From what I've heard, having a C/S minor and a Business Degree goes a lot farther. Even a major in something else is OK, just so long as you have experience in C/S. Is that true?.
It depends on what you want your career to be. A business degree with CS minor will probably go a lot farther if you want to become a technical manager, director of IT, or something like that. On the other hand, a CS major will go a lot farther if you want to pursue a career as a Software Engineer or developer, or other research/design aspects. Personally I think the latter is much more rewarding - I have seen many IT managers quit their jobs because of the managing and business aspect.
Oddly enough, I have a BSCS degree from a good school (Purdue), a list of certs as long as my arm (Microsoft, Novell, Sun, Compaq, Lotus, Cisco...) and tons of experience, and I haven't found *any* of it to be that useful in getting an IT job.
I think the problem is you're looking for an *IT* job. If you have a CS degree, why not pursue your true passion (whether it be research, software engineering, or one of many software architects)?
If you wanted an IT job, why did you study Computer Science?
I think that hiring managers like Buzz words. Degree, Certification, etc..
You have to ask yourself though, if you have to rely on Buzz words and Certifications to get the job, will you really be happy working there, under a manager that doesn't appreciate your true skills and understanding?
I agree...in fact I think it's ridiculously stupid to have both Insert/home/pgup/..etc keys ALONG with a numeric keypad. I mean, what do you think the numlock key is for???.
Better question is, why would most people *want* a wireless keyboard in the first places?? Do people like to carry their keyboards around, or randomly move them while typing?
A good course in general equilibrium microeconomics would serve highschoolers much better than chemistry or physics topics, you know.
I beg to differ. Chemistry and physics has been much more useful in my college career so far than microeconomics. Plus, an introductory course in microeconomics would likely teach concepts that are intuitive to all people anyways, such as "supply and demand". It would just be giving formal names to familiar and intuitive concepts, much like a first course in physics (which usually focuses mostly on clasical mechanics) just gives names and reinforces already intuitive concepts. However, knowing formal names and having a structure for basic physics is *much* more practical and useful than knowing that supply and demand is called "supply and demand".
Most people don't realize that monitors are mix-and-match, and can be reused with multiple computers.
Woa. Talk about underestimating Joe Sixpack's knowledge level. I mean, give him some credit, let alone *most* people.
Probably the real reason people throw away old monitors is because they *want* new/better ones, and have no use (that they can think of) for the old ones. Simple as that. And yes, manufacturers help out by making it oh so easy to buy a bundle, and play on people's sense of aesthetics to have matching exterior designs for all components (everyone is subject to this to some extent - ever feel the urge to get a new black keyboard to match your black monitor and mouse?).
Bottomline, we're not all out to get PhD's and become evolutionary CS people. Some people just want to learn a language or two, get really good at it, and get a job. Not everyone wants to write a thesis on Compiler Optimizations.:) .
Ah, but I would argue that those wishing to "learn a language or two, get really good at it, and get a job" would be better served by "technical institutes" (no, I don't mean MIT). A market certainly exists for that type of education, and those places usually teach programming habits and the specifics of a language much better than colleges. There is really no need to change what's done in colleges, as those interested in what's taught in colleges can go to college, while those interested in gaining employable programming skills in the short-term can attend technical institutes. Two different educational institutions that cater to two different needs.
I mean I dont think a class on a specific set of tools or a platform has any place in a university
Why? I think that, beyond the core curriculum and what is required, any non-credit optional courses (which this is, for a CS student) should be welcomed - even classes in, oh, basket-weaving (I'm serious, if it's non-credit and optional, why not? I'm sure there would be people interested in it). I really don't see the problem in offering things beyond what is required, just for the sake of interest or otherwise.
Dude, this is an OPTIONAL course than can't even count for credit towards a CS degree. Of course no school is going to drop the principles of functional and OO languages for teaching specific languages - never seen it happen, never will happen (well, at least not at any universities). Why? Because it's called Computer Science for a reason - the science of computation. Cramming programming languages down your throat would need be called a different degree.
And there's really nothing wrong with that, unless the programmer requires that knowledge to do well in whatever programming they are doing. Programming doesn't necessarily have much to do with "computers" anyways, it's just an interesting application that computers can run programs. And do you really think a programmer programming an HP graphing calculator really needs to fully understand IP addresses and default gateways?
