Well, I was arguing the point that there is a commonality amongst all of these operating systems... that is, they all have file systems, they all utilize data structures, and they all have user interfaces.
And since when do some of those OSes have a "root" anyway? Also, so you had root, big deal.
I agree that having root is no big deal, and I agree that not all of those OS have a specifically defined 'root', per se. In fact, many of those operating systems also lack a journaling filesystem, file security, user level security, and cryptography.
Do you have any idea how many OSes a person can have root on if they install it themselves at work?
Exactly! You've hit thethe nail on the head! It's very easy! But what you've just described is completely outside of the logic box for most people, as their 'job description' doesn't include a blurb about 'Incumbent will be responsible for researching operating system methods and functions, and developing reports on interconnectivity issues of said operating systems.'
Furthermore, in context of the above mentioned article, I believe that you have provided some supporting argument that a person shouldn't confine themselves to a single certification and and/or degree. It's very easy to install a bunch of operating systems for work, and have yourself your own testing LAN. All you need is a router, some CAT5 cabling, and a dozen workstations. My point is, don't go for the operating specific certification... I've been down that road, and it's only luke warm. There are, in my opinion, better pastures and forests elsewhere.
Network engineering has to do with the systems that are in place and will be in place in the future. What do protocol stacks and device drivers have to do with anything when it comes to network engineering? We have a protocol X network. This client supports the protocol and has a driver for the card. What else is there to know, really?
Good question. I'll answer it:
Scenario: Your hiring boss has just been awarded a $2.5M grant to build a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) for the local library of science and medicine. This project has to be completed in 10 months. You've been hired as a Systems Engineer to make this project happen. Your salary is $11/hr, no benefits, other than the opportunity to do some real network engineering and be exposed to lots of technology.
Here are project details: Now, because this is a major research university, this picture archiving system has got to be able to display scientific and medical grade pictures obtained from network resources as diverse as nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (nMRI) scanners , scanning electron microscopes, and orbital space telescopes (such as the Hubble Telescope). It's also got to support networked file systems, grid networking, and other distributed file systems protocols (such as Kerberos, LDAP, DDNS, VOIP, PXE, and Fast-Ethernet). Plus, it's going to support virtual reality technologies, including stereo 3d viewing, immersive visualization, collaborative computing. Your goal is to make sure that all of this equipment, which has been purchased, works correctly, can communicate with the University's data backup storage servers, and can transmit information consistently, correctly, and securely between nodes.
Now then, to complicate matters, network protocols haven't been completely written for most of this tech. It's not available at your local Staples or BestBuy; and it's custom built by the engineers in the AstroPhysics, Radiology, and Chemistry departments. Your job is to research network protocol stacks, device drivers, and operating systems to make sure that Joe, who is on a Solaris/VMS system in Radiology, can transmit data to Sue, who is running Windows/DOS in Chemistry. (Specifically, the job calls for Joe and Sue to both be able to go to the PACS at the local library, and pull up files from their respective departments on the same machine). Then, for kicks, Chris from Astrophysics joins them, and want's to show off new pics from the Irix/Linux systems that AstroPhysics is using. Then, to make things really fun, you have to use a new operating system which hasn't been publically released yet (Windows Longhorn, for example), becuase you have access to the MS TechNet program, and your university gets Beta Testing and Evaluation copies of it's operating system directly from a site-license with Microsoft.
On top of that, this PACS system is going to have 100 nodes, running multiple operating systems. Some nodes will have multiple network cards running multiple protocol stacks (IP and IPv6 specifically... you'll have to have dedicated hardware to connect to the other Universities running IPv6). This is because you have to support everybody's ideas and implementations, no matter how diverse. Your job is to make sure that all of this works. Saying, 'This is the client and this is the protocol stack' is not an option, because it's a research university.
Now then. When you think you have an answer which satisfied all objective and goals, previously stated, check out this link:
I agree, but again, you are working against yourself. People like myself are the specialist. When it comes to your and my world, doing what a CxO does isn't possible. Do you think companies will hire you as a sysadmin since you know a little bit about everything and then hire peers to make up for the expertise you lack?
Fair enough. You're a specialist, I'm a generalist. As far as your question goes, well, people do get hired as network admins since they know a little bit about everything (jack-of-all-trades); and then hire peers to make up for expertise they lack. Management (and network engineers) are expected to be generalists and to be able to handle a wide array of situations.
Besides, I'm not at all sure how somebody can know '10%' or '70%' of a system. What, exactly, is the metric by which this claim is being based?
Oh jesus, quit splitting hairs, you're pathetic. You know what I mean.
Not really. I used to think I knew '90%' about Windows NT 4. Hell, I had a certification in it. Then, I worked on that multimillion dollar PACS system project. My certification, at best, tought me about 10% of the knowledge I needed for that job. The more experienced I get with technology and computers, the more I am convinced that most measurement systems are arbitrary and relative.
Hmmm. Well, harking back to days of yore, I recall that punchcards were the basic in/out system of computers.
I suppose that one could look at the article at hand in terms of whether or not punch cards contain linguistical features (language support) or systemic features (operations support).
As such, I'm not all that sure that the method of transfering information from a punch card was/is the same as decision making operations utilized by the machine itself.
Call me crazy, if you will, but it seems to be a text/context dichotomy to me, where one cannot have a PL without an OS, and vice versa. That is, they go hand-in-hand, and each are somewhat inherrent in the definition of the other.
Well, thank you for at least acknowledging AC status. As such, I want to thank you for your comments. However, this was not intended as a resume posting. See comments below.
If I ever saw this junk on a resume coming into my office I would throw it right into the garbage after reading this piece alone. If you told me anything remotely similar to this I would end the interview right away.
And that would be your perogative. As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I don't put that stuff on my resume. I'm not looking for a job either.
You claim to be 25 and have used or administered Atari? Commodore64? What true experience do you have on these and how do they benefit me today?
Yep. Born and bred in the personal computer age. I've been using, administering, and coding on computers for about 18 years now. So, back in 1985-1986 was when I was enrolled in a NASA Horizons Education program... they were teaching us about how to program computers, televisions, vcrs, and so forth (age 7 or so).
Now then, regarding how does it benefit you today? I'm not sure. My original post and comments were directed towards the claim that one ought to expose one's self to as many operating systems as possible. Moreover, one ought to concentrate on commonalities amongst OSs rather than differences. Reading Knuth's 'Art of Programming' is a good lesson on the mathematics and structure of file systems, data structures, and user interfaces, which are shared by all OSs. So, the benefit is, perhaps, a better understanding of the operating-systems, through comparative analysis.
All of this and the only Novell stuff you list is ZenWorks. If you never had the displeasure of managing a Netware 2.x or 3.12 network, then you were not as heavy into the computer stuff as you claim for the early to mid 90's time-frame.
How does that follow? I work for research universities, which typically don't use Netware equipment. I used to provide tech support to three floors of data processing workers at an insurance company, who used ZenWorks in conjunction with Windows95 and WindowsNT. That was a summer job. Big deal. I would point out that three of those operating systems are included in that one summer job alone.
Also, if you ever told me that you learned this by doing and reading on your own, have not taken a class since 7th grade, and said that one book would be all the computer knowledge you need, I would cease all communications at that point.
Well, rest assured that I wouldn't tell you anything as dull and dreary as that. Rather, I'd tell you that I received the Congressional Information Act Scholarship of 1994, and spent a year traveling abroad in Post-Soviet Bloc countries (lived mostly in Brno, CZ), studying information technologies and international telecommunications at the University of Brno. (Member of CERN)
After that, I was employed at the University of Chicago (home of Nuclear Bomb, Genetics, et al), as a Computing Assistant (I,II,III), Systems Engineer, and Network Engineer. (Adjunct member of CERN; associated with Argonne Nat'l Labs, and so forth). After that, I would tell you that I currently work at Columbia.
So, no... I did not learn all this by doing and reading on my own. I've been gainfully employed by a major research university, which is where I learned all this. And no, I haven't taken a computer science class since 7th grade. And yes, I still stand by my claim that Donald Knuth's book 'The Art of Programming' is the best book on computer programming, and is all the computer knowledge that a person needs. Obviously, you haven't read it (Granted, the MIX programming language is arguably out of date, but the algorithms and mathematics are 100% applicable in every operating system around).
You are padding your above post just like you probably pad your resume.
Well, I certainly don't try to pad my posts or my resumes. You have to remember, that administrators can share authority on machines. I never claimed that I had sole-authority over all these machines. But, actually... I could back all that up with references, so I don't need to worry about it. Besides, I don't put it down on my resume.
Saying that you don't tell your employers about a cert (any cert) is saying that you don't care about your career.
