Actually I guess it depends on what you deam intellectually challenging.
I mean, the logic involved in a loan allocation system is pretty complex. Add real time, streaming metrics to that so everything can be throttled and it's even more complex.
Let alone having a system of record to automate the entire mortgage process.
Bored out of your skull? How many companies have the.NET 3.0 runtime installed on every desktop and are already deploying production systems based on WCF, WSE 3.0, WF, WPF, etc. How many have true SOA implementations and smart clients running rampant?
Quicken Loans isn't going to be building a quantum computer anytime soon, but they are a company that actually "gets it" technology wise and uses that to their advantage to write more loans.
If their professors think computer science is just about debugging programs then the solution is quite obvious: get new professors.
Maybe it's the way the article is written. Maybe it is something being jammed down the faculty's throat by higher ups. Either way, computer science can be taught with absolutely no emphasis on programming at all. Programming itself was the practical application introduced into the mix, and now they are taking that one step further by introducing something that maybe 1 in 100 computer professionals (mostly former/current electrical engineers by the way) actually deal with on a daily basis? How practical is that?
For me, the same. I think the EU's handling of Microsoft is both unfair and unrealistic. France's misconceptions about the iPod/iTMS are in the same boat.
This will have to go beyond simple traffic scanning. If not how would they determine whether a group of machines are bots or are simply responding to SETI@home or whatever other distributed systems are running over the 'net?
Seems like at some level there will have to be a human protocol that decides which traffic is naughty and which is nice. Humans can be manipulated and protocols spoofed. If this weren't the case we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
This sounds like something a Prof I had in school would do and subsequently, a reaction my university would have taken to it. Note that I'm not claiming this is going on there, just saying it doesn't seem like an outside possibility for any school.
If this is taking place at my alma mater or a similar institution then I can tell you how it probably went down.
A: Prof comes up with a realistic assignment for a university level security course and weighs it heavily since he is lazy and can only come up with one or two good assignments.
B: The school denies his department's requests for funds to set up a server for this and any further course work.
C: Prof is lazy (see point A) and so continues the assignment
D: School responds by threatening disciplinary reaction.
Of course this places the students in a catch-22. They can either scan a university system and face possible action if detected or scan an external system and face possible legal action. I suppose they can also disregard the assignment and face possible failure.
This is irresponsible on the part of both the university and its faculty.
You also have to consider that in a lot of situations the human is being forced to conform to the machine and not the other way around.
The result is that people spend more time formatting text files so that they can be imported into Access/Excel/Whatever and less time on activities that require critical thought.
When performing these more or less mindless tasks a person can feel more like they are treading water than doing actual work.
that when Steve announced the switch to Intel he said that Apple would have IBM processors in its computer line for quite a while. What proof is there that Apple didn't know about the POWER6 or its potential? The PowerMac and XServes do not yet have Intel processors, this may be by design.
Also, keep in mind that OS X has been running on PowerPC chips as well as Intel more or less since its inception. For all intents and purposes Apple has a cross-architecture operating system AND development tools; as well as a universal binary format. What disadvantage is there to Apple playing both sides of the field and using whichever chips it likes on a product basis? Especially since this is transparent to a vast majority of the user-base.
My problem with Linux on a Mac, powerpc or otherwise, has been device compatibility. If I can have a BSD based operating system with vendor supported device drivers, why would I want Red Hat?
Some may claim dual-booting other operating systems is a general practice for consultants as a way to conveniently clone a system, but when we are talking about Linux running on an intel-based platform which is more convenient: dual-booting a Mac or simply replicating the target system on commodity x86 hardware?
If it were me, I'd say the latter since I wouldn't risk
corrupting my main environment by attempting a dual boot.
This could simply be an engineering decision. They are already performing a pretty drastic architecture switch, why complicate things by trying to make Intel an expert in FW right off the bat?
A better strategy might be to limit the variables on both the R&D and production ends by letting Intel provide hardware it is comfortable with and mating it with software Apple is comfortable with. If it all works out, then you can reintroduce the neglected hardware.
I realize this strengthens Google's position in a market it has been in for a while, but given the other recent developments in Google's business, what is the strategy here? Is this some type of hyper-diversification?
Sr. Executive: "Profits are down. Somebody should really look into this. Brenda, who works for me?"
Brenda: "Let me check."
Sr. Executive: "No time, my jet is landing. Just send one in."... moments later
Jr. Executive: "Sir?"
Sr. Executive: "Profits are down. Take care of that."
Jr. Executive: "Right."...later that same day
Jr. Executive: "So, what is it that we make here?"
Engineer: "Televisions."
Jr. Executive: "Ok, stop making those."
Engineer: "What are we going to sell?"
Jr. Executive: "That's marketing's problem."
