Like I mentioned, it should be trivial for someone with a B.S. in Mathematics to learn a programming language. That doesn't mean they'll know how to program.
It's trivial to learn how to change a shower head, but that doesn't mean a math major will know how to do that. analogysuccess_1
If you ever take a programming aptitude test, it just tests mathematical abilities (usually it has the sort of questions one would see on an IQ test.) Though.. I wouldn't suggest you hire a math major for a programming job fresh out of University if they haven't taught themself programming. Since it's trivial, they should have taken the time to learn.
But, if you have two people who can program, pick the one who took the most mathematics courses. Well.. ok.. only pick that one if you need someone to develop new algorithms or something fancy. If you want to save money and just need a code monkey, pick someone else. Hell, outsource it.
TMTOWTDI
As for the guy who redefined null.. that's a math major for you.:p
{insert joke about importance of formal logic courses}
{insert self-deprecating humor}
Now.. with that out of the way. Your comment literally states (and I am logically simplifying it.. a skill I developed while earning my B.S. in Mathematics):
Let STATEMENT1:= Computer science does not yield people capable of actually writing computer programs. STATEMENT2:= There is no need for a mathematical foundation in computer science at all.
So, we have, STATEMENT1 -> STATEMENT2
I'm going to need to see a proof of that. Maybe the contrapositive makes the faults clearer..
!STATEMENT2 -> !STATEMENT1
There is need for a mathematical foundation in CS implies that CS does yield people capable of writing computer programs. (This is a sloppy formulation.. the "at all" might could make it a little difficult.. maybe the not-statement is "there is some need for a mathematical foundation in CS possibly", but this is so mushy)
These are sort of unrelated statements..
Anyway, computer programming is trivial if you know mathematics. If you want only learn programming in school, then, yes, go to a trade school.
If you walk down a dark alley at night and someone cuts your throat... you may be stupid, but that doesn't mean the throat-cutter gets a pass. You are stupid.. you are dead = good. Throat-cutter is mean.. throat-cutter is punished = good.
See.. easy analogy to the rescue.. stupid people are punished for being stupid AND mean people are punished for being mean. That is the law of the jungle. The jungle cat!
How does the GPL guarantee more freedom to the end user? If one restricts themself (I use plural pronouns for gender neutral singular pronouns [I don't user hyphens as much as I should.]).. where was I?.. Oh, if one restricts themself to GPLed software, they are not guaranteed more freedom in some absolute sense. They are guaranteed more freedom in that subset of GPLed software. Also, the GPL did not prevent DRM from happening (citizens and lawmakers should have prevented DRM though). The GPL will not prevent the next cruddy law protecting cruddy companies.
The BSD license is essentially a libertarian license.. and while I am libertarian, I recognize that libertarianism probably is not the best thing for a large population of people. (Imagine any of the analogies about needing rules to make people act right.) BUT, I don't think those problems are equatable to their analogs in the world of software programming.
Analogy Time! If I take the FreeBSD code, make meBSD (which just has my name printed at the top of every screen), and close the source... I don't believe I've harmed society. If I license meBSD under the Mean License (which essentially says that I can poke you with a stick if you use meBSD), I may be mean.. but.. I don't remember what my point was with that analogy.
A group of people have agreed to work on the BSDs, and they will hopefully continue working on them. I prefer that atmosphere to the GPL. It's a preference based on emotion..
They do discuss how JPEG2000 compresses "without the characteristic blocky and blurry effects of the original JPEG standard."
Sooo.. I guess it must be lossy if they're discussing that. They're essentially saying that it doesn't look as bad as the previous lossy compression method..
The article states, "The Analog Device compresses data with JPEG2000 video code [sic?]".
Though, they could just be stupid and really mean 'encodes'. Maybe they mean lossless..? I'm sort of dumb and always just think of lossless compression as encoding.
