An A/C said: " Level 4 is what is the difference between a reference and a pointer."
If you're suggesting that I don't know the difference between a reference and a pointer, let's try for level 4:
A reference (I assume you're using this in the context of "reference counting"?) is a variable that still "holds" an object (or other data type that is allocated on the heap instead of the stack), thereby preventing the object from being garbage collected. Even though the whole idea of reference is really just an abstraction simplifying "a pointer to an object of type foo". Because that's what's actually IN that reference variable -- a pointer to its contents on the heap. We just don't have to worry about that because the system takes care of it for us.
A pointer is a variable that holds the address of a chunk of memory of a certain type, say, a pointer to int. Pointers to data structures were the old C way of doing what in C++, people do with objects. The REAL difference between pointers and references is, pointers are a pain in the ass -- you have to allocate, deallocate, dereference, etc, all manually. With references, it's done for you (mostly).
The issue is the same for both, though. You can't just assign one variable to another, because they'll both end up pointing at the same object in memory. In OOP, you deal with this by creating a copy constructor. In C, you have to go through all kinds of BS, allocating some new memory, pointing at it with the new variable, copying the contents, yadda, yadda.
There's some truth to what you're saying, but it's also frustrating for us computer science grads. Around 1998 or so, the field suddenly got crapflooded with all these self-professed "Webmasters" who knew absolutely nothing about Comp.Sci but who insisted they were brilliant geeks. I remember these weirdos bringing in all kinds of toys and arranging them on their desks, everything from "The Crow" statuettes to legions of action figures. MY desk, completely clean and devoid of toys, made me look like an obsessive compulsive hand-washer by comparison.
If there's one thing I DON'T miss about my dot-com days, it was all the infantile crap people used to do. When you're head-down over the keyboard, the last thing on EARTH you want is to have someone fling a nerf ball at your head at ninety miles an hour. And I never understood the thing with the action figures. These people would be like, 25 years old and have dozens of toys on their desks! What the hell? I mean, I can see an ironic, SMALL, tasteful statuette, or a coffee cup with a vendor logo or something, but Jesus. It freaked me out. And they were all total poseurs, too, the toys were just protective camoflage.
I think a lot of that went a long way towards ruining the industry for those of us who took it seriously. And, I agree that there are so many total fakes out there, it's hard to find the actual talent.
But as a manager, you're not going about things in the best way, either.
First of all, if you really want educated staff, why not make a university degree a requirement for the job? That'll weed out all the bullshit "boot camp" types. And if you really want a J2EE "expert", why are you saying you'll take someone who knows at least one design pattern (which one? The singleton? Factory? From your post, answering "MVC" is Right Out)? That doesn't make a person an expert. Any wacky daffodil can come up with a pattern or two.
Here's an idea (seriously presented, I'm not being a smartass). If you're having trouble hiring people, post some ads at your nearest university or state college. Say you'd like to hire some seniors as interns (minimum wage, but they get experience). Then, CULTIVATE THEM. Point them in the directions you want them to go, and let them grow into the staff you want to hire. They'll be delighted to have something to look forward to after graduation, and you'll have your engineers.
A copy constructor is an "8" question? That's ridiculous. Maybe a "3" or so; I mean, it's a basic concept, isn't it?
One writes a copy constructor because objects are referred to by reference variables, so if you assign an existing object to a new variable, you're still pointing at the same area of memory with both vars. So you write a copy constructor to take the existing object and make an actual copy of it, in a new area of memory. Now you actually have two objects, not just two names pointing at one object.
People didn't know that one? You're fibbing, surely... Be honest. Hell, I knew that one and I haven't done any C++ since 1998...
I have a four-year degree in computer science and I have a job that is absolutely stable, and cannot be sent overseas or filled with an H1-B. In order to get that job, I left the private sector and got a job with the government, doing applications programming.
It isn't glamorous, and you'll have to work your way up from a 42K job, but it only takes a few years to get a reasonable salary and it's worth it. If you're willing to go into civil service, you can have the kind of job everybody USED to have: reasonable hours, good benefits, a pension (!), and extremely long-term job security. Where I work, the general assumption is that you'll be there for thirty years and retire. NOBODY ELSE HAS THAT GOING FOR THEM. NOBODY.
If I was you, I'd go to a relatively inexpensive state university, study computer science with a minor in mathematics or business, and apply to your state government or the feds. The feds pay better, but there's less job security (Bush has been stripping them of some of their worker protections).
I wouldn't touch private industry with a ten foot pole. They don't like you, they don't want you, and they'll only hire you for a while so there's someone to train Apu the H1-B when the pointy-haired boss is ready to make his move.
Disclaimer: I majored in computer science and am currently employed as a software developer (lead programmer on a significant project).
Computer science, in and of itself, isn't particularly commercially viable anymore, what with outsourcing, offshoring, H1-Bs and L-1's getting most of the jobs... You shouldn't look at the question of whether to study computer science as an economic one. It isn't going to make you a penny, unless you major in it and leave the private sector, or go all the way and become a faculty member. It's the new liberal art, you know?
Having said that, it's one of the most valuable things you can study. Virtually everything will one day be done by or with computers, over networks. Knowledge of computer science is power. And the more you know, the more power you have.
A minor in computer science will magnify your abilities in your major field of study. It will support you, and let you achieve things other people find mystifying. Let's say you're a historian. While other historians are futzing around with paper notes and cards, you build a database to store your notes and create an interface to it on your PDA. Or maybe you're a biologist, and you catalog your samples that way.
