Sure, there are other instant messaging networks, but almost everyone uses AOL/AIM. Sure, there are other OS's, but almost everyone uses Windows.
Um, I don't think the AIM "monopoly" is anywhere near the size of the Windows monopoly. I personally don't know *anyone* that uses AIM - if we were to choose a monopoly I would say it's either ICQ or MSN Messenger (with the latter increasing in usage recently). Personally, all my contacts use ICQ (geeks and non-geeks alike).
Because they think stapling the Star Wars license on an already established genre in a piss-poor game is innovative.
No they don't. They think it's more profitable. And as far as I can tell, it probably is - don't as me why, because the target market obviously doesn't include me.
I don't understand why it can't work out like school - give a bunch of assignments/projects, set the due dates, and demand that they be handed in on time. You might need to attend meetings - that's fine, it'll be like attending class. If it's a team project - that's fine, the team organizes themselves to meet up and work on the project.
Surely, as mature individuals who have graduated from college/university/whatever, workplaces can't *possibly* be like elementary school, where we take attendance and have to suck-up to the teachers, can it?
I think that in the future, instead of TiVO, cable/satellite providers will increasingly provide "Video On Demand" (already available now, on a per charge basis (this is not pay-per-view - you get to start, pause, rewind, fastforward, whatever, in a 24 hour period)).
If you mean OpenOffice.org, it takes exactly 20 seconds to start up on my 1 GHz desktop, and after that it's nimble as anything else.p.
Which, while not 5 minutes, is still unacceptably slow, unless you're starting a 5-hour essay writing session, in which 20 seconds is insignificant.
I most certainly would not say "most definitely!". I got my degree 10 years ago, from a well-known school. With an emphasis on C and it's object-oriented supersets, C++ and Objective-C. The only things we didn't have 10 years ago are Java, C#, and a crappy job market.
Are you sure you got a CS degree? Because I don't think a CS degree would use more than one language to teach object-oriented programming concepts (what's the point? you're learning the concepts, not the language - the language is a tool, the means to the end). Plus, I don't think a CS degree would have more than just a basic intro to object-oriented design (what's the point? you're learning about programming paradigms, not a specific one).
This is very true. Computer Science is a branch of mathematics that has very little to do with either computers or science:)
Actually it has a lot to do with computers and science (well, as much to do with science as mathematics does). In fact, the whole field is about *computation*. How is that not about computers?
I think that there is more need for good Software Engineers than for good Computer Scientists as everyone I know who did a Computer Science degree is no working as a Software Engineer.
Well, of course, depending on your definition of "need", just like there is more need for mechanical engineers than theoretical physicists. It's just a strange little quirk that Computer Scientists often like software engineering too, and often have the aptitude for it as well.
Unfortunately, being a distinguished computer science student does not imply that you are a good programmer.
Not sure why you think that's unfortunate - it's a fact, but why is it unfortunate? Would you say, "Unfortunately, being a distinguished biology student does not imply that you are a good programmer." ?
Actually I would argue that a good program, regardless of what school is offering it, would teach you software engineering, not computer science. You are right that there is a big difference between programming and computer science, but there is perhaps an even bigger difference between computer science and software engineering.
Er...are you implying that Computer Science is somehow inferior to Software Engineering?
*I* would argue that there can be both good Software Engineering programs and good Computer Science programs.
You're not going to pick up calculus on the job. Get it in college.
You're also unlikely to pick up CS on the job. Get it in college. All you will pick up on the job is software development, programming, and software design. No CS.
Where you CS degree came from won't mean squat in 8 to 10 years. By then, programming will be a McJob, done mainly by H1-b programmers under slave-labor conditions.
So how is that in any way relevant to CS degree holders? CS grads get minimal programming experience, because programming is a tool for modelling concepts (which is what they learn). They generally aren't the best programmars in the world, nor should they be. Would you say that mathematicians are the best calculators in the world? Trust me, more often than not, a Math professor is *not* capable of adding fractions on the fly (with any reasonable speed beyond what an average person can do).
