I'm not an IT guy, but here is the salary break down I had vs. degree. I did not get my PhD but one of my friends did and he shared with me his interview results (actually all of my college friends did, it was a valuable resource in pushing for the highest possible salary).
M.S. EE - $73k/yr M.S. Comp. E (this was a new program)- $69k/yr M.S. Computer Science - $65k/yr
PhD CS - $67k/yr PhD EE - $55k/yr-$75k/yr wildly varying based upon specialty. Those specializing in control or power systems were at $55k, those specializing in Semiconductor Fab related stuff were up at the $75k.
Most IT salaries I knew were BS only and fell around the $45k mark. This was over the period 1996-2001, around New York City. New York is not exactly a hub of geekdom, I work at Bell Labs (aka Lucent - We outsource/resell the things that make communications work) which is about the only major technology company in the area, and was in the middle of all offers I received. (Am I wrong? Who else is in the area...) New York DOES have a lot of banks and hired a lot of IT guys in it's time, however I hear those jobs are in india now:(
My opinion formed on this data is that a PhD has absolutely no financial value regardless of degree. It is a research degree however, which means if you want to do research and you don't want to be someones lab assistant, you MUST have it. This agrees with how things should be. You do not want people getting PhD's for the money.
That said I can't imagine that there is a lot of active research in IT, and I think if I had that degree and was considering a way to boost my career viability I would consider an MBA. I take my own advice and that is the degree I will pursue next fall. There is such an intense lack of technically competant businessmen in the world, and contrary to popular opinion, it really is hurting everyone.
I don't know about what happened in Soviet Russia, but these days no one sticks a gun to an astronauts head and tells him he's flying or else. I don't mean to belittle the commitment of the people who fly to space, but they are not unaware of the risk they are taking.
The only way to make space flight safer for men in space is to send men in space. Even in our enlightened computing era, automated probes are good only for reporting back on things we anticipate ahead of time and build sensors for. They cannot report on the unexpected, nor can they cope with it. Also the speed of light is a factor, our best control systems are far from instantaneous over the distances in question.
I don't advocate sending live humans into totally unknown and unpredictable situations. And smaller unmanned probes are certainly a cheap way of doing just that. At some point however you need a real brain out there on the spot, and the day is coming.
When I was in school, apple was always throwing computers at schools trying to get students to get familiar with them and get one for home.
The result is that us geeks would never touch a mac. Using them had the same connotation as admitting to an inadequate endowment. It wasn't just the immature need to feel superior either. Macs couldn't play the majority of good games, they weren't half as configurable as our PCs, and they cost a lot more. By and large we were also those with the good grades and better study habits (read: not getting any). It's no surprise then that after leaving school, we became the technical force in society; from engineers to IT admins.
The portion that used the Macs were usually not the types that were interested enough in computing to buy one for home. Nor were they particularly technically inclined (read: they were getting plenty, and had little time to click their mice). These people later got jobs that involved someone from the IT department putting a computer on their desk. Those people would usually buy a computer for home that was compatible with what they had at work. They're not the kind of people that get all worked up over a computer.
Before the flames begin, I know of exceptions to all cases. But I did have the advantage of having moved a LOT; I believe 9 schools from K-12. The same pattern was evident in all locations. You don't have to like what I say, but it was true as far as I was able to see.
I no longer hate Macs like I used to, they've come a long way. The OS has transformed from a toy into something very useful, still lacking the software base of a PC perhaps, but at least not offensive to use. Much better than Windows and more viable than Linux on the desktop.
However, I have 2 issues, one moral one practcial. First, Apple the company is every bit as evil as Microsoft. Thwarting MS for Apple is a bad choice. I remember when Apple was king, they were impossible. I could probably make a good argument that the improvements I've noticed in the OS is based on Apple's need to try harder since their fall. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Macs cost entirely too much money. I know this MUST be true without comparing numbers, simply because Apple has a monopoly over computer equipment. I know it IS true by just looking online and pricing comparable machines.
For both these reasons, it does not make sense for me to support Apple with religious furvor until their systems are open. This means each facet of the hardware is completely and thoroughly documented. Said documentation is freely available to anyone who wants it. Multiple (more than 5) Hardware vendors are capable of supplying components for a Mac, royalty free. This will have the effect of both cutting the cost of the system, and nerfing Apple's ability to monopolize the industry.
It's not perfect, it doesn't solve the "installed software base" issue. I'll still have to buy all new software to run on my mac. That's a solveable problem too, but I don't think Apple can necessarily fix it.
I agree to some level. Linux started off as a part toy, part hobby, part experiment. It became popular to the geek world because it allowed us to use our hardware toys better (by providing a better OS than was suitable for the mainstream). I agree that the linux community should not ever pander solely to the interests of businesses or the "mainstream user", nor should it ever be about maximizing profit. (Maximizing profit often involes doing nothing at all, even free labor can be expensive)
But boy, hasn't it benefitted greatly by being a little useful? Don't us geeks get more stuff for us now than we used to? Don't we want to try to keep it at least where it's at now? I see no reason to push it onto the desktop and to dumb it down ala OS X or (gasp) Windows, but it would be nice if businesses could see hte value in keeping it in the server room.
Further, although I don't agree with your view on profit or business objectives, I do agree that the cornerstone of "true" capitalism is competition. Without Linux what is there that is really even suitable in the server room? There's Microsoft and Sun, sometimes IBM (being primarily a big HW & services company, seems to want to go Linux anyhow) and well...that's about it these days. Not exactly a free market. Worse, to switch from one to the other you have to make an enormous $$$ investment.
Is our only motivation with Linux to have a nice toy on our desk? Don't we want to try to fix some real problems with technological development? Can't we use our toy for social improvement, or are we all about complaining and having daddy or uncle sam go fix it? It all goes hand in hand.
Why is Roblimo interviewing a journalist at a science magazine? Why not interview the scientists themselves?