Either that, or it is a demonstration of strategic thinking. Specifically, I'm out of the rat race regarding certifications and tech trends. I don't have a single computer class on my transcript, I've gotten rid of the transcript, and I'm working based on experience and ability, now days. Also, I'm getting paid alot more, nowdays, since I've migrated to VMS/VAX/Solaris systems.
Then boasting about having access to a million dollar MRI scanner?
Heck yeah. Call it strategic planning for medical school, and conducting original research. A nMRI scanner which is legally and operationally slated for research isn't all that common, actually. Anyhow, I'm not a technician.
Bah, I am no more than 4 years older than you and I manage all technology for 4 mid-sized companies, and 1 small office.
Congradulations. Good for you. I'm surprised that, at this level, you haven't read the 'Art of Programming' yet.
Mid-sized here is defined as 20-100 million dollars per year in revenue. I am designing and planning a network that spans continents. I recommend and *BUY* those 1 million dollar pieces of equipment for some of the things my companies do.
I never said that there were not other people in the world who have similar experience, who do similar things, or are more advanced in other areas than I am.
All of this because of education, career planning, and "thinking outside of the box" (you too can learn the key management phrases in management classes). Don't be so cocky thinking you know it all, and you will see how much you don't know. You, sir, are in stage 2 of the 4 stage "Becoming a real IT person" development cycle.
Naw, I know very little. As Socrates said, all I know is that I know nothing. Anyhow, allusions to Plato's Alegory of the Cave and VR Caves aside, I never claimed that I know it all. All I claimed (or meant to claim) was that a person ought to study the general algorithms and mathematics of file systems, data structures, and user interfaces. After knowing those general algorithms, most all operating systems typically become mere instances of those algorithms and mathematics. (And, yes, those algorithms and maths are in Khuth's book, 'The Art of Programming'). As such, a person can then concentrate on other classes and other goals, rather than being stuck in a rat race of trying to keep up with the latest certifications and trends in technology.
Anyhow, I hope that I never 'Become a real IT person'. I'd like to become a medical doctor. My thinking is that tending to other people is better than tending to technology. But that is only my opinion.
lol. I don't know why I'm such a sucker for these Anonymous Coward posts, but I'm going to make some comments:
lolz, i dare you to try and get a job with all that crap on your resume. you think you know all that stuff but in reality you don't. you know 10% of each and are a master of none.
First, I wouldn't take that dare, as I don't put that stuff on my resume anyhow. Now then, did I claim that I know all of 'all that stuff'. I merely mentioned that I've admined or had root access on the previously mentioned operating systems.
companies may have multiple types of systems, but they would rather have someone that knows 70% of 3 types instead of someone who knows 10% of each.
Yes and no. I agree that some companies like specialists who know '70% of 3 types'. Not all, however. And, as far as network engineering goes, it's much better to have one person who knows 10% of each, if that 10% happens to be network protocol stacks and device drivers. Moreover, do you think that CTOs and CIOs are specialists? Naw... they're generalists, who hire and oversee specialists.
(Besides, I'm not at all sure how somebody can know '10%' or '70%' of a system. What, exactly, is the metric by which this claim is being based?)
oh yeah, and how much have you had experience with AT WORK. to employers dicking around with stuff at home doesn't count kiddo.
Fair enough, considering the article at hand. Working as a systems engineer and network engineer at the worlds largest insurance corporation and at a major research university sounds like 'AT WORK' experience to me. Anyhow, I've got to go to work.
Do not tie yourself down with one. Stay off of OS bandwagons. Learn as much as you can about both. Or any OS you can.
The previous comment is the best statement posted, as far as I'm concerned.
Consider the number of operating systems which exist. Now then, I don't want to go getting into a pissing contest of 'who-has-done-what'. However, I'm going to list off the number of operating systems and machines which I've used and adminstered over my life time, in order to make a point. That point is, a person is smarter than a computer, and a single person is capable of adminstering, engineering, and programming for many more operating systems that he or she ever expected, during the course of a job. Anyhow, off the top of my head, I've used and administered the following:
Now then, consider that I'm only 25 years old. Figure how many OS's that somebody has used who is 40 or 60 and is in the industry. Hell, somebody who's 60, and has been in the idustry that long, probably has experience with ENIAC machines. Anybody with ENIAC experience is a computing Guru of the first order, as far as I'm concerned.
Put things in perspective. For instance... some people think, 'Wouldn't it be cool to have an AIX or Cray supercomputer?' How does a person get to that stage in life? It's not from taking certification exams and getting degrees in computer science... It's from saying, 'Hey, this AI stuff is cool, I want to learn more about it' or 'Hey, this VR stuff is slick...'
Anyhow, real world jobs typically require a person to use a dozen different computers, dozens of programming languages, and a zillion skills, in order to accomplish some non-computer related objective... such as selling a product to a customer, conducting scientific research, or entertaining the general public.
Anyhow, there are common features that are relevent to *every single* operating system that I've mentioned: These features are things like file systems, data structures, and user interfaces.
Do yourself a favor: Don't enroll in classes, universities, or certification programs.
Rather, go buy yourself a copy of the following book:
Knuth, Donald. The Art of Programming
After you've read Knuth's series, chances are, you won't need to take any other computer class, and you'll be able to go onto other classes, such as biology, chemistry, economics, physics, history, philosophy, social studies, art, music, language, and so forth.
Thats all. Sorry for ranting.
PS. MCSE #1459644 (blah. an internship at a financial institution required me to get it...)
PPS. My most recent employers don't even know that I have an MCSE cert, and they gave me access to a million dollar nMRI scanner, VMS/VAX machine, and a couple of Solaris EasyVision workstations.
PPPS. Havn't taken a computer science class since 7th grade. The point is: Learn the commonalities between all file systems, user interfaces, and data structures, and you won't ever have to worry about a computer certification again.
Companies generally have two methods of hiring people:
1) Network contact. Friend of friend, word of mouth, references, whatever.
2) Looking through a pile of papers and finding an exact match between someone else's certification or degree and the job requirements.
Now then, having recently gotten a job at a major university because I had the right degrees and certifications, I'll vouch for the fact that some employers are interested in degrees...
Anyhow, having been recently hired about a week ago, after about a year of unemployment, I do have this to say:
Certifications and/or degrees are primarily usefull in the following manner: They provide a common reference point, by which to establish conversation and topics of discussion.
If you're trying to bully your way into a job by claiming, 'Hey, I've got a degree/certification, you've got to hire me, because I'm 'qualified'', you're missing the point.
The point is that a certification or degree offers a reference point for discussion and dialog regarding specifically recorded events and experiences.
What you do with those experiences, how you interact with your coworkers, and other similar issues is up to you.
Can you please explain in more detail what the hell you are talking about? Why would anyone want to play a game that looks like DooM on the PS3 or XBox 2?
Absolutely. There are many reasons why people would want to. Amongst others, these include:
1. First person perspective.
2. Combat oriented gaming (stress relief?)
3. Multiplayer capabilities.
Now then, for a short list of current games which look like Doom and are on the Playstation 2 or XBox:
1. Halo
2. Quake Arena
3. Unreal Tournament
4. Metal Gear Solid
5. All 3D Basketball/Baseball/Football Games
6. Resident Evil
7. Tomb Raider
etc. etc.
Do you understand my point? These games are all Doom and Wolfenstein based. They are not, for instance, based on such games as:
(All of which happen to be favorites of mine.) Anyhow, compared to PacMan there are a lot of reasons why people would want to play a game that looks like Doom on a PS3 or XBox2.
The question becomes one of programming methodologies: How does an entry level console game programmer enter into the market and compete against people who are making games like Halo2 and LOTR: The Two Towers? Tough competition.
One answer (although not the only one): Leap frog ahead of the competition. Predict what the gaming platform is going to be 2 or 4 or 8 years from now, and begin programming now (hence the reference to PS3 and XBox2, and not PS2 and Xbox... I'm looking 2 years down the road here.).
Anyhow, you estimate the graphics performance of the futuristic box... 256bit processor, 512bit, 1Kbit, whatever; 1 Gig VRAM, 4Gig VRAM, whatever; 800x600 res, 1024x768 res, 1600x1200 res, 1600x1200 stereoscopic res, whatever. Once you figure out your target hardware platform, figure out the algorithms. The trick is to get that target hardware to output something that looks like Doom. Once you've passed that hurdle, you've got 80% of the work done (assuming that you're doing real programming, and writing the device drivers and algorithms yourself, thereby establishing a proprietary 3D engine, and not just ripping off or copying somebody else's work).