However, so many CS degrees are just coding certificates, more or less. the guy opposite the wall from me is an idiot. He cuts and pastes all of his code, not even paying attention to what it's doing, has singlehandedly brought down many production systems and broken almost every build he's been involved with, and is just generally an unpleasant person aside from that. He also has a bachelors degree in CS.
That's unfortunate that you got that impression - are you sure he actually has a CS degree, and that he wasn't just lying (or equivalently, it isn't from a "school" like University of Phoenix?)
Furthermore, pure CS programs teach you nothing about business or how to survive in the corporate environment. If you don't understand the business of your employer, you're not going to be very good at solving its problems. The corporate environment has to be experienced to learn to navigate it.
That may be partly intentional. Real-world experience is not a replacement for formal education (the theory behind software design is only *one* of many fields covered in a CS degree - it's called Computer Science, not Software Development, for a reason!). Vice versa, formal education is not a replacement for real-world experience. Those who think that one is a means to the other are sadly mistaken.
I'm sorry, but if someone can't look at the code/documentation/google and work it out they shouldn't be working there. I'm the first one to explain to someone how things work - I don't mind if they've made some effort first (I've personally trained 4 or 5 people).
I'm sorry, but you never take a course called "flow-charting/UML diagramming 101" in college. It's usually mentioned in under 1 hour in a lecture in a course on software engineering (which, btw, is only 1 of 100 or so different (but overlapping) areas that are covered in a CS degree). This is because, as you said, if you can't look at the diagram and work it out yourself, you shouldn't be taking the course. Similarly, that's why you never take a course called "Programming Visual C++###.NET.COM" either. Sure, you get a short 1 week intro to a new programming language when it's going to be used as a *tool* to explore *concepts* taught in the course, such as language design, compiler/interpreter design, etc. But if you can't figure out how to fluently program in that new language after a week yourself, then, you really shouldn't be in school.
The only reality in the commercial world is the deadline. Degrees don't teach you that
I'm not sure how you got that impression, but in my experience, deadlines *are* an undergrad degree. There doesn't come a week where you don't have at least 5 assignments/projects due, while having to prepare for midterms/quizzes at the same time.
Why in the world, if you have two people that have the same experience, would you pick the one that had to be taught by someone else? Don't you think that they person that taught them self the skills might have a little more drive to get the job done, and would be able to concur any problem they come up against??
Why in the world do you think that someone who attends University isn't just as capable of learning things as themselves? In fact, one of the most important things that can be learned at University is how to take initiative and responsibility for your own learning - it's not high school. You only get out of what you put into it.
Plus do you really think that self-taught person is likely to teach themselves something that they don't want to learn, or have extreme difficulty struggling to learn? Most likely they just skip the section and conclude that, since it's not practical, "it's not important".
Also, real-world experience is not a replacement for formal education, and vice versa.
I would take the one without...in my experience, the one without usually has more drive, motivation and enthusiasm for programming...and I always hire for attitude, everything else can be taught.
So you really think you can teach them the equivalent of what 4 years of intense theory-based courses (6 courses per 4 months, not to mention the labs and discussions), weeks upon weeks of continous all-nighters filled with projects and studying for midterms, and pushing them beyond their limits teaches them?
And you say you hire for attitude. I have seen some programmers (that's mostly what they are, programmers, *not* scientists, let alone computer scientists) without degrees, and I swear they have the *biggest* egos in the world. Perhaps it comes from not being humbled by getting 70% in a course after working your ass of and seeing that there *are* a lot of people smarter than you.
A lot of employers want to have someone who can say, "my school taught me VB, Java, and Win32." True, you can get up to speed in all of these very quickly if you have a strong theoretical background, and on top of that you'll probably have a much better understanding of combinatorics and automata theory than the guy who knows VB, Java, and Win32 ever will, but I just haven't gotten the impression that most companies are thinking six weeks ahead when they are deciding who has the right skills for the job.
