No advantages that I can see. And the Transmeta site is laughably uninformative. As a DSP geek, I'm still waiting to see what's so exciting about their silicon -- it's going to have to compete with ARM. Can they hack it or not?
The best reports I've seen gave some detailed sources for data, as well as reasoning behind conclusions. That way, even if you decide that you don't agree, you have some data to back you up (and hopefully some references too)
... and announced plans to develop a more powerful wireless platform. http://www.dotelectronics.com/news/index.shtml But I'll be interested to see if Intel can take advantage of their knowledge-base to bring anything innovative to DSPs. I'd guess that they aren't planning on doing much more than focussing as much as possible on CDMA/ 3rd Gen mobile systems. (To the person who commented that Qualcomm wrote CDMA; that's true, but the standards have moved on since then. I don't remember that any of the major international mobile phone manufacturers went with anything other than TI, Lucent or Analog Devices, but I could be wrong.)
[NOTE: Geekettes who aren't into the opposite sex can read this and just feel smug:) ]
Men, eh? Why do we bother? Is it just so as to subtly compete with our non-geekette sisters as to who can hook the best earner? Is it the fascinating conversation on the topic of security issues in TCP/IP? Or is it the wild sex?
(OK, so maybe we're getting somewhere with that last point...)
Well, no-one said that men don't have their problems. But here's a secret: as long as you aren't trying to change anything really basic about them, they CAN be trained. A good rule in life is... don't go out with someone because you like your concept of what he could be. Go out with people you like right now, and don't give up because you can't deal with minor behavioural issues -- some failings (such as lack of cooking ability, dress sense, desire to wake you up at 4am to talk about Java beans) can be trained out.
The best advice I was ever given on dating was 'stick to guys you actually want to talk to -- that way, even if you don't fancy each other at all, the evening will not be wasted.' Actually, talking is generally a good idea.
Geek guys (in my experience) are almost always more interested in talking about detailed techie issues than you will be. Even if you have a PhD in CompSci and 10 years harcore hacking experience, they will be more interested in discussing it in their off-hours than you will. Moving the conversation on to something you are more interested in (such as new gadgets, games, or what's on at the cinema) is a learned art. If all else fails, make sure he spends time chatting to male geek friends -- it will help him to get it out of his system and he'll feel less stifled when you keep trying to change the subject.
1. Men are not good at multi-tasking Grrls, if your guy is totally immersed in one activity, let him get on with it. Don't interrupt that important TV program, or late-night coding session with anything less critical than "Darling, the world's about to end!" (although food is usually acceptable, and sex/might/ be).
2. Men are usually pretty direct when they are trying to insult you Don't waste your time trying to read millions of details into his every word. The chances are that if he thinks you are fat, he'll just say so. If he thinks you are boring, he'll get glazed or pick up a computer magazine.
3. Men like to be flattered Well, don't we all? But it's fairly easy to get your loved one to buy you small tokens of appreciations (such as a DVD ROM drive, or a palmpilot) if you bear this in mind. They especially like to be flattered about prowess in bed, but it NEVER hurts to tell your loved one 'I really missed you last night when you weren't here' -- especially if it's true. Don't believe all the crap you read about men not being interesting in this soppy romantic stuff. They like it/just fine/ when you tell them how much you like them, and enjoy having them around.
4. Real Men aren't afraid of intelligent debate Isn't that the truth? So OK, if you happen to be well-read, or know a lot about history... don't feel that you have to agree with your geek guy all the time. Especially if his political stance is wildly underinformed. There's a difference between politely exchanging informed views and getting into a headlock. Most of the geeks I've known have been quite interested in assimilating new data (but expect people to be picky on you getting your facts right). Don't bite back your most deeply held ideals just in order to agree with him. If it's something you believe in, let him know!
Now, I realise most people here are thoroughly US based, but Deutsche Telekom recently shocked pundits across Europe by buying out one of the main (the main?) Italian Telco. They are huge (and expanding).
If Sprint make a hurried decision to jump into bed with MCI (with whom they prolly have more in common) than DK, who have shown predatory tendencies, then it's a bit soon to blame them.
At my (high-powered, single-sex) school, when I was in the 6th Form (last year before university, for non-UK types), there were 60 girls in my year who were specialising in science subjects. That's 60 young women, who were studying combinations of Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. 3 of us went on to take Engineering at college (and 1 dropped out after the first year), _40_ (ish) studied medicine; and they didn't all have strong medical vocations. (I don't think anyone did computing from that year -- I was probably the closest with microelectronics)
So why isn't computing/engineering a natural choice for these people, who should be potential recruits?
This argument comes up all the time in the IEE (institute of electrical engineers) journal; viz. why isn't engineering seen as a natural choice for kids who are capable of it. My experience is that teachers don't especially encourage it -- they like to push pure science or medicine as more rewarding. (My guess is that this is because most of them have no clue what engineers do) The people who are most likely to go on to study these subjects are the ones who independently gained an interest at home, rather than at school.