Now then, if you go through this process, and approach the mathematics carefully, you might be able to program up a nice engine that utilizes menger spaces and fractals. Now then, some physicists and mathematicians might say, 'Nay, a Hilbert Space is better than a Menger Space any day of the week!' To which, I am not completely convinced. I, personally, think that menger spaces and fractal algorithms have a lower overhead in terms of code manipulation, and produce more graphics performance than linear algorithms. Granted, there are many applications where a fractal algorithm is overkill and produces a lot of waste.
However, when trying to program biological and chaotic phenomena, such as plants, ferns, trees, snowflakes, waves, hair, and so forth, a fractal algorithm can do things in a dozen lines of code which other algorithms require thousands and millions of lines of code.
Ergo
It is my opinion that fractal algorithms are really slick, and I hope that PS3 and XBox2 games are programmed with such methodologies.
For the record, any first-person 3D engine has the basic graphics and math to provide you with the resources to do what I'm talking about. Hell, reality has the basic graphics and math to provide you with the resources to do what I'm talking about. I am merely pointing out that Doom may be good study material for the next generation of console game programmers...
I didn't say reverse engineer the code for Doom. I said reverse engineer the mathematics of Doom. Would you actually build a PS3 or XBox2 game on the code of Doom?!?!!! I certainly wouldn't...
However, the screenshots have just the right amount of complexity versus simplicity for a group of gamers & nerds to sit down and write a sophisticated fractal/menger engine. Hell, download the game or the source code and do the same thing. I don't care.
However, I'm completely convinced that if you download the source code for Doom and even glanced at it, your final engine won't be as good as if you just downloaded the screenshots for the game. (Note: I'm not saying that the source code for Doom is bad or anything... I'm just saying that it's not the kind of code one would want for a PS3 or XBox2 game).
You know... Doom is just the right level of game play, nowdays, for entry level console game programmers. Wanna design a 3D engine for the Playstation 3? A 3D engine for the X-Box 2? I'd bet that those Doom screenshots could be the perfect beginning of a major game manufacturing group for the next generation of gaming consoles. A group of nerds needs to sit down and reverse engineer the mathematics of that 3D engine. Perhaps approach the problem as a programming challenge to design and code the new engine entirely in fractals and menger spaces.
In all probability, this CHIPS will be using radio frequencies which are much, much slower. (I could be wrong, but I would be surprised if they had hacked some type of interstellar laser guidance system... )
Sorry for replying to my own post, however, I stand corrected. I was describing 'Radio Waves' in terms of accustic sound waves; which, in this case, does not apply. Ignore this comment regarding radiowaves being slower...
Well, it's the truth about the EFI and LASR. I am not, however, an astrophysicist. There are many things about astrophysics I don't know.
Please enlighten myself and other slashdot readers about 299,792,458m/s. Have I erred in saying that CHIPS will be using radio frequencies? Have I erred in regards to the time it takes for light from the next star over to reach earth?
Be more specific, if you're going to critique. I would like to know your opinion regarding this matter, and what about 299,792,458m/s do I apparently not know.
So, in college, I worked with some astrophysicists at the Enrico Fermi Institute, which is where they build nuclear powered satellites, and took some classes from professors at at The Laboratory for Advanced Space Research, which is responsible for building such satellites/spacecraft as Ulysses, Pioneer 10 & 11, Cassini, StarDust, and Argos.
Anyhow, from talking with folks at the EFI and LASR, the general answer to everybody's questions is: latency and noise. Remember, this is a Cosmic Hot Interstellar Plasma Spectrometer, which means that it's going to be sent away from the earth, and eventually be millions and billions and trillions + miles away. The longer that it works, the more latency is going to build up... So, the programming needs a very non-interactive protocol. If this thing goes interstellar, it could take days and weeks for packets to travel from Earth to CHIPS and back.
Remember, it takes 4 minutes for light from our closest neighboring star to reach earth, traveling at, well, the speed of light. In all probability, this CHIPS will be using radio frequencies which are much, much slower. (I could be wrong, but I would be surprised if they had hacked some type of interstellar laser guidance system... )
Anyhow, they write scripts for this kind of mission, and generally operate with a big time lag, to the extent that it's sort of like typing with your computer monitor turned 'off'. That is, they'll figure out what they want the satellite to do for the next week or next month, type up a script, and 'submit' it to CHIPS. A couple of hours/days/weeks later, CHIPS will receive the script and start working. This kind of astrophysics programming generally involves being able to project into the future (temporally), and to know that in {x} days, the satellite will be past Mars, in {x+a} days, it'll be past the asteroid belt, in (x+a+b} days, past Jupiter, in {x+a+b+c} days, past Saturn, and so forth. It also requires good file keeping and record keeping, so that you know how many days {n} into the project you are, so you can calculate {n-x}, which gives you the time window for submiting an FTP control sequence.
Other than that, yeah... they can dir things and get thing. Depends on the exact implementation, but you have the concept.
wcbarksdale, thank you for posting that link... that's the funniest thing I've read all week, and I wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't posted it.
I won't deny that you have some valid points. There is a question regarding literature, however, which begs being answered. The issue at hand, it seems to me, is to what extent does there need to be a 'lack of literature' on a subject before somebody somebody's published theory is considered 'new'. Please note that each of my examples demonstrates a concept which some people describe as 'History is written by the victors'.
measurement of the speed of light (constant! no more Ether!) But you have to know about Maxwell's laws (prediction of electromagnetic wave speed), the fact that light's a wave (Newton's optics amoung others)
I see your point. I would suggest considering aetheric interpretations and aetheric mathematics regarding Maxwell's laws versus post-Michelson-Morley aethric wind experiment interpretations and mathematics. Um, that is, the mathematics were rewritten based on this observation of a new phenomena. The prior mathematics did not correctly describe nature, so aetheric interpretations no longer exist. Yes, you have to know about Maxwell's laws, but I would turn the argument around, and suggest that Maxwell was part of the group who measured the speed of light as constant, rather than being part of the group who were measuring Aetheric values (who subsuquently got written out of history).
radioactive isotopes (they glow! different weights!) Atoms exist (not continuous matter), they contain subatomic particles...
If I was feeling billigerant, I could draw this topic out into a tedious and pedantic argument, which nobody would like. I'm going to conceed this point, however.
electromagnetic spectrum (waves in the air!) Maxwell again, Newton again, the existance of radio waves, the properties of waves...
OK, what about these people? Did they not publish these laws and define the existance of radio waves and properties of waves? Where is the supporting literature prior to them, regarding these phenomena? I think they proposed new theories, based on observations which people had never observed before. Perhaps part of observation is recording your particular viewpoint.
nucleic acid alpha/beta structures (stores information! genetics!) (I'm not sure what you mean by alpha/beta structures, but:) There exists an acid precipitable chemical compound found in the nucleus, genetic inheretance is particle, these are the same, the nucleic acids are linear polymers...
Look it up. DNA has primary, secondary, and tertiary structures, based on folding patterns (commonly called alpha/beta structures; specifically 'alpha helix' and 'beta sheet'. I'm not entirely sure that DNA is a linear polymer. Each of these are factors based on the new theory of genetics proposed by Watson-Crick, which were most definately not in the literature prior to them. It's what they got the Nobel Prize for.
penicillin production (germs! small things! drugs!) Germs exist, they are the cause of disease, they are living and can be killed...
I'm not all that sure that folks believe that germs existed prior to Pasteur and his penicillin experiments. I mean, penicillin is sort of what started the whole 'germ theory' concept. Before the mid 1800s, humans were a pretty sickly and unhygenic lot. Frankly, history just doesn't seem to support the concept that biology and medicine were practiced with the concept of germ theory prior to penicillin. Also, part of germ theory, it may be argued, is that germs are different than viruses. Nonetheless, none of it was in the literature.
columbus crosses the atlantic (america! real estate for the taking!) (How is this a scientific discovery?) The sextant, the concept of a spherical world (Columbus didn't make it up), astronomical navigation...
Cartography and geology, yo! That's way scientific. I dunno, the discovery of an entirely new continent, which wasn't in the literature before, seems like a good candidate to be considered a scientific revolution.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that all 26 episodes have made it to Adult Swim on Cartoon Network... at least, I'm pretty darn convinced that I watched them all last year. It took like three months to get through all of them, because they'd show two episodes per week.
Great questions. I am tempted to answer in the affirmative, however... In doing so, I'm going to use some analogical reasonging here. Author's and automobile makers both do something similar: they invent.
Now, I'd like to present an analogous inventor to Tolkein: Henry Ford. By the reasoning you've presented here, it may be possible to talk about an automobile by claiming, "Come on people. Its a HORSELESS CARRIAGE. An engrossing one, and rich with detail, functionality, and quality, but a horseless carraige non the less... Ford himself cautioned drivers not to drive an automobile to fast.'
