Study fundamentals and then actual applications. Work under the tutelage of those more experienced. Increase professional independence. Share new ideas with peers and undergo peer review.
This, my friend, is how everything should be learned!
Too many software developers come into the field with enough self-learned knowledge that they also bring along a fair amount of cockiness and dare I say, hubris. It's great that someone can go and teach themselves to program. They can read through code and figure out what it does and then take that code and apply it in their own projects. But they have then relegated themselves to be regurgitating machine. There is one side of the story and that's it.
This is why it's so important to find a good computer science/computer engineering/(any engineering, in fact) program at an institution of higher learning that allows those who desire to learn a field to be exposed to generalized topics in that field and to be exposed to professors and other more experienced engineers and developers who can teach the students the reasons why things were done a certain way and how to critique those decisions and maybe find better ones.
The most important thing a person can do is to grow. And the best way to grow in this social environment we live in is to observe the people around you and to come to an understanding about how and why things are done a certain way. Take a general view of the world and then apply what has been learned to specific problems. Learn from the people who have come before you and build upon their successes and correct their failures.
The reason why some software sucks is that the developers making it have not truly learned their profession. Most of the software today is written by young people (like myself), who don't always understand the reasons why they do the things they do. But with experience and the correct tutelage of our superiors, we can better ourselves and create better software.
Maybe we should do it the old fashioned way - 7 years as an apprentice in the blacksmith's shop, before we even dare create something for production...
Please, name some examples. It's better for everyone if we get issues like this out in the open. If people can't face up to the criticism, then they won't be able to make progress.
And if you can't name some examples, then you really can't back up your statement, so it's a moot point.;-)
One of the problems with message boards like Slashdot, is that people like to make generalized statements about issues, and we don't get a chance to deal with the specifics. So, please name off some specific projects, so they can improve.
This is a good reason why IT People need to get out once in a while and develop their social skills.
Show me a person who whines about upper management and I'll show you a person who hides in front of his computer screen.
If more computer professionals spent time each week developing their "leadership abilities" - such things as public speaking, organizational management, project planning, interview/social techniques - these people would have more of an impact on their company's decision making processes.
ok, ok. I see all the reasons. Very smart. Very logical. I understand. Thanks for the clarification, people.
My other question is. Why spend so much money on it??? I mean, you're average normal mouse costs around $15-$20. (This is the cheap, no thrills version we're talking about, here. But still, the cheap version has better ergonomic design than the mega-mouse.) And I bet these mice can withstand a pretty good amount of beating. I mean, you probably couldn't run over your average Logitech mouse with a truck and still use it, but I bet you could throw it against a wall and still have it come out of the experience a mostly functioning, if not entirely happy, piece of computer equipment. So, let's figure that a mouse has a lifetime of 5-6 months in a "high-risk" job. That means, for the same price as the mega-mouse, you could get around 5-6 years worth of "regular" mice. Plus, with the horrible ergonomic design, you might end up with injured employees, so tack the health cost onto that and you can add another 20 or so years of "regular" mice. Is it worth it? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Just seems to me to be pretty lame, you know?
I am currently working on a project to overclock my monitor...
Have you ever tried increasing the voltage level? That usually helps. Yeah, really, all you have to do is just go and get a nice heavy-duty generator with variable voltage settings. Jack it up to the highest one. Plug that sucker into the monitor, switch on the power, and... BAMN! Fireworks baby! Your Quake games will never be the same...
If you're using a mouse in a dangerous enough situation that you'd need it to be designed this stupi... err, durably, wouldn't you also need a similarly designed computer, protected in the same way? I mean, come on!! What's the deal here? Would someone please explain to me the rationale behind this doohicky? As Enron states, Why???
It's not a matter of whether they can or can't keep contact with the probe. The probe is transmitting strong enough signals to pick up and always has been. The real issue is whether anyone cares about listening to it. It's not serving any purpose anymore, so noone listens to the signals. It's been transmitting for all those years. Just noone cares.
This is really just a publicity thing. NASA is pumping up its successes to keep the funding flowing for the ISS.
1) Go to sourceforge.net
2) Find a project that looks interesting, that isn't too hot, isn't too cold, isn't too hard, isn't too soft, isn't too tall, isn't too short, but juuuuuust right.
