is sufficiently predictive for your purposes. That doesn't make your model any more or less wrong than any other, though - it models certain effects, and ignores the others.
Consensus is not proof, but it's the best we'll ever have. Science never has any proof of anything. Science can DISPROVE things, but if a theory is true (what does "true" mean, anyway?) we'll just find more and more evidence. Eventually we'll become convinced of the evidence, but there will never be proof in a mathematical sense.
Well, in the long term, evolution has showed that intelligence is a useful trait. We tool-using humans have done pretty well for ourselves over the years.
Even if the dumbest have more children, and those children are more likely to be dumb, they're also more likely to die sooner, before having kids (as in the Darwin award). So I would hope that the tendency for smart people to live longer outweighs the more dumb kids.
Oh, conservatives do lower our taxes. But they don't bother to also decrease spending. So really all they're doing is pushing taxes off to the next generation -- plus interest. This little game can't possibly go on forever, since it's not sustainable. Someone has to pay eventually.
You're both completely right and completely wrong.
Discrete math is the foundation of computer science. I would actually argue that even it's the foundation of thought, but that's a different discussion. Anyone who wants to know about computer science absolutely needs to understand discrete math.
But the OP asked about IT, not CS. IT is a completely different field than CS, and one can get by perfectly fine in IT without knowing any discrete math.
Ouch. So much fear. Flash memory fails after a certain number of write cycles. I predict lots of crashes as memory sticks that people leave plugged in wear out.
They could trace the card back to you as follows: assume they have a security camera pointing at you when you buy the card (you had to physically buy it somewhere, since you paid cash). Then all they have to do is match up the serial number of the card with the time and place it was sold, and they can get your face right off the security camera tapes. Once they have your picture, a search of the DMV database would probably suffice to get your name.
It's a nice idea, but I'd be concerned about preserving the dignity of the family (which is different from how "proud" they are). I'm much happier with your anonymous ideas, since then there would be no one to be embarrassed for.
Oh, I forgot WebCore was open source. I stand corrected. But in any case, I'm extremely wary of patches to compiled code that don't come from a validated source. I would have been much happier if the parent had said "start with the source code to WebCore, and modify line n to say X." Then I could evaluate for myself whether the change were safe.
Hey, I know what I'll do! I'll tweak this compiled library, which I don't have source code to, by running this Perl script I found on the Internet! The library only controls unimportant things for which I need no guarantees of connectness, like my online banking. Gosh, I'm so glad there have never been any viruses or security holes in software ever.
No, I'm sorry, that is wrong. Christianity is, by definition, a religion. There are many other religions; I hope your comment most of the time Religious folks can't be really called Christian does not consider Christianity to be superior to any of the others. When discussing Christianity, one is, in fact, discussing a particular religion.
Slashdot Mirror
Saving is what happens when one takes an action to reduce consumption or increase rate of accumulation. For example, if I spend two dollars a week on coffee, and then cut back to one dollar, I save one dollar per week.
It is impossible to "save" by consuming, only by *changing consumption*. How much money did I save by renting a movie on iTunes? None -- I *spent* $2. How much did I save by renting instead of going to the theater? Now we're getting somewhere -- I saved, say, $9. A new urinal at work has a sticker on it, advertising that it saves 88% more water than other urinals. Wrong! It bothers me every time I see it. Other urinals don't save water; they just use it. This urinal uses less water than they do, so it does save water relative to them. It just doesn't save 88% more than they do because they don't save any at all. Likewise cars don't save fuel; they just use more or less than other cars. The savings is all in the transition to a different car.
I am in a CS graduate program, and nobody in our department is talking about this -- not even the dozen or so Apple fanboys.
You just did!
It depends what programming languages area interests you. Carnegie Mellon and Cornell are good candidates. But be careful -- faculty at CMU, for example, are heavily into functional programming but find object-oriented programming completely irrelevant. Choose wisely...
You'll end up in a job you don't like, and have a miserable time in grad school, too. Think about the classes you've taken so far. Which were the most interesting/fun? Spend your time in grad school focusing on those areas. If there aren't any that you think are worth another year of your life, maybe it'd be better to defer grad school for a year or two until you figure it out.
