We should be looking at physiological complexity -- not just pure brain size. How much sensory information runs through the body of an animal?
Incidentally, does anyone have a good definition of the word complex? Outside of algorithm analysis/combinatorics and algorithmic information theory, I can't find a good mathematical definition of complexity. Can anyone site a good paper on the subject?
Actually, I may be spouting some quackery here.... However, how complex are the biofeedback systems of different animals? Certainly information theory can analyze this. I've got to believe humans are more "complex".
Set up one or two Linux boxes in a corner that you can putty (ssh) and WinSCP (scp) into. Having a couple of good Linux servers on the network with fairly open access is almost as good as having you're own machine. I'm a programmer, so this may not work for you.
Worse case scenario. Set up a linux box at someones house that you can remotely ssh into. Hopefully, they won't clamp down on the firewall. Not only do you have the luxury of a linux server, but it's outside the corporate network.*
Frankly, I've worked in environments that were all Linux or a mix of dumb Windows terminals and Linux/Unix boxes. With the exception of the occaisional utility (like an OSS IDE) you won't miss much.
*You're sys-admin my not like this for obvious reasons.
The rules of economics might have been broken in one area. The internet has changed some of the logistics involved in business. People can work at a distance more effectively. You can set up storefronts on the web. This is not to say some brick and mortar axioms don't still apply. You still need a supply chain. You still need some warehouses. However, the internet has removed the distance barrier. The internet, within reason, can be a powerful tool for business. Frankly, I think people will eventually, in a gradual and perhaps tepid fashion, rediscover some of the power of the internet.
Perhaps on the "people who had to start over" list, they should have added "the American programmer". We've taken a beating. The culture in computing has changed. It used to be the ultimate cross-disciplinary field. If you were a biologist who CAN write code and you had 10 years of experience, you'd have no problem finding a job. Now a BS in MIS is in some ways better than a MS in Physics and a few years experience. (I'm speaking from an HR perspective.) The science of computing (note I don't say computer science [I haven't recognized that field for years]) is still open. AI, complexity theory, and bioinformatics are very interdisciplinary. There are fresh fields on the academic side. However, the industrial side is dead. It can be reborn, but for now it seems dead.
Hopefully some of you will bring computing back to life.
Programming with regex in a high-level language is going to be odd no matter the syntax. First-Order Logic is odd. The lambda calculus looks odd. LISP looks odd. Languages that are based on fundamental symbolic operations look odd.
these regular expressions were not "powerful enough for many data-parsing tasks
I will be the first to applaud Larry Wall and the Perl developers if they can clean up regex. However, I feel tinkering with a notoriously complex thing may make it worse. Or at best, may make more of an ugly thing. What we don't need is the new unreadable way and the old unreadable way of creating regexes. What fun it will be to debug code.
Frankly, how can you increase the power of regex and minimize the complexity of code. If you make regexes more powerful, you might as well make another high-level language for text processing. Let's hope they can pull it off.
Frankly, I for one like the power of Perl's regexes and I hope they succeed.
I know it's off-topic, but it relates to this thread. I've got some Karma to burn so please indulge my drudgery.
Hillary Clinton will be the 2004 Democratic nominee.
Wesley Clark will be her VP.
At the beginning of the primary, Bush looked strong. He had just caught Sadam. The economy was in an upturn. Deaniacs were raging strong. However, in a shrewd move, the primary caucui decide that they need a viable candidate. So, the tides shift from Dean to Kerry.
Let's flashback to 2000.
Gore eyes John F. Kerry. He's a better campaigner than Gore. Plus he can bring in some of that Boston Democratic money. One is a man from the south; the other is from the northeast. Both are Vietnam vets, so it would be a surprisingly strong match. Kerry couldn't run on Gore's ticket. He smacks too much of a Clinton-style candidate. Plus, Gore's trying to cast off a shadow, not step into a new one. Kerry has been known to be a rabid philanderer for years. Heck, even the I-man (Don Imus) has been known to make jokes about Kerry's unfaithful ways. These messy infidelities make a Gore/Kerry ticket improbable. However, good old honest Joe makes for a great fit. He's the ying to Gore's yang.