3) See if they need help coding or would be willing to take comments.
4) Look at the code and add your contributions.
5) Grow young Skywalker, Grow.
-- In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
blah blah blah... hacker... blah blah blah... rich... blah blah blah... disenfranchised... blah blah blah...
God, how long do I have to hear this stuff?
"Stating the Obvious" is a bit of an understatement, isn't it?
----
1. It was approved IN ADVANCE by an election official that just happened to be a democrat. You would think if the ballot was unfavorable to Gore, this person would have noticed it.
Who cares if the person was a Democrat or a Republican, the fact of the matter is that the individual who made the decision to approve that ballot layout wasn't thinking straight. And I doubt Gore himself knew anything about it.
2. This ballot was available for PUBLIC INSPECTION many weeks before the actual vote was taken.
Do we need to start quoting Douglas Adams to show the uselessnes of Public Inspection
3. All voters have 3 chances to vote correctly. If at first, you punch the wrong holes, you SHOULD NOT submit your ballot, instead you go to the marshal at the polling place, explain the problem, and request another vote. Any voter can request a new ballot up to two times.
And when I was taking exams in school, many times I would go out into the parking lot and suddenly realize that I picked the wrong answer to question number 4. These people didn't realize they had made the wrong choice until they had already submitted their ballots. Now, then again, maybe these people shouldn't even be voting for president if they can't figure out how to vote correctly, but hey, did you see that ballot? What a dumb layout. It was bound to happen that some people would pick the wrong hole during the excitement and nervousness of the election process.
4. If the ballot was confusing, there were poll workings READY AND WILLING to answer any and all questions about the ballot itself.
I seem to recall a quote from a voter who DID ask the poll workers about the ballot and the worker just shrugged and said she didn't know either...
Accidents happen. It sucks. But let's not put the voters at complete fault for the problem. The whole damn thing was just not run correctly. ----
If you don't realize that politics matters a lot to nerds these days, then you need to wake up.
Politics has everything to do with who makes the laws, what laws get passed and what effect those laws have on the people. And in a society like we have now, which has become more and more dependent on technology and the creations of us nerds, you'll find that a lot of stuff you care about is going to be affected by those people in office.
So, I'd suggest you take politics a bit more seriously. I'm glad to see this stuff on Slashdot. Nowhere else can you read about what other nerds like yourself are thinking about the issues in our country. ----
As long as they didn't force you to kneel down and pray to The Lord Almighty to not strike you down where you stand for voting the wrong way, I'd say you're OK. ----
They actually came from an abusive shool system. I don't know about their homes. When they needed love, they were laughed at and ridiculed by their classmates. Hmm, maybe that was the real problem?
Should we let the exceptions dictate the laws in our country? Because that was what this was - an exception. %99.999 of video game players do not go out and kill people. Wow, what a country we'd live in if everytime someone screwed up, we all got slammed with a new law. You like living in your box? ----
"An apology for the Devil: it must be remembered we have heard only one side of the story. God has written all the books." -Samuel Butler
That's a weird quote, since God didn't write all the books. Man did. And mankind is equally affected by both the devil and God. No apologies should be forthcoming. What was dear old Sam thinking? ----
Whoa there, Cyberbabe! I hope you're being sarcastic.
You know and I know that the Columbine boys were already fucked up in the head. Doom (the boys didn't play Quake) didn't help anything, but that doesn't mean that violent video games CAUSE people to be violent and go on a shooting spree. Their are plenty of studies that show this.
Don't put the blame where it shouldn't be. If violent video games were the cause of violence in this country, you'd see about 1000 times more violent acts than there currently are.
Go play the video games yourself and see if it makes you go kill someone.
Who the hell believes in brainwashing anyway? Jeez. ----
I was not arguing for or against D.A.R.E. Don't put words into my mouth that I didn't say. I know it fails... and I know it works sometimes. Drug programs have successes and failures and that success or failure depends on the individuals involved and the amount of maturity and intelligence that they have to make informed decisions about their lives.
If a person, such as you for example, wants to make drug use a part of their lives, that's fine. But it's going to have consequences. And what I'm saying, is that usually, those consequences are going to be bad, and they're going to affect the person's life in a negative manner. But of course, there's no way to absolutely say that for certain, which is why so many people like to say that drug use is OK.