That's one of the most frustrating things when interviewing for a job. They ask for very very specific *technical* skills that can be trivially learned, but when you try to explain that it's not important, that your experience is actually very relevant because it provides you with the skills needed to cope with learning trivial little technical things on your own, they don't listen. Also many interviewers seem to have no concept of what a CS degree is, asking you if you've "learned about win32 yet" or "done VC++ yet". In those cases you answer "no, and I won't be learning that in my degree", and they start frowning. Or some even believe that a CS degree is about learning all the possible programming languages in the world, that it's "Organized into groups of courses so that you can learn one language in each course - of course, once you know how to program, you know all programming languages, and so your CS degree is trivial. I can say that because I programmed a program once in Visual Basic so I have the equivalent of a CS degree".
I can't stand it. It's like they're purposely trying to insult you or something.
But then you need 2 browsers open, and most people will just think "why the heck do I want 2 browsers, I'll just use IE instead"
Making it transparent "set it, and forget it" and people will more likely stick with the alternative.
This might just be me, but staring at my Windows 2000 Laptop all days bugs the hell out of my eyes.
But I go home and stare at my XP desktop with Cleartype enable, and I have a *much* better time of it, even on the white-screen/black-text stuff.
Yeah some people claim that Cleartype makes things worse, but my suspicion is that they haven't used on an LCD before. On CRTs, yes it does make things worse (to me), but on LCDs it makes all the difference. Aliased text on LCDs is actually harder to read than aliased text on CRTs because it is too clear.
Maybe one in ten mothers genuinly cares about how violent grand theft auto is. The others usually buy the game for their kids as a present when asked for.
And that's fine...as long as the mother is doing the buying.
Are these games really that bad for high school teens age 14 and up. With the possible exception of maybe Manhunt and a few others, i don't think so.
Listen, i'm all for parents deciding what's appropriate or not for their children. If they don't want them playing violent games or even reading Harry Potter books then that's fine with me. It's their right as a parent, BUT, i don't believe we need the government involved in this. I'm a staunch believer that the government should not get involved whatsoever in what we watch, play, listen to, or read for entertainment. Leave it up to the individuals themselves and the individuals parents and ONLY THE PARENTS, when it comes to their children.
Actually, I think that may be the point of this law. Believe it or not, some parents complain to the government that their kids have access to violent video games, etc. With this law, the government is basically saying "OK fine you whiners, now it's YOUR responsibility. If you want to buy the game for your kids, go ahead. If you don't want to buy the game for your kids, then don't buy it. Now leave us alone, because if you buy a violent game for your kids, it's not our fault anymore."
So basically, the government is actually trying NOT to get involved in this, by passing this law. By placing a restriction on who BUYS the game, but not who PLAYS the game, the only drawback of this law is that kids can't (easily) buy games that their parents don't want them to buy. Are you against this? It seems not - you say that you're all for parents deciding what's appropriate or not for their children, and this is EXACTLY what's happening here.
Will we resort to banning violent and offensive games even though parents are perfectly okay with gifting them to their children?
I don't think that's the point. The point is this law will *force* parents to at least be aware of the game they buy for their children, since the children cannot buy it for themselves. Thus the responsibility is handed over to the parent, and the government can say, "It's not our fault, you bought it for your child". The government couldn't care less if children are playing those games, as long as they can't get blamed for it. I agree with this, because it puts the responsbility on the parents, where it belongs.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, I don't think the AIM "monopoly" is anywhere near the size of the Windows monopoly. I personally don't know *anyone* that uses AIM - if we were to choose a monopoly I would say it's either ICQ or MSN Messenger (with the latter increasing in usage recently). Personally, all my contacts use ICQ (geeks and non-geeks alike).