Now, my thinking is that books and automobiles both don't do much if they are just laying around, immobile. The utility of these objects is when they are used, over time. Eyes scan words on pages over a finite amount of time, just as wheels roll on land over a finite amount of time. Just as an automobile has a 'forward momentum' about it, so does a book or a posting on Slashdot. (yes, I agree that one can put a car in 'reverse', but that doesn't mean one is backing up in time).
So, my thinking is that, because of the directionality of time, a fairy tale should address social comentary and ensure that humanity continues sometype of progress. I would go so far as to say that most all of the successful fairy tales have been based on social commentary, as the social commentary aspect is what allows us to understand the fairy tale. (For instance, imagine a fairy tale written about the molecular cohession between two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom in a water molecule. Without some type of social commentary and anthropomorphic structure to the story, the proposed fairy tale is alien and incomprehensible. At the very least, it would make for a dreadfully boring story.) So, my thinking is that a story or fairy tale should have social commentary and be forward thinking.
My claim and thesis is that social commentary and forward thinking may be inherent in the definition of a fairy tale. I would also go so far as to claim that the following are fairy tales, because they possess social commentary on the future of science:
"Blade Runner", "Rollerball", "Silent Running", "1984", "Fail-Safe", "The China Syndrome", "Terminator", "The Hot Zone", "Logan's Run", "The Postman", "Fahrenheit 451", "Neuromancer", "Count Zero", "Mona Lisa Overdrive", "Jurassic Park"
Note, that the utility of fairy tales is to allow an uninitiated person the opportunity follow, in other people's footsteps as it were, the predictive reasoning and forecasting of certain sequences of events. The decision making process is composed of four parts: Define the problem, define alternative solutions, forecast results of solutions, and & collapse possibilities by acting on a solution (this is reinterpreted to varying degrees by people, but is a pretty good model). Anyhow, fairy tales are used for giving messages of the sort, 'this kind of action is bad, because it leads to this kind of result'. Reference the Brothers Grimm for a plethora of such fabals, fairy tales, and stories.
In my thinking, LOTR succeeds in many areas, because it is an epic fairy tale, with epic consequences, and epic social commentary. As far as social commentary goes, I would have to agree with Mr. Brin's analysis of LOTR. He makes a very valid point that history is written by the victors, and I believe that there is a valid interpretation that LOTR is propoganda and marketing hype produced by the victors of the War of the Rings. Lastly, it just goes to show that LOTR is so interesting, because it has social commentary and allows us to forcast into the future, at very levels.
Re:Science is a process
on
Who Owns Science?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Despite the media propoganda that scientists are 'rational and analytical', the fact of the matter is that much of scientific discourse is based on animosity/debate, personal motivations, and mostly 'un-scientific' behavior. The thing is, however, that scientists have got these protocols established which allow for improvement, peer review, and communications.
Now then, most scientists are not exactly in science for the money, so I'm skeptical about the reward system argument. Moreover, I agree that 'stealing' may not be the correct term to use. Therefore, I am going to go out on a limb here, and say that it may be the case that scientists themselves may not completely understand the reward system.
Now, I've known a lot of scientists in my time, and I'd have to say that most of them:
1) Specialize in a certain field, and have a great grasp of that field;
2) Don't have a great concept of money (unless they are specializing in that field, although that still doesn't mean that they have alot of money).
3) Have general human interests and desires, just like everyone else (health, security, friendships, feeling of importance, etc).
4) Are interested in receiving credit for work they've done.
5) They wind up receiving credit for their work, but rewards go to other groups, because of the structure of modern science.
Anyhow, I'm digressing. Your question: Without having someone to start, how do you develop your own theories?
Yeah... That question has sort of been asked, and answered, by a guy named Thomas Kuhn. He writes to the affect that generally one has to start with someone else's theories. The exceptions which proove the rule are what he calls 'Anamoly of Oservation' (I think that's the term he uses). Anyhow, the answer to your question, as I understand it, is that you develop your own theories by observing something which nobody else has ever observed before, and stating a theory about it. This is a rather difficult proposition generally, but it does happen. Examples include:
measurement of the speed of light (constant! no more Ether!)
radioactive isotopes (they glow! different weights!)
electromagnetic spectrum (waves in the air!)
nucleic acid alpha/beta structures (stores information! genetics!)
penicillin production (germs! small things! drugs!)
columbus crosses the atlantic (america! real estate for the taking!)
These examples illustrate general 'ah-ha' experiences and fundamental observations which may very well defy the 'reward system' and the concept of stealing (well, maybe columbus and folks stole america, but that's another story).
Yep. I'm working on a portfolio project right now, which happens to be web based, so I'm at my computer all the time. I figure that Slashdot has got another two or three weeks of 'VoidEngineer' posts all over the place before I find my next project which will require me to be away from my computer.
Yeah, I wish I had something better going on in my life that I didn't have so much time to procrastinate by posting to slashdot. Ah well. The glass is always half full, right? I'm improving by web authoring skills... (yeah, right...)
Well said! One of the most fundamentally important lessons that I ever learned was that not everything can be broken down into terms of 'yes/no', 'true/false', 'good/bad', right/wrong', 'right/left', 'win/loose', and 'this/that'.
I am also sick of the mentality of "it's either this way, or that way". I'm also very, very sick of the 'win/loose' people. Frankly, there are a lot of problems in society which simply cannot be solved with such a narrow minded, simplistic viewpoint as that. I agree completely with your comments!
Agreed, which is why I included the link to the Enrico Fermi Institute... Materials, medical physics, imaging, cosmology and so forth are done there now. Used to work at the EFI, so I would know.
I absolutely agreed that it is not the case that all modern quantum physics is done in high energy physics. Alot of collaboration tends to happen at these locations, however, which drives the entire field forward differently than at other places.
Yes, actually. The point of the reading was to gain a greater understanding of how to optimize traveling salesman problems for distribution of global resources. We weren't just talking about cultural evolution and the dimensions of globalization to make us feel better... Rather, we were going through the mathematics of how to solve the traveling salesman problem and calculate memetic distribution amongst society. Topics included:
evolutionary genetics (genetics, memetics, bioinformatics, change management)
epidemiology (vector theory, networks, viruses, propogation, transmition)
demography (demographics, statistics, data mining, forecasting)
economics (markets, networks, advertising, buy/sell functions)
communications (telcom, network programming, routers, collaboration, push/pull)
science and technology (mainframes, personal computers, networks, design)
history (memory structures, databases, file systems)
political science (US Code, social programming)
Anyhow, those were most of the topics covered. It was a graduate level sequence, and I worked in a network programming laboratory at the National Opinion Research Center while I was taking the course. The other reading for that class I used included Knuth's The Art of Programming, Hull's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Plato's Republic, and all of Wimsatt's personal publications.
Oh, and the course was taught by four people: a memetic evolutionist, a linguist, a mathematician, and a computer programmer. We would use an algorithmic template (the genetic algorithm) and create an instance and map that algorithm onto each of the above mentioned problems and discuss the pros/cons regarding implementation. There wasn't much purpose of taking the class if one didn't know how to optimize an algorithm.
except if you happened to apply a genetic algorithm to a bioinformatics problem
Well, yes. That is actually exactly what I was implying.
I happen to think that the book is quite good, and I have read it, and I do know what it's about. In fact, I took a class in which it was one of my primary reading sources. The class was entitled 'Cultural Evolution and the Dimensions of Globalization'.
Now then, there are many different ways to skin a cat. There are also many different ways to write an algorithm. I am merely saying that this book is a good source for learning more about optimisation problems, and how to code evolution programs, utilizing genetic algorithms. When you finish the book, you will understand that 64bit computing is an ideal (although not necessarily perfect) platform for bioinformatics and genetics work. Yes, I agree that it is not the only platform, but it is an ideal platform because a 'genetic data chromosome' can easily be written for all of the codons utilizing a 64bit vector.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why did you list it all here?
Well, I was arguing the point that there is a commonality amongst all of these operating systems... that is, they all have file systems, they all utilize data structures, and they all have user interfaces.
And since when do some of those OSes have a "root" anyway? Also, so you had root, big deal.
I agree that having root is no big deal, and I agree that not all of those OS have a specifically defined 'root', per se. In fact, many of those operating systems also lack a journaling filesystem, file security, user level security, and cryptography.
Do you have any idea how many OSes a person can have root on if they install it themselves at work?
Exactly! You've hit thethe nail on the head! It's very easy! But what you've just described is completely outside of the logic box for most people, as their 'job description' doesn't include a blurb about 'Incumbent will be responsible for researching operating system methods and functions, and developing reports on interconnectivity issues of said operating systems.'