-End
Yes I realize they'll still make LCD tvs...
To combat Linux Microsoft wants to offer task oriented solutions to its user base. Why? Simply because Microsoft doesn't trust the end-user to form a useful variant on their own.
It also has to do with marketing and the english language. When people have a problem getting something to work on Windows they say, "Windows can't do X". Instead of taking responsibility with, "I can't figure out how to make Windows do X". The same thing happens with Linux, "Linux crashed. Linux didn't recognize my joystick. Linux doesn't have good support for my video card."
Microsoft wants to offer more finely grained solutions without allowing the end-user to configure the software in such a way that it reflects poorly on their brand image. Is this a good solution to the problem? No. Is it what the user expects or wants? No. It is, however, what is happening.
that when the space aliens land in 2008 they won't have to wait for Microsoft to release Office IG (inter-galactic). All they have to do is learn our primitive language and they can at least view the documents in XML.
Seriously though, any citizen could read the docs to some extent because the open formats don't use a binary encoding. Sure they'd have to wade through a lot of formatting, but atleast they could do it in notepad.
the book of revelations clearly states that Sarge's release only heralds the SECOND horseman of the apocalypse. The end is nigh only when the FOURTH horseman roams free. In otherwords, don't start to worry until the HURD reaches 1.0
that linux can operate effectively in an environment of old hardware and yesterday's problems. Why is this news worthy?
People don't understand how the government works. If you show a cost savings they stop giving you funding because you've shown you can operate on a leaner budget. They need to start using XP and Office, and run up their support bills. If I was the schools administrator I'd avoid anything with the word "free" in it like the plague.
If you are using it to draw something massively expensive then I'd agree. But I haven't had any performance issues.
GDI+ in terms of organization and ease of use for simple 2D drawing is miles above what the original GDI and the vanilla Win32 libraries have.
I don't think I want to learn an enourmous library like DirectX just do draw 2D plots and graphs.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I guess it depends on what you deam intellectually challenging. I mean, the logic involved in a loan allocation system is pretty complex. Add real time, streaming metrics to that so everything can be throttled and it's even more complex.
.NET 3.0 runtime installed on every desktop and are already deploying production systems based on WCF, WSE 3.0, WF, WPF, etc. How many have true SOA implementations and smart clients running rampant?
Let alone having a system of record to automate the entire mortgage process.
Bored out of your skull? How many companies have the
Quicken Loans isn't going to be building a quantum computer anytime soon, but they are a company that actually "gets it" technology wise and uses that to their advantage to write more loans.
If their professors think computer science is just about debugging programs then the solution is quite obvious: get new professors. Maybe it's the way the article is written. Maybe it is something being jammed down the faculty's throat by higher ups. Either way, computer science can be taught with absolutely no emphasis on programming at all. Programming itself was the practical application introduced into the mix, and now they are taking that one step further by introducing something that maybe 1 in 100 computer professionals (mostly former/current electrical engineers by the way) actually deal with on a daily basis? How practical is that?
For me, the same. I think the EU's handling of Microsoft is both unfair and unrealistic. France's misconceptions about the iPod/iTMS are in the same boat.
At first I misread the title as: "New 'Hairy Lobster' Crustacean Discovered in Classifieds"
I now feel safe enough to creepily browse myspace again...
Just because it might be a bad move doesn't mean they wouldn't do it.
This will have to go beyond simple traffic scanning. If not how would they determine whether a group of machines are bots or are simply responding to SETI@home or whatever other distributed systems are running over the 'net?
Seems like at some level there will have to be a human protocol that decides which traffic is naughty and which is nice. Humans can be manipulated and protocols spoofed. If this weren't the case we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
This sounds like something a Prof I had in school would do and subsequently, a reaction my university would have taken to it. Note that I'm not claiming this is going on there, just saying it doesn't seem like an outside possibility for any school.
If this is taking place at my alma mater or a similar institution then I can tell you how it probably went down.
A: Prof comes up with a realistic assignment for a university level security course and weighs it heavily since he is lazy and can only come up with one or two good assignments. B: The school denies his department's requests for funds to set up a server for this and any further course work. C: Prof is lazy (see point A) and so continues the assignment D: School responds by threatening disciplinary reaction.
Of course this places the students in a catch-22. They can either scan a university system and face possible action if detected or scan an external system and face possible legal action. I suppose they can also disregard the assignment and face possible failure.
This is irresponsible on the part of both the university and its faculty.
Doesn't bounding an abstract entity such as computation to a physical one such as volume or power consumption seem irrelevant?
You also have to consider that in a lot of situations the human is being forced to conform to the machine and not the other way around.
The result is that people spend more time formatting text files so that they can be imported into Access/Excel/Whatever and less time on activities that require critical thought.