Uh, are you sure about this? From what I've seen, CS profs are downright *allergic* to Microsoft, and would never advocate teaching anything remotely proprietory. In fact, all throughout my degree, I've been reminded many times that CS is a field very close to mathematics, and that it doesn't matter what language we happen to use to apply concepts - it's the concepts we are learning, programming is just a side effect (plus programming isn't even part of many courses such as discrete math - even when we do write code, we write pseudocode). Besides, most of the labs are full of either Unix terminals, or PC's running Linux - where "piping simple CLI commands together" is surely a prerequisite for even doing basic tasks.
I'm sure my experience is typical of most CS students - which is why I don't believe your statements above are true.
Same here. I'm guessing it might be the greater resistence of lead which leads to more stable writing, combined with the easier to modulate darkness of lines.
I'm not going to agree that his wife sounds like a retard, but I do find it hard to believe that she has trouble understanding where files are saved. Has anyone even bothered trying to explain it to her? I'm sure she could understand within a few minutes if given a good enough explanation. The reason is, the concepts of file system structure are identical to many concepts in real life, and in fact can have a very close mapping to physical things (file folders, cabinets). So unless she has trouble understanding how a file cabinet works, I highly doubt she lacks the "skills" necessary to understand where files are saved.
The same is true for pretty much everyone. Sometimes people assume that users who can't understand basic concepts and models in a desktop environment lack some sort of special brain power. The truth is, if they did lack that "brain power", they probably wouldn't be able to handle understanding things in daily life like:
- just because you place a piece of paper on top of another piece of paper doesn't mean the paper underneath is gone
- the type of paper and pen you used to write a letter has no effect on where you decide to place the finished letter, whether it be in a drawer or on a different desk
- if you write a note that says "go get an apple from the fridge", and you throw away the note, the apple is not going to disappear
Point is, it doesn't take a genius to figure out basic concepts used in desktop environments, (after all they were made by people, for people, right?), althought it might take a genius to make a perfect desktop environment. People just need to take 5 minutes or so to explain things, and everything will be clear, to everyone.
From the article, it seems that the worm:
1)Exploits a vulnerability in IE for which a patch was released 2 years ago
1)Tells the user to run an executable file
2)Asks the user to enter their EMAIL, and associated USERNAME and PASSWORD.
Well gee. I'm not going to suspicious of any of that. After all, it's impossible for anyone other than Microsoft to make official-looking emails/alerts, right?
Honestly, I can't imagine how this worm has any chance of spreading, and yet it has spread to more than 1.5 million systems. Anyone care to explain why?
Maybe not a retarded monkey, but certainly an average monkey can. I really don't know why the won't make driving tests harder - I mean, supposedly, the government could make more money from repeated tests, people would have an incentive to actually TRY to obtain some degree of driving skill before taking the test, and overall the roads would probably be safer. Who loses, exactly? I really can't see *anyone* that would be against more challenging driving tests.
True, but given enough time, any person capable of driving should be able to figure out on the fly how to parallel park, as they really have all the driving skills necessary to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on what you want your career to be. A business degree with CS minor will probably go a lot farther if you want to become a technical manager, director of IT, or something like that. On the other hand, a CS major will go a lot farther if you want to pursue a career as a Software Engineer or developer, or other research/design aspects. Personally I think the latter is much more rewarding - I have seen many IT managers quit their jobs because of the managing and business aspect.
I think the problem is you're looking for an *IT* job. If you have a CS degree, why not pursue your true passion (whether it be research, software engineering, or one of many software architects)? If you wanted an IT job, why did you study Computer Science?
You have to ask yourself though, if you have to rely on Buzz words and Certifications to get the job, will you really be happy working there, under a manager that doesn't appreciate your true skills and understanding?
I agree...in fact I think it's ridiculously stupid to have both Insert/home/pgup/..etc keys ALONG with a numeric keypad. I mean, what do you think the numlock key is for???.
Better question is, why would most people *want* a wireless keyboard in the first places?? Do people like to carry their keyboards around, or randomly move them while typing?
I beg to differ. Chemistry and physics has been much more useful in my college career so far than microeconomics. Plus, an introductory course in microeconomics would likely teach concepts that are intuitive to all people anyways, such as "supply and demand". It would just be giving formal names to familiar and intuitive concepts, much like a first course in physics (which usually focuses mostly on clasical mechanics) just gives names and reinforces already intuitive concepts. However, knowing formal names and having a structure for basic physics is *much* more practical and useful than knowing that supply and demand is called "supply and demand".
Actually I've seen tons of yellow Camrys with "TAXI" labels.