Other people will notice what you can do and ask you to help them. You'll gain a bargaining chip, something valuable you can trade for what YOU need.
And in everything you do, you'll be more efficient than your colleagues -- provided you take advantage of it.
So, yeah, I'd say go for it. Just don't expect it to pay off directly in money or marketability.
Moron? There was a whole documentary about this on one of the educational channels recently. It was only admitted by our government a few years ago that this ever even happened. It also made the New York Times. But maybe that's a little highbrow for you...
Why not look it up? There's this thing called "Google"...
Or you could just be a typical Slashdot nimrod and call me names, you fucking moron.
Other nations don't have any inherent right to sell the Chinese software. And if, as is likely true, companies like Microsoft routinely build in back doors for the NSA and CIA, a country like China SHOULDN'T accept that software. They would have to be extremely gullible to even consider it!
Let us not forget the huge natural gas explosion caused in Russia by booby-trapped American software. We knew they were shopping for it, and we supplied it to them, with minor modifications. This caused the worst natural-gas disaster in history and the fact that the Russians couldn't trust their software after the fact killed most of their technical efforts, likely leading to the end of the cold war.
Surely, this is vexing to the Chinese and they are absolutely correct to take steps to prevent it from happening again.
They're also working on their own microprocessor industry, it's not just software. And, good for them! There's nothing wrong with ensuring your independence from foreign interests.
That's funny -- good joke. With the entire might of the U.S. armed forces, he can't even control Iraq, and he was afraid to annoy North Korea, which is teeny-weeny compared to China.
Can you see it?
U.S. Ambassador: "Ok, our troops are massed offshore, and we're about to invade. Do you wish to surrender?"
Chinese Ambassador: "Why, how gracious of you! That's very kind, surely, but why don't we just see what happens? Our boys have been looking forward to a little action, and it would seem a shame to give up just like that."
U.S. Ambassador: "Um... Right. Ah... Look here, you don't understand. Our entire armed forces are right offshore! If you don't surrender, we'll have to invade."
Chinese Ambassador: "Ah! I see! Invade! Well, carry on, then, it should be a good show."
U.S. Ambassador: "Oh, for God's... (radio crackles) General, begin the attack."
Several large cruise missles blast by overhead, heading out to sea.
U.S. Ambassador: "What the fuck was that?"
Chinese Ambassador: "Oh, those -- the Russians sold us those a while back. They have low-yield nuclear warheads, about 10 kiloton. They're cheap, too! We get a volume discount. Let's go to the missle cam..."
U.S. Ambassador: "Wait just a minute!"
Chinese Ambassador, not listening: "I love this part. We tested these before you got here; the image is grainy but the effect is kind of cool, like a Playstation game. It's a pity we didn't get the remote control, but those Russians drive a hard bargain!
U.S. Ambassador: "Wha... Huh?"
Large explosions roll in from offshore, and everyone in the room (except the U.S. Ambassador) smiles.
You misunderstand me. Hiring someone has nothing to do with whether they're a geek or not. You hire someone based on whether they know the job, period. Who cares whether they like football? What's that got to do with anything?
I'm talking about knowing about an individual person, on a purely personal level. This does not relate to hiring, or managing, or anything else.
Again, this information is for purely social value. Don't read too much into it. All we're talking about is the nature of the concept "geek". My position is that it used to actually mean something, basically a group of social outcasts who were into technology, and that the dot-com boom caused the concept to be co-opted by a much larger population of people, most of whom were assholes about it, causing all kinds of aggravation for everyone. Including your non-scooter riding friend.
By the way, what's up with that scooter business? I don't get it; it's bizarre. Scooters in the cube farm?
Most of the geeks I know are, at work, completely normal looking/acting. They wear golf shirts and chinos or jeans, they don't stack toys on their desks, they go to work, they do their work, and they go home.
Maybe that's because we're all OLD geeks. The whole "toy" thing just doesn't get it for us. But it takes all kinds...
You thought they were heavy? They didn't feel that bad... And they had a strap you could hang around your shoulder to help you carry 'em, that was kind of cool. Of course, we had the newer model, which was smaller and lighter, and I never had a chance to use the old vietnam-era one.
SAWs were pretty light, and had a lot less recoil, but it was way too easy to melt the barrel down. You know what I saw a guy do once after training? This was hilarious (well... to the rest of us, he didn't like it). The Sergeant told us to blow off our excess blanks so we didn't have to check 'em back in to the armory (or something, all I really heard was the part about "shoot the rest of the rounds" -- YEEHAH!).
So we're all having a blast, firing into the air, right? But the SAW guy forgets the whole "six to eight round burst" thing and goes nuts. He's laughing, and shooting, and the barrel glows bright cherry red and starts looking like it's actually going to get soft. He runs out of ammo, and the sergeant walks over, with this total ironic smile and the head shake and everything.
"Well, son, looks like you just bought yourself a barrel. What's that, like 1100 bucks? Tough luck, kid..."
The guy almost fell over. We were only getting paid 811.00/month. The barrel really was ruined, too. It turns out blanks fire much hotter than regular bullets, or something. Who knew?
Oh, by the way: I should qualify this: all the guys I've seen firing these things were pretty rugged. The Staff Sgt was about six feet tall, and rangy, maybe 200 pounds (light for a grunt back then). Not a bodybuilder, though. Just extremely sinewy.
Everyone in my unit, with few exeptions, was pretty big. I was six feet tall and maybe 220, and I was only average. The biggest guys were up around 260, maybe 270 pounds with no fat. No joke. My mortar gunner had biceps as big around as my THIGHS, and there was a black guy in one of the rifleman platoons that was as wide as a door. We did have a couple of little guys, including one very tiny guy, but they weren't machine gunners and the average came out pretty big.
