Heh. For my first job interview as a programmer, the final question in the interview was my prospective employer showing me a chessboard and asking me to name the opening he had set up.
Math is principally a logical language that describes reality, and I think one of the better ways to understand mathematics is to study physics. When I was in college, calculus was pretty meaningless until I started using it in physics class; by the same token, there were things covered in my Physics 101 class that didn't really make sense until I started doing vector calculus.
What is important, though, is that because I learned how to use it in physics, I still remember a lot of my calculus, and at the same time concepts that seemed initially counterintuitive from physics didn't become meaningful until I could understand the math behind them. So studying both might help you benefit more from your efforts.
This is usually wonderful and occasionally annoys the hell out of me when an object I want to clone doesn't implement Cloneable properly, and so while the object is cloned, private members referenced by that object just have their references copied and so you end up corrupting the original object anyway if you change one of the members.
That's what computers were invented for! So that guys like me could soak up the excess GNP by sitting around and writing useless software 9 hours a day.
This is an interesting theory, considering that most oil exploration starts off by looking for things like foraminiferous limestone - big sequences of rocks built up of little dead sea creatures - and then uses the stratigraphic and structural history of the target area to figure out a) when those source rocks were subjected to the appropriate conditions for oil generation, b) how long conditions were right for oil generation, and c) what pathways were available for the migration of the resulting oil into traps.
If these theories are correct, why is oil generation only associated with particular types of source rocks? If they were correct one should be able to find oil in structural traps that are not associated in any way with those types of source rocks - say in magmatic or volcanic terrains.
And yet this doesn't happen. Hmmm. Could it possibly be that this theory is propagated most by those who simply with it were correct, because more geologically sound analyses suggest that we really should thing about reducing consumption?
Technology has come a long way in terms of improving our ability to extract oil from known fields, enough to make up for the decreasing rate of new field discovery. Unfortunately, we can't expect this to be true indefinitely.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll never get caught reading /. at work again!
It was the Queen's Gambit. I got the job.
Of course, that's just because I'm a gaming geek and one day I decided to see what would happen if I tried to play Go on one of my D&D hex maps.
What is important, though, is that because I learned how to use it in physics, I still remember a lot of my calculus, and at the same time concepts that seemed initially counterintuitive from physics didn't become meaningful until I could understand the math behind them. So studying both might help you benefit more from your efforts.
This is usually wonderful and occasionally annoys the hell out of me when an object I want to clone doesn't implement Cloneable properly, and so while the object is cloned, private members referenced by that object just have their references copied and so you end up corrupting the original object anyway if you change one of the members.
That's what computers were invented for! So that guys like me could soak up the excess GNP by sitting around and writing useless software 9 hours a day.
This is an interesting theory, considering that most oil exploration starts off by looking for things like foraminiferous limestone - big sequences of rocks built up of little dead sea creatures - and then uses the stratigraphic and structural history of the target area to figure out a) when those source rocks were subjected to the appropriate conditions for oil generation, b) how long conditions were right for oil generation, and c) what pathways were available for the migration of the resulting oil into traps. If these theories are correct, why is oil generation only associated with particular types of source rocks? If they were correct one should be able to find oil in structural traps that are not associated in any way with those types of source rocks - say in magmatic or volcanic terrains. And yet this doesn't happen. Hmmm. Could it possibly be that this theory is propagated most by those who simply with it were correct, because more geologically sound analyses suggest that we really should thing about reducing consumption? Technology has come a long way in terms of improving our ability to extract oil from known fields, enough to make up for the decreasing rate of new field discovery. Unfortunately, we can't expect this to be true indefinitely.