Furthermore, in context of the above mentioned article, I believe that you have provided some supporting argument that a person shouldn't confine themselves to a single certification and and/or degree. It's very easy to install a bunch of operating systems for work, and have yourself your own testing LAN. All you need is a router, some CAT5 cabling, and a dozen workstations. My point is, don't go for the operating specific certification... I've been down that road, and it's only luke warm. There are, in my opinion, better pastures and forests elsewhere.
Network engineering has to do with the systems that are in place and will be in place in the future. What do protocol stacks and device drivers have to do with anything when it comes to network engineering? We have a protocol X network. This client supports the protocol and has a driver for the card. What else is there to know, really?
Good question. I'll answer it:
Scenario: Your hiring boss has just been awarded a $2.5M grant to build a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) for the local library of science and medicine. This project has to be completed in 10 months. You've been hired as a Systems Engineer to make this project happen. Your salary is $11/hr, no benefits, other than the opportunity to do some real network engineering and be exposed to lots of technology.
Here are project details: Now, because this is a major research university, this picture archiving system has got to be able to display scientific and medical grade pictures obtained from network resources as diverse as nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (nMRI) scanners , scanning electron microscopes, and orbital space telescopes (such as the Hubble Telescope). It's also got to support networked file systems, grid networking, and other distributed file systems protocols (such as Kerberos, LDAP, DDNS, VOIP, PXE, and Fast-Ethernet). Plus, it's going to support virtual reality technologies, including stereo 3d viewing, immersive visualization, collaborative computing. Your goal is to make sure that all of this equipment, which has been purchased, works correctly, can communicate with the University's data backup storage servers, and can transmit information consistently, correctly, and securely between nodes.
Now then, to complicate matters, network protocols haven't been completely written for most of this tech. It's not available at your local Staples or BestBuy; and it's custom built by the engineers in the AstroPhysics, Radiology, and Chemistry departments. Your job is to research network protocol stacks, device drivers, and operating systems to make sure that Joe, who is on a Solaris/VMS system in Radiology, can transmit data to Sue, who is running Windows/DOS in Chemistry. (Specifically, the job calls for Joe and Sue to both be able to go to the PACS at the local library, and pull up files from their respective departments on the same machine). Then, for kicks, Chris from Astrophysics joins them, and want's to show off new pics from the Irix/Linux systems that AstroPhysics is using. Then, to make things really fun, you have to use a new operating system which hasn't been publically released yet (Windows Longhorn, for example), becuase you have access to the MS TechNet program, and your university gets Beta Testing and Evaluation copies of it's operating system directly from a site-license with Microsoft.
On top of that, this PACS system is going to have 100 nodes, running multiple operating systems. Some nodes will have multiple network cards running multiple protocol stacks (IP and IPv6 specifically... you'll have to have dedicated hardware to connect to the other Universities running IPv6). This is because you have to support everybody's ideas and implementations, no matter how diverse. Your job is to make sure that all of this works. Saying, 'This is the client and this is the protocol stack' is not an option, because it's a research university.
Now then. When you think you have an answer which satisfied all objective and goals, previously stated, check out this link:
USITE:Crerar
That was our answer to the problem.
I agree, but again, you are working against yourself. People like myself are the specialist. When it comes to your and my world, doing what a CxO does isn't possible. Do you think companies will hire you as a sysadmin since you know a little bit about everything and then hire peers to make up for the expertise you lack?
Fair enough. You're a specialist, I'm a generalist. As far as your question goes, well, people do get hired as network admins since they know a little bit about everything (jack-of-all-trades); and then hire peers to make up for expertise they lack. Management (and network engineers) are expected to be generalists and to be able to handle a wide array of situations.
Besides, I'm not at all sure how somebody can know '10%' or '70%' of a system. What, exactly, is the metric by which this claim is being based? Oh jesus, quit splitting hairs, you're pathetic. You know what I mean.
Not really. I used to think I knew '90%' about Windows NT 4. Hell, I had a certification in it. Then, I worked on that multimillion dollar PACS system project. My certification, at best, tought me about 10% of the knowledge I needed for that job. The more experienced I get with technology and computers, the more I am convinced that most measurement systems are arbitrary and relative.
Which of of your former employers ran Atari?
The University of Chicago. (Amongst others)
Hmmm. Well, harking back to days of yore, I recall that punchcards were the basic in/out system of computers.
I suppose that one could look at the article at hand in terms of whether or not punch cards contain linguistical features (language support) or systemic features (operations support).
As such, I'm not all that sure that the method of transfering information from a punch card was/is the same as decision making operations utilized by the machine itself.
Call me crazy, if you will, but it seems to be a text/context dichotomy to me, where one cannot have a PL without an OS, and vice versa. That is, they go hand-in-hand, and each are somewhat inherrent in the definition of the other.
But I'm no computer scientist... =)
Well, thank you for at least acknowledging AC status. As such, I want to thank you for your comments. However, this was not intended as a resume posting. See comments below.
If I ever saw this junk on a resume coming into my office I would throw it right into the garbage after reading this piece alone. If you told me anything remotely similar to this I would end the interview right away.
And that would be your perogative. As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I don't put that stuff on my resume. I'm not looking for a job either.
You claim to be 25 and have used or administered Atari? Commodore64? What true experience do you have on these and how do they benefit me today?
Yep. Born and bred in the personal computer age. I've been using, administering, and coding on computers for about 18 years now. So, back in 1985-1986 was when I was enrolled in a NASA Horizons Education program... they were teaching us about how to program computers, televisions, vcrs, and so forth (age 7 or so).
Now then, regarding how does it benefit you today? I'm not sure. My original post and comments were directed towards the claim that one ought to expose one's self to as many operating systems as possible. Moreover, one ought to concentrate on commonalities amongst OSs rather than differences. Reading Knuth's 'Art of Programming' is a good lesson on the mathematics and structure of file systems, data structures, and user interfaces, which are shared by all OSs. So, the benefit is, perhaps, a better understanding of the operating-systems, through comparative analysis.
All of this and the only Novell stuff you list is ZenWorks. If you never had the displeasure of managing a Netware 2.x or 3.12 network, then you were not as heavy into the computer stuff as you claim for the early to mid 90's time-frame.
How does that follow? I work for research universities, which typically don't use Netware equipment. I used to provide tech support to three floors of data processing workers at an insurance company, who used ZenWorks in conjunction with Windows95 and WindowsNT. That was a summer job. Big deal. I would point out that three of those operating systems are included in that one summer job alone.
Also, if you ever told me that you learned this by doing and reading on your own, have not taken a class since 7th grade, and said that one book would be all the computer knowledge you need, I would cease all communications at that point.
Well, rest assured that I wouldn't tell you anything as dull and dreary as that. Rather, I'd tell you that I received the Congressional Information Act Scholarship of 1994, and spent a year traveling abroad in Post-Soviet Bloc countries (lived mostly in Brno, CZ), studying information technologies and international telecommunications at the University of Brno. (Member of CERN)
After that, I was employed at the University of Chicago (home of Nuclear Bomb, Genetics, et al), as a Computing Assistant (I,II,III), Systems Engineer, and Network Engineer. (Adjunct member of CERN; associated with Argonne Nat'l Labs, and so forth). After that, I would tell you that I currently work at Columbia.
So, no... I did not learn all this by doing and reading on my own. I've been gainfully employed by a major research university, which is where I learned all this. And no, I haven't taken a computer science class since 7th grade. And yes, I still stand by my claim that Donald Knuth's book 'The Art of Programming' is the best book on computer programming, and is all the computer knowledge that a person needs. Obviously, you haven't read it (Granted, the MIX programming language is arguably out of date, but the algorithms and mathematics are 100% applicable in every operating system around).
You are padding your above post just like you probably pad your resume.
Well, I certainly don't try to pad my posts or my resumes. You have to remember, that administrators can share authority on machines. I never claimed that I had sole-authority over all these machines. But, actually... I could back all that up with references, so I don't need to worry about it. Besides, I don't put it down on my resume.
Saying that you don't tell your employers about a cert (any cert) is saying that you don't care about your career.
Either that, or it is a demonstration of strategic thinking. Specifically, I'm out of the rat race regarding certifications and tech trends. I don't have a single computer class on my transcript, I've gotten rid of the transcript, and I'm working based on experience and ability, now days. Also, I'm getting paid alot more, nowdays, since I've migrated to VMS/VAX/Solaris systems.
Then boasting about having access to a million dollar MRI scanner?
Heck yeah. Call it strategic planning for medical school, and conducting original research. A nMRI scanner which is legally and operationally slated for research isn't all that common, actually. Anyhow, I'm not a technician.