Also, don't think that knowing you are going to be the only girl in a class of at least 100 students isn't an off-putting factor. How many teenagers like to feel that they fit into a social group? For male proto-geeks, this is fine. They'll be mixing with their own kind. For girls, it's just another example of how far they are straying from what society expects -- ie. lack of female examples just turns it into a vicious circle. It means that a girl has to be really dedicated to even think of these options -- they will not naturally occur, and may not even be suggested by careers advisors.
Also, science/math minded girls are going to be far more attracted by other options as long as most people have no clue what engineers do, or how it might be useful to society as a whole. (cf. medicine, frex) Greed is not everyone's overarching desire at the age of 16-18, when you make these career defining dcisions.
I suspect that as more and more networking technology makes it into 'normal' households, girls will be more likely to have played with kit at home -- and remember that girls mature more quickly than boys. We're brighter at 8-12 than you losers:):) Catch the girls then and you have them.
My experience with chatting to other net.heads online is that there are plenty of women who use the net regularly, plenty, and a lot of them aren't UberGeeks (in the sense that they don't feel any particular need to know how the technology works, or to have the latest gadgets, as long as what they have works!) -- although that doesn't mean none of us have electrical engineering PhDs, or the like.
Far from being discouraged by chatrooms, IRC, MU*s and the like, it's the social interaction which is hooking girls to the online world. I think it's partly because girls are encouraged to be more sociable, to interact with others, but I think we'll find more and more that the same stereotyped women (and I'm sure the image is based on some truth) who spend all day on the phone to their girlfriends will be just as happy to spend the time online in chatting.
And just for the record, my grandmother loves her email, once I'd shown her how to set it up!
It's not a case of being worthless -- it's a case of what will make good TV...
I suppose the Beeb could make a show which consisted of 30mins of clips of normal looking people saying 'Yeah, I read the site for about an hour a day and it's kind of interesting!' but they presumably want to push this digitribes concept to give the great unwashed masses the impression that they are lifting the lid on one of the world's best-kept secrets (which is true, in a way, I guess.)
So I imagine they want colourful stories and people. But just cos you don't make exciting TV doesn't make you worthless!
IMO the big advantage of Python as a teaching language is that it has good support for OO design/ coding. I agree that CS courses should be teaching students what tools (ie. languages) are available and when it is appropriate to use them, but you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. My experience is that students will tend to find their own level. I think there is an advantage to teaching students in a language they are unlikely to have learned on their own -- you can use it as an excuse to teach them good habits. archie (Or maybe everyone should just be taught M68000 as a good solid baseline;-) It never did me any harm! )
Slashdot Mirror
They're legally required to offer full circuit availability for emergency calls as part of their licence.
No advantages that I can see. And the Transmeta site is laughably uninformative. As a DSP geek, I'm still waiting to see what's so exciting about their silicon -- it's going to have to compete with ARM. Can they hack it or not?
(subject line says it)
He talks just like everyone else ... over here :)
The best reports I've seen gave some detailed sources for data, as well as reasoning behind conclusions. That way, even if you decide that you don't agree, you have some data to back you up (and hopefully some references too)
... and announced plans to develop a more powerful wireless platform. http://www.dotelectronics.com/news/index.shtml But I'll be interested to see if Intel can take advantage of their knowledge-base to bring anything innovative to DSPs. I'd guess that they aren't planning on doing much more than focussing as much as possible on CDMA/ 3rd Gen mobile systems. (To the person who commented that Qualcomm wrote CDMA; that's true, but the standards have moved on since then. I don't remember that any of the major international mobile phone manufacturers went with anything other than TI, Lucent or Analog Devices, but I could be wrong.)
He's right. UMTS is just around the corner. Standards pretty much finalised, major cellphone manufacturers working hard on implementing them.
Men, eh? Why do we bother? Is it just so as to subtly compete with our non-geekette sisters as to who can hook the best earner? Is it the fascinating conversation on the topic of security issues in TCP/IP? Or is it the wild sex?
(OK, so maybe we're getting somewhere with that last point...)
Well, no-one said that men don't have their problems. But here's a secret: as long as you aren't trying to change anything really basic about them, they CAN be trained. A good rule in life is ... don't go out with someone because you like your concept of what he could be. Go out with people you like right now, and don't give up because you can't deal with minor behavioural issues -- some failings (such as lack of cooking ability, dress sense, desire to wake you up at 4am to talk about Java beans) can be trained out.
The best advice I was ever given on dating was 'stick to guys you actually want to talk to -- that way, even if you don't fancy each other at all, the evening will not be wasted.' Actually, talking is generally a good idea.
Geek guys (in my experience) are almost always more interested in talking about detailed techie issues than you will be. Even if you have a PhD in CompSci and 10 years harcore hacking experience, they will be more interested in discussing it in their off-hours than you will. Moving the conversation on to something you are more interested in (such as new gadgets, games, or what's on at the cinema) is a learned art. If all else fails, make sure he spends time chatting to male geek friends -- it will help him to get it out of his system and he'll feel less stifled when you keep trying to change the subject.
