From my Software Engineering textbook (author: Vliet if you're interested), a few references you might like:
- http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/neumann-book. html
- http://www.rothstein.com/slbooks/sl296.htm
Also, you might like:
"Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering" by H. Petroski (not restricted to Software Eng)
Enjoy,
Rod
Just bought refill kit for $30 Canadian. It contains 2 ~100ml bottles of black ink. From my experience with my previous refill kit, and my usage patterns, this should last me at least a year and a half, so long as I remember to tape fill hole to prevent drying out.
Personally, I didn't find Spider-Man to be "blatantly" patriotic, as many people claim. The flag fly-bys were harmless. The story itself was simple and universal. Down to earth humanity mixed with childhood fantasy in just the right doses.
ATOC, on the other hand, irritated the heck out of me. For one, the acting was horrible. The romantic dialogue was laaaammmme. (The only redeeming factor: Awesome action and animation.)But what really ruined it for me: It struck as me as a cheap allegory of a thinly veiled, blatantly American world view, (or at least everything that is bad about the American world view). The not-so-subtle recasting of ethnic and cultural stereotypes into various alien races; the language used in the dense political dialogue. I supposed that was the easiest way to ensure the appeal of the target market: Average (insular) middle-class Americans.
So, ironically, I think ATOC was more patriotic than Spider-Man.
I've heard that claim before, that essentially we will be able to program computers to program themselves eventually.
I'm pretty sure, but while this may work within restricted problem domains (like a robot learning how to navigate an office floor), in theory it is not more generally possible because of computability/complexity issues involved. If my memory serves me, the argument goes something like: The verification that a given program will accept a given input is not decideable. i.e) It may go on forever. So, it would seem since we can't even guarantee that we can verify that a program is correct, we couldn't generally build a program that programs programs that a guaranteed to work. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, that's the cool thing about programming! You can actually do it for fun! Try doing marketing, accounting or dentistry for fun after a day of work;-)
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there hobby descalers or auditors out there.
Rod
I agree. Programming (and the Computer Science that can go with it; they are not the same thing) in has no upper bound in terms of what it can be used for ('cept of course in the number of symbols you have available, and the time/space limitations you require; but then it's always getting better). It is a creative medium. Computers are devices that are can be employed to do things the manufacturer never dreamed of.
The problem is lack of imagination. Same old shit recycled, not necessarily improved, just to milk it for all its worth.
Speaking of doctors not knowing...
I look forward to the day that we start replacing overpaid GP's with much more accurate and cost efficient AI driven expert systems and medical knowledge DB's. Was taking Intro to AI, and the prof liked talking about that. Apparently there has already been work on in such expert systems for 20 years or so. It's matter of find accurate ways to get the feed the data (sensors etc.) into a computer. (Maybe nurse practioner could do the scanning and "Hi I care about you" part).
Now there would be a cool subfield to work/research in. Hmmm... MD + BSc in CompSci anyone?
Yeah, you can't unionize code monkeys because... Aww crap that other guy said it already.
Also, I would argue that, at least above the lowest ranks of IT, there is of creativity and analysis involved. You're not just turning a bolt, painting a door or driving between A & B. It's a science and an art. Not just a blue collar job.
Yeah, for the first time, I've been finding myself pondering south after I grad. But I dunno...
I really want to do grad work though. While industry "techies" and "code monkeys" are becoming a dime a dozen (like modern day auto workers), there is still plenty of research to do in theoretical and applied CS. Who knows what you might find. (Betcha don't know how to program a quantum computer). I just finished (correction: will finish as of exam next week, assuming I pass) course on Theory of Computability & Complexity. Interesting stuff, but I heard "we don't really know yet" one to many times--it got kinda annoying. I haven't seen so much hand waving on a roller coast.
About the lack of women thing. That's why you hang around nurses college buddy? Or even just life sciences? Humanities? You've gotta venture outside of the computer lab sometimes, ya know. I'm doing bio too, and every bio class is an oasis of beauty and youth. But I must say, CS is getting better;-)
I second that. I'm doing a Software Eng and Bio double major type deal here in Toronto, and the possibilities I've been seeing hearing about are aweinspiring.
e.g.) We've already made the mapping from DNA to RNA to linear amino acid sequences. Needless to say, that discovery launched a new era of biological research. The mapping from linear amino acid sequences to functional folded proteins is the next BIG thing. And I mean BIG. There are numerous research efforts going on now, like somebody mention but they are crude approximations at best. We still rely on mass spectrometry, x-ray crystallography, etc. to painstakingly elucidate the structure. Oh, to be able to compute it directly... That will be the day.
In general, computers offer the key to managing the incredible complexity of living systems for study from a high level. (like forests vs. trees vs. acorns). Seems obvious, but it's really just begun.