Bah, I am no more than 4 years older than you and I manage all technology for 4 mid-sized companies, and 1 small office.
Congradulations. Good for you. I'm surprised that, at this level, you haven't read the 'Art of Programming' yet.
Mid-sized here is defined as 20-100 million dollars per year in revenue. I am designing and planning a network that spans continents. I recommend and *BUY* those 1 million dollar pieces of equipment for some of the things my companies do.
I never said that there were not other people in the world who have similar experience, who do similar things, or are more advanced in other areas than I am.
All of this because of education, career planning, and "thinking outside of the box" (you too can learn the key management phrases in management classes). Don't be so cocky thinking you know it all, and you will see how much you don't know. You, sir, are in stage 2 of the 4 stage "Becoming a real IT person" development cycle.
Naw, I know very little. As Socrates said, all I know is that I know nothing. Anyhow, allusions to Plato's Alegory of the Cave and VR Caves aside, I never claimed that I know it all. All I claimed (or meant to claim) was that a person ought to study the general algorithms and mathematics of file systems, data structures, and user interfaces. After knowing those general algorithms, most all operating systems typically become mere instances of those algorithms and mathematics. (And, yes, those algorithms and maths are in Khuth's book, 'The Art of Programming'). As such, a person can then concentrate on other classes and other goals, rather than being stuck in a rat race of trying to keep up with the latest certifications and trends in technology.
Anyhow, I hope that I never 'Become a real IT person'. I'd like to become a medical doctor. My thinking is that tending to other people is better than tending to technology. But that is only my opinion.
lol. I don't know why I'm such a sucker for these Anonymous Coward posts, but I'm going to make some comments:
lolz, i dare you to try and get a job with all that crap on your resume. you think you know all that stuff but in reality you don't. you know 10% of each and are a master of none.
First, I wouldn't take that dare, as I don't put that stuff on my resume anyhow. Now then, did I claim that I know all of 'all that stuff'. I merely mentioned that I've admined or had root access on the previously mentioned operating systems.
companies may have multiple types of systems, but they would rather have someone that knows 70% of 3 types instead of someone who knows 10% of each.
Yes and no. I agree that some companies like specialists who know '70% of 3 types'. Not all, however. And, as far as network engineering goes, it's much better to have one person who knows 10% of each, if that 10% happens to be network protocol stacks and device drivers. Moreover, do you think that CTOs and CIOs are specialists? Naw... they're generalists, who hire and oversee specialists.
(Besides, I'm not at all sure how somebody can know '10%' or '70%' of a system. What, exactly, is the metric by which this claim is being based?)
oh yeah, and how much have you had experience with AT WORK. to employers dicking around with stuff at home doesn't count kiddo.
Fair enough, considering the article at hand. Working as a systems engineer and network engineer at the worlds largest insurance corporation and at a major research university sounds like 'AT WORK' experience to me. Anyhow, I've got to go to work.
Do not tie yourself down with one. Stay off of OS bandwagons. Learn as much as you can about both. Or any OS you can.
The previous comment is the best statement posted, as far as I'm concerned.
Consider the number of operating systems which exist. Now then, I don't want to go getting into a pissing contest of 'who-has-done-what'. However, I'm going to list off the number of operating systems and machines which I've used and adminstered over my life time, in order to make a point. That point is, a person is smarter than a computer, and a single person is capable of adminstering, engineering, and programming for many more operating systems that he or she ever expected, during the course of a job. Anyhow, off the top of my head, I've used and administered the following:
Atari
Commodore64
AppleWorks
DOS
Win 3.1
Win 95/98
Win NT/2000
Win ME/XP
Novell ZenWorks
MacOS
MacOSX
NextSTEP
BeOS
OS360
AS400
DB2
Linux, RedHat
Linux, Debian
Linux, Corell
Minux
Irix
Solaris
JavaOS
VAX/VMS
Cisco IOS
Genius Plus
LightWorks
Now then, consider that I'm only 25 years old. Figure how many OS's that somebody has used who is 40 or 60 and is in the industry. Hell, somebody who's 60, and has been in the idustry that long, probably has experience with ENIAC machines. Anybody with ENIAC experience is a computing Guru of the first order, as far as I'm concerned.
Put things in perspective. For instance... some people think, 'Wouldn't it be cool to have an AIX or Cray supercomputer?' How does a person get to that stage in life? It's not from taking certification exams and getting degrees in computer science... It's from saying, 'Hey, this AI stuff is cool, I want to learn more about it' or 'Hey, this VR stuff is slick...'
Anyhow, real world jobs typically require a person to use a dozen different computers, dozens of programming languages, and a zillion skills, in order to accomplish some non-computer related objective... such as selling a product to a customer, conducting scientific research, or entertaining the general public.
Anyhow, there are common features that are relevent to *every single* operating system that I've mentioned: These features are things like file systems, data structures, and user interfaces.
Do yourself a favor: Don't enroll in classes, universities, or certification programs.
Rather, go buy yourself a copy of the following book:
Knuth, Donald. The Art of Programming
After you've read Knuth's series, chances are, you won't need to take any other computer class, and you'll be able to go onto other classes, such as biology, chemistry, economics, physics, history, philosophy, social studies, art, music, language, and so forth.
Thats all. Sorry for ranting.
PS. MCSE #1459644 (blah. an internship at a financial institution required me to get it...)
PPS. My most recent employers don't even know that I have an MCSE cert, and they gave me access to a million dollar nMRI scanner, VMS/VAX machine, and a couple of Solaris EasyVision workstations.
PPPS. Havn't taken a computer science class since 7th grade. The point is: Learn the commonalities between all file systems, user interfaces, and data structures, and you won't ever have to worry about a computer certification again.
2 cents:
Companies generally have two methods of hiring people:
1) Network contact. Friend of friend, word of mouth, references, whatever.
2) Looking through a pile of papers and finding an exact match between someone else's certification or degree and the job requirements.
Now then, having recently gotten a job at a major university because I had the right degrees and certifications, I'll vouch for the fact that some employers are interested in degrees...
Anyhow, having been recently hired about a week ago, after about a year of unemployment, I do have this to say:
Certifications and/or degrees are primarily usefull in the following manner: They provide a common reference point, by which to establish conversation and topics of discussion.
If you're trying to bully your way into a job by claiming, 'Hey, I've got a degree/certification, you've got to hire me, because I'm 'qualified'', you're missing the point.
The point is that a certification or degree offers a reference point for discussion and dialog regarding specifically recorded events and experiences.
What you do with those experiences, how you interact with your coworkers, and other similar issues is up to you.
Anyhow, I'm rambling... so, I'll shut up now.
Can you please explain in more detail what the hell you are talking about? Why would anyone want to play a game that looks like DooM on the PS3 or XBox 2?
Absolutely. There are many reasons why people would want to. Amongst others, these include:
1. First person perspective.
2. Combat oriented gaming (stress relief?)
3. Multiplayer capabilities.
Now then, for a short list of current games which look like Doom and are on the Playstation 2 or XBox:
1. Halo
2. Quake Arena
3. Unreal Tournament
4. Metal Gear Solid
5. All 3D Basketball/Baseball/Football Games
6. Resident Evil
7. Tomb Raider
etc. etc.
Do you understand my point? These games are all Doom and Wolfenstein based. They are not, for instance, based on such games as:
1. Pong
2. PacMan
3. Mario Brothers
4. Pitfall
5. LoadRunner
6. SpyHunter
(All of which happen to be favorites of mine.) Anyhow, compared to PacMan there are a lot of reasons why people would want to play a game that looks like Doom on a PS3 or XBox2.
The question becomes one of programming methodologies: How does an entry level console game programmer enter into the market and compete against people who are making games like Halo2 and LOTR: The Two Towers? Tough competition.
One answer (although not the only one): Leap frog ahead of the competition. Predict what the gaming platform is going to be 2 or 4 or 8 years from now, and begin programming now (hence the reference to PS3 and XBox2, and not PS2 and Xbox... I'm looking 2 years down the road here.).
Anyhow, you estimate the graphics performance of the futuristic box... 256bit processor, 512bit, 1Kbit, whatever; 1 Gig VRAM, 4Gig VRAM, whatever; 800x600 res, 1024x768 res, 1600x1200 res, 1600x1200 stereoscopic res, whatever. Once you figure out your target hardware platform, figure out the algorithms. The trick is to get that target hardware to output something that looks like Doom. Once you've passed that hurdle, you've got 80% of the work done (assuming that you're doing real programming, and writing the device drivers and algorithms yourself, thereby establishing a proprietary 3D engine, and not just ripping off or copying somebody else's work).