Of course it doesn't help that most of the literature we read doesn't have correct (generally accepted) grammar anyways (Of Mice and Men, etc...)
No they don't. They think it's more profitable. And as far as I can tell, it probably is - don't as me why, because the target market obviously doesn't include me.
Surely, as mature individuals who have graduated from college/university/whatever, workplaces can't *possibly* be like elementary school, where we take attendance and have to suck-up to the teachers, can it?
I think that in the future, instead of TiVO, cable/satellite providers will increasingly provide "Video On Demand" (already available now, on a per charge basis (this is not pay-per-view - you get to start, pause, rewind, fastforward, whatever, in a 24 hour period)).
If you mean OpenOffice.org, it takes exactly 20 seconds to start up on my 1 GHz desktop, and after that it's nimble as anything else.p. Which, while not 5 minutes, is still unacceptably slow, unless you're starting a 5-hour essay writing session, in which 20 seconds is insignificant.
Just use an AMD spaceheater - no more problem.
Actually I would argue that a good program, regardless of what school is offering it, would teach you software engineering, not computer science.
Are you sure you got a CS degree? Because I don't think a CS degree would use more than one language to teach object-oriented programming concepts (what's the point? you're learning the concepts, not the language - the language is a tool, the means to the end). Plus, I don't think a CS degree would have more than just a basic intro to object-oriented design (what's the point? you're learning about programming paradigms, not a specific one).
Actually it has a lot to do with computers and science (well, as much to do with science as mathematics does). In fact, the whole field is about *computation*. How is that not about computers?
Well, of course, depending on your definition of "need", just like there is more need for mechanical engineers than theoretical physicists. It's just a strange little quirk that Computer Scientists often like software engineering too, and often have the aptitude for it as well.
Not sure why you think that's unfortunate - it's a fact, but why is it unfortunate? Would you say, "Unfortunately, being a distinguished biology student does not imply that you are a good programmer." ?
Er...are you implying that Computer Science is somehow inferior to Software Engineering? *I* would argue that there can be both good Software Engineering programs and good Computer Science programs.
You're also unlikely to pick up CS on the job. Get it in college. All you will pick up on the job is software development, programming, and software design. No CS.
So how is that in any way relevant to CS degree holders? CS grads get minimal programming experience, because programming is a tool for modelling concepts (which is what they learn). They generally aren't the best programmars in the world, nor should they be. Would you say that mathematicians are the best calculators in the world? Trust me, more often than not, a Math professor is *not* capable of adding fractions on the fly (with any reasonable speed beyond what an average person can do).
That's unfortunate that you got that impression - are you sure he actually has a CS degree, and that he wasn't just lying (or equivalently, it isn't from a "school" like University of Phoenix?) Furthermore, pure CS programs teach you nothing about business or how to survive in the corporate environment. If you don't understand the business of your employer, you're not going to be very good at solving its problems. The corporate environment has to be experienced to learn to navigate it.
That may be partly intentional. Real-world experience is not a replacement for formal education (the theory behind software design is only *one* of many fields covered in a CS degree - it's called Computer Science, not Software Development, for a reason!). Vice versa, formal education is not a replacement for real-world experience. Those who think that one is a means to the other are sadly mistaken.
I'm sorry, but you never take a course called "flow-charting/UML diagramming 101" in college. It's usually mentioned in under 1 hour in a lecture in a course on software engineering (which, btw, is only 1 of 100 or so different (but overlapping) areas that are covered in a CS degree). This is because, as you said, if you can't look at the diagram and work it out yourself, you shouldn't be taking the course. Similarly, that's why you never take a course called "Programming Visual C++###.NET.COM" either. Sure, you get a short 1 week intro to a new programming language when it's going to be used as a *tool* to explore *concepts* taught in the course, such as language design, compiler/interpreter design, etc. But if you can't figure out how to fluently program in that new language after a week yourself, then, you really shouldn't be in school.
