I'm concerned that U.S. employment law may interfere with companies trying to obtain a specific mix of older and younger workers. I don't think the U.S. economy can really afford to be less competitive in this manner.
At my university they have a graph showing administrator pay and lecturer pay, and the administrator pay is literally off the chart while lecturer pay is on a steady decline.
Yeah, sometimes I forget to scale my axes properly too. I'd suggest using Gnuplot.
I suspect the administrators aren't always the ultimate cause of the expense. I could be wrong, but my impression is that the federal government and the accreditation agencies impose such extensive regulation that an extremely expensive bureaucracy is needed to comply.
I am not sure that calling someone an object is all that flattering. Sexual partners.
My goal was to speak the truth, not to flatter.
I think most adults want to be treated modally, so to speak. When we're on the way to the bedroom, we want to be sexually desired. When we're on a conference call, we want to be seen as smart and competent and put-together. When we're on the sports field, we want to be seen as tough.
That's why I don't have a problem with someone being seen primarily as an object of sexual desire in the right circumstances. The problem is when a person only sees others as sexual objects.
There is a lot of work and there are not enough skilled people to do it yet we are only using 50% of the population.
I think you're oversimplifying. There seem to be supply and demand dynamics in play.
We have a tug of war. Google and Facebook want to increase the supply of developers, so the prevailing wage goes down. Current and aspiring developers want a decrease in the supply, so that their wages go up.
I wonder if this will turn out to be Youtube's first step towards irrelevance to the youth market.
This seems like a familiar story from Microsoft and IBM: think your company is so indispensable that you start demanding more of your users and/or partners. And in doing so, make people start looking for alternatives.
So while your statement is correct, it is incomplete. The truth is that most people cannot do difficult things even if they study/practice hard.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm particularly thinking of all the Asian-Americans who became physicians only because of their parents' expectations, and manage to not kill too many patients.
My dad might also be an example. He went into EE because a scholarship was available for that at the time. He would have preferred studying biology. Although he wasn't at all passionate about EE, he was good at what he did, because he was very sharp. Granted both EE and biology are within the "STEM" umbrella, but it's I think my dad is an example of someone who's good without having been passionate.
I'd say there are two very different levels of connection.
At the most obvious and shallow, computers are good at crunching numbers quickly, and early programming languages were designed to put that power to good use. But nowadays, at least at the application programming level, the focus of average programmers' work tends to be much more on string processing (for web pages, twitter feeds, etc.) and storage/retrieval (databases, etc.) There are certainly mathematical implications of that work, but not so much numerical math.
Then at the much deeper level you find out that graph theory, topology, and computability have powerful connections to type systems, program correctness proofs, etc. I suspect that my mind can only hold a small fraction of the interesting connections in this area. This is what I'd call serious, deep Computer Science, and this is where I see it really tying in fundamentally to math. To me, this is the purest form of CS, and most CS grads barely grok it and/or care about it. Advances in this area are probably like advances in pure mathematics: it may take decades or even centuries for us to understand their application to the software development changes right in front of us, but when we do, they're transformative. Although maybe that's over-selling it a little.
There's probably more than one way to skin the cat, and I don't have enough experience in the design of CS curricula to know which works out better.
When I took CS 101 as an undergrad, the focus was primarily on using and implementing abstract data types, and getting the hang of programming in general. We did use pointers, but it was in Pascal.
It worked out okay in the end - most/all of us in that CS 101 class have good careers, and I managed to end up with a PhD in CS. But I suppose data isn't the plural of anecdote.
I'm not sure we should hit kids with the full force of CS theory in their first CS course. I suspect there's a real benefit to giving them something with tangible results and immediately useful skills, like Javascript. Without that, I think they might be unable to see the relevance of the more advanced theory, and lose interest in CS altogether.
Where do you get the idea the average GOP voter "strongly values privacy?" These are generally the same people who are A-OK with NSA surveillance because it's about catchin' terrrist evil-doers and if you ain't got nuthin' to hide you ain't got nuthin' ta fear.
You're both painting with broad brushes. And I suspect the data mining about which this article talks would help sort that out.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems consistent with my experience too.
I'm concerned that U.S. employment law may interfere with companies trying to obtain a specific mix of older and younger workers. I don't think the U.S. economy can really afford to be less competitive in this manner.
Yeah, sometimes I forget to scale my axes properly too. I'd suggest using Gnuplot.
I suspect the administrators aren't always the ultimate cause of the expense. I could be wrong, but my impression is that the federal government and the accreditation agencies impose such extensive regulation that an extremely expensive bureaucracy is needed to comply.
If you can't make a date with fraud, you should at least shake hands with danger.
(One of the funnier RiffTrax imho. Worth the purchase price.)