Now then, if you go through this process, and approach the mathematics carefully, you might be able to program up a nice engine that utilizes menger spaces and fractals. Now then, some physicists and mathematicians might say, 'Nay, a Hilbert Space is better than a Menger Space any day of the week!' To which, I am not completely convinced. I, personally, think that menger spaces and fractal algorithms have a lower overhead in terms of code manipulation, and produce more graphics performance than linear algorithms. Granted, there are many applications where a fractal algorithm is overkill and produces a lot of waste.
However, when trying to program biological and chaotic phenomena, such as plants, ferns, trees, snowflakes, waves, hair, and so forth, a fractal algorithm can do things in a dozen lines of code which other algorithms require thousands and millions of lines of code.
Ergo
It is my opinion that fractal algorithms are really slick, and I hope that PS3 and XBox2 games are programmed with such methodologies.
For the record, any first-person 3D engine has the basic graphics and math to provide you with the resources to do what I'm talking about. Hell, reality has the basic graphics and math to provide you with the resources to do what I'm talking about. I am merely pointing out that Doom may be good study material for the next generation of console game programmers...
Reverse engineer? Why? Doom's open-source.
I didn't say reverse engineer the code for Doom. I said reverse engineer the mathematics of Doom. Would you actually build a PS3 or XBox2 game on the code of Doom?!?!!! I certainly wouldn't...
However, the screenshots have just the right amount of complexity versus simplicity for a group of gamers & nerds to sit down and write a sophisticated fractal/menger engine. Hell, download the game or the source code and do the same thing. I don't care.
However, I'm completely convinced that if you download the source code for Doom and even glanced at it, your final engine won't be as good as if you just downloaded the screenshots for the game. (Note: I'm not saying that the source code for Doom is bad or anything... I'm just saying that it's not the kind of code one would want for a PS3 or XBox2 game).
You know... Doom is just the right level of game play, nowdays, for entry level console game programmers. Wanna design a 3D engine for the Playstation 3? A 3D engine for the X-Box 2? I'd bet that those Doom screenshots could be the perfect beginning of a major game manufacturing group for the next generation of gaming consoles. A group of nerds needs to sit down and reverse engineer the mathematics of that 3D engine. Perhaps approach the problem as a programming challenge to design and code the new engine entirely in fractals and menger spaces.
In all probability, this CHIPS will be using radio frequencies which are much, much slower. (I could be wrong, but I would be surprised if they had hacked some type of interstellar laser guidance system... )
Sorry for replying to my own post, however, I stand corrected. I was describing 'Radio Waves' in terms of accustic sound waves; which, in this case, does not apply. Ignore this comment regarding radiowaves being slower...
Well, it's the truth about the EFI and LASR. I am not, however, an astrophysicist. There are many things about astrophysics I don't know.
Please enlighten myself and other slashdot readers about 299,792,458m/s. Have I erred in saying that CHIPS will be using radio frequencies? Have I erred in regards to the time it takes for light from the next star over to reach earth?
Be more specific, if you're going to critique. I would like to know your opinion regarding this matter, and what about 299,792,458m/s do I apparently not know.
So, in college, I worked with some astrophysicists at the Enrico Fermi Institute, which is where they build nuclear powered satellites, and took some classes from professors at at The Laboratory for Advanced Space Research, which is responsible for building such satellites/spacecraft as Ulysses, Pioneer 10 & 11, Cassini, StarDust, and Argos.
Anyhow, from talking with folks at the EFI and LASR, the general answer to everybody's questions is: latency and noise. Remember, this is a Cosmic Hot Interstellar Plasma Spectrometer, which means that it's going to be sent away from the earth, and eventually be millions and billions and trillions + miles away. The longer that it works, the more latency is going to build up... So, the programming needs a very non-interactive protocol. If this thing goes interstellar, it could take days and weeks for packets to travel from Earth to CHIPS and back.
Remember, it takes 4 minutes for light from our closest neighboring star to reach earth, traveling at, well, the speed of light. In all probability, this CHIPS will be using radio frequencies which are much, much slower. (I could be wrong, but I would be surprised if they had hacked some type of interstellar laser guidance system... )
Anyhow, they write scripts for this kind of mission, and generally operate with a big time lag, to the extent that it's sort of like typing with your computer monitor turned 'off'. That is, they'll figure out what they want the satellite to do for the next week or next month, type up a script, and 'submit' it to CHIPS. A couple of hours/days/weeks later, CHIPS will receive the script and start working. This kind of astrophysics programming generally involves being able to project into the future (temporally), and to know that in {x} days, the satellite will be past Mars, in {x+a} days, it'll be past the asteroid belt, in (x+a+b} days, past Jupiter, in {x+a+b+c} days, past Saturn, and so forth. It also requires good file keeping and record keeping, so that you know how many days {n} into the project you are, so you can calculate {n-x}, which gives you the time window for submiting an FTP control sequence.
Other than that, yeah... they can dir things and get thing. Depends on the exact implementation, but you have the concept.
wcbarksdale, thank you for posting that link... that's the funniest thing I've read all week, and I wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't posted it.
I won't deny that you have some valid points. There is a question regarding literature, however, which begs being answered. The issue at hand, it seems to me, is to what extent does there need to be a 'lack of literature' on a subject before somebody somebody's published theory is considered 'new'. Please note that each of my examples demonstrates a concept which some people describe as 'History is written by the victors'.
...
...
:) There exists an acid precipitable chemical compound found in the nucleus, genetic inheretance is particle, these are the same, the nucleic acids are linear polymers ...
...
...
measurement of the speed of light (constant! no more Ether!) But you have to know about Maxwell's laws (prediction of electromagnetic wave speed), the fact that light's a wave (Newton's optics amoung others)
I see your point. I would suggest considering aetheric interpretations and aetheric mathematics regarding Maxwell's laws versus post-Michelson-Morley aethric wind experiment interpretations and mathematics. Um, that is, the mathematics were rewritten based on this observation of a new phenomena. The prior mathematics did not correctly describe nature, so aetheric interpretations no longer exist. Yes, you have to know about Maxwell's laws, but I would turn the argument around, and suggest that Maxwell was part of the group who measured the speed of light as constant, rather than being part of the group who were measuring Aetheric values (who subsuquently got written out of history).
radioactive isotopes (they glow! different weights!) Atoms exist (not continuous matter), they contain subatomic particles
If I was feeling billigerant, I could draw this topic out into a tedious and pedantic argument, which nobody would like. I'm going to conceed this point, however.
electromagnetic spectrum (waves in the air!) Maxwell again, Newton again, the existance of radio waves, the properties of waves
OK, what about these people? Did they not publish these laws and define the existance of radio waves and properties of waves? Where is the supporting literature prior to them, regarding these phenomena? I think they proposed new theories, based on observations which people had never observed before. Perhaps part of observation is recording your particular viewpoint. nucleic acid alpha/beta structures (stores information! genetics!) (I'm not sure what you mean by alpha/beta structures, but
Look it up. DNA has primary, secondary, and tertiary structures, based on folding patterns (commonly called alpha/beta structures; specifically 'alpha helix' and 'beta sheet'. I'm not entirely sure that DNA is a linear polymer. Each of these are factors based on the new theory of genetics proposed by Watson-Crick, which were most definately not in the literature prior to them. It's what they got the Nobel Prize for.
penicillin production (germs! small things! drugs!) Germs exist, they are the cause of disease, they are living and can be killed
I'm not all that sure that folks believe that germs existed prior to Pasteur and his penicillin experiments. I mean, penicillin is sort of what started the whole 'germ theory' concept. Before the mid 1800s, humans were a pretty sickly and unhygenic lot. Frankly, history just doesn't seem to support the concept that biology and medicine were practiced with the concept of germ theory prior to penicillin. Also, part of germ theory, it may be argued, is that germs are different than viruses. Nonetheless, none of it was in the literature.
columbus crosses the atlantic (america! real estate for the taking!) (How is this a scientific discovery?) The sextant, the concept of a spherical world (Columbus didn't make it up), astronomical navigation
Cartography and geology, yo! That's way scientific. I dunno, the discovery of an entirely new continent, which wasn't in the literature before, seems like a good candidate to be considered a scientific revolution.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that all 26 episodes have made it to Adult Swim on Cartoon Network... at least, I'm pretty darn convinced that I watched them all last year. It took like three months to get through all of them, because they'd show two episodes per week.
Am I missing something?
Great questions. I am tempted to answer in the affirmative, however... In doing so, I'm going to use some analogical reasonging here. Author's and automobile makers both do something similar: they invent. Now, I'd like to present an analogous inventor to Tolkein: Henry Ford. By the reasoning you've presented here, it may be possible to talk about an automobile by claiming, "Come on people. Its a HORSELESS CARRIAGE. An engrossing one, and rich with detail, functionality, and quality, but a horseless carraige non the less... Ford himself cautioned drivers not to drive an automobile to fast.'