I believe this guy is better than your average journalist at summarizing key ideas, but this is a website for nerds. Give us the real deal or give us more SCO stories.
In other news IBM sneezes and SCO CEO Darl McBride accuses IBM of continued violations of SCO intellectual property. No one at IBM could be reached for a comment, however McBride was quoted as saying that "...this sneeze is SCO intellectual property, and is not licensed for public distribution". McBride further alleges that the sneeze will result in a $699 license fee, payable to SCO for each person in IBM involved.
In a related story, McBride also threated to sue any company offering a Kleenex to IBM. A spokesperson at Red Hat was quoted as saying "Gazundheit".
Probably because they know SCO has no leg to stand on, on this case. Probably SCO knows this too. The real issue is to lure IBM into saying or doing something that IS likely to result in profitable litigation. IANAL so I don't know what this COULD be, but I suspect it's part of the strategy. Maybe not a $100M suit but a nice little $10M deal that could breathe new life in to their company.
IBM probably just wants to keep as quiet as they can,without losing business and watch SCO die.
I think C++ is quite useful, and I'm not a "2 week IT person", not that I think they are necessarily inferior beings. On another note, most IT people I know tend to make the most use of Perl/Ruby/Python since it solves most of their problems quickest.
Straight C is my favorite tool and what I use for embedded programming, quick hacks and performance constrained work. Every time I try to do a large application with it though, I find myself thinking "you know, they already did this exact thing with C++, and I'm going to spend 2 days re-inventing this and testing it".
I use tidbits of Assembly (80x86, MIPS, Arm, PowerPC, what have you) in embedded systems for device driver or performance critical sections. As a HW engineer I tend to use this a lot in bringup of new designs, especially "very new" designs that don't necessarily work and every instruction is important.
I use C++ when I am building a very large, flexible application where I use many types of data structures and need it to get up and running in a short period of time. I like this language for "serious application" programming.
I use Perl to manage my file system, do text processing and other maintenance hacks.
I use Java for simple GUIs that often work as a front end for serious endeavors.
I use TCL/TK for ASIC/FGPA debugging (simulator interface) and test suites.
I use fortran less and less (often I convert to C) for purely numerical computation. Gems of knowledge exist in fortran code for optimized matrix related algorithms that are highly useful in 3D visualization.
I have not found any practical use for Pascal or Lisp lately (the latter is useful for emacs, but I rarely mess with it).
The point of all this is that much like you wouldn't use a screwdriver to drive a nail through wood (unless that was all that was available), you would tend to use whatever tool is best suited to a task. Us engineer types are supposed to be tool-makers and users of the highest order. It surprises me when I hear one of us suggest we should use our favorite tool to the exclusion of all others.
I do not like C++ in terms of the performance and memory impact it infers, but when building large applications I do not have time to re-invent a linked list for the umpteenth time, nor do I want to debug every different link list in my code, there are much harder problems to solve more critical to the success of my project. That said, C++ (and C for that matter) is lacking in some very important things. Among those I think are critical are: multithreading, network stack framework (platform independent that is) and GUI framework (platform independent!). If you read the article, you'll see mention of at least two of those things (we need a standard platform independent GUI library dammit!)
I find myself in the very same situation quite often. Worse is that I know the Q&D solution WILL have consequences, perhaps in a few years when I'm gone or on another project but the product needs changing.
The correct solution for this dilemma is NOT black and white. You CAN BE FIRED if your boss isn't happy with the rate at work gets done (even if it's good, high quality work). I am not so idealistic that I believe doing good high quality work should come at the expense of a job, at least on the receiving end of a paycheck. Everyone must compromise to some degree, but in general I have seen choices made based in the following ways.
If what do you want to do with your career? If you want to be an engineer, than your reputation with your peers and even with vendors and customers is critically important. You MUST do a good quality job. I'm not saying you should ignore deadlines and requirements, but be thorough and precise. It is your reputation and your most valuable asset, do not screw it up! Be professional.
If your aspiration is management, then clearly you must be results focused. That is what your boss will hold you responsible for, the results are what you will have on your resume (and believe me, you will be switching jobs every 3-5 years, good manager or no). You will be evaluated based upon how fast you do something, using how much money with how many people and what immediate results happened. Moving up inside a single corporation is nearly impossible, it may be a decade before a position turns over, so you rarely will be around when a short term decision goes bad (and not all short term decisions ARE bad, sometimes they're the right thing), at least not if you are aiming high. You're looking for fast results and a way to climb to the next rung, it's hard.
Also remember as an engineer (esp in small companies) you are going to be bought and sold with the product. If the product sux or has no lifetime, then you are shooting yourself in the foot for what? To look good to suits who view you as cattle?
Couldn't agree with you more, I'm quite convinced that American companies are all about taking the easy way, in technology and elsewhere. I can't tell you how many times my managers have tried to convince me "the right thing" was building a substandard product, or screwed up a product by doing something that SOUNDS good to a roomfull of suits but is in reality incredibly stupid and shortsighted.
Engineers have to share some of the blame however, I can't tell you how many good engineers refuse to go in to management because they honestly beleive they are incapable (by virtue of being an engineer and not the best-people persons) or because they don't wnat to turn into their present manager and make those boneheaded decisions. Part of being a good engineer or manager is learning how to tell the boss to shove it when he asks you to do something wrong. Good bosses (technical or not) won't hold it against you as long as you're polite. Bad bosses don't deserve your help. Either way, bad management starts with bad understanding of technology, and gets worse with overly docile (and job-scared) engineers. People skills have value, but lets face it, knowing how a good widget gets built is more important.
You're confusing personality disorders with the a particular definition of anti-social behavior. Everyone has personality disorders at all times, whether the person is functional can be shown by actions he takes which are deemed detrmental to society by (in our case) laws and public opinion. If you (the reader, not necessary the author of the post I'm replying to) do not think you have a disorder, check his website or see http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html See if you can't pick a handful of disorders that even in some small way could be attributed to you. This doesn't mean you're a sick person of course...it's psych 101 and why trained doctors spend all that time going to school.