Yes, there are levels to the effects that different drugs have. Marijuana will not have the types of side effects that cocaine or even alcohol has. But that doesn't mean that Marijuana is definitely "A good thing."
Outlawing drugs may not be the answer. But for some drugs, it definitely is. For LSD and Marijuana, who knows? But I think you can also attest to the fact that many people, when they start down a path, will continue to follow that path and with drug use, when a person starts with less addictive drugs like Pot or LSD, they often "try out" the more harmful drugs, because of the people they are around, the dealers they work with, and that can lead to other things.
So, maybe some of the drugs are not really the problem, but rather the situations that people find themselves when they use and the lifestyles they end up leading because of their drug use. This would make one think that legalizing some drugs may be a solution to this problem. And it may be, that's ok. I'm neither for nor against outlawing drugs, although you'd like to think I am. I don't think anyone can say for certain what is better for people. What I AM against, though, is the mentality that drug use is not bad and that people can easily act responsibly when using them.
Drug use, to me, is something that doesn't further the goals of humanity. It hinders. Is that what I would consider bad? Yes, it is. And yeah, there are a whole lot of other worse things out there that hinder our progress more. Does that mean we should forget drugs to tackle the bigger problems? No, I don't believe so.
So we have programs like D.A.R.E. We have treatment programs. We have laws. These are all attempts to stem the tide of the harmful effects that drugs can have on our lives. Do they work? Yes. Do they fail? Yes. So what do we do? Do we sit back and laugh at the programs as utter failures, like people seem to do here on Slashdot, calling them all stupid ideas, cause we know better? Or do we continue to work on solving the problems? Do we continue to educate people on the facts? Do we look at the good and the bad and try and find the best course of action? Yeah, we do all these things. We try and work to make progress, rather than say everything sucks. ----
No, punishment for stealing is not communism. Never said anything about stealing software. Just patenting software. A law that doesn't allow people the ability to patent ideas and innovations as their own seems to me to be a controlling mentality, which could very well be associated with communism as we've seen it in this world.
Besides the state does not have the right to use certain types of software.
This is different. This is a rule for the government by the government. It is not a rule on the people in general, is it? If it were, then yes, that could also be associated with communism. But it isn't. It's just a good practical method of making sure your government uses the right tools for the right jobs, and it's policing itself, so there's no problem.
For example military cannot use Windows in several fields of activity.
I think it's obvious why that's the case... ----
Slashdot Mirror
This, my friend, is how everything should be learned!
Too many software developers come into the field with enough self-learned knowledge that they also bring along a fair amount of cockiness and dare I say, hubris. It's great that someone can go and teach themselves to program. They can read through code and figure out what it does and then take that code and apply it in their own projects. But they have then relegated themselves to be regurgitating machine. There is one side of the story and that's it.
This is why it's so important to find a good computer science/computer engineering/(any engineering, in fact) program at an institution of higher learning that allows those who desire to learn a field to be exposed to generalized topics in that field and to be exposed to professors and other more experienced engineers and developers who can teach the students the reasons why things were done a certain way and how to critique those decisions and maybe find better ones.
The most important thing a person can do is to grow. And the best way to grow in this social environment we live in is to observe the people around you and to come to an understanding about how and why things are done a certain way. Take a general view of the world and then apply what has been learned to specific problems. Learn from the people who have come before you and build upon their successes and correct their failures.
The reason why some software sucks is that the developers making it have not truly learned their profession. Most of the software today is written by young people (like myself), who don't always understand the reasons why they do the things they do. But with experience and the correct tutelage of our superiors, we can better ourselves and create better software.
Maybe we should do it the old fashioned way - 7 years as an apprentice in the blacksmith's shop, before we even dare create something for production...
--
And if you can't name some examples, then you really can't back up your statement, so it's a moot point. ;-)
One of the problems with message boards like Slashdot, is that people like to make generalized statements about issues, and we don't get a chance to deal with the specifics. So, please name off some specific projects, so they can improve.
--
Show me a person who whines about upper management and I'll show you a person who hides in front of his computer screen.
