So if I had spent 12 years of my time coding in my house (but doing it badly since in reality, no one ever taught me anything), you would hire me over an MIT grad?
Absolutely. If you were coding for twelve years, you'd immediately have demonstrated tremendous commitment, which is a Big Plus in employers's eyes. One can assume you would have sought out information on the www, usenet, irc, etc, if you were that interested.
Where I work, every student we've ever had on co-op was the pits, in one case years of schooling did not teach "how to not destroy client equipment and data."
In my experience, the people who go to IT school are doing it because they heard there was big money in computers but didn't have the direction to go about it themselves. This is not the kind of person I want working for me.
Here's another example. I am somewhat interested in computerised physical simulations. I will spend some time doing various physics simulations in OpenGL, or whatever. This is entirely self-taught at my own pace.
I was recently speaking to somebody about his education in the same field. He made an interesting remark: "Next year, I get to apply calculus to physics!" It occured to me that school was not helping him, but in fact crippling him!
A B&E record only lasts seven years (IIRC) so it seems that society has actually figured out that people CAN turn around. People CAN grow up. Amazing eh?
Furthermore, the hacker who grew up retains his knowledge. The hacker who has never broken into a Real System cause mommy said she'd take away his computer privileges simply cannot know all the details.
How do you get good at knowing you're being tracked, if you've never been tracked? You don't. So how do you devise a tracking system which a hacker wouldn't detect? You can't.
All but the stupidest of employers care vastly more about experience than education.
Uh, 50% income tax? Maybe 30% on a healthy salary... the highest is around 43% above ~$100,000 CAD.
And round here, these things aren't enforced nearly as much. House is worth $1,000,000, paying property tax for $300,000? Nobody cares to hear about it. And you're certainly not getting thrown in JAIL for dodging taxes.
When I indicate screen draws, I mean when you open "My Computer" it chugs away doing whatever and tries to draw the window at the same time, so the bottleneck isn't the video card, but the system being busy (in the case I describe.)
I think it's more likely the less-per-tic thing was marketing. At the very least it has forced AMD to use their "comparable-to" reading, which just makes them look bad to the uninformed, which is most consumers.
As for the G4, the point I am stressing is not that an AMD is faster per tic, but that is faster per dollar -- certainly not the case with the G4. (A coworker of mine recently paid $300 to upgrade his G3 300 to a G4 500... and noticed no difference.)
Indeed. I had the grandparent's mentality for three years, then recently used some extra cash to upgrade my 500 to an 1800 to play UT2003.
The improvement in general system responsiveness was far greater than I had expected. Windows open faster, it's less evident that things are "drawn" instead of just appearing, much faster boot, etc.
Also pleasant was reduced time waiting for compiles when making small code tweaks, waiting for photoshop filters, etc.
You will never hit any sort of upper limit for CPU usage and just stop benefiting.
I don't think many overclockers do it because they feel they will gain much from it. They do it because it can be fun, can be stimulating, can be challenging. Like many things, it is something to do between sleeping, something to do to pass the time before dying.
That is, comparing the 1800+ to a 1.8 P4, etc. And yes, those AMD readings are usually pretty conservative. If you compare performance per tic, AMD continues to beat the living crap out of Intel, has since the K7, and likely will continue to do so for generations yet.
Point 1: If you want a cheap CPU, an 1800+ for a hundred bucks (60 USD) is a damn fine deal. If you want to be loyal to Intel, that will buy you a 1.7 Celeron, which is comparable to a T-Bird 1333 of two years back.
Point 2: If you want to shell out, then you are getting more bang for your buck by buying a high end AMD, although this point is a bit weaker as they tend to get closer in price.
Point 3: If you REALLY want to shell out some coin, you could buy one of the really high end Intels, which pull ahead of AMD chips due to lack of an AMD offering in the same range. But then, if you are going to shell out, why not purchase a Xeon, or dual AMDs, or Sun hardware, or a data processing centre to run Quake? The scale is only relevant where you can actually compare the two, so in my opinion, this point is moot.
This can all be explained if you consider Intel isn't so interested in making a great processor as it is making great fabrication processes, and patenting them. The processor is more of a testbed. Much like how id is mostly a technology company, but Carmack has said if they didn't make a game, they would end up missing things in the engine.