I'm annoyed with this article precisely because there is an insinuation that game playing may have been thought dangerous to society, but is now shown to be "OK" because "normal" people (definined as those who socialize with friends and do not completely self-dstruct their career) do it too. The argument of the article seems fundamentally flawed as well as it's support, but the support is downright insulting.
The article made a few other unfair insinuations that makes me mad (yet not homicidal! don't call the police!):
1) That being a hermit is bad
2) That even normal socializing individuals occasionally play games in mom's house; but fear not they often do such important things as hanging out with friends
3) That somehow spending time with ones friends is a superior form of entertainment than with ones game console
I do not see why it ought to be an acceptable and commonly held belief that to be normal you must socialize unless you are a) at work/school or b) performing a critical task for a spouse or family member. Why is it important to "get out" and "meet people"? Why is being a hermit a bad thing? Why can't get up, go to a job, do good work, come home and plant myself in front of my PC for some good EQage? Although I happen to be married, even if I wasn't, am I hurting anyone?
My annoyance is probably irrational (relax, you don't have to call the police yet either), as one poster replied writing sensational stories sells ads, and making the masses feel comfortable sells even more. I am still annoyed however at the high-school clique nonsense that seems to make it into "respected" news sources like CNN.
What's wrong with being proud of it? Why is being a gamer so much more wrong than any of the other sources of entertainment in society?
Why is it desireable for someone to have a wide variety of entertainment? Why is it not OK to focus? Why must people restrict themselves to socially popular forms of entertainment?
If I thought there was one correct way to live life, and it was to watch "Survivor", play sports, go to rock concerts, parties and night clubs in what would have to be a fit of ADHD, I would probably self-terminate. I can't think of a more misearable existence for myself. Never a chance to think, breathe or act independently. No hope of escape, excessive obligations to others, the inability to disappear to do my own thing for any time without search parties launched...that's not life, not to me.
Entertainment is just a cure for the mind and stress, it doesn't matter how you take it, but everyone needs SOME form. To me and many geeks, socializing with people is as stressful as a day at the office; NOT entertaining or relaxing. If jocks (athletes) can be proud they spend the weekend beating their opponent(s) at , and club-kiddies can be proud of their drug induced delerium and sexual conquests, why can't I be proud that I made level 65 in EQ?
It's only bad when it's taken to the extreme that ALL you do is engage in entertainment, and do not work or take care of yourself. That can be said about ANYTHING equally much. The guy with the bulging biceps on the street with no job is as much a loser as his equivalent panting, sweaty geek in mom's basement playing EQ. It's OK however for the guy to be proud of his muscles and fitness, but that geek...he's just a loser?
Slashdot, news for self-hating nerds...stuff to help them conform
Actually a lot of people I know are occasional gamers. They arent obsessed with them and associate with "normal" people... The problem is when you become addicted and sit in front of your computer all day.
What's wrong with this? I know, so-called (and self-dubbed) "normal" people who sit around and watch/play sports all day. I know others who go to parties all night long and even if they don't end up stoned or drunk are pretty much useless during the day. What's wrong with planting yourself in front of a game?
It's wrong when it starts to interfere with your ability to function in society, be it as a student or a member of the workforce. Other than that, who the hell cares.
There are a few meanings of the word "anti-social", everything from mass murdering rapists and software pirates, to people who prefer their own company. I will accept that the mass murdering rapist type definition of anti-social as being bad, but this does not appear to be the topic of the article. For the purpose of this post, consider anti-social to mean someone who prefers their own company.
What I do not understand is why people who prefer their own company are considered somehow "broken". I do not know of any facet of human physiology which REQUIRES other human contact beyond a base desire to procreate. Why is there such a bad connotation to being anti-social?
Society itself does not need a hive mind. In fact, I would argue just as strongly that it is dangerous, irresponsible and something we all should actively try to prevent in our children. The world needs independent thinkers, people who think outside the box and come up with original solutions. People who don't let the hive mind dictate their response. Somehow I see from high school that civics classes about the glory of democracy has led people to a very wrong conclusion: that the majority is always right. That's such a horribly incorrect thought that is so pervasive (esp in MTV pop-culture) that it makes me want to lock myself in a room and slay myself with a BFG-10k.
I am hard pressed to come up with any thing the hive MIND has produced that has either been correct or somehow useful. The hive mind has historically resulted in: slavery, bigotry, religion (in the "belief in unfounded/unproven philosophy in the face of contrary evidence" sense), senseless wars, mass murder, and most horribly reality television. Let's face it, "society" is valuable only as a workforce commodity. When it comes to thinking, we're better off with Forrest Gump than any 10 people.
Why is it that those who choose to not "join in" are persecuted? I contribute to the whole, and I make it possible for us all to walk forward. I do so just as much as the next guy. I am not taking anything away by not talking to you. Even if I firmly believe that you are all incredibly stupid and not worth my time, I'm not really hurting you am I? As long as I do my job & earn my keep, I have fulfilled my obligation to others. Leave us alone.
Is in my mind a complete waste of money. Why anyone would pay full price for what turned out to be a bad remake of "Night of the Living Dead" is beyond me. I've heard the terms "Independent Film" and "Art Film" both used as an excuse for why it's so bad, but those don't qualify if they're charging full price! If you're THAT into post-apocalyptic stories, read "The Stand" by Stephen King or just rent Night of the Living Dead.
28 Days later has little to speak for it: very bad acting, horrendous (to the point of being epic) dialog, a very hard to swallow story and to top it off it's shot in such a way as my wife and I had a headache through various points of the movie (noteably the intro). Now to be fair, the shots of post apocalyptic England were very well done. I did not enter the movie expecting a great plot, it IS a zombie movie after all. However various twists in the story (involving sex starved men) seemed not only unbelievable but horrible.
The same reason their desktops are pretty & compact. Apple uses a small variety of equipment compatible by definition (i.e. apple determines the specs). The advantage is that the device is better built (i.e. lighter, smaller, tougher), but also expensive.