Now, my thinking is that books and automobiles both don't do much if they are just laying around, immobile. The utility of these objects is when they are used, over time. Eyes scan words on pages over a finite amount of time, just as wheels roll on land over a finite amount of time. Just as an automobile has a 'forward momentum' about it, so does a book or a posting on Slashdot. (yes, I agree that one can put a car in 'reverse', but that doesn't mean one is backing up in time).
So, my thinking is that, because of the directionality of time, a fairy tale should address social comentary and ensure that humanity continues sometype of progress. I would go so far as to say that most all of the successful fairy tales have been based on social commentary, as the social commentary aspect is what allows us to understand the fairy tale. (For instance, imagine a fairy tale written about the molecular cohession between two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom in a water molecule. Without some type of social commentary and anthropomorphic structure to the story, the proposed fairy tale is alien and incomprehensible. At the very least, it would make for a dreadfully boring story.) So, my thinking is that a story or fairy tale should have social commentary and be forward thinking.
My claim and thesis is that social commentary and forward thinking may be inherent in the definition of a fairy tale. I would also go so far as to claim that the following are fairy tales, because they possess social commentary on the future of science:
"Blade Runner", "Rollerball", "Silent Running", "1984", "Fail-Safe", "The China Syndrome", "Terminator", "The Hot Zone", "Logan's Run", "The Postman", "Fahrenheit 451", "Neuromancer", "Count Zero", "Mona Lisa Overdrive", "Jurassic Park"
Note, that the utility of fairy tales is to allow an uninitiated person the opportunity follow, in other people's footsteps as it were, the predictive reasoning and forecasting of certain sequences of events. The decision making process is composed of four parts: Define the problem, define alternative solutions, forecast results of solutions, and & collapse possibilities by acting on a solution (this is reinterpreted to varying degrees by people, but is a pretty good model). Anyhow, fairy tales are used for giving messages of the sort, 'this kind of action is bad, because it leads to this kind of result'. Reference the Brothers Grimm for a plethora of such fabals, fairy tales, and stories.
In my thinking, LOTR succeeds in many areas, because it is an epic fairy tale, with epic consequences, and epic social commentary. As far as social commentary goes, I would have to agree with Mr. Brin's analysis of LOTR. He makes a very valid point that history is written by the victors, and I believe that there is a valid interpretation that LOTR is propoganda and marketing hype produced by the victors of the War of the Rings. Lastly, it just goes to show that LOTR is so interesting, because it has social commentary and allows us to forcast into the future, at very levels.
Despite the media propoganda that scientists are 'rational and analytical', the fact of the matter is that much of scientific discourse is based on animosity/debate, personal motivations, and mostly 'un-scientific' behavior. The thing is, however, that scientists have got these protocols established which allow for improvement, peer review, and communications.
Now then, most scientists are not exactly in science for the money, so I'm skeptical about the reward system argument. Moreover, I agree that 'stealing' may not be the correct term to use. Therefore, I am going to go out on a limb here, and say that it may be the case that scientists themselves may not completely understand the reward system.
Now, I've known a lot of scientists in my time, and I'd have to say that most of them:
1) Specialize in a certain field, and have a great grasp of that field;
2) Don't have a great concept of money (unless they are specializing in that field, although that still doesn't mean that they have alot of money).
3) Have general human interests and desires, just like everyone else (health, security, friendships, feeling of importance, etc).
4) Are interested in receiving credit for work they've done.
5) They wind up receiving credit for their work, but rewards go to other groups, because of the structure of modern science.
Anyhow, I'm digressing. Your question: Without having someone to start, how do you develop your own theories?
Yeah... That question has sort of been asked, and answered, by a guy named Thomas Kuhn. He writes to the affect that generally one has to start with someone else's theories. The exceptions which proove the rule are what he calls 'Anamoly of Oservation' (I think that's the term he uses). Anyhow, the answer to your question, as I understand it, is that you develop your own theories by observing something which nobody else has ever observed before, and stating a theory about it. This is a rather difficult proposition generally, but it does happen. Examples include:
measurement of the speed of light (constant! no more Ether!)
radioactive isotopes (they glow! different weights!)
electromagnetic spectrum (waves in the air!)
nucleic acid alpha/beta structures (stores information! genetics!)
penicillin production (germs! small things! drugs!)
columbus crosses the atlantic (america! real estate for the taking!)
These examples illustrate general 'ah-ha' experiences and fundamental observations which may very well defy the 'reward system' and the concept of stealing (well, maybe columbus and folks stole america, but that's another story).
I'm rambling. Signing off.
Yep. I'm working on a portfolio project right now, which happens to be web based, so I'm at my computer all the time. I figure that Slashdot has got another two or three weeks of 'VoidEngineer' posts all over the place before I find my next project which will require me to be away from my computer.
Yeah, I wish I had something better going on in my life that I didn't have so much time to procrastinate by posting to slashdot. Ah well. The glass is always half full, right? I'm improving by web authoring skills... (yeah, right...)
Well said! One of the most fundamentally important lessons that I ever learned was that not everything can be broken down into terms of 'yes/no', 'true/false', 'good/bad', right/wrong', 'right/left', 'win/loose', and 'this/that'.
I am also sick of the mentality of "it's either this way, or that way". I'm also very, very sick of the 'win/loose' people. Frankly, there are a lot of problems in society which simply cannot be solved with such a narrow minded, simplistic viewpoint as that. I agree completely with your comments!
Right on regarding pigeonholing and careers!
Damn. SteweyGriffin, I'm a fan.
Wow. I got moderated (-1) for being overrated on this post. Sorry if I offended someone, as I didn't mean to. Ah well. Live and learn.
Agreed, which is why I included the link to the Enrico Fermi Institute... Materials, medical physics, imaging, cosmology and so forth are done there now. Used to work at the EFI, so I would know.
I absolutely agreed that it is not the case that all modern quantum physics is done in high energy physics. Alot of collaboration tends to happen at these locations, however, which drives the entire field forward differently than at other places.
Yes, actually. The point of the reading was to gain a greater understanding of how to optimize traveling salesman problems for distribution of global resources. We weren't just talking about cultural evolution and the dimensions of globalization to make us feel better... Rather, we were going through the mathematics of how to solve the traveling salesman problem and calculate memetic distribution amongst society. Topics included:
evolutionary genetics (genetics, memetics, bioinformatics, change management)
epidemiology (vector theory, networks, viruses, propogation, transmition)
demography (demographics, statistics, data mining, forecasting)
economics (markets, networks, advertising, buy/sell functions)
communications (telcom, network programming, routers, collaboration, push/pull)
science and technology (mainframes, personal computers, networks, design)
history (memory structures, databases, file systems)
political science (US Code, social programming)
Anyhow, those were most of the topics covered. It was a graduate level sequence, and I worked in a network programming laboratory at the National Opinion Research Center while I was taking the course. The other reading for that class I used included Knuth's The Art of Programming, Hull's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Plato's Republic, and all of Wimsatt's personal publications.
Oh, and the course was taught by four people: a memetic evolutionist, a linguist, a mathematician, and a computer programmer. We would use an algorithmic template (the genetic algorithm) and create an instance and map that algorithm onto each of the above mentioned problems and discuss the pros/cons regarding implementation. There wasn't much purpose of taking the class if one didn't know how to optimize an algorithm.
except if you happened to apply a genetic algorithm to a bioinformatics problem
Well, yes. That is actually exactly what I was implying.
I happen to think that the book is quite good, and I have read it, and I do know what it's about. In fact, I took a class in which it was one of my primary reading sources. The class was entitled 'Cultural Evolution and the Dimensions of Globalization'.
Now then, there are many different ways to skin a cat. There are also many different ways to write an algorithm. I am merely saying that this book is a good source for learning more about optimisation problems, and how to code evolution programs, utilizing genetic algorithms. When you finish the book, you will understand that 64bit computing is an ideal (although not necessarily perfect) platform for bioinformatics and genetics work. Yes, I agree that it is not the only platform, but it is an ideal platform because a 'genetic data chromosome' can easily be written for all of the codons utilizing a 64bit vector.
Since I goofed on the last post, I'll add the obligatory links to:
CERN
The Enrico Fermi Institute
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratories
Agronne National Laboratories
Los Alamos National Laboratories
Yep, all the information you could want on modern Quantum Physics.
Gotta love quantum physics...
Check out the University of Chicago's Physics Department for all the information you could want to know about modern research in quantum physics.
Oh, and December 2, 2002 was the 60th Anniversy of the first self-sustaining controlled release of nuclear energy