If more computer professionals spent time each week developing their "leadership abilities" - such things as public speaking, organizational management, project planning, interview/social techniques - these people would have more of an impact on their company's decision making processes.
--
My other question is. Why spend so much money on it??? I mean, you're average normal mouse costs around $15-$20. (This is the cheap, no thrills version we're talking about, here. But still, the cheap version has better ergonomic design than the mega-mouse.) And I bet these mice can withstand a pretty good amount of beating. I mean, you probably couldn't run over your average Logitech mouse with a truck and still use it, but I bet you could throw it against a wall and still have it come out of the experience a mostly functioning, if not entirely happy, piece of computer equipment. So, let's figure that a mouse has a lifetime of 5-6 months in a "high-risk" job. That means, for the same price as the mega-mouse, you could get around 5-6 years worth of "regular" mice. Plus, with the horrible ergonomic design, you might end up with injured employees, so tack the health cost onto that and you can add another 20 or so years of "regular" mice. Is it worth it? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Just seems to me to be pretty lame, you know?
Is this dumb, or what?
--
Have you ever tried increasing the voltage level? That usually helps. Yeah, really, all you have to do is just go and get a nice heavy-duty generator with variable voltage settings. Jack it up to the highest one. Plug that sucker into the monitor, switch on the power, and ... BAMN! Fireworks baby! Your Quake games will never be the same...
--
If you're using a mouse in a dangerous enough situation that you'd need it to be designed this stupi... err, durably, wouldn't you also need a similarly designed computer, protected in the same way? I mean, come on!! What's the deal here? Would someone please explain to me the rationale behind this doohicky? As Enron states, Why???
--
This is really just a publicity thing. NASA is pumping up its successes to keep the funding flowing for the ISS.
--
H ..... e ..... l ..... l ..... o ..... W ..... o ..... r ..... l ..... d ..... ! ..... H ..... e ..... l ..... l ..... o ..... W ..... o ..... r ..... l ..... d ..... ! .....
--
And you sir, are not.
Are you completely dense? You obviously didn't take the time to check the facts yourself.
And get yourself a spellchecker...
(BTW, you really don't need a reason to do an anti-Katz rant.)
--
Which is what people in the Midwest would consider a "Fairly Pleasant Day." You friggin' Californians don't know the meaning of cold! ;-)
--
2) Find a project that looks interesting, that isn't too hot, isn't too cold, isn't too hard, isn't too soft, isn't too tall, isn't too short, but juuuuuust right.
3) See if they need help coding or would be willing to take comments.
4) Look at the code and add your contributions.
5) Grow young Skywalker, Grow.
--
In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
blah blah blah... hacker... blah blah blah... rich... blah blah blah... disenfranchised... blah blah blah... God, how long do I have to hear this stuff? "Stating the Obvious" is a bit of an understatement, isn't it?
----
FLAMEBAIT??? Damn it, that was a joke. Does noone have a sense of humor anymore???
----
Who cares if the person was a Democrat or a Republican, the fact of the matter is that the individual who made the decision to approve that ballot layout wasn't thinking straight. And I doubt Gore himself knew anything about it.
2. This ballot was available for PUBLIC INSPECTION many weeks before the actual vote was taken.
Do we need to start quoting Douglas Adams to show the uselessnes of Public Inspection
3. All voters have 3 chances to vote correctly. If at first, you punch the wrong holes, you SHOULD NOT submit your ballot, instead you go to the marshal at the polling place, explain the problem, and request another vote. Any voter can request a new ballot up to two times.
And when I was taking exams in school, many times I would go out into the parking lot and suddenly realize that I picked the wrong answer to question number 4. These people didn't realize they had made the wrong choice until they had already submitted their ballots. Now, then again, maybe these people shouldn't even be voting for president if they can't figure out how to vote correctly, but hey, did you see that ballot? What a dumb layout. It was bound to happen that some people would pick the wrong hole during the excitement and nervousness of the election process.
4. If the ballot was confusing, there were poll workings READY AND WILLING to answer any and all questions about the ballot itself.
I seem to recall a quote from a voter who DID ask the poll workers about the ballot and the worker just shrugged and said she didn't know either...
Accidents happen. It sucks. But let's not put the voters at complete fault for the problem. The whole damn thing was just not run correctly.