Crack open a PC notebook and you'll see a wider array of devices, unpopulated footprints (aka population options), inconsistent use of a device across multiple assemblies...and a big mess. Also some hardware selections will be the result of wishing to avoid patents/royalties (firewire, etc., possibly the dvd-tray issue as well).
PC notebooks are designed to be as cheap as possible but fit the "laptop market". The population options exist to give mfg's the option of substituting one chip for another on the assembly line, should a particular vendor's quote come in cheaper. They won't have to go through an expensive redesign/requalification, and can sell cheap cheap cheap. This is the downside of a true capitalist market (i.e. lots of cut-throat competition).
I do think there is room in the market for a "high quality" notebook manufacturer. IBM Stinkpads inconsistently deliver quality, so they're not someone I consider using. Also their product line is confusing, it's hard to get what I want.
Then this is excellent, should "Bunnie" be sued we have a good trial case that could get the DMCA overturned or more likely weakened. I really like this "accessibility" angle, it would be very hurtful to be seen as the people standing against him...
I hope that you would if that 12 year old was your own child. I probably have the relatively high paying (albeit economically uncertain) job I have today because at some point my dad let me do what I needed to do. I guess I started swapping simple cards in and out at around 9-10 (about the time when "sound blaster" because a game requirement).
When I was 12 I desperately needed to swap my 286 for a 486. My dad was complaining about the $1000+ price tag associated with a new PC, so I told him I could do it for a few hundred. I'm sure he had his doubts, and feared for the life of his machine, but I swapped out the old board and voila. He gained a money saving computer techie for free, and ensured my early financial independence!
Now I think linux is great and all, but the REAL reason I learned all of the above on a PC (as opposed to a mac) under DOS was because that was where the games were. If you give linux to a 12 year old they're not going to learn it, because the really good games you find in stores are on the PC. So the point about installing Perl on Windows is valid.
The linux community REALLY needs to get gaming on linux to the point of being "real" if we want to have widespread appeal to youngins.
When I joined my present employer I had to sign a big page of legal nonsense about not joining competing companies for 3 years after I quit/get-fired. I also had to sign away that every single thing I do (including this post) while employed here is company property. At work, at home, all times of the day... To legally release open source code I would have to write it, convince our legal department that it's useless to the company. After about a year or so of fighting very unintelligent executives I may be given permission to own my work, and thus release clean, GPL code.
So if anyone wonders why nothing good ever gets done from our company, this is why.
My school was all theory no application. As a result I had to go invent projects on my own and figure out how to build them. Some smoked, some worked. After doing enough I managed to get a reasonable background in practical engineering. Not as good as those who had actual engieners teaching actual hardware design classes, but better than nothing.
In the end I got the job, the other EEs are getting laid off from bank IT jobs since they have an EE degree instead of an MCSE but can't do real EE.
Unfortunately the problem is that ACADEMICS teach university classes. ACADEMICS do not care about "real life" by definition. Hence it's all theory. My advice to students is to bear with it, remember that 95% of the theory you will never ever use directly, so don't be discouraged. It's all about how to THINK about the problem, you will rarely if ever actually apply this math, but you should understand the concepts. Then go figure out how to build a small simple device you think you need around your house (like an audio amplifier, SPDIF switch etc.). Don't try to build it all yourself, find all the ICs you need, then figure out how to make them work together. Figure out how to wire up and program a DSP, uC, uP etc.
It's true, there is no company I hate with such ferocity and venom (ignoring microsoft) as Verizon. I have never had such rude, apathetic, outright incompentant customer service as with verizon. You'd think they felt as if they really didn't have to WORK to get you as a customer. Uh wait...they don't! It takes 3 weeks to get a phone installed, and don't you dare try and do it within hailing distance of any minor holiday.
Then because I was so furious about the shitty DSL service they provide, I switched to speakeasy. Speakeasy is probably the BEST isp I've ever had the pleasure of doing business with. However, Verizon STILL managed to block my install for 3 weeks while they "finalized my account", which apparently prohibits them from reconfiguring the virtual circuit to connect to speakeasy. Keep in mind this has nothing to do with PAYMENT which was done by credit card. This has to do with taking 3 weeks from getting my "disconnect" order to sending it through accounting to reverify I was "paid up" on my service, to sending someone out to my location (according to them!) to "disconnect my line" (same line as voice, and since I build this equipment for a living, I KNOW it's done in the CO at a computer terminal, I even know the command to do it, and the command but not the parameter to connect the VC to speakeasy).
At first I thought it was Covad screwing up, but then they started forwarding me the trouble tickets, complete with phone numbers of Verizon agents. I began calling those agents myself just to make sure. Sure enough, it was all Verizon's game. I suspect that Verizon deliberately screws up CLECs to make them appear as incompetant as Verizon is, but I can't ever prove it.
There are many good solutions to the problem, but it all involves dismantling RBOCs in some way. They have too much money to let this happen.
I find it more likely it was released on purpose, without the AOL directors explicit (written, documented, traceable) permission to get it "out there". Then after enough time to get it spread around, "responsible" AOL "found out" and pulled it.
AOL is a very schizophrenic company. Half of it is an internet provider that wants as many users as possible (and sees benefits in this with file sharing etc.). The other half is an increasingly obsolete media publishing giant that wants the internet controlled and regulated in order to perpetuate itself. So they have these little "personalities" like Nullsoft that do the wild things their inner self could never do. The can even squish these personalities if they want...and create more later!
Seriously, just like the rest of the world, most of the money and power is in the hands of a small numer of people at AOL/TW. The rest really don't give a shit and only play-act at following the company line for political purposes. In reality they want to push agendas that helps them get resume fodder and promotions. Companies like to promote "loyal" employee's with good numbers the most. Thus they produce clever liars!