I am not sure that calling someone an object is all that flattering.
Sexual partners.
My goal was to speak the truth, not to flatter.
I think most adults want to be treated modally, so to speak. When we're on the way to the bedroom, we want to be sexually desired. When we're on a conference call, we want to be seen as smart and competent and put-together. When we're on the sports field, we want to be seen as tough.
That's why I don't have a problem with someone being seen primarily as an object of sexual desire in the right circumstances. The problem is when a person only sees others as sexual objects.
Yes, they are. In the sense that men look upon women and have a desire to sleep with them.
The problem is thinking that women are only sex objects.
I think you're oversimplifying. There seem to be supply and demand dynamics in play.
We have a tug of war. Google and Facebook want to increase the supply of developers, so the prevailing wage goes down. Current and aspiring developers want a decrease in the supply, so that their wages go up.
This is a very, very old kind of story.
Nuff said.
Well, you say that, but Heroes of Might and Magic VI was actually pretty fun.
If you zoom out to about 100 years, I think you'll find that the Chinese have a good reason to fear the Japanese, too.
Both countries have had their share of dicks.
If your backups are sitting right next to your active files they aren't backups. They're just copies sitting there.
I think that's an oversimplification. They're still backups. They're just not backups against some failure modes that people would have expected.
Good call.
I wonder if this will turn out to be Youtube's first step towards irrelevance to the youth market.
This seems like a familiar story from Microsoft and IBM: think your company is so indispensable that you start demanding more of your users and/or partners. And in doing so, make people start looking for alternatives.
Funny, I was about to write the same thing. My wife has a pump + a continuous monitor, and her experience is just like yours.
It's an interesting idea, but the implementation isn't quite there yet.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm particularly thinking of all the Asian-Americans who became physicians only because of their parents' expectations, and manage to not kill too many patients.
My dad might also be an example. He went into EE because a scholarship was available for that at the time. He would have preferred studying biology. Although he wasn't at all passionate about EE, he was good at what he did, because he was very sharp. Granted both EE and biology are within the "STEM" umbrella, but it's I think my dad is an example of someone who's good without having been passionate.
Sorry, I forgot to include rewriting systems in all of that. No disrespect, yo.
I'd say there are two very different levels of connection.
At the most obvious and shallow, computers are good at crunching numbers quickly, and early programming languages were designed to put that power to good use. But nowadays, at least at the application programming level, the focus of average programmers' work tends to be much more on string processing (for web pages, twitter feeds, etc.) and storage/retrieval (databases, etc.) There are certainly mathematical implications of that work, but not so much numerical math.
Then at the much deeper level you find out that graph theory, topology, and computability have powerful connections to type systems, program correctness proofs, etc. I suspect that my mind can only hold a small fraction of the interesting connections in this area. This is what I'd call serious, deep Computer Science, and this is where I see it really tying in fundamentally to math. To me, this is the purest form of CS, and most CS grads barely grok it and/or care about it. Advances in this area are probably like advances in pure mathematics: it may take decades or even centuries for us to understand their application to the software development changes right in front of us, but when we do, they're transformative. Although maybe that's over-selling it a little.
There's probably more than one way to skin the cat, and I don't have enough experience in the design of CS curricula to know which works out better.
When I took CS 101 as an undergrad, the focus was primarily on using and implementing abstract data types, and getting the hang of programming in general. We did use pointers, but it was in Pascal.
It worked out okay in the end - most/all of us in that CS 101 class have good careers, and I managed to end up with a PhD in CS. But I suppose data isn't the plural of anecdote.
I'm not sure we should hit kids with the full force of CS theory in their first CS course. I suspect there's a real benefit to giving them something with tangible results and immediately useful skills, like Javascript. Without that, I think they might be unable to see the relevance of the more advanced theory, and lose interest in CS altogether.
Obligatory xkcd reference.
I dunno... You could alway make an argument for integrating any topic into any other, pretty much. Or for keeping them separate.
That might be a Texas-specific problem. In New England we don't tend to have that.
Welcome to Lake Wobegon High School.
Well duh, of course all of /. 's men are good looking!
Correction: most persons can't do them without studying / practicing hard.
The distinction is absolutely crucial to schools, parents, and nations.
I'd love to see what she would say to a taxpayer "losing" 2 years of receipts during an audit.
I think that "my bad" wouldn't be enough.
Welcome to the realities of asymmetric power.
Where do you get the idea the average GOP voter "strongly values privacy?" These are generally the same people who are A-OK with NSA surveillance because it's about catchin' terrrist evil-doers and if you ain't got nuthin' to hide you ain't got nuthin' ta fear.
You're both painting with broad brushes. And I suspect the data mining about which this article talks would help sort that out.