The only reality in the commercial world is the deadline. Degrees don't teach you that
I'm not sure how you got that impression, but in my experience, deadlines *are* an undergrad degree. There doesn't come a week where you don't have at least 5 assignments/projects due, while having to prepare for midterms/quizzes at the same time.
Why in the world do you think that someone who attends University isn't just as capable of learning things as themselves? In fact, one of the most important things that can be learned at University is how to take initiative and responsibility for your own learning - it's not high school. You only get out of what you put into it.
Plus do you really think that self-taught person is likely to teach themselves something that they don't want to learn, or have extreme difficulty struggling to learn? Most likely they just skip the section and conclude that, since it's not practical, "it's not important".
Also, real-world experience is not a replacement for formal education, and vice versa.
So you really think you can teach them the equivalent of what 4 years of intense theory-based courses (6 courses per 4 months, not to mention the labs and discussions), weeks upon weeks of continous all-nighters filled with projects and studying for midterms, and pushing them beyond their limits teaches them?
And you say you hire for attitude. I have seen some programmers (that's mostly what they are, programmers, *not* scientists, let alone computer scientists) without degrees, and I swear they have the *biggest* egos in the world. Perhaps it comes from not being humbled by getting 70% in a course after working your ass of and seeing that there *are* a lot of people smarter than you.
That's one of the most frustrating things when interviewing for a job. They ask for very very specific *technical* skills that can be trivially learned, but when you try to explain that it's not important, that your experience is actually very relevant because it provides you with the skills needed to cope with learning trivial little technical things on your own, they don't listen. Also many interviewers seem to have no concept of what a CS degree is, asking you if you've "learned about win32 yet" or "done VC++ yet". In those cases you answer "no, and I won't be learning that in my degree", and they start frowning. Or some even believe that a CS degree is about learning all the possible programming languages in the world, that it's "Organized into groups of courses so that you can learn one language in each course - of course, once you know how to program, you know all programming languages, and so your CS degree is trivial. I can say that because I programmed a program once in Visual Basic so I have the equivalent of a CS degree".
I can't stand it. It's like they're purposely trying to insult you or something.
But then you need 2 browsers open, and most people will just think "why the heck do I want 2 browsers, I'll just use IE instead" Making it transparent "set it, and forget it" and people will more likely stick with the alternative.
This might just be me, but staring at my Windows 2000 Laptop all days bugs the hell out of my eyes. But I go home and stare at my XP desktop with Cleartype enable, and I have a *much* better time of it, even on the white-screen/black-text stuff. Yeah some people claim that Cleartype makes things worse, but my suspicion is that they haven't used on an LCD before. On CRTs, yes it does make things worse (to me), but on LCDs it makes all the difference. Aliased text on LCDs is actually harder to read than aliased text on CRTs because it is too clear.
And that's fine...as long as the mother is doing the buying.
Actually, I think that may be the point of this law. Believe it or not, some parents complain to the government that their kids have access to violent video games, etc. With this law, the government is basically saying "OK fine you whiners, now it's YOUR responsibility. If you want to buy the game for your kids, go ahead. If you don't want to buy the game for your kids, then don't buy it. Now leave us alone, because if you buy a violent game for your kids, it's not our fault anymore."
So basically, the government is actually trying NOT to get involved in this, by passing this law. By placing a restriction on who BUYS the game, but not who PLAYS the game, the only drawback of this law is that kids can't (easily) buy games that their parents don't want them to buy. Are you against this? It seems not - you say that you're all for parents deciding what's appropriate or not for their children, and this is EXACTLY what's happening here.
I don't think that's the point. The point is this law will *force* parents to at least be aware of the game they buy for their children, since the children cannot buy it for themselves. Thus the responsibility is handed over to the parent, and the government can say, "It's not our fault, you bought it for your child". The government couldn't care less if children are playing those games, as long as they can't get blamed for it. I agree with this, because it puts the responsbility on the parents, where it belongs.