As an American I beleive Microsoft is evil and worth ganging up on. Monopolies are the end of capitalism, this is econ 101. MS has gotten too big, assumed monopoly status and needs to be broken. I hope the rest of the world succeeds where Americans have failed. It MUST be destroyed.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an IT guy, but here is the salary break down I had vs. degree. I did not get my PhD but one of my friends did and he shared with me his interview results (actually all of my college friends did, it was a valuable resource in pushing for the highest possible salary).
:(
B.S. EE - $47/yr
B.S. Computer Science - $43k/yr
B.S. Computer Engineering - $48k/yr
B.S. EE/B.S. Comp E - $52k/yr
B.S. EE/B.S. Computer Science - $48k/yr
M.S. EE - $73k/yr
M.S. Comp. E (this was a new program)- $69k/yr
M.S. Computer Science - $65k/yr
PhD CS - $67k/yr
PhD EE - $55k/yr-$75k/yr wildly varying based upon specialty. Those specializing in control or power systems were at $55k, those specializing in Semiconductor Fab related stuff were up at the $75k.
Most IT salaries I knew were BS only and fell around the $45k mark. This was over the period 1996-2001, around New York City. New York is not exactly a hub of geekdom, I work at Bell Labs (aka Lucent - We outsource/resell the things that make communications work) which is about the only major technology company in the area, and was in the middle of all offers I received. (Am I wrong? Who else is in the area...) New York DOES have a lot of banks and hired a lot of IT guys in it's time, however I hear those jobs are in india now
My opinion formed on this data is that a PhD has absolutely no financial value regardless of degree. It is a research degree however, which means if you want to do research and you don't want to be someones lab assistant, you MUST have it. This agrees with how things should be. You do not want people getting PhD's for the money.
That said I can't imagine that there is a lot of active research in IT, and I think if I had that degree and was considering a way to boost my career viability I would consider an MBA. I take my own advice and that is the degree I will pursue next fall. There is such an intense lack of technically competant businessmen in the world, and contrary to popular opinion, it really is hurting everyone.
I don't know about what happened in Soviet Russia, but these days no one sticks a gun to an astronauts head and tells him he's flying or else. I don't mean to belittle the commitment of the people who fly to space, but they are not unaware of the risk they are taking.
The only way to make space flight safer for men in space is to send men in space. Even in our enlightened computing era, automated probes are good only for reporting back on things we anticipate ahead of time and build sensors for. They cannot report on the unexpected, nor can they cope with it. Also the speed of light is a factor, our best control systems are far from instantaneous over the distances in question.
I don't advocate sending live humans into totally unknown and unpredictable situations. And smaller unmanned probes are certainly a cheap way of doing just that. At some point however you need a real brain out there on the spot, and the day is coming.
When I was in school, apple was always throwing computers at schools trying to get students to get familiar with them and get one for home.
The result is that us geeks would never touch a mac. Using them had the same connotation as admitting to an inadequate endowment. It wasn't just the immature need to feel superior either. Macs couldn't play the majority of good games, they weren't half as configurable as our PCs, and they cost a lot more. By and large we were also those with the good grades and better study habits (read: not getting any). It's no surprise then that after leaving school, we became the technical force in society; from engineers to IT admins.
The portion that used the Macs were usually not the types that were interested enough in computing to buy one for home. Nor were they particularly technically inclined (read: they were getting plenty, and had little time to click their mice). These people later got jobs that involved someone from the IT department putting a computer on their desk. Those people would usually buy a computer for home that was compatible with what they had at work. They're not the kind of people that get all worked up over a computer.
Before the flames begin, I know of exceptions to all cases. But I did have the advantage of having moved a LOT; I believe 9 schools from K-12. The same pattern was evident in all locations. You don't have to like what I say, but it was true as far as I was able to see.
I no longer hate Macs like I used to, they've come a long way. The OS has transformed from a toy into something very useful, still lacking the software base of a PC perhaps, but at least not offensive to use. Much better than Windows and more viable than Linux on the desktop.
However, I have 2 issues, one moral one practcial. First, Apple the company is every bit as evil as Microsoft. Thwarting MS for Apple is a bad choice. I remember when Apple was king, they were impossible. I could probably make a good argument that the improvements I've noticed in the OS is based on Apple's need to try harder since their fall. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Macs cost entirely too much money. I know this MUST be true without comparing numbers, simply because Apple has a monopoly over computer equipment. I know it IS true by just looking online and pricing comparable machines.
For both these reasons, it does not make sense for me to support Apple with religious furvor until their systems are open. This means each facet of the hardware is completely and thoroughly documented. Said documentation is freely available to anyone who wants it. Multiple (more than 5) Hardware vendors are capable of supplying components for a Mac, royalty free. This will have the effect of both cutting the cost of the system, and nerfing Apple's ability to monopolize the industry.
It's not perfect, it doesn't solve the "installed software base" issue. I'll still have to buy all new software to run on my mac. That's a solveable problem too, but I don't think Apple can necessarily fix it.
I bet all fortune 500 companies have at least ONE linux box somewhere, by someone. Only 1 of them has actualyl decided to pay for it.
Look at how those numbers speak.
I agree to some level. Linux started off as a part toy, part hobby, part experiment. It became popular to the geek world because it allowed us to use our hardware toys better (by providing a better OS than was suitable for the mainstream). I agree that the linux community should not ever pander solely to the interests of businesses or the "mainstream user", nor should it ever be about maximizing profit. (Maximizing profit often involes doing nothing at all, even free labor can be expensive)
But boy, hasn't it benefitted greatly by being a little useful? Don't us geeks get more stuff for us now than we used to? Don't we want to try to keep it at least where it's at now? I see no reason to push it onto the desktop and to dumb it down ala OS X or (gasp) Windows, but it would be nice if businesses could see hte value in keeping it in the server room.
Further, although I don't agree with your view on profit or business objectives, I do agree that the cornerstone of "true" capitalism is competition. Without Linux what is there that is really even suitable in the server room? There's Microsoft and Sun, sometimes IBM (being primarily a big HW & services company, seems to want to go Linux anyhow) and well...that's about it these days. Not exactly a free market. Worse, to switch from one to the other you have to make an enormous $$$ investment.