Who knows.. I would guess they might have brought it up if the compression was lossy. Then again, I would guess they might assure readers that it was not lossy.. aahhh!! I don't know.
As John Maynard Keynes supposedly said, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
LTCM learned that one the hard way. LTCM "used leverage to be make bets that they couldn't afford to lose" because they believed in their models. How were they supposed to stay solvent if no one would loan them money? They already owed banks billions and a lot more money was at risk. Would you have loaned them the money to stay solvent? The banks essentially ended up buying LTCM.
Eventually, they did make the money back, but to grossly paraphrase Rick James, "Fear is a hell of a thing."
Brush up on ye old math. If I have $100,000 to invest, it doesn't matter if I purchase $100,000 "of the global economy" or $100,000 worth of stock in Widget Corp. The only thing that matters is the percentage growth of the paper that I purchased over some period of time.
Money wants growth. It will generally move into paper that has less money attached to it so that it may attain a higher percentage return (depends on how much risk the money's owner wants to take on).
{blab_1} The funny part is, a higher return is only realized by being able to sell your paper to someone else for more money. People use all sorts of rationalizations to explain why they will pay for paper. How many stock holders vote on company decisions or actually end up making a claim on some fraction of a corporation's assets? Dividends are one of the few examples of investors directly accessing a company's profits. Though, I may have overlooked something.. {blab_0}
Naturally, individuals confess to crap all the time either for attention or because they were coerced into it. Not sure why people have less of an inclination to be suspicious about individuals taking credit for things that are considered illegal or immoral. I suppose it is a properly cautious response. I just don't understand why people don't have the ability to think, "Hmm.. that's odd. Let's see if that's true." It's not like you'd automatically believe him if he suddenly accepted responsibility for .
In my opinion, the seperation of science from religion is the problem. There are things that science cannot know and religion fills that gap. If people understood that science can very easily co-exist with religion, everyone would be a lot better off. When people are forced to take one over the other, then willfull ignorance becomes more prominent.
Scientists have been learning that it is absurd to believe you can know everything or quantify everything. If you don't build in the ability to deal with the unknown, then you are making a mistake. Probability Theory is quite useful these days.
This has even been shown in mathematics. If you create an axiomatic system (we'll ignore the fact that you are taking the axioms on faith), then there are still statements that you can make that cannot be shown to be true or false using the axioms you've accepted. You can either accept or reject these unknowable statements. The concept of randomness is similar (check out metamath by Chaitin. He likes exclamation points.. but his ideas are interesting.) http://www.maa.org/reviews/metamath.html
What about the uncertainty principle? What does science tell me about what will happen tomorrow? What the hell is a transcendental number? Do you ever wonder what it means to say a number exist that we can never see or understand in any real (pun?) sense? Most of mathematics is so complex I'm sure you have to simply accept it on faith, but ignoring that, there are elements of mathematics (the queen of the sciences) that even mathematicians cannot know fully. We accept the existence of things that we cannot write down or see in our heads. What does that mean?
Hahaha! You can't stop the conspiracy theory!! Poor old Vice Chairman Clifford Baxter had integrity and didn't like the what went down at Enron.. guess it got to him back in 2002.. and he killed himself. Just before investigators could speak with him.
Hehehehehee!!
P.S. I'm convinced there's a conspiracy surround why no one had mentioned this yet..
Can I use my, "Whooooo, Calc 3! Everybody stand back!!" argument? No Mathematics Department is going to care about Calculus III. You haven't even started any of the higher level math courses.
Math is the hard part of Economics. Math is the hard part of just about any science. It's not hard to remember the names of the random concepts that make up many "sciences". If you can't understand math, what good are you?
Tell all these babies with sore pussies to shut up. They're so out of touch with how absolutely dorky and pissed off they sound over webpage design. I bet their girlfriends (hahaha, as if) slap them around and tell them to quit crying all the time.