Now, back to the 2004 campaign.
Hillary Clinton fills out the paperwork to be a formal candidate. The ball is in her court. She surprisingly has a solid and moderate voting record. She starts to make a smattering of public appearances. She starts to speak around New York. She even gets some good publicity from her book. Plus, she made Tucker Carlson eat crow. That's always good. It's just a bonus that the all big money comes from Manhattan and Chicago anyway. She's a New York senator, so some of the big money is in her back yard.
Clark is a Clinton man. Both are good old Arkansas boys. Both were Rhodes Scholars. Both grew up from moderately humble backgrounds. If it's possible, Clinton actually has a bit of fondness for him. Perhaps that is because he sees a little of himself in Clark. We all know Bill's favorite sight is his own reflection.
Gore knows that Clark is a Clinton man. Clark has the money and the strong military record. In the pre-caucui primaries, he's a reasonable contender. Gore's never forgiven Clinton for ruining his shot at the White House. Gore might not be the best campaigner, but he's a shrewd behind-the-scenes guy. He's a Washingtonian through-and-through. He backs Dean, and even sees this as a chance to shed the Clinton shadow.
A week ago, in an "off the record" interview, Wesley Clark plants the rumor [makes it public] that Kerry's got an intern issue. He cleverly plants a little seed before the next media cycle. He maintains plausible deniability and publicly makes nice with Kerry.
Bush's staff wouldn't use this type of material until the primaries are over. Why use the good poison during the primary. If the candidate survives it, it only means the Democrats have a stronger candidate. Plus, why did Clark make the public (yet "off-the-record") statement.
Dean's campaign chairman sees the battle for the Democratic Party. He desperately wants to see the Democratic Party break free of the stranglehold of the Clintons. Dean's a smart guy. He knows the battle is raging. Despite the pressure, he figures it's better for him to stay in.
I love the smell of strategery in the morning. It smells like war.
So the battle begins. It's Kerry versus Clinton. It's the battle for the Democratic nomination and perhaps the White House.
First, I'm part of the politically disenfranchised. I'm very politically aware, but like Diogenes, I scour the polls in vain, in a desperate search for an honest politician. If you're merely making parody for parody's sake, then please forgive the following rant. However, if you're merely a whining liberal who hates any notion of conservatives or any resemblance of limited government, then this rant is specifically for you.
Heaven forbid that I'm not for the distribution of wealth. How can you compare socialism with evolution, heliocentrism, or cosmology? Unchecked greed is not a failure of capitalism; it is the failure of the legal system. When Lenin seized control of a Russia in the midst of change that was a failure of the communist system. While I agree communism is flawed, all of humanity is flawed. I'm greedy, lustful, and full of hubris. I'm naturally lazy. So are you.
The truth is that most of the United States is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We like the warm fuzzy middle of modern bipolar politics. We are all hypocrites.
I appreciate honest liberals. I may disagree with them, but I appreciate any American's honest discourse. I appreciate the gridlock that juxtaposing dissent provides. The more we argue; the more we strengthen each other's arguments. Frankly, that's the real reason every politician makes a run to the center during election time. It's the one part of the system that works.
I don't normally flame people.... But this AC is begging for it.
Why don't you try having a conference call in a conference room? Why are you in a meeting while shopping at the mall? I mean, I can understand you being upset if someone jams your office. However, I don't give a damn if you need to have a conference call while at the movies. I don't normally flame, but what a pain you must be to work for.
Frankly, you're not a brain surgeon. Your valuable expertise can be spared. Plus, no one can understand you on the speaker phone anyway.
Incidentally, I'm in a bookstore yesterday. I'm heading into the restroom and I can hear someone having a cell phone conversation while using the bathroom. People don't know when to stop. I mean at some point, you need to hang up. You aren't that important. This man has a 10-minute conversation on the toilet. He's so loud that you couldn't not hear him. Now if you don't mind your conversation being drowned out by the noise of flushing toilets and other activities.... Are you really guaranteed the right to use your cell phone everywhere?