Is our only motivation with Linux to have a nice toy on our desk? Don't we want to try to fix some real problems with technological development? Can't we use our toy for social improvement, or are we all about complaining and having daddy or uncle sam go fix it? It all goes hand in hand.
Why is Roblimo interviewing a journalist at a science magazine? Why not interview the scientists themselves?
I believe this guy is better than your average journalist at summarizing key ideas, but this is a website for nerds. Give us the real deal or give us more SCO stories.
In other news IBM sneezes and SCO CEO Darl McBride accuses IBM of continued violations of SCO intellectual property. No one at IBM could be reached for a comment, however McBride was quoted as saying that "...this sneeze is SCO intellectual property, and is not licensed for public distribution". McBride further alleges that the sneeze will result in a $699 license fee, payable to SCO for each person in IBM involved.
In a related story, McBride also threated to sue any company offering a Kleenex to IBM. A spokesperson at Red Hat was quoted as saying "Gazundheit".
Wooo, time to liberate SCO! I'll start printing the playing cards.
Probably because they know SCO has no leg to stand on, on this case. Probably SCO knows this too. The real issue is to lure IBM into saying or doing something that IS likely to result in profitable litigation. IANAL so I don't know what this COULD be, but I suspect it's part of the strategy. Maybe not a $100M suit but a nice little $10M deal that could breathe new life in to their company.
IBM probably just wants to keep as quiet as they can,without losing business and watch SCO die.
I think C++ is quite useful, and I'm not a "2 week IT person", not that I think they are necessarily inferior beings. On another note, most IT people I know tend to make the most use of Perl/Ruby/Python since it solves most of their problems quickest.
Straight C is my favorite tool and what I use for embedded programming, quick hacks and performance constrained work. Every time I try to do a large application with it though, I find myself thinking "you know, they already did this exact thing with C++, and I'm going to spend 2 days re-inventing this and testing it".
I use tidbits of Assembly (80x86, MIPS, Arm, PowerPC, what have you) in embedded systems for device driver or performance critical sections. As a HW engineer I tend to use this a lot in bringup of new designs, especially "very new" designs that don't necessarily work and every instruction is important.
I use C++ when I am building a very large, flexible application where I use many types of data structures and need it to get up and running in a short period of time. I like this language for "serious application" programming.
I use Perl to manage my file system, do text processing and other maintenance hacks.
I use Java for simple GUIs that often work as a front end for serious endeavors.
I use TCL/TK for ASIC/FGPA debugging (simulator interface) and test suites.
I use fortran less and less (often I convert to C) for purely numerical computation. Gems of knowledge exist in fortran code for optimized matrix related algorithms that are highly useful in 3D visualization.
I have not found any practical use for Pascal or Lisp lately (the latter is useful for emacs, but I rarely mess with it).
The point of all this is that much like you wouldn't use a screwdriver to drive a nail through wood (unless that was all that was available), you would tend to use whatever tool is best suited to a task. Us engineer types are supposed to be tool-makers and users of the highest order. It surprises me when I hear one of us suggest we should use our favorite tool to the exclusion of all others.
I do not like C++ in terms of the performance and memory impact it infers, but when building large applications I do not have time to re-invent a linked list for the umpteenth time, nor do I want to debug every different link list in my code, there are much harder problems to solve more critical to the success of my project. That said, C++ (and C for that matter) is lacking in some very important things. Among those I think are critical are: multithreading, network stack framework (platform independent that is) and GUI framework (platform independent!). If you read the article, you'll see mention of at least two of those things (we need a standard platform independent GUI library dammit!)
I find myself in the very same situation quite often. Worse is that I know the Q&D solution WILL have consequences, perhaps in a few years when I'm gone or on another project but the product needs changing.
The correct solution for this dilemma is NOT black and white. You CAN BE FIRED if your boss isn't happy with the rate at work gets done (even if it's good, high quality work). I am not so idealistic that I believe doing good high quality work should come at the expense of a job, at least on the receiving end of a paycheck. Everyone must compromise to some degree, but in general I have seen choices made based in the following ways.
If what do you want to do with your career? If you want to be an engineer, than your reputation with your peers and even with vendors and customers is critically important. You MUST do a good quality job. I'm not saying you should ignore deadlines and requirements, but be thorough and precise. It is your reputation and your most valuable asset, do not screw it up! Be professional.
If your aspiration is management, then clearly you must be results focused. That is what your boss will hold you responsible for, the results are what you will have on your resume (and believe me, you will be switching jobs every 3-5 years, good manager or no). You will be evaluated based upon how fast you do something, using how much money with how many people and what immediate results happened. Moving up inside a single corporation is nearly impossible, it may be a decade before a position turns over, so you rarely will be around when a short term decision goes bad (and not all short term decisions ARE bad, sometimes they're the right thing), at least not if you are aiming high. You're looking for fast results and a way to climb to the next rung, it's hard.
Also remember as an engineer (esp in small companies) you are going to be bought and sold with the product. If the product sux or has no lifetime, then you are shooting yourself in the foot for what? To look good to suits who view you as cattle?
Couldn't agree with you more, I'm quite convinced that American companies are all about taking the easy way, in technology and elsewhere. I can't tell you how many times my managers have tried to convince me "the right thing" was building a substandard product, or screwed up a product by doing something that SOUNDS good to a roomfull of suits but is in reality incredibly stupid and shortsighted.
Engineers have to share some of the blame however, I can't tell you how many good engineers refuse to go in to management because they honestly beleive they are incapable (by virtue of being an engineer and not the best-people persons) or because they don't wnat to turn into their present manager and make those boneheaded decisions. Part of being a good engineer or manager is learning how to tell the boss to shove it when he asks you to do something wrong. Good bosses (technical or not) won't hold it against you as long as you're polite. Bad bosses don't deserve your help. Either way, bad management starts with bad understanding of technology, and gets worse with overly docile (and job-scared) engineers. People skills have value, but lets face it, knowing how a good widget gets built is more important.