I suppose he should be a "design fag" to get admittance? It's not like he just got accepted into the School of the Art Institute in Chicago. (Though, their webpage might suggest he would be welcome)
Hmmmm, I forgot about the fact that some suckers pay for wireless at the Coffee House... Starbucks is the only place that charges around here. (Though, I'd guess he's one of the tools who can afford to blow the money.)
Why the hell would anyone want to use wireless for VoIP? Plug the damn VoIP into your router. I suppose you are afraid of that nightmare scenario where you'll be listening to the wireless MP3 stereo, streaming two Tivo shows, using both game consoles, have friends over to surf with the wireless laptops, and blab on your wireless VoIP all at once.. well, it's your fault for turning your house into a Dave and Busters. Use two APs.. maybe three.. nice Dlink ones go for $50. I don't know how much time and money the cabling will cost you to run through the walls of your house. I'll drive to Fry's, spend $150 and think for five minutes on where I want to plug them in at.. then set each AP to a different channel. Of course I wouldn't have all that idle bandwidth just sitting in all the cabling I could've strung throughout my house.. but I don't think that's such a big deal.
Don't tell me you have kids who microwave burritos all day long..
Anywhoo.. I just don't use that much bandwidth. Wireless works great for me.. thanks to me neighbor.
What a peculiar statement.. what would your colleague do with 155Mbps? Surf web pages REALLY REALLY fast? Get shit loads of wild and crazy spamming done while gobbling his sandwich? What is it you imagine he should be holed up in his office transferring at 155Mbps? (hahahaha, let's all make porn jokes!! HAHAHAHA! He's surfing porn in his office!!)
Slashdot Mirror
Like I mentioned, it should be trivial for someone with a B.S. in Mathematics to learn a programming language. That doesn't mean they'll know how to program.
:p
It's trivial to learn how to change a shower head, but that doesn't mean a math major will know how to do that. analogysuccess_1
If you ever take a programming aptitude test, it just tests mathematical abilities (usually it has the sort of questions one would see on an IQ test.) Though.. I wouldn't suggest you hire a math major for a programming job fresh out of University if they haven't taught themself programming. Since it's trivial, they should have taken the time to learn.
But, if you have two people who can program, pick the one who took the most mathematics courses. Well.. ok.. only pick that one if you need someone to develop new algorithms or something fancy. If you want to save money and just need a code monkey, pick someone else. Hell, outsource it.
TMTOWTDI
As for the guy who redefined null.. that's a math major for you.
{insert joke about importance of formal logic courses}
:= Computer science does not yield people capable of actually writing computer programs. := There is no need for a mathematical foundation in computer science at all.
{insert self-deprecating humor}
Now.. with that out of the way. Your comment literally states (and I am logically simplifying it.. a skill I developed while earning my B.S. in Mathematics):
Let
STATEMENT1
STATEMENT2
So, we have,
STATEMENT1 -> STATEMENT2
I'm going to need to see a proof of that. Maybe the contrapositive makes the faults clearer..
!STATEMENT2 -> !STATEMENT1
There is need for a mathematical foundation in CS implies that CS does yield people capable of writing computer programs. (This is a sloppy formulation.. the "at all" might could make it a little difficult.. maybe the not-statement is "there is some need for a mathematical foundation in CS possibly", but this is so mushy)
These are sort of unrelated statements..
Anyway, computer programming is trivial if you know mathematics. If you want only learn programming in school, then, yes, go to a trade school.
I {heart} analogies!
If you walk down a dark alley at night and someone cuts your throat... you may be stupid, but that doesn't mean the throat-cutter gets a pass. You are stupid.. you are dead = good. Throat-cutter is mean.. throat-cutter is punished = good.
See.. easy analogy to the rescue.. stupid people are punished for being stupid AND mean people are punished for being mean. That is the law of the jungle. The jungle cat!
I welcome your analogy-riposte!