What a lot of people fail to realise is that the existing system is already optimal: slow, cheap storage, cached by fast, expensive storage. Except in the case of big file copies and such, things you don't often do on desktops, a single ATA drive with a gig of ram will Smoke a SCSI RAID system with a quarter gig. If you can afford fast disks and don't plan on doing frequent mass transfers, your money is better spent on RAM. For a desktop, that is.
No, no, please don't do this! I probably do 100 installs per CD. The ISO is 700 megs, so, 7mb of traffic per install. Then again, I work at an ISP, so most people will probably do fewer.
Compare with a network install at around 200mb per download. The advantage is obvious. Keep in mind, traffic isn't free, and the money you save the project by keeping their traffic bill at a minimum can instead go to things like buying technical documents for that snazzy new piece of hardware.
So, after endless stories on slashdot, I'm convinced the RIAA is evil. Now what? How do I stop supporting them?
It just so happens I live in Canada and my musical tastes lie mostly in stuff from Europe. Therefore, RIAA, as in America, shouldn't really apply. Does this mean I'm already set?
I mean, C is portable across endless architectures. It would seem far more sensical to put efforts into a new C compiler. If parallelism is required, surely the compiler can simply find bits of code which can execute in parallel without affecting each other.
And of course, C++ objects can execute independently of one another.
Blah, I must just be missing the point. Fuzzy bits, which are read in a non-fuzzy manner? The applications are endless!
No bait. I meant back then, IE was comparable to Netscape in featureset, but considerably lighter. I could be mistaken, that was forever ago. Yeah, the phoenix comparison was stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. If you were coding for twelve years, you'd immediately have demonstrated tremendous commitment, which is a Big Plus in employers's eyes. One can assume you would have sought out information on the www, usenet, irc, etc, if you were that interested.
Where I work, every student we've ever had on co-op was the pits, in one case years of schooling did not teach "how to not destroy client equipment and data."
In my experience, the people who go to IT school are doing it because they heard there was big money in computers but didn't have the direction to go about it themselves. This is not the kind of person I want working for me.
Here's another example. I am somewhat interested in computerised physical simulations. I will spend some time doing various physics simulations in OpenGL, or whatever. This is entirely self-taught at my own pace.
I was recently speaking to somebody about his education in the same field. He made an interesting remark: "Next year, I get to apply calculus to physics!" It occured to me that school was not helping him, but in fact crippling him!
A B&E record only lasts seven years (IIRC) so it seems that society has actually figured out that people CAN turn around. People CAN grow up. Amazing eh?
Furthermore, the hacker who grew up retains his knowledge. The hacker who has never broken into a Real System cause mommy said she'd take away his computer privileges simply cannot know all the details.
How do you get good at knowing you're being tracked, if you've never been tracked? You don't. So how do you devise a tracking system which a hacker wouldn't detect? You can't.
All but the stupidest of employers care vastly more about experience than education.
EXACTLY. This guy reminds me of Steve Gibson. There's a reason reputable organisations divide their marketing and technical departments.
Uh, 50% income tax? Maybe 30% on a healthy salary... the highest is around 43% above ~$100,000 CAD.
And round here, these things aren't enforced nearly as much. House is worth $1,000,000, paying property tax for $300,000? Nobody cares to hear about it. And you're certainly not getting thrown in JAIL for dodging taxes.
When I indicate screen draws, I mean when you open "My Computer" it chugs away doing whatever and tries to draw the window at the same time, so the bottleneck isn't the video card, but the system being busy (in the case I describe.)
Nope, with the a. Soo sah. It's an acronym, and the (German?) word the E stands for starts with an "ah" sound.
I think it's more likely the less-per-tic thing was marketing. At the very least it has forced AMD to use their "comparable-to" reading, which just makes them look bad to the uninformed, which is most consumers.
As for the G4, the point I am stressing is not that an AMD is faster per tic, but that is faster per dollar -- certainly not the case with the G4. (A coworker of mine recently paid $300 to upgrade his G3 300 to a G4 500... and noticed no difference.)
My reply was not so much directed at you as anyone who assumes there is an "already large gap" between AMD and Intel chips. There isn't.
Indeed. I had the grandparent's mentality for three years, then recently used some extra cash to upgrade my 500 to an 1800 to play UT2003.
The improvement in general system responsiveness was far greater than I had expected. Windows open faster, it's less evident that things are "drawn" instead of just appearing, much faster boot, etc.