Anyway, that's how it was where I was (a raid unit). Other units might have been different.
If you're out by Oceanside, check out some of the army-navy and gun stores in the area. You can find some weird old German knives there. The one I used to carry was a WWI Mauser bayonet (I think); it was two to two and a half feet long, made of extremely shiny, bright steel, razor sharp with a blood groove and a beautiful wood-inset handle and a steel sheath with a black leather covering over much of it. It was about fifty bucks, if memory serves.
Boy, what a wicked weapon that was. You could have used it like a short sword. Hell, you could have chopped a small tree down with it. Try to find one, there were a bunch floating around when I was out there. Weird, but true.
Just after boot camp, there was a demonstration of several of our weapons, with a parallel demonstration of soviet weapons (done by these weird Army guys who showed up). There were a bunch of civilians around, it was pretty weird, but fun for all.
Anyway, several interesting highlights:
One Army guy dropped the pistol he was showing us, and a smartass in my unit yelled "follow it down!" (meaning he'd better just go ahead and get started on those push-ups).
Another fired an AK-47, but couldn't control the climb and ended up firing half the rounds into the air. There was some scattered laughter.
One of our guys fired a Dragon (I think that's what it was, it was way bigger than a SMAW), but the wire broke and the missle went haywire, slamming into the ground only about a hundred feet away. Nobody was hurt, but it was kind of cool and weird.
An LAV-25 shot the hell out of an old rusty Amtrak, with the announcer quipping, "By the way, boys, you'll be riding to the beach in those." Meaning the Amtracks, not the LAV's. We didn't laugh at THAT one.
Finally, and this was cool, an old Staff Sergeant walked up to the firing line with an M-60 (the newer model, with the forward handle) and fired off about a hundred rounds, standing, with the weapon under his arm. The rounds hit in a perfect, horizontal arc about a hundred yards out, near the Amtrack. He'd been a machine gunner for years, and was now a trainer.
It's possible. I've fired them during cross-training (I was a mortarman), although I did it from prone, and I didn't think the recoil was that bad. Shoulder was a little sore afterwards, that's all.
They're not quite as impressive as they are in the movies, but they DO make that great "thump thump" sound. And they're really accurate. We used to trace into targets six hundred yards away within a second or two.
Holy COW, man, they don't give you knives anymore? When I was in, the *least* we got was a bayonet. Many of us got K-Bars. And almost ALL of us bought extra knives... Mine were a small tanto duct-taped to my H-Harness and a WW-1 Mauser bayonet hung on my web belt behind my regular bayonet. That German blade was amazing, it was sharp as hell, light, and about two and a half feet long. I got it out in Oceanside for fifty bucks or so and lost it overseas.:(
Wow... I guess it's not that big a deal, the issue bayonet was always kind of a piece of junk. It wouldn't keep its edge very well. It was pretty balanced, though; easy to throw. We used to get bored and throw them into trees, which was semi-fun.
Actually, I was in a U.S. Marine raid unit. We were taught how to take out sentries with a K-Bar or a bayonet, with the understanding that the first step to infiltrating and destroying, say, a SAM site, is to very quietly kill the guards who are wandering around.
The idea was (as it was explained to me):
1. A couple of guys would go in and kill the guards so they couldn't start any trouble. Then they would wave in the rest of the unit.
2. One group would go in and kill everyone in the barracks so they couldn't interfere with the operation. Since noise wouldn't be a problem anymore, this group would probably use M-60's or SAWs and just chew everybody up.
3. Another group would blow up whatever they were supposed to blow up using C-4 or SMAWs.
4. Everybody would haul ass back to the beach, jump in the zodiacs, and head off to the LPD before the enemy could organize any sort of response.
I don't know if they still train 'em that way, but that's what WE were told our job was.
Luckily, my unit wasn't used in combat, so the issue never came up. At least not while I was in it...
I wonder how they're doing things now? Another poster says marines don't even get bayonets anymore. Shocking!
The best explanation I've ever heard of this concept was that the "force" was actually an ancient form of nanotechnology (or something even weirder) that pervaded their area of space, and the "midichlorians" were actually interfaces to it, which some people were compatible with. So someone built the whole thing and later died off, and millenia later the jedi discovered how to use it.
I always thought that was kind of an interesting idea.
As an ex marine, I have to disagree with you about knives. There are several reasons all marines are issued bayonets and/or k-Bars (a nice hunting knife-like combat knife).
First, when you're trying to infiltrate an enemy base, or you're stuck behind enemy lines and have to get past somebody, or you see an enemy who hasn't seen YOU yet -- in other words, you have to kill an enemy quietly and quickly -- the safest, most effective way to do this is with a sharp knife (I'm not going to go into the actual how-tos, but we trained on, and practiced, several good ways of doing this).
There WERE ways of doing this without a knife, but they were a lot trickier. For example, if you have some wire, you can make a garrotte, but that kills more slowly and the target might get a shot off, bringing all his friends down on you. Or you can break his neck in one of a few ways, but if you screw up the guy's gonna be pissed and try to kill you, or at least make a ton of noise and let his friends do it for him.
Also, as far as "utility uses" you forgot boobytraps. Hard to sharpen a punji spike with your rifle...:)
Finally, supposedly, during Viet Nam something like 50% of the firefights fought in jungle locations had at least SOME hand-to-hand component. It's really easy to close the distance when you can't see too far. This is why bayonet training is still considered important. It's kind of like staff fighting, but more streamlined.
I'm quite delighted to say that my unit wasn't actually used in combat, so I never had to actually DO any of this... It was all pretty gruesome, very gory.
Well, congratulations on your green card, at least you're sticking around. That's worth SOMETHING I think.
But, since I shouldn't be stepping out of character, let's get back into it. This conversation is keeping me busy while bored shitless, home with the flu, so I must annoy you further! I like bugging self-important stiffs like you. I bet you wear a bow-tie and have little wire-rim glasses.
Race IS a construct, but it does not relate directly to nationality, but rather, easily discernable differences in skin color, physical arrangement of features, and culture of origin. For example, Iraqis, Palestinians, and Syrians are all Arabs, and a rascist wouldn't be able to tell one from the other, but may hate all three (for no apparent reason, usually). More significantly (and commonly) Southern racists have a real mental problem about black people, and annoyingly apply their views to everyone with more than a deep tan, regardless of whether the person is from African origin or not, which makes us Northern "Yankees" do our best to avoid the whole region. People still get lynched down there, or kept down in poverty, or prevented from going to a good school, which is the sort of thing most Americans associate with ACTUAL racism (as opposed to some ridiculous academic crying "racist" when someone claims maybe he should have stayed in Australia).
In contrast, someone who dislikes, say, annoying Australians, is not a racist because he, like the likely target, may be of the same race (caucasian) and "annoying Australian" is not a race. It may be a CREED, insofar as you annoying Australians might have some kind of club you go to, with bylaws and peculiar religious beliefs, and it might be illegal to discriminate against an annoying Australian if it can be proved that it IS a creed, however, it is not racism.
Perhaps you should consider whether the willy-nilly throwing about of the term "racism" is diluting it, and reducing its power. Perhaps you should consider whether the people that are doing this have an ulterior motive, i.e. to devalue the term to the point where EVERYTHING is racist and nobody pays any attention to it anymore. Hmm?
But, then, you're quite comfortable in your views and I'm sure this hasn't occurred to you. After all, you DO live in California, the land of fruits and nuts. Which one I think YOU are is left as an exercise to the reader (I want to make you feel at home, you academics love that exercise stuff, don'cha?).
Tag, you're it. Say, I'm home sick with the flu, so MY posting to Slashdot isn't wasting my employer's money. What's YOUR excuse?
An A/C, grossly offended by my response to the Aussie, said " You must be one of the guys Berkely (elsewhere) turned down for an interview because you weren't qualified." (and a bunch of other claptrap I found mildly amusing).
Nope, sorry, I find California a bit too expensive, although I do enjoy vacationing there. I'm a New Yorker, and I prefer this side of the country (it's an East Coast/West Coast thing). However, I'm touched by your concern -- but don't worry, I'm gainfully employed as a software engineer, and I make a rather nice wage.
As for "qualified", I have a degree in computer science and I've built a few systems that were filed for patent, although sadly, I didn't make any money off that.
Perhaps this would be a good time to mention the old saw, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
I love trolling. A good flamewar gets the blood flowing, doncha think?
We've got plenty of universities and scientists of our own, regardless of how much you H1-Bs like to brag about how many foreign staff universities now employ. And scientists will always have the option of emigrating to the U.S. using the old, permanent channels, so your argument that this lousy H1-B program is necessary is an empty one.
Get over yourself.
And once again, I'm all for IMMIGRATION, but I'm completely against guest-worker programs. We both know that one day, this'll become a political issue and your precious guest-worker visas are going to go away.
Race is a well-defined concept, not including nationality. Disliking arrogant australians is not racist because "arrogant australian" is not a race.
The fact that H1-Bs were originally created for "professional visitors" is irrelevant. What matters is the amazing amount of abuse of the system, which has effectively destroyed its usefulness. You are biased because you benefit from it, so it's not surprising you are so happy to gloss over this awful program's many failures.
One day, my countrymen will get rid of this program and by extension, you. When that happens, I'll think fondly of you and hoist a beer in your absence.
As far as roasting me goes, hell, this is Slashdot. Flamewars are one of the main amusements around here. Why hold back?
Because you are obviously not versed in what a haiku actually IS, I have decided as a public service to share some with you. Here goes (ahem):
You dumb aussie twat, Arrogant fuck-head dipshit, just go the fuck home!
Notice how there are 5 syllables in the first line, seven in the second, and five in the third. This is the norm for haikus, at least the simple ones that get play outside of Japan.
Here's another:
Oh, you cocksucker, motherfucker, two-bone bitch, you make my balls itch.
This one was more difficult because I had to re-parse an old childhood rhyme (Cocksucker, motherfucker, two-bone bitch, every time I look at you my two balls itch). Yeah, I grew up in a rough neighborhood, so sue me. But the popular rhyme schemes of the day aren't haiku, which is the subject of the current conversation.
Let's have some fun with this:
Oh, Australian, May you confuse H2O, H2SO4
Drink up, buddy! Or, perhaps,
May the Aussie Fuck While here, meet a local guy: serial killer
Or,
Oh, he's visiting Cali's La Brea Tar Pits! Hey, cool, he fell in!
Obviously one can go on in this vein. The application of your new-found knowledge is left as an exercise to the reader.
Slashdot Mirror
An A/C said: " Level 4 is what is the difference between a reference and a pointer."
If you're suggesting that I don't know the difference between a reference and a pointer, let's try for level 4:
A reference (I assume you're using this in the context of "reference counting"?) is a variable that still "holds" an object (or other data type that is allocated on the heap instead of the stack), thereby preventing the object from being garbage collected. Even though the whole idea of reference is really just an abstraction simplifying "a pointer to an object of type foo". Because that's what's actually IN that reference variable -- a pointer to its contents on the heap. We just don't have to worry about that because the system takes care of it for us.
A pointer is a variable that holds the address of a chunk of memory of a certain type, say, a pointer to int. Pointers to data structures were the old C way of doing what in C++, people do with objects. The REAL difference between pointers and references is, pointers are a pain in the ass -- you have to allocate, deallocate, dereference, etc, all manually. With references, it's done for you (mostly).
The issue is the same for both, though. You can't just assign one variable to another, because they'll both end up pointing at the same object in memory. In OOP, you deal with this by creating a copy constructor. In C, you have to go through all kinds of BS, allocating some new memory, pointing at it with the new variable, copying the contents, yadda, yadda.
So? Did I pass?
There's some truth to what you're saying, but it's also frustrating for us computer science grads. Around 1998 or so, the field suddenly got crapflooded with all these self-professed "Webmasters" who knew absolutely nothing about Comp.Sci but who insisted they were brilliant geeks. I remember these weirdos bringing in all kinds of toys and arranging them on their desks, everything from "The Crow" statuettes to legions of action figures. MY desk, completely clean and devoid of toys, made me look like an obsessive compulsive hand-washer by comparison.
If there's one thing I DON'T miss about my dot-com days, it was all the infantile crap people used to do. When you're head-down over the keyboard, the last thing on EARTH you want is to have someone fling a nerf ball at your head at ninety miles an hour. And I never understood the thing with the action figures. These people would be like, 25 years old and have dozens of toys on their desks! What the hell? I mean, I can see an ironic, SMALL, tasteful statuette, or a coffee cup with a vendor logo or something, but Jesus. It freaked me out. And they were all total poseurs, too, the toys were just protective camoflage.
I think a lot of that went a long way towards ruining the industry for those of us who took it seriously. And, I agree that there are so many total fakes out there, it's hard to find the actual talent.
But as a manager, you're not going about things in the best way, either.
First of all, if you really want educated staff, why not make a university degree a requirement for the job? That'll weed out all the bullshit "boot camp" types. And if you really want a J2EE "expert", why are you saying you'll take someone who knows at least one design pattern (which one? The singleton? Factory? From your post, answering "MVC" is Right Out)? That doesn't make a person an expert. Any wacky daffodil can come up with a pattern or two.
Here's an idea (seriously presented, I'm not being a smartass). If you're having trouble hiring people, post some ads at your nearest university or state college. Say you'd like to hire some seniors as interns (minimum wage, but they get experience). Then, CULTIVATE THEM. Point them in the directions you want them to go, and let them grow into the staff you want to hire. They'll be delighted to have something to look forward to after graduation, and you'll have your engineers.
Think about it; doesn't it make sense?
A copy constructor is an "8" question? That's ridiculous. Maybe a "3" or so; I mean, it's a basic concept, isn't it?
One writes a copy constructor because objects are referred to by reference variables, so if you assign an existing object to a new variable, you're still pointing at the same area of memory with both vars. So you write a copy constructor to take the existing object and make an actual copy of it, in a new area of memory. Now you actually have two objects, not just two names pointing at one object.
People didn't know that one? You're fibbing, surely... Be honest. Hell, I knew that one and I haven't done any C++ since 1998...
I have a four-year degree in computer science and I have a job that is absolutely stable, and cannot be sent overseas or filled with an H1-B. In order to get that job, I left the private sector and got a job with the government, doing applications programming.
It isn't glamorous, and you'll have to work your way up from a 42K job, but it only takes a few years to get a reasonable salary and it's worth it. If you're willing to go into civil service, you can have the kind of job everybody USED to have: reasonable hours, good benefits, a pension (!), and extremely long-term job security. Where I work, the general assumption is that you'll be there for thirty years and retire. NOBODY ELSE HAS THAT GOING FOR THEM. NOBODY.
If I was you, I'd go to a relatively inexpensive state university, study computer science with a minor in mathematics or business, and apply to your state government or the feds. The feds pay better, but there's less job security (Bush has been stripping them of some of their worker protections).
I wouldn't touch private industry with a ten foot pole. They don't like you, they don't want you, and they'll only hire you for a while so there's someone to train Apu the H1-B when the pointy-haired boss is ready to make his move.
Go civil service. Your family will thank you.
Disclaimer: I majored in computer science and am currently employed as a software developer (lead programmer on a significant project).
Computer science, in and of itself, isn't particularly commercially viable anymore, what with outsourcing, offshoring, H1-Bs and L-1's getting most of the jobs... You shouldn't look at the question of whether to study computer science as an economic one. It isn't going to make you a penny, unless you major in it and leave the private sector, or go all the way and become a faculty member. It's the new liberal art, you know?
Having said that, it's one of the most valuable things you can study. Virtually everything will one day be done by or with computers, over networks. Knowledge of computer science is power. And the more you know, the more power you have.
A minor in computer science will magnify your abilities in your major field of study. It will support you, and let you achieve things other people find mystifying. Let's say you're a historian. While other historians are futzing around with paper notes and cards, you build a database to store your notes and create an interface to it on your PDA. Or maybe you're a biologist, and you catalog your samples that way.
Other people will notice what you can do and ask you to help them. You'll gain a bargaining chip, something valuable you can trade for what YOU need.
And in everything you do, you'll be more efficient than your colleagues -- provided you take advantage of it.
So, yeah, I'd say go for it. Just don't expect it to pay off directly in money or marketability.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=siberia+natur al+gas+explosion+CIA&btnG=Google+Search ...Just in case you doubt. Next time, sparky, google BEFORE you shoot your mouth off.
Moron? There was a whole documentary about this on one of the educational channels recently. It was only admitted by our government a few years ago that this ever even happened. It also made the New York Times. But maybe that's a little highbrow for you...
Why not look it up? There's this thing called "Google"...
Or you could just be a typical Slashdot nimrod and call me names, you fucking moron.
Other nations don't have any inherent right to sell the Chinese software. And if, as is likely true, companies like Microsoft routinely build in back doors for the NSA and CIA, a country like China SHOULDN'T accept that software. They would have to be extremely gullible to even consider it!
Let us not forget the huge natural gas explosion caused in Russia by booby-trapped American software. We knew they were shopping for it, and we supplied it to them, with minor modifications. This caused the worst natural-gas disaster in history and the fact that the Russians couldn't trust their software after the fact killed most of their technical efforts, likely leading to the end of the cold war.
Surely, this is vexing to the Chinese and they are absolutely correct to take steps to prevent it from happening again.
They're also working on their own microprocessor industry, it's not just software. And, good for them! There's nothing wrong with ensuring your independence from foreign interests.
That's funny -- good joke. With the entire might of the U.S. armed forces, he can't even control Iraq, and he was afraid to annoy North Korea, which is teeny-weeny compared to China.
Can you see it?
U.S. Ambassador: "Ok, our troops are massed offshore, and we're about to invade. Do you wish to surrender?"
Chinese Ambassador: "Why, how gracious of you! That's very kind, surely, but why don't we just see what happens? Our boys have been looking forward to a little action, and it would seem a shame to give up just like that."
U.S. Ambassador: "Um... Right. Ah... Look here, you don't understand. Our entire armed forces are right offshore! If you don't surrender, we'll have to invade."
Chinese Ambassador: "Ah! I see! Invade! Well, carry on, then, it should be a good show."
U.S. Ambassador: "Oh, for God's... (radio crackles) General, begin the attack."
Several large cruise missles blast by overhead, heading out to sea.
U.S. Ambassador: "What the fuck was that?"
Chinese Ambassador: "Oh, those -- the Russians sold us those a while back. They have low-yield nuclear warheads, about 10 kiloton. They're cheap, too! We get a volume discount. Let's go to the missle cam..."
U.S. Ambassador: "Wait just a minute!"
Chinese Ambassador, not listening: "I love this part. We tested these before you got here; the image is grainy but the effect is kind of cool, like a Playstation game. It's a pity we didn't get the remote control, but those Russians drive a hard bargain!
U.S. Ambassador: "Wha... Huh?"
Large explosions roll in from offshore, and everyone in the room (except the U.S. Ambassador) smiles.
You misunderstand me. Hiring someone has nothing to do with whether they're a geek or not. You hire someone based on whether they know the job, period. Who cares whether they like football? What's that got to do with anything?
I'm talking about knowing about an individual person, on a purely personal level. This does not relate to hiring, or managing, or anything else.
Again, this information is for purely social value. Don't read too much into it. All we're talking about is the nature of the concept "geek". My position is that it used to actually mean something, basically a group of social outcasts who were into technology, and that the dot-com boom caused the concept to be co-opted by a much larger population of people, most of whom were assholes about it, causing all kinds of aggravation for everyone. Including your non-scooter riding friend.
By the way, what's up with that scooter business? I don't get it; it's bizarre. Scooters in the cube farm?
Most of the geeks I know are, at work, completely normal looking/acting. They wear golf shirts and chinos or jeans, they don't stack toys on their desks, they go to work, they do their work, and they go home.
Maybe that's because we're all OLD geeks. The whole "toy" thing just doesn't get it for us. But it takes all kinds...
You thought they were heavy? They didn't feel that bad... And they had a strap you could hang around your shoulder to help you carry 'em, that was kind of cool. Of course, we had the newer model, which was smaller and lighter, and I never had a chance to use the old vietnam-era one.
SAWs were pretty light, and had a lot less recoil, but it was way too easy to melt the barrel down. You know what I saw a guy do once after training? This was hilarious (well... to the rest of us, he didn't like it). The Sergeant told us to blow off our excess blanks so we didn't have to check 'em back in to the armory (or something, all I really heard was the part about "shoot the rest of the rounds" -- YEEHAH!).
So we're all having a blast, firing into the air, right? But the SAW guy forgets the whole "six to eight round burst" thing and goes nuts. He's laughing, and shooting, and the barrel glows bright cherry red and starts looking like it's actually going to get soft. He runs out of ammo, and the sergeant walks over, with this total ironic smile and the head shake and everything.
"Well, son, looks like you just bought yourself a barrel. What's that, like 1100 bucks? Tough luck, kid..."
The guy almost fell over. We were only getting paid 811.00/month. The barrel really was ruined, too. It turns out blanks fire much hotter than regular bullets, or something. Who knew?
Oh, by the way: I should qualify this: all the guys I've seen firing these things were pretty rugged. The Staff Sgt was about six feet tall, and rangy, maybe 200 pounds (light for a grunt back then). Not a bodybuilder, though. Just extremely sinewy.
Everyone in my unit, with few exeptions, was pretty big. I was six feet tall and maybe 220, and I was only average. The biggest guys were up around 260, maybe 270 pounds with no fat. No joke. My mortar gunner had biceps as big around as my THIGHS, and there was a black guy in one of the rifleman platoons that was as wide as a door. We did have a couple of little guys, including one very tiny guy, but they weren't machine gunners and the average came out pretty big.
Anyway, that's how it was where I was (a raid unit). Other units might have been different.
If you're out by Oceanside, check out some of the army-navy and gun stores in the area. You can find some weird old German knives there. The one I used to carry was a WWI Mauser bayonet (I think); it was two to two and a half feet long, made of extremely shiny, bright steel, razor sharp with a blood groove and a beautiful wood-inset handle and a steel sheath with a black leather covering over much of it. It was about fifty bucks, if memory serves.
Boy, what a wicked weapon that was. You could have used it like a short sword. Hell, you could have chopped a small tree down with it. Try to find one, there were a bunch floating around when I was out there. Weird, but true.
Just after boot camp, there was a demonstration of several of our weapons, with a parallel demonstration of soviet weapons (done by these weird Army guys who showed up). There were a bunch of civilians around, it was pretty weird, but fun for all.
Anyway, several interesting highlights:
One Army guy dropped the pistol he was showing us, and a smartass in my unit yelled "follow it down!" (meaning he'd better just go ahead and get started on those push-ups).
Another fired an AK-47, but couldn't control the climb and ended up firing half the rounds into the air. There was some scattered laughter.
One of our guys fired a Dragon (I think that's what it was, it was way bigger than a SMAW), but the wire broke and the missle went haywire, slamming into the ground only about a hundred feet away. Nobody was hurt, but it was kind of cool and weird.
An LAV-25 shot the hell out of an old rusty Amtrak, with the announcer quipping, "By the way, boys, you'll be riding to the beach in those." Meaning the Amtracks, not the LAV's. We didn't laugh at THAT one.
Finally, and this was cool, an old Staff Sergeant walked up to the firing line with an M-60 (the newer model, with the forward handle) and fired off about a hundred rounds, standing, with the weapon under his arm. The rounds hit in a perfect, horizontal arc about a hundred yards out, near the Amtrack. He'd been a machine gunner for years, and was now a trainer.
It's possible. I've fired them during cross-training (I was a mortarman), although I did it from prone, and I didn't think the recoil was that bad. Shoulder was a little sore afterwards, that's all.
They're not quite as impressive as they are in the movies, but they DO make that great "thump thump" sound. And they're really accurate. We used to trace into targets six hundred yards away within a second or two.
They're nice weapons.
Holy COW, man, they don't give you knives anymore? When I was in, the *least* we got was a bayonet. Many of us got K-Bars. And almost ALL of us bought extra knives... Mine were a small tanto duct-taped to my H-Harness and a WW-1 Mauser bayonet hung on my web belt behind my regular bayonet. That German blade was amazing, it was sharp as hell, light, and about two and a half feet long. I got it out in Oceanside for fifty bucks or so and lost it overseas. :(
Wow... I guess it's not that big a deal, the issue bayonet was always kind of a piece of junk. It wouldn't keep its edge very well. It was pretty balanced, though; easy to throw. We used to get bored and throw them into trees, which was semi-fun.
Actually, I was in a U.S. Marine raid unit. We were taught how to take out sentries with a K-Bar or a bayonet, with the understanding that the first step to infiltrating and destroying, say, a SAM site, is to very quietly kill the guards who are wandering around.
The idea was (as it was explained to me):
1. A couple of guys would go in and kill the guards so they couldn't start any trouble. Then they would wave in the rest of the unit.
2. One group would go in and kill everyone in the barracks so they couldn't interfere with the operation. Since noise wouldn't be a problem anymore, this group would probably use M-60's or SAWs and just chew everybody up.
3. Another group would blow up whatever they were supposed to blow up using C-4 or SMAWs.
4. Everybody would haul ass back to the beach, jump in the zodiacs, and head off to the LPD before the enemy could organize any sort of response.
I don't know if they still train 'em that way, but that's what WE were told our job was.
Luckily, my unit wasn't used in combat, so the issue never came up. At least not while I was in it...
I wonder how they're doing things now? Another poster says marines don't even get bayonets anymore. Shocking!
The best explanation I've ever heard of this concept was that the "force" was actually an ancient form of nanotechnology (or something even weirder) that pervaded their area of space, and the "midichlorians" were actually interfaces to it, which some people were compatible with. So someone built the whole thing and later died off, and millenia later the jedi discovered how to use it.
I always thought that was kind of an interesting idea.
As an ex marine, I have to disagree with you about knives. There are several reasons all marines are issued bayonets and/or k-Bars (a nice hunting knife-like combat knife).
:)
First, when you're trying to infiltrate an enemy base, or you're stuck behind enemy lines and have to get past somebody, or you see an enemy who hasn't seen YOU yet -- in other words, you have to kill an enemy quietly and quickly -- the safest, most effective way to do this is with a sharp knife (I'm not going to go into the actual how-tos, but we trained on, and practiced, several good ways of doing this).
There WERE ways of doing this without a knife, but they were a lot trickier. For example, if you have some wire, you can make a garrotte, but that kills more slowly and the target might get a shot off, bringing all his friends down on you. Or you can break his neck in one of a few ways, but if you screw up the guy's gonna be pissed and try to kill you, or at least make a ton of noise and let his friends do it for him.
Also, as far as "utility uses" you forgot boobytraps. Hard to sharpen a punji spike with your rifle...
Finally, supposedly, during Viet Nam something like 50% of the firefights fought in jungle locations had at least SOME hand-to-hand component. It's really easy to close the distance when you can't see too far. This is why bayonet training is still considered important. It's kind of like staff fighting, but more streamlined.
I'm quite delighted to say that my unit wasn't actually used in combat, so I never had to actually DO any of this... It was all pretty gruesome, very gory.
Well, congratulations on your green card, at least you're sticking around. That's worth SOMETHING I think.
But, since I shouldn't be stepping out of character, let's get back into it. This conversation is keeping me busy while bored shitless, home with the flu, so I must annoy you further! I like bugging self-important stiffs like you. I bet you wear a bow-tie and have little wire-rim glasses.
Race IS a construct, but it does not relate directly to nationality, but rather, easily discernable differences in skin color, physical arrangement of features, and culture of origin. For example, Iraqis, Palestinians, and Syrians are all Arabs, and a rascist wouldn't be able to tell one from the other, but may hate all three (for no apparent reason, usually). More significantly (and commonly) Southern racists have a real mental problem about black people, and annoyingly apply their views to everyone with more than a deep tan, regardless of whether the person is from African origin or not, which makes us Northern "Yankees" do our best to avoid the whole region. People still get lynched down there, or kept down in poverty, or prevented from going to a good school, which is the sort of thing most Americans associate with ACTUAL racism (as opposed to some ridiculous academic crying "racist" when someone claims maybe he should have stayed in Australia).
In contrast, someone who dislikes, say, annoying Australians, is not a racist because he, like the likely target, may be of the same race (caucasian) and "annoying Australian" is not a race. It may be a CREED, insofar as you annoying Australians might have some kind of club you go to, with bylaws and peculiar religious beliefs, and it might be illegal to discriminate against an annoying Australian if it can be proved that it IS a creed, however, it is not racism.
Perhaps you should consider whether the willy-nilly throwing about of the term "racism" is diluting it, and reducing its power. Perhaps you should consider whether the people that are doing this have an ulterior motive, i.e. to devalue the term to the point where EVERYTHING is racist and nobody pays any attention to it anymore. Hmm?
But, then, you're quite comfortable in your views and I'm sure this hasn't occurred to you. After all, you DO live in California, the land of fruits and nuts. Which one I think YOU are is left as an exercise to the reader (I want to make you feel at home, you academics love that exercise stuff, don'cha?).
Tag, you're it. Say, I'm home sick with the flu, so MY posting to Slashdot isn't wasting my employer's money. What's YOUR excuse?
Why, would you like one? One barrel, or two?
Informed by your personal self-interest, that is -- important TO YOU.
But not to me...
An A/C, grossly offended by my response to the Aussie, said " You must be one of the guys Berkely (elsewhere) turned down for an interview because you weren't qualified." (and a bunch of other claptrap I found mildly amusing).
Nope, sorry, I find California a bit too expensive, although I do enjoy vacationing there. I'm a New Yorker, and I prefer this side of the country (it's an East Coast/West Coast thing). However, I'm touched by your concern -- but don't worry, I'm gainfully employed as a software engineer, and I make a rather nice wage.
As for "qualified", I have a degree in computer science and I've built a few systems that were filed for patent, although sadly, I didn't make any money off that.
Perhaps this would be a good time to mention the old saw, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
I love trolling. A good flamewar gets the blood flowing, doncha think?
Blah, blah, blah.
We've got plenty of universities and scientists of our own, regardless of how much you H1-Bs like to brag about how many foreign staff universities now employ. And scientists will always have the option of emigrating to the U.S. using the old, permanent channels, so your argument that this lousy H1-B program is necessary is an empty one.
Get over yourself.
And once again, I'm all for IMMIGRATION, but I'm completely against guest-worker programs. We both know that one day, this'll become a political issue and your precious guest-worker visas are going to go away.
Have your fun while you can.
Race is a well-defined concept, not including nationality. Disliking arrogant australians is not racist because "arrogant australian" is not a race.
The fact that H1-Bs were originally created for "professional visitors" is irrelevant. What matters is the amazing amount of abuse of the system, which has effectively destroyed its usefulness. You are biased because you benefit from it, so it's not surprising you are so happy to gloss over this awful program's many failures.
One day, my countrymen will get rid of this program and by extension, you. When that happens, I'll think fondly of you and hoist a beer in your absence.
As far as roasting me goes, hell, this is Slashdot. Flamewars are one of the main amusements around here. Why hold back?
Because you are obviously not versed in what a haiku actually IS, I have decided as a public service to share some with you. Here goes (ahem):
You dumb aussie twat,
Arrogant fuck-head dipshit,
just go the fuck home!
Notice how there are 5 syllables in the first line, seven in the second, and five in the third. This is the norm for haikus, at least the simple ones that get play outside of Japan.
Here's another:
Oh, you cocksucker,
motherfucker, two-bone bitch,
you make my balls itch.
This one was more difficult because I had to re-parse an old childhood rhyme (Cocksucker, motherfucker, two-bone bitch, every time I look at you my two balls itch). Yeah, I grew up in a rough neighborhood, so sue me. But the popular rhyme schemes of the day aren't haiku, which is the subject of the current conversation.
Let's have some fun with this:
Oh, Australian,
May you confuse H2O,
H2SO4
Drink up, buddy! Or, perhaps,
May the Aussie Fuck
While here, meet a local guy:
serial killer
Or,
Oh, he's visiting
Cali's La Brea Tar Pits!
Hey, cool, he fell in!
Obviously one can go on in this vein. The application of your new-found knowledge is left as an exercise to the reader.