How does the GPL guarantee more freedom to the end user? If one restricts themself (I use plural pronouns for gender neutral singular pronouns [I don't user hyphens as much as I should.]).. where was I?.. Oh, if one restricts themself to GPLed software, they are not guaranteed more freedom in some absolute sense. They are guaranteed more freedom in that subset of GPLed software. Also, the GPL did not prevent DRM from happening (citizens and lawmakers should have prevented DRM though). The GPL will not prevent the next cruddy law protecting cruddy companies.
The BSD license is essentially a libertarian license.. and while I am libertarian, I recognize that libertarianism probably is not the best thing for a large population of people. (Imagine any of the analogies about needing rules to make people act right.) BUT, I don't think those problems are equatable to their analogs in the world of software programming.
Analogy Time! If I take the FreeBSD code, make meBSD (which just has my name printed at the top of every screen), and close the source... I don't believe I've harmed society. If I license meBSD under the Mean License (which essentially says that I can poke you with a stick if you use meBSD), I may be mean.. but.. I don't remember what my point was with that analogy.
A group of people have agreed to work on the BSDs, and they will hopefully continue working on them. I prefer that atmosphere to the GPL. It's a preference based on emotion..
This is the end of my meandering comment.
p
They do discuss how JPEG2000 compresses "without the characteristic blocky and blurry effects of the original JPEG standard."
Sooo.. I guess it must be lossy if they're discussing that. They're essentially saying that it doesn't look as bad as the previous lossy compression method..
The article states, "The Analog Device compresses data with JPEG2000 video code [sic?]".
Though, they could just be stupid and really mean 'encodes'. Maybe they mean lossless..? I'm sort of dumb and always just think of lossless compression as encoding.
Who knows.. I would guess they might have brought it up if the compression was lossy. Then again, I would guess they might assure readers that it was not lossy.. aahhh!! I don't know.
nah.. it's "cowardiness" ...like "truthiness".
You're missing that it was a joke on the joke. Quite funny too.
"What are all these people doing on trampolines?"
That's one of the funniest questions I've seen in a while.
As John Maynard Keynes supposedly said, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
LTCM learned that one the hard way. LTCM "used leverage to be make bets that they couldn't afford to lose" because they believed in their models. How were they supposed to stay solvent if no one would loan them money? They already owed banks billions and a lot more money was at risk. Would you have loaned them the money to stay solvent? The banks essentially ended up buying LTCM.
Eventually, they did make the money back, but to grossly paraphrase Rick James, "Fear is a hell of a thing."
Brush up on ye old math. If I have $100,000 to invest, it doesn't matter if I purchase $100,000 "of the global economy" or $100,000 worth of stock in Widget Corp. The only thing that matters is the percentage growth of the paper that I purchased over some period of time.
Money wants growth. It will generally move into paper that has less money attached to it so that it may attain a higher percentage return (depends on how much risk the money's owner wants to take on).
{blab_1}
The funny part is, a higher return is only realized by being able to sell your paper to someone else for more money. People use all sorts of rationalizations to explain why they will pay for paper. How many stock holders vote on company decisions or actually end up making a claim on some fraction of a corporation's assets? Dividends are one of the few examples of investors directly accessing a company's profits. Though, I may have overlooked something..
{blab_0}
:| is my [sarcasm] tag.
Naturally, individuals confess to crap all the time either for attention or because they were coerced into it. Not sure why people have less of an inclination to be suspicious about individuals taking credit for things that are considered illegal or immoral. I suppose it is a properly cautious response. I just don't understand why people don't have the ability to think, "Hmm.. that's odd. Let's see if that's true." It's not like you'd automatically believe him if he suddenly accepted responsibility for .
Never heard of someone confessing to something they didn't do.. that just sounds insane. :|
In my opinion, the seperation of science from religion is the problem. There are things that science cannot know and religion fills that gap. If people understood that science can very easily co-exist with religion, everyone would be a lot better off. When people are forced to take one over the other, then willfull ignorance becomes more prominent.