Slashdot Mirror
From my Software Engineering textbook (author: Vliet if you're interested), a few references you might like: - http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/neumann-book. html
- http://www.rothstein.com/slbooks/sl296.htm
Also, you might like:
"Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering" by H. Petroski (not restricted to Software Eng)
Enjoy,
Rod
Just bought refill kit for $30 Canadian. It contains 2 ~100ml bottles of black ink. From my experience with my previous refill kit, and my usage patterns, this should last me at least a year and a half, so long as I remember to tape fill hole to prevent drying out.
Personally, I didn't find Spider-Man to be "blatantly" patriotic, as many people claim. The flag fly-bys were harmless. The story itself was simple and universal. Down to earth humanity mixed with childhood fantasy in just the right doses.
ATOC, on the other hand, irritated the heck out of me. For one, the acting was horrible. The romantic dialogue was laaaammmme. (The only redeeming factor: Awesome action and animation.)But what really ruined it for me: It struck as me as a cheap allegory of a thinly veiled, blatantly American world view, (or at least everything that is bad about the American world view). The not-so-subtle recasting of ethnic and cultural stereotypes into various alien races; the language used in the dense political dialogue. I supposed that was the easiest way to ensure the appeal of the target market: Average (insular) middle-class Americans.
So, ironically, I think ATOC was more patriotic than Spider-Man.
I've heard that claim before, that essentially we will be able to program computers to program themselves eventually. I'm pretty sure, but while this may work within restricted problem domains (like a robot learning how to navigate an office floor), in theory it is not more generally possible because of computability/complexity issues involved. If my memory serves me, the argument goes something like: The verification that a given program will accept a given input is not decideable. i.e) It may go on forever. So, it would seem since we can't even guarantee that we can verify that a program is correct, we couldn't generally build a program that programs programs that a guaranteed to work. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, that's the cool thing about programming! You can actually do it for fun! Try doing marketing, accounting or dentistry for fun after a day of work ;-)
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there hobby descalers or auditors out there.
Rod
I agree. Programming (and the Computer Science that can go with it; they are not the same thing) in has no upper bound in terms of what it can be used for ('cept of course in the number of symbols you have available, and the time/space limitations you require; but then it's always getting better). It is a creative medium. Computers are devices that are can be employed to do things the manufacturer never dreamed of.
The problem is lack of imagination. Same old shit recycled, not necessarily improved, just to milk it for all its worth.
Speaking of doctors not knowing... I look forward to the day that we start replacing overpaid GP's with much more accurate and cost efficient AI driven expert systems and medical knowledge DB's. Was taking Intro to AI, and the prof liked talking about that. Apparently there has already been work on in such expert systems for 20 years or so. It's matter of find accurate ways to get the feed the data (sensors etc.) into a computer. (Maybe nurse practioner could do the scanning and "Hi I care about you" part). Now there would be a cool subfield to work/research in. Hmmm... MD + BSc in CompSci anyone?
Yeah, you can't unionize code monkeys because... Aww crap that other guy said it already. Also, I would argue that, at least above the lowest ranks of IT, there is of creativity and analysis involved. You're not just turning a bolt, painting a door or driving between A & B. It's a science and an art. Not just a blue collar job.
Yeah, for the first time, I've been finding myself pondering south after I grad. But I dunno...
;-)
I really want to do grad work though. While industry "techies" and "code monkeys" are becoming a dime a dozen (like modern day auto workers), there is still plenty of research to do in theoretical and applied CS. Who knows what you might find. (Betcha don't know how to program a quantum computer). I just finished (correction: will finish as of exam next week, assuming I pass) course on Theory of Computability & Complexity. Interesting stuff, but I heard "we don't really know yet" one to many times--it got kinda annoying. I haven't seen so much hand waving on a roller coast.
About the lack of women thing. That's why you hang around nurses college buddy? Or even just life sciences? Humanities? You've gotta venture outside of the computer lab sometimes, ya know. I'm doing bio too, and every bio class is an oasis of beauty and youth. But I must say, CS is getting better
I second that. I'm doing a Software Eng and Bio double major type deal here in Toronto, and the possibilities I've been seeing hearing about are aweinspiring.
e.g.) We've already made the mapping from DNA to RNA to linear amino acid sequences. Needless to say, that discovery launched a new era of biological research. The mapping from linear amino acid sequences to functional folded proteins is the next BIG thing. And I mean BIG. There are numerous research efforts going on now, like somebody mention but they are crude approximations at best. We still rely on mass spectrometry, x-ray crystallography, etc. to painstakingly elucidate the structure. Oh, to be able to compute it directly... That will be the day.
In general, computers offer the key to managing the incredible complexity of living systems for study from a high level. (like forests vs. trees vs. acorns). Seems obvious, but it's really just begun.
Dor