This reminds me of a Steve Martin bit. "Do you mind if I smoke? WELL, DO YOU MIND IF I FART! I'M JUST GOING TO LIGHT ONE UP!" He's a wild and crazy guy you know.
I guess it all comes down to simple etiquette. If you're in a place where it's okay to talk, then take the call and keep your voice at a moderate level. If you're at a funeral turn off the phone.
Ocean's Eleven did pretty well at the box office. It was a remake. I thought the Rat Pack version was better. Some remakes do okay. The more detached the viewing public is from the original source the better. I distinctly remember watching Planet of the Apes as a kid. However, I only have fuzzy memories when it comes to King Kong or Mighty Joe Young (or any other ape movie).
I wonder if I could mod an old version of Donkey Kong before King Kong hits the theaters.
Contrary to the claims of the council, Dr Baru believes there will be no trickle down of money to the impoverished public health system, which currently receives just 0.9% of India's gross domestic product.
The MTC's plans may well benefit the doctors and patients involved, but it is currently unclear how a country that still suffers from malaria and TB will reap the rewards of a new wave of medical tourists coming to India.
India has a long way to go before Americans are going to accept their HMO's forcing them there.
Game programmers notoriously work long hours for poor compensation. (Yeah, it's not so uncommon among all engineers now...) Often times, the timetables are screwed from day one. The technology may even become obsolete in development. You've got a buggy paridigm in MMORPGs. You've got cheaters and hackers to worry about. Plus, if you do ship on time, you can probably expect a pink slip on completion.
So why do games take so long to make?
Can anyone suggest a good book?
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
I know this is off-topic....
What books/resources can one find to teach them about auto repair? I want to learn more about a how a car works. Yeah, I'm a complete automotive novice. Is there anything between a ME textbook and some step-by-step (replace the oil filter) how to? Or is there a good intro to automotive engineering book for hobbiests?
For a long time, I have felt we need an old-fashioned BASIC language with a solid graphics primitive and mouse/joystick API. I've always toyed with the notion of writing a book that taught programming through examples involving mathematical and scientific programming. Maybe I'd even throw in a little logic (basic syllogisms and computability theory [just a Turing machine]). I'd be aimed at kids. No, I won't water it down. Smart kids will enjoy it, and dumb kids can go back to playing their playstation.
I first encountered programming on a TRS-80 in BASIC. It was simple. I like the simplicity of C or Java. However, C can get a little ugly for a beginner, and Java is a tad too complex (but not a bad overall choice). I definitely don't want to touch VB. That's like teaching recursion and logic programming in -- VB. VB is a great RAD tool. However, it teaches sloppy programming habits, makes building applications a little too easy (which is great when you know what you're doing, but is bad for someone whose sole purpose is to learn). Plus who wants to learn about pseudo-random number generation or the method of least squares in VB. Oh, and I'd prefer this language be available on Linux and Windows (kids in foreign countries often use Linux [i.e. Brazil and India]).
Does anyone have any suggestions for a good BASIC interpreter or another language I could use? I could work on enhancing a simple interpreter/compiler myself.
"Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics" by Howard Eves
"Calculus Made Easy" by Silvanus P. Thompson
I hated math coming out of high school. But I got hoodwinked into calculus and eventually I got used to it. Don't let the math scare you away. College math is different from High School math. Take a class in precalculus at the community college during the summer.
First, I bought and tried to read the book. I read some of it. I really wanted to like it. The problem was the rather LOOOOONG WINDED style of the book. He spends way too long focusing on mundane details with no real point. Also, Dr. Wolfram insists on using his Mathematica notation instead of the lambda calculus or other accepted notation. One logician referred to his work as containing such an annoying prolix style that no could read it. Even if there were some interesting stuff, anyone with some sophistication would get sick of the book. That's the problem. I think his ideas are interesting. Some of it is original, but he's made it very hard to read. The math is sparse. It's like a book I read on Relativity by Max Born. The book tried to explain problems in classical mechanics without calculus. It used this bizarre concoction of incremental algebra. It ruined the book. It tried to make something that was "hard", too simple. Some things require mathematical sophistication. Have you ever really tried to explain relativity without math? What was a simple matrix transformation in hyperspace becomes some weird discussion of how my space and your time cross. Absolutely meaningless! Try explaining algorithm analysis or mathematical logic without math. Why do think no one (in the general public) knows who Godel is?
I like my math terse and rigourous. Stephen Wolfram made an ambitious popular science book. It's like a weird cross between Principia Mathematica and Godel, Escher, and Bach. The only real thesis I got out of the book was the Principle of Computational Equivalence, which states that if the universe were governed by simple rules (like those expressed by a cellular automata) then any calculations with those rules (thus an attempt to predict phenomena) would take as long as the actual act itself. Frankly, I think Gregory Chaitin's work in Algorithmic Information Theory has a lot more to offer. It's rigourous and answers a seemingly inverted version of PCE.
Mr. Wolfram is not a crank. Is he a pompous jackass? Yes. Did he stay out of research too long? Yes. That's the problem.
By dumb luck, I actually picked up a couple of books to read on some related stuff yesterday.
"From Complexity to Life", edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen Gregory Chaitin, Stuart Kauffman, Paul Davies and many more This book actually gives you some definitions in a non-technical way. Things are made simple to a point, but some thought is required.
"Feynman and Computation", edited by Anthony Hey Ed Friedkin, John Wheeler, Marvin Minsky, and many more It's a book about computation, physics, and what should be in ANKOS.
A long time ago, it was asked via the newsgroups and around the various departments around the country, who actually read all of the Principia Mathematica. This book did inspire a generation of logicians. They studied it at Harvard and all over the world. Yet by the 1980's, only 13 people responded to having read it in it's entirity. People joked that the number was still too high and that over half of them must have been lying.
Incidently, I've studied several books on mathematical logic, yet I've never completely read Godel, Escher, and Bach. I just didn't see the point.
You have been trained to understand both analog and digital gauges.
When you first learned to count, you had to view natural numbers (i.e. 0,1,2,3...) and collections of discrete objects in their singularity and plurality. Eventually you're mind made a mapping between digits and abstract quantities of discrete objects (i.e. 2->pairs, 12->dozen etc). The only remotely innate intuition may have been the basic set theoretic framework the entire number system is built on. Maybe.
The analog gauge is defined in terms of the digital representation. You had to learn about a 12-modulus system in order to understand how to read and interpret your analog wristwatch. You also had to develop the abstraction of a mapping between radial coordinates of a wristwatch and the digital, base 10, modulus 12 representation. Heck, even to look at a sundial and say that the day is half done requires some knowledge of fractions.
So if intuition is defined by Occam's Razor, by which I mean if intuition is based on what abstraction can be interpreted by the most canonical collection of knowledge, the digital wristwatch would in my opinion be more intuitive.
Also, from a geeky perspective, I like analog watches because of their true continuity of temporal representation. Also, IMHO, gears and pendulums (in old clocks) are just so much cooler than quartz crystals.
I think the biggest fallacy is that people believe that the news can be unbiased. You're getting a report of the news through someone else's eyes. Frankly, right or left, you've got to be able to filter out some of it. Sure, you won't get everything, but some of it is obvious. Frankly, I'm not too worried about the Slashdot crowd being able to discern the media. It's everyone else that seems to have problems. I've seen too many people quote the news verbatim.
Tom had scholarships to both MIT and Harvard, worked as an engineer, got an MBA, earned a PhD, taught for several years as a professor, taught international business abroad, started his own do-it-yourself auto repair shop (very hacker like), and has a successful auto repair show. Oh, and Ray, the "stupid" one, went to MIT too.
Also, if you listen to their show, every week they have a math problem for their listeners to solve. The show is great. They're both pretty funny and the show is surprisingly entertaining. Who said gearheads are stupid?
I think a better way of putting it, is that you have to expound a great ammount of effort to make Perl readable. It's a great langauge for scripting and odd projects, but IMHO it's not the best language for full blown development. I have friends who swear by Perl, but I've also had to wade through quite a bit of ugly Perl code.
First, being a former high school jock (yeah, me and Al Bundy... great), I can tell you that being popular with women in high school is a combination of looks, status, and confidence. That's not to say you have to look like a movie star, that's not what I mean about looks. You have to have a look. It has very little to do with salesmanship in a clever sense. Frankly, if Bill Gates wasn't loaded, I doubt he could get a date, but he certainly knows how to run a business. I also doubt Brad Pitt is much of a salesman.
Being a good salesman IS a hard skill. Managing people effectively is hard (unfortunately you can't learn that in school, thus the MBA problem). Having to work as an independent contractor has been a mixed blessing for me. I've seen my share of stupid businessmen. I've also seen my share of smart businessmen. Frankly, most geeks are smarter. You just have to acquire a new skill. So, don't buy into this geeks can't run a business hype. You have to like it or be willing to tolerate it. That's the problem. I hate meetings. I just don't enjoy chewing the fat with clients. I can do it, but I'm miserable. Frankly, every competent geek needs to find a good salesman. You also have to mature. If you're still whining about sticking it to da' man, you're probably not ready to handle running a business. However, like I've said, that hasn't stopped a lot of non-geeks.
I've also seen my share of dishonest yet rich businessman. They lie through their teeth, or at least spew enough bovine fecal matter to make the sale. I don't like doing that. I've lost a few contracts because I wasn't willing to tell the client what they wanted to hear. That happens too.
The biggest thing is that you need to network. You've got to get connected. You need to be attending chamber of commerce meetings, not industry meetings. You need to be at the country club or the rotary club. You need to go and smooze at the local Democratic or Republican party meetings. That's all part of real business. It's where skill and OPPORTUNITY meet.
First, you need to do what you like to do. I think a warning about the tough times in computing is fair. However, the employment situation is much better for harder skills (i.e. CS versus IT, research level CS versus UML/OOP/J2EE). I think there's still plenty of room for highly educated and motivated people.
Actually I saw a program at Dartmouth for a dual MD and PhD in CS (odd combination, but definitely useful). You may also be interested in the field of computational biophysics. It's all of the same ilk.
The article poster said he was interested in CS. Are you interested in research or business? There are a lot of different routes you could take. Do you want to deal with biomedical engineers, biochemists, or lawyers? Frankly, you were way too broad.
Incidentally, for what ever it's worth. You may get a kick out of http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/">Stuar t Kauffman's work. He's regarded as one of the best in the field of complexity research. He also has an MD and no PhD. He taught himself quite a bit.
Some good Math and CS books:
"The (New) Turing Omnibus: 66 Excursions in Computer Science" by A. K. Dewdney This book is a great advanced introduction to all of the major topics of CS (except neural networks). This book has sections on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Relational Algebra (database theory), viruses, operating systems, data structures, and more. This is a great book for you.
http://aduni.org/ This site has lectures from an entire CS curriculum online. It was an experimental program designed for people like you.
You'll need a good introductory book on programming. Since you're probably not worrying about polishing up your resume, and you seem to be more interested in learning, you should take a look at: "The Little Schemer" or "The Little LISPer" by Daniel Friedman.
If you really want the traditional route, take a look at "Thinking in Java" by Bruce Eckel. It's free and most people recommend Java or C++ as a good first language.
If you're really daring, try the "Perl" book by Larry Wall or "Learning Perl" by Randall Schwartz. Although, I think Perl is a horrible first language to learn. It's way too exotic.
Take a look at "Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment" by W. Richard Stevens. It's a great book on the internals in Unix.
Learn assembly language, it's a poor man's computer architecture course. Try to make a small graphics program (draw some primitives [lines and circles]) with assembly. Of course, you can't do that in Windows (unless you call some Win32 libraries or are VERY good.
"First Order Logic" by Raymond Smullyan This book essentially covers the mathematics of automated theorem proving. Armed only with this, I was able to read papers in