Scientists have been learning that it is absurd to believe you can know everything or quantify everything. If you don't build in the ability to deal with the unknown, then you are making a mistake. Probability Theory is quite useful these days.
This has even been shown in mathematics. If you create an axiomatic system (we'll ignore the fact that you are taking the axioms on faith), then there are still statements that you can make that cannot be shown to be true or false using the axioms you've accepted. You can either accept or reject these unknowable statements. The concept of randomness is similar (check out metamath by Chaitin. He likes exclamation points.. but his ideas are interesting.) http://www.maa.org/reviews/metamath.html
What about the uncertainty principle? What does science tell me about what will happen tomorrow? What the hell is a transcendental number? Do you ever wonder what it means to say a number exist that we can never see or understand in any real (pun?) sense? Most of mathematics is so complex I'm sure you have to simply accept it on faith, but ignoring that, there are elements of mathematics (the queen of the sciences) that even mathematicians cannot know fully. We accept the existence of things that we cannot write down or see in our heads. What does that mean?
You forgot the part where you spammed (nobody remembers poor old Spam) out your story all over the Internet.
...until some guy hacks that system to send out "Test Alerts" about his large penis.
Why can't it just be that the gas clouds between here and there have a different makeup than assumed?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/25/enron.suicid e/n ews/main505845.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/10/evening
Hahaha! You can't stop the conspiracy theory!! Poor old Vice Chairman Clifford Baxter had integrity and didn't like the what went down at Enron.. guess it got to him back in 2002.. and he killed himself. Just before investigators could speak with him.
Hehehehehee!!
P.S. I'm convinced there's a conspiracy surround why no one had mentioned this yet..
Can I use my, "Whooooo, Calc 3! Everybody stand back!!" argument? No Mathematics Department is going to care about Calculus III. You haven't even started any of the higher level math courses.
Math is the hard part of Economics. Math is the hard part of just about any science. It's not hard to remember the names of the random concepts that make up many "sciences". If you can't understand math, what good are you?
...they didn't use "line of cite"
There are sketches. Really funny ones. You should go sometime.
Tell all these babies with sore pussies to shut up. They're so out of touch with how absolutely dorky and pissed off they sound over webpage design. I bet their girlfriends (hahaha, as if) slap them around and tell them to quit crying all the time.
p
I suppose he should be a "design fag" to get admittance? It's not like he just got accepted into the School of the Art Institute in Chicago. (Though, their webpage might suggest he would be welcome)
Hmmmm, I forgot about the fact that some suckers pay for wireless at the Coffee House... Starbucks is the only place that charges around here. (Though, I'd guess he's one of the tools who can afford to blow the money.)
Why the hell would anyone want to use wireless for VoIP? Plug the damn VoIP into your router. I suppose you are afraid of that nightmare scenario where you'll be listening to the wireless MP3 stereo, streaming two Tivo shows, using both game consoles, have friends over to surf with the wireless laptops, and blab on your wireless VoIP all at once.. well, it's your fault for turning your house into a Dave and Busters. Use two APs.. maybe three.. nice Dlink ones go for $50. I don't know how much time and money the cabling will cost you to run through the walls of your house. I'll drive to Fry's, spend $150 and think for five minutes on where I want to plug them in at.. then set each AP to a different channel. Of course I wouldn't have all that idle bandwidth just sitting in all the cabling I could've strung throughout my house.. but I don't think that's such a big deal.
Don't tell me you have kids who microwave burritos all day long..
Anywhoo.. I just don't use that much bandwidth. Wireless works great for me.. thanks to me neighbor.
What a peculiar statement.. what would your colleague do with 155Mbps? Surf web pages REALLY REALLY fast? Get shit loads of wild and crazy spamming done while gobbling his sandwich? What is it you imagine he should be holed up in his office transferring at 155Mbps? (hahahaha, let's all make porn jokes!! HAHAHAHA! He's surfing porn in his office!!)
p