When performing these more or less mindless tasks a person can feel more like they are treading water than doing actual work.
that when Steve announced the switch to Intel he said that Apple would have IBM processors in its computer line for quite a while. What proof is there that Apple didn't know about the POWER6 or its potential? The PowerMac and XServes do not yet have Intel processors, this may be by design.
Also, keep in mind that OS X has been running on PowerPC chips as well as Intel more or less since its inception. For all intents and purposes Apple has a cross-architecture operating system AND development tools; as well as a universal binary format. What disadvantage is there to Apple playing both sides of the field and using whichever chips it likes on a product basis? Especially since this is transparent to a vast majority of the user-base.
My problem with Linux on a Mac, powerpc or otherwise, has been device compatibility. If I can have a BSD based operating system with vendor supported device drivers, why would I want Red Hat?
Some may claim dual-booting other operating systems is a general practice for consultants as a way to conveniently clone a system, but when we are talking about Linux running on an intel-based platform which is more convenient: dual-booting a Mac or simply replicating the target system on commodity x86 hardware?
If it were me, I'd say the latter since I wouldn't risk corrupting my main environment by attempting a dual boot.
This could simply be an engineering decision. They are already performing a pretty drastic architecture switch, why complicate things by trying to make Intel an expert in FW right off the bat?
A better strategy might be to limit the variables on both the R&D and production ends by letting Intel provide hardware it is comfortable with and mating it with software Apple is comfortable with. If it all works out, then you can reintroduce the neglected hardware.
I realize this strengthens Google's position in a market it has been in for a while, but given the other recent developments in Google's business, what is the strategy here? Is this some type of hyper-diversification?
was this Alexander's own idea? Or did Aristotle tell him to do it?
Sr. Executive: "Profits are down. Somebody should really look into this. Brenda, who works for me?" Brenda: "Let me check." Sr. Executive: "No time, my jet is landing. Just send one in." ... moments later
Jr. Executive: "Sir?"
Sr. Executive: "Profits are down. Take care of that."
Jr. Executive: "Right." ...later that same day
Jr. Executive: "So, what is it that we make here?"
Engineer: "Televisions."
Jr. Executive: "Ok, stop making those."
Engineer: "What are we going to sell?"
Jr. Executive: "That's marketing's problem."
-End
Yes I realize they'll still make LCD tvs...
All your friends...All your friends...All your friends are belong to us. Its the mega-happy-funtime disco hit of 2005!
Assumptions are evil so keep in mind that proof that life can exist is not proof that life does exist.
A mass suicide of iPod owners has been reported on the eve that they discovered they were "stuck" with iTunes.
To combat Linux Microsoft wants to offer task oriented solutions to its user base. Why? Simply because Microsoft doesn't trust the end-user to form a useful variant on their own. It also has to do with marketing and the english language. When people have a problem getting something to work on Windows they say, "Windows can't do X". Instead of taking responsibility with, "I can't figure out how to make Windows do X". The same thing happens with Linux, "Linux crashed. Linux didn't recognize my joystick. Linux doesn't have good support for my video card." Microsoft wants to offer more finely grained solutions without allowing the end-user to configure the software in such a way that it reflects poorly on their brand image. Is this a good solution to the problem? No. Is it what the user expects or wants? No. It is, however, what is happening.
that when the space aliens land in 2008 they won't have to wait for Microsoft to release Office IG (inter-galactic). All they have to do is learn our primitive language and they can at least view the documents in XML. Seriously though, any citizen could read the docs to some extent because the open formats don't use a binary encoding. Sure they'd have to wade through a lot of formatting, but atleast they could do it in notepad.
is whether I should buy my HD-TV before or after my XBox 360. I think the later, as I'd like to see if there is a true improvement in image quality.
Also, I may just wait until Elderscrolls: Oblivion comes out before I buy. I can't name another title I'm interested in.
that open source software wasn't going to lock anybody in? Now it seems like a "We've spent too much to go back" kind of scenario.
the book of revelations clearly states that Sarge's release only heralds the SECOND horseman of the apocalypse. The end is nigh only when the FOURTH horseman roams free. In otherwords, don't start to worry until the HURD reaches 1.0
that linux can operate effectively in an environment of old hardware and yesterday's problems. Why is this news worthy? People don't understand how the government works. If you show a cost savings they stop giving you funding because you've shown you can operate on a leaner budget. They need to start using XP and Office, and run up their support bills. If I was the schools administrator I'd avoid anything with the word "free" in it like the plague.
If you are using it to draw something massively expensive then I'd agree. But I haven't had any performance issues. GDI+ in terms of organization and ease of use for simple 2D drawing is miles above what the original GDI and the vanilla Win32 libraries have. I don't think I want to learn an enourmous library like DirectX just do draw 2D plots and graphs.