You're confusing personality disorders with the a particular definition of anti-social behavior. Everyone has personality disorders at all times, whether the person is functional can be shown by actions he takes which are deemed detrmental to society by (in our case) laws and public opinion. If you (the reader, not necessary the author of the post I'm replying to) do not think you have a disorder, check his website or see http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html See if you can't pick a handful of disorders that even in some small way could be attributed to you. This doesn't mean you're a sick person of course...it's psych 101 and why trained doctors spend all that time going to school.
I'm annoyed with this article precisely because there is an insinuation that game playing may have been thought dangerous to society, but is now shown to be "OK" because "normal" people (definined as those who socialize with friends and do not completely self-dstruct their career) do it too. The argument of the article seems fundamentally flawed as well as it's support, but the support is downright insulting.
The article made a few other unfair insinuations that makes me mad (yet not homicidal! don't call the police!):
1) That being a hermit is bad
2) That even normal socializing individuals occasionally play games in mom's house; but fear not they often do such important things as hanging out with friends
3) That somehow spending time with ones friends is a superior form of entertainment than with ones game console
I do not see why it ought to be an acceptable and commonly held belief that to be normal you must socialize unless you are a) at work/school or b) performing a critical task for a spouse or family member. Why is it important to "get out" and "meet people"? Why is being a hermit a bad thing? Why can't get up, go to a job, do good work, come home and plant myself in front of my PC for some good EQage? Although I happen to be married, even if I wasn't, am I hurting anyone?
My annoyance is probably irrational (relax, you don't have to call the police yet either), as one poster replied writing sensational stories sells ads, and making the masses feel comfortable sells even more. I am still annoyed however at the high-school clique nonsense that seems to make it into "respected" news sources like CNN.
What's wrong with being proud of it? Why is being a gamer so much more wrong than any of the other sources of entertainment in society?
Why is it desireable for someone to have a wide variety of entertainment? Why is it not OK to focus? Why must people restrict themselves to socially popular forms of entertainment?
If I thought there was one correct way to live life, and it was to watch "Survivor", play sports, go to rock concerts, parties and night clubs in what would have to be a fit of ADHD, I would probably self-terminate. I can't think of a more misearable existence for myself. Never a chance to think, breathe or act independently. No hope of escape, excessive obligations to others, the inability to disappear to do my own thing for any time without search parties launched...that's not life, not to me.
Entertainment is just a cure for the mind and stress, it doesn't matter how you take it, but everyone needs SOME form. To me and many geeks, socializing with people is as stressful as a day at the office; NOT entertaining or relaxing. If jocks (athletes) can be proud they spend the weekend beating their opponent(s) at , and club-kiddies can be proud of their drug induced delerium and sexual conquests, why can't I be proud that I made level 65 in EQ?
It's only bad when it's taken to the extreme that ALL you do is engage in entertainment, and do not work or take care of yourself. That can be said about ANYTHING equally much. The guy with the bulging biceps on the street with no job is as much a loser as his equivalent panting, sweaty geek in mom's basement playing EQ. It's OK however for the guy to be proud of his muscles and fitness, but that geek...he's just a loser?
Slashdot, news for self-hating nerds...stuff to help them conform
What's wrong with this? I know, so-called (and self-dubbed) "normal" people who sit around and watch/play sports all day. I know others who go to parties all night long and even if they don't end up stoned or drunk are pretty much useless during the day. What's wrong with planting yourself in front of a game?
It's wrong when it starts to interfere with your ability to function in society, be it as a student or a member of the workforce. Other than that, who the hell cares.
There are a few meanings of the word "anti-social", everything from mass murdering rapists and software pirates, to people who prefer their own company. I will accept that the mass murdering rapist type definition of anti-social as being bad, but this does not appear to be the topic of the article. For the purpose of this post, consider anti-social to mean someone who prefers their own company.
What I do not understand is why people who prefer their own company are considered somehow "broken". I do not know of any facet of human physiology which REQUIRES other human contact beyond a base desire to procreate. Why is there such a bad connotation to being anti-social?
Society itself does not need a hive mind. In fact, I would argue just as strongly that it is dangerous, irresponsible and something we all should actively try to prevent in our children. The world needs independent thinkers, people who think outside the box and come up with original solutions. People who don't let the hive mind dictate their response. Somehow I see from high school that civics classes about the glory of democracy has led people to a very wrong conclusion: that the majority is always right. That's such a horribly incorrect thought that is so pervasive (esp in MTV pop-culture) that it makes me want to lock myself in a room and slay myself with a BFG-10k.
I am hard pressed to come up with any thing the hive MIND has produced that has either been correct or somehow useful. The hive mind has historically resulted in: slavery, bigotry, religion (in the "belief in unfounded/unproven philosophy in the face of contrary evidence" sense), senseless wars, mass murder, and most horribly reality television. Let's face it, "society" is valuable only as a workforce commodity. When it comes to thinking, we're better off with Forrest Gump than any 10 people.
Why is it that those who choose to not "join in" are persecuted? I contribute to the whole, and I make it possible for us all to walk forward. I do so just as much as the next guy. I am not taking anything away by not talking to you. Even if I firmly believe that you are all incredibly stupid and not worth my time, I'm not really hurting you am I? As long as I do my job & earn my keep, I have fulfilled my obligation to others. Leave us alone.
Is in my mind a complete waste of money. Why anyone would pay full price for what turned out to be a bad remake of "Night of the Living Dead" is beyond me. I've heard the terms "Independent Film" and "Art Film" both used as an excuse for why it's so bad, but those don't qualify if they're charging full price! If you're THAT into post-apocalyptic stories, read "The Stand" by Stephen King or just rent Night of the Living Dead.