Computer science is not about programming. If your CS education taught you mostly programming, then it's a failure. Programming languages change all the time, but the underlying concepts do not. You should know how to design algorithms and prove them correct; create robust, scalable systems; know algorithmic approaches to many common problems; design and implement programming languages; etc. If you want a software engineering job, you should be able to learn whatever language you need there.
when viewing Windows Vista? Seems like that might have similar effects.
Every line of legal text is really a line of code, executed by the legal system. So of course it should be version-controlled, like any other complicated, group-created artifact. Bugs in the code are called "loopholes". Ambiguities in the phrasing are race conditions. We should treat law as the complicated set of (poorly-defined) rules that it is.
It really doesn't matter how much they "pay themselves" - it's part of their product's design. If people don't like it, they are welcome to switch to another search tool that they find gives them better results. It's not a monopoly at all; they just happen to be very popular.
All you really know is that you have not yet found any cases where you dropped a ball on Earth and it did NOT accelerate at about 9.8 meters per second until it hits something. You cannot prove this mathematically. What you mean is that you have a model that lets you predict what will happen when you drop the ball. Models are useful because they are predictive. If you're not sure how long it will take for the ball to hit the floor, you can make a prediction using your mathematical model. But whether the model is correct is another question. Your model is incorrect if the ball is already moving very fast and it's in the atmosphere. Your model is incorrect if the ball is not very dense. But most of the time, you don't care, because your model is sufficiently predictive for your purposes. That doesn't make your model any more or less wrong than any other, though - it models certain effects, and ignores the others.
Consensus is not proof, but it's the best we'll ever have. Science never has any proof of anything. Science can DISPROVE things, but if a theory is true (what does "true" mean, anyway?) we'll just find more and more evidence. Eventually we'll become convinced of the evidence, but there will never be proof in a mathematical sense.
Well, in the long term, evolution has showed that intelligence is a useful trait. We tool-using humans have done pretty well for ourselves over the years.
Even if the dumbest have more children, and those children are more likely to be dumb, they're also more likely to die sooner, before having kids (as in the Darwin award). So I would hope that the tendency for smart people to live longer outweighs the more dumb kids.
Yes, there, are. Vanguard has the FTSE Social Index Fund, which screens its stocks for social and environmental criteria.
Oh, conservatives do lower our taxes. But they don't bother to also decrease spending. So really all they're doing is pushing taxes off to the next generation -- plus interest. This little game can't possibly go on forever, since it's not sustainable. Someone has to pay eventually.
Discrete math is the foundation of computer science. I would actually argue that even it's the foundation of thought, but that's a different discussion. Anyone who wants to know about computer science absolutely needs to understand discrete math.
But the OP asked about IT, not CS. IT is a completely different field than CS, and one can get by perfectly fine in IT without knowing any discrete math.
Nope. All of those choices have derivatives of zero!
Ouch. So much fear. Flash memory fails after a certain number of write cycles. I predict lots of crashes as memory sticks that people leave plugged in wear out.
They could trace the card back to you as follows: assume they have a security camera pointing at you when you buy the card (you had to physically buy it somewhere, since you paid cash). Then all they have to do is match up the serial number of the card with the time and place it was sold, and they can get your face right off the security camera tapes. Once they have your picture, a search of the DMV database would probably suffice to get your name.
What's in YOUR wallet?
It's a nice idea, but I'd be concerned about preserving the dignity of the family (which is different from how "proud" they are). I'm much happier with your anonymous ideas, since then there would be no one to be embarrassed for.
I also can't type. I meant "correctness," not "connectness." Sorry.
Oh, I forgot WebCore was open source. I stand corrected. But in any case, I'm extremely wary of patches to compiled code that don't come from a validated source. I would have been much happier if the parent had said "start with the source code to WebCore, and modify line n to say X." Then I could evaluate for myself whether the change were safe.
Hey, I know what I'll do! I'll tweak this compiled library, which I don't have source code to, by running this Perl script I found on the Internet! The library only controls unimportant things for which I need no guarantees of connectness, like my online banking. Gosh, I'm so glad there have never been any viruses or security holes in software ever.
No, I'm sorry, that is wrong. Christianity is, by definition, a religion. There are many other religions; I hope your comment most of the time Religious folks can't be really called Christian does not consider Christianity to be superior to any of the others. When discussing Christianity, one is, in fact, discussing a particular religion.
Well, maybe. I'd certainly like to believe it. But I can imagine a situation where Earth ends up looking like Venus, with no hope for return.