1. Men are not good at multi-tasking /might/ be).
Grrls, if your guy is totally immersed in one activity, let him get on with it. Don't interrupt that important TV program, or late-night coding session with anything less critical than "Darling, the world's about to end!" (although food is usually acceptable, and sex
2. Men are usually pretty direct when they are trying to insult you
Don't waste your time trying to read millions of details into his every word. The chances are that if he thinks you are fat, he'll just say so. If he thinks you are boring, he'll get glazed or pick up a computer magazine.
3. Men like to be flattered /just fine/ when you tell them how much you like them, and enjoy having them around.
Well, don't we all? But it's fairly easy to get your loved one to buy you small tokens of appreciations (such as a DVD ROM drive, or a palmpilot) if you bear this in mind. They especially like to be flattered about prowess in bed, but it NEVER hurts to tell your loved one 'I really missed you last night when you weren't here' -- especially if it's true. Don't believe all the crap you read about men not being interesting in this soppy romantic stuff. They like it
4. Real Men aren't afraid of intelligent debate ... don't feel that you have to agree with your geek guy all the time. Especially if his political stance is wildly underinformed. There's a difference between politely exchanging informed views and getting into a headlock. Most of the geeks I've known have been quite interested in assimilating new data (but expect people to be picky on you getting your facts right). Don't bite back your most deeply held ideals just in order to agree with him. If it's something you believe in, let him know!
Isn't that the truth? So OK, if you happen to be well-read, or know a lot about history
(Would be more but I'm out of steam)
La Fiend
Now, I realise most people here are thoroughly US based, but Deutsche Telekom recently shocked pundits across Europe by buying out one of the main (the main?) Italian Telco. They are huge (and expanding).
If Sprint make a hurried decision to jump into bed with MCI (with whom they prolly have more in common) than DK, who have shown predatory tendencies, then it's a bit soon to blame them.
Now I'll start with a little personal anecdote.
At my (high-powered, single-sex) school, when I was in the 6th Form (last year before university, for non-UK types), there were 60 girls in my year who were specialising in science subjects. That's 60 young women, who were studying combinations of Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. 3 of us went on to take Engineering at college (and 1 dropped out after the first year), _40_ (ish) studied medicine; and they didn't all have strong medical vocations. (I don't think anyone did computing from that year -- I was probably the closest with microelectronics)
So why isn't computing/engineering a natural choice for these people, who should be potential recruits?
This argument comes up all the time in the IEE (institute of electrical engineers) journal; viz. why isn't engineering seen as a natural choice for kids who are capable of it. My experience is that teachers don't especially encourage it -- they like to push pure science or medicine as more rewarding. (My guess is that this is because most of them have no clue what engineers do) The people who are most likely to go on to study these subjects are the ones who independently gained an interest at home, rather than at school.
Also, don't think that knowing you are going to be the only girl in a class of at least 100 students isn't an off-putting factor. How many teenagers like to feel that they fit into a social group? For male proto-geeks, this is fine. They'll be mixing with their own kind. For girls, it's just another example of how far they are straying from what society expects -- ie. lack of female examples just turns it into a vicious circle. It means that a girl has to be really dedicated to even think of these options -- they will not naturally occur, and may not even be suggested by careers advisors.
Also, science/math minded girls are going to be far more attracted by other options as long as most people have no clue what engineers do, or how it might be useful to society as a whole. (cf. medicine, frex) Greed is not everyone's overarching desire at the age of 16-18, when you make these career defining dcisions.
I suspect that as more and more networking technology makes it into 'normal' households, girls will be more likely to have played with kit at home -- and remember that girls mature more quickly than boys. We're brighter at 8-12 than you losers :):) Catch the girls then and you have them.
My experience with chatting to other net.heads online is that there are plenty of women who use the net regularly, plenty, and a lot of them aren't UberGeeks (in the sense that they don't feel any particular need to know how the technology works, or to have the latest gadgets, as long as what they have works!) -- although that doesn't mean none of us have electrical engineering PhDs, or the like.
Far from being discouraged by chatrooms, IRC, MU*s and the like, it's the social interaction which is hooking girls to the online world. I think it's partly because girls are encouraged to be more sociable, to interact with others, but I think we'll find more and more that the same stereotyped women (and I'm sure the image is based on some truth) who spend all day on the phone to their girlfriends will be just as happy to spend the time online in chatting.
And just for the record, my grandmother loves her email, once I'd shown her how to set it up!
archie
It's not a case of being worthless -- it's a case of what will make good TV...
I suppose the Beeb could make a show which consisted of 30mins of clips of normal looking people saying 'Yeah, I read the site for about an hour a day and it's kind of interesting!' but they presumably want to push this digitribes concept to give the great unwashed masses the impression that they are lifting the lid on one of the world's best-kept secrets (which is true, in a way, I guess.)
So I imagine they want colourful stories and people. But just cos you don't make exciting TV doesn't make you worthless!
IMO the big advantage of Python as a teaching language is that it has good support for OO design/ coding. I agree that CS courses should be teaching students what tools (ie. languages) are available and when it is appropriate to use them, but you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. My experience is that students will tend to find their own level. I think there is an advantage to teaching students in a language they are unlikely to have learned on their own -- you can use it as an excuse to teach them good habits. archie (Or maybe everyone should just be taught M68000 as a good solid baseline ;-) It never did me any harm! )