28 Days later has little to speak for it: very bad acting, horrendous (to the point of being epic) dialog, a very hard to swallow story and to top it off it's shot in such a way as my wife and I had a headache through various points of the movie (noteably the intro). Now to be fair, the shots of post apocalyptic England were very well done. I did not enter the movie expecting a great plot, it IS a zombie movie after all. However various twists in the story (involving sex starved men) seemed not only unbelievable but horrible.
Give 28 days later a miss...
The same reason their desktops are pretty & compact. Apple uses a small variety of equipment compatible by definition (i.e. apple determines the specs). The advantage is that the device is better built (i.e. lighter, smaller, tougher), but also expensive.
Crack open a PC notebook and you'll see a wider array of devices, unpopulated footprints (aka population options), inconsistent use of a device across multiple assemblies...and a big mess. Also some hardware selections will be the result of wishing to avoid patents/royalties (firewire, etc., possibly the dvd-tray issue as well).
PC notebooks are designed to be as cheap as possible but fit the "laptop market". The population options exist to give mfg's the option of substituting one chip for another on the assembly line, should a particular vendor's quote come in cheaper. They won't have to go through an expensive redesign/requalification, and can sell cheap cheap cheap. This is the downside of a true capitalist market (i.e. lots of cut-throat competition).
I do think there is room in the market for a "high quality" notebook manufacturer. IBM Stinkpads inconsistently deliver quality, so they're not someone I consider using. Also their product line is confusing, it's hard to get what I want.
Then this is excellent, should "Bunnie" be sued we have a good trial case that could get the DMCA overturned or more likely weakened. I really like this "accessibility" angle, it would be very hurtful to be seen as the people standing against him...
When I was 12 I desperately needed to swap my 286 for a 486. My dad was complaining about the $1000+ price tag associated with a new PC, so I told him I could do it for a few hundred. I'm sure he had his doubts, and feared for the life of his machine, but I swapped out the old board and voila. He gained a money saving computer techie for free, and ensured my early financial independence!
Now I think linux is great and all, but the REAL reason I learned all of the above on a PC (as opposed to a mac) under DOS was because that was where the games were. If you give linux to a 12 year old they're not going to learn it, because the really good games you find in stores are on the PC. So the point about installing Perl on Windows is valid.
The linux community REALLY needs to get gaming on linux to the point of being "real" if we want to have widespread appeal to youngins.
So if anyone wonders why nothing good ever gets done from our company, this is why.
My school was all theory no application. As a result I had to go invent projects on my own and figure out how to build them. Some smoked, some worked. After doing enough I managed to get a reasonable background in practical engineering. Not as good as those who had actual engieners teaching actual hardware design classes, but better than nothing.
In the end I got the job, the other EEs are getting laid off from bank IT jobs since they have an EE degree instead of an MCSE but can't do real EE.
Unfortunately the problem is that ACADEMICS teach university classes. ACADEMICS do not care about "real life" by definition. Hence it's all theory. My advice to students is to bear with it, remember that 95% of the theory you will never ever use directly, so don't be discouraged. It's all about how to THINK about the problem, you will rarely if ever actually apply this math, but you should understand the concepts. Then go figure out how to build a small simple device you think you need around your house (like an audio amplifier, SPDIF switch etc.). Don't try to build it all yourself, find all the ICs you need, then figure out how to make them work together. Figure out how to wire up and program a DSP, uC, uP etc.
It's true, there is no company I hate with such ferocity and venom (ignoring microsoft) as Verizon. I have never had such rude, apathetic, outright incompentant customer service as with verizon. You'd think they felt as if they really didn't have to WORK to get you as a customer. Uh wait...they don't! It takes 3 weeks to get a phone installed, and don't you dare try and do it within hailing distance of any minor holiday.
Then because I was so furious about the shitty DSL service they provide, I switched to speakeasy. Speakeasy is probably the BEST isp I've ever had the pleasure of doing business with. However, Verizon STILL managed to block my install for 3 weeks while they "finalized my account", which apparently prohibits them from reconfiguring the virtual circuit to connect to speakeasy. Keep in mind this has nothing to do with PAYMENT which was done by credit card. This has to do with taking 3 weeks from getting my "disconnect" order to sending it through accounting to reverify I was "paid up" on my service, to sending someone out to my location (according to them!) to "disconnect my line" (same line as voice, and since I build this equipment for a living, I KNOW it's done in the CO at a computer terminal, I even know the command to do it, and the command but not the parameter to connect the VC to speakeasy).
At first I thought it was Covad screwing up, but then they started forwarding me the trouble tickets, complete with phone numbers of Verizon agents. I began calling those agents myself just to make sure. Sure enough, it was all Verizon's game. I suspect that Verizon deliberately screws up CLECs to make them appear as incompetant as Verizon is, but I can't ever prove it.
There are many good solutions to the problem, but it all involves dismantling RBOCs in some way. They have too much money to let this happen.
I find it more likely it was released on purpose, without the AOL directors explicit (written, documented, traceable) permission to get it "out there". Then after enough time to get it spread around, "responsible" AOL "found out" and pulled it.
AOL is a very schizophrenic company. Half of it is an internet provider that wants as many users as possible (and sees benefits in this with file sharing etc.). The other half is an increasingly obsolete media publishing giant that wants the internet controlled and regulated in order to perpetuate itself. So they have these little "personalities" like Nullsoft that do the wild things their inner self could never do. The can even squish these personalities if they want...and create more later!
Seriously, just like the rest of the world, most of the money and power is in the hands of a small numer of people at AOL/TW. The rest really don't give a shit and only play-act at following the company line for political purposes. In reality they want to push agendas that helps them get resume fodder and promotions. Companies like to promote "loyal" employee's with good numbers the most. Thus they produce clever liars!
As an American I beleive Microsoft is evil and worth ganging up on. Monopolies are the end of capitalism, this is econ 101. MS has gotten too big, assumed monopoly status and needs to be broken. I hope the rest of the world succeeds where Americans have failed. It MUST be destroyed.