----
Politics has everything to do with who makes the laws, what laws get passed and what effect those laws have on the people. And in a society like we have now, which has become more and more dependent on technology and the creations of us nerds, you'll find that a lot of stuff you care about is going to be affected by those people in office.
So, I'd suggest you take politics a bit more seriously. I'm glad to see this stuff on Slashdot. Nowhere else can you read about what other nerds like yourself are thinking about the issues in our country.
----
As long as they didn't force you to kneel down and pray to The Lord Almighty to not strike you down where you stand for voting the wrong way, I'd say you're OK.
----
Hear Hear! Bravo!
----
Only 25% of the votes were non-american citizens. Last time I checked, 25% was not a majority...
----
I only said "hinder", not destroy. Drug users still lead very productive lives, usually after drugs.
----
Should we let the exceptions dictate the laws in our country? Because that was what this was - an exception. %99.999 of video game players do not go out and kill people. Wow, what a country we'd live in if everytime someone screwed up, we all got slammed with a new law. You like living in your box?
----
That's a weird quote, since God didn't write all the books. Man did. And mankind is equally affected by both the devil and God. No apologies should be forthcoming. What was dear old Sam thinking?
----
You know and I know that the Columbine boys were already fucked up in the head. Doom (the boys didn't play Quake) didn't help anything, but that doesn't mean that violent video games CAUSE people to be violent and go on a shooting spree. Their are plenty of studies that show this.
Don't put the blame where it shouldn't be. If violent video games were the cause of violence in this country, you'd see about 1000 times more violent acts than there currently are.
Go play the video games yourself and see if it makes you go kill someone.
Who the hell believes in brainwashing anyway? Jeez.
----
If a person, such as you for example, wants to make drug use a part of their lives, that's fine. But it's going to have consequences. And what I'm saying, is that usually, those consequences are going to be bad, and they're going to affect the person's life in a negative manner. But of course, there's no way to absolutely say that for certain, which is why so many people like to say that drug use is OK.
Yes, there are levels to the effects that different drugs have. Marijuana will not have the types of side effects that cocaine or even alcohol has. But that doesn't mean that Marijuana is definitely "A good thing."
Outlawing drugs may not be the answer. But for some drugs, it definitely is. For LSD and Marijuana, who knows? But I think you can also attest to the fact that many people, when they start down a path, will continue to follow that path and with drug use, when a person starts with less addictive drugs like Pot or LSD, they often "try out" the more harmful drugs, because of the people they are around, the dealers they work with, and that can lead to other things.
So, maybe some of the drugs are not really the problem, but rather the situations that people find themselves when they use and the lifestyles they end up leading because of their drug use. This would make one think that legalizing some drugs may be a solution to this problem. And it may be, that's ok. I'm neither for nor against outlawing drugs, although you'd like to think I am. I don't think anyone can say for certain what is better for people. What I AM against, though, is the mentality that drug use is not bad and that people can easily act responsibly when using them.
Drug use, to me, is something that doesn't further the goals of humanity. It hinders. Is that what I would consider bad? Yes, it is. And yeah, there are a whole lot of other worse things out there that hinder our progress more. Does that mean we should forget drugs to tackle the bigger problems? No, I don't believe so.
So we have programs like D.A.R.E. We have treatment programs. We have laws. These are all attempts to stem the tide of the harmful effects that drugs can have on our lives. Do they work? Yes. Do they fail? Yes. So what do we do? Do we sit back and laugh at the programs as utter failures, like people seem to do here on Slashdot, calling them all stupid ideas, cause we know better? Or do we continue to work on solving the problems? Do we continue to educate people on the facts? Do we look at the good and the bad and try and find the best course of action? Yeah, we do all these things. We try and work to make progress, rather than say everything sucks.
----
Besides the state does not have the right to use certain types of software. This is different. This is a rule for the government by the government. It is not a rule on the people in general, is it? If it were, then yes, that could also be associated with communism. But it isn't. It's just a good practical method of making sure your government uses the right tools for the right jobs, and it's policing itself, so there's no problem.
For example military cannot use Windows in several fields of activity. I think it's obvious why that's the case...
----
Sorry, can't make spelling mistakes, cause that leads to flames. That first sentence should say "logic genius" not "genious"
----