Apparently, a [financially] successful one.
Woa. Talk about underestimating Joe Sixpack's knowledge level. I mean, give him some credit, let alone *most* people. Probably the real reason people throw away old monitors is because they *want* new/better ones, and have no use (that they can think of) for the old ones. Simple as that. And yes, manufacturers help out by making it oh so easy to buy a bundle, and play on people's sense of aesthetics to have matching exterior designs for all components (everyone is subject to this to some extent - ever feel the urge to get a new black keyboard to match your black monitor and mouse?).
Well, it could say that we realize this isn't a real world, and that getting "shut down" and not having free speech is not big deal.
Ah, but I would argue that those wishing to "learn a language or two, get really good at it, and get a job" would be better served by "technical institutes" (no, I don't mean MIT). A market certainly exists for that type of education, and those places usually teach programming habits and the specifics of a language much better than colleges. There is really no need to change what's done in colleges, as those interested in what's taught in colleges can go to college, while those interested in gaining employable programming skills in the short-term can attend technical institutes. Two different educational institutions that cater to two different needs.
Why? I think that, beyond the core curriculum and what is required, any non-credit optional courses (which this is, for a CS student) should be welcomed - even classes in, oh, basket-weaving (I'm serious, if it's non-credit and optional, why not? I'm sure there would be people interested in it). I really don't see the problem in offering things beyond what is required, just for the sake of interest or otherwise.
Dude, this is an OPTIONAL course than can't even count for credit towards a CS degree. Of course no school is going to drop the principles of functional and OO languages for teaching specific languages - never seen it happen, never will happen (well, at least not at any universities). Why? Because it's called Computer Science for a reason - the science of computation. Cramming programming languages down your throat would need be called a different degree.
And there's really nothing wrong with that, unless the programmer requires that knowledge to do well in whatever programming they are doing. Programming doesn't necessarily have much to do with "computers" anyways, it's just an interesting application that computers can run programs. And do you really think a programmer programming an HP graphing calculator really needs to fully understand IP addresses and default gateways?
Seriously though, I wonder why the ability to spawn popups was put in Javascript in the first place - couldn't they forsee the consequences?
I'm sure my experience is typical of most CS students - which is why I don't believe your statements above are true.
I think they do already. Should they care? Well that's up to them. Should they have to care? No. Should we care? That depends who you are.
Same here. I'm guessing it might be the greater resistence of lead which leads to more stable writing, combined with the easier to modulate darkness of lines.
The same is true for pretty much everyone. Sometimes people assume that users who can't understand basic concepts and models in a desktop environment lack some sort of special brain power. The truth is, if they did lack that "brain power", they probably wouldn't be able to handle understanding things in daily life like:
- just because you place a piece of paper on top of another piece of paper doesn't mean the paper underneath is gone
- the type of paper and pen you used to write a letter has no effect on where you decide to place the finished letter, whether it be in a drawer or on a different desk
- if you write a note that says "go get an apple from the fridge", and you throw away the note, the apple is not going to disappear
Point is, it doesn't take a genius to figure out basic concepts used in desktop environments, (after all they were made by people, for people, right?), althought it might take a genius to make a perfect desktop environment. People just need to take 5 minutes or so to explain things, and everything will be clear, to everyone.
Ah, shoulda used the preview button
From the article, it seems that the worm: 1)Exploits a vulnerability in IE for which a patch was released 2 years ago 1)Tells the user to run an executable file 2)Asks the user to enter their EMAIL, and associated USERNAME and PASSWORD. Well gee. I'm not going to suspicious of any of that. After all, it's impossible for anyone other than Microsoft to make official-looking emails/alerts, right? Honestly, I can't imagine how this worm has any chance of spreading, and yet it has spread to more than 1.5 million systems. Anyone care to explain why?
Maybe not a retarded monkey, but certainly an average monkey can. I really don't know why the won't make driving tests harder - I mean, supposedly, the government could make more money from repeated tests, people would have an incentive to actually TRY to obtain some degree of driving skill before taking the test, and overall the roads would probably be safer. Who loses, exactly? I really can't see *anyone* that would be against more challenging driving tests.
Um, yes. I'm proud to be a Bachelor of Mouse-Clicking.
But the "sheeple" would catch on quickly, and soon everyone will have figured out the pattern. And so it continues...
True, but given enough time, any person capable of driving should be able to figure out on the fly how to parallel park, as they really have all the driving skills necessary to do so.