Also pleasant was reduced time waiting for compiles when making small code tweaks, waiting for photoshop filters, etc.
You will never hit any sort of upper limit for CPU usage and just stop benefiting.
Hm... so really, why do anything at all?
I don't think many overclockers do it because they feel they will gain much from it. They do it because it can be fun, can be stimulating, can be challenging. Like many things, it is something to do between sleeping, something to do to pass the time before dying.
Answer me this, where did this whole notion that P4s are somehow faster than AMD chips come from?
Canadian dollars:
1800, AMD: $95, Intel: $215
2400, AMD: $160, Intel: $240
2800, AMD: $349, Intel: $499
That is, comparing the 1800+ to a 1.8 P4, etc. And yes, those AMD readings are usually pretty conservative. If you compare performance per tic, AMD continues to beat the living crap out of Intel, has since the K7, and likely will continue to do so for generations yet.
Point 1: If you want a cheap CPU, an 1800+ for a hundred bucks (60 USD) is a damn fine deal. If you want to be loyal to Intel, that will buy you a 1.7 Celeron, which is comparable to a T-Bird 1333 of two years back.
Point 2: If you want to shell out, then you are getting more bang for your buck by buying a high end AMD, although this point is a bit weaker as they tend to get closer in price.
Point 3: If you REALLY want to shell out some coin, you could buy one of the really high end Intels, which pull ahead of AMD chips due to lack of an AMD offering in the same range. But then, if you are going to shell out, why not purchase a Xeon, or dual AMDs, or Sun hardware, or a data processing centre to run Quake? The scale is only relevant where you can actually compare the two, so in my opinion, this point is moot.
This can all be explained if you consider Intel isn't so interested in making a great processor as it is making great fabrication processes, and patenting them. The processor is more of a testbed. Much like how id is mostly a technology company, but Carmack has said if they didn't make a game, they would end up missing things in the engine.
That's what vfs-layer caching is for. No human intervention required.
What a lot of people fail to realise is that the existing system is already optimal: slow, cheap storage, cached by fast, expensive storage. Except in the case of big file copies and such, things you don't often do on desktops, a single ATA drive with a gig of ram will Smoke a SCSI RAID system with a quarter gig. If you can afford fast disks and don't plan on doing frequent mass transfers, your money is better spent on RAM. For a desktop, that is.
Uh, except under obscure circumstances, your cousin's brother is also your cousin.
Then again, the net worth of all those companies together is but a fraction of that of Microsoft.
No, no, please don't do this! I probably do 100 installs per CD. The ISO is 700 megs, so, 7mb of traffic per install. Then again, I work at an ISP, so most people will probably do fewer.
Compare with a network install at around 200mb per download. The advantage is obvious. Keep in mind, traffic isn't free, and the money you save the project by keeping their traffic bill at a minimum can instead go to things like buying technical documents for that snazzy new piece of hardware.
Indeed, but I don't see why gravity would be inducing angular acceleration.
Wait, torque? Don't you mean acceleration?
So, after endless stories on slashdot, I'm convinced the RIAA is evil. Now what? How do I stop supporting them?
It just so happens I live in Canada and my musical tastes lie mostly in stuff from Europe. Therefore, RIAA, as in America, shouldn't really apply. Does this mean I'm already set?
I mean, C is portable across endless architectures. It would seem far more sensical to put efforts into a new C compiler. If parallelism is required, surely the compiler can simply find bits of code which can execute in parallel without affecting each other.
And of course, C++ objects can execute independently of one another.
Blah, I must just be missing the point. Fuzzy bits, which are read in a non-fuzzy manner? The applications are endless!
Never mind.
No bait. I meant back then, IE was comparable to Netscape in featureset, but considerably lighter. I could be mistaken, that was forever ago. Yeah, the phoenix comparison was stupid.
I preferred IE over Netscape even in its very, very early days. Remember IE 2? Not sure how you can call that bloated... made Phoenix look huge.
That's why they phased it out!
Fortunately it's still available in 2k and XP as "mplayer2." Far superior to the uber-bloated WMP of today.
From the screenshots I've seen, 2003 doesn't use the Luna decorations. I guess they may just be turned off.
NetBSD is slightly older. FreeBSD 1.0 was released in November of 1993.
I'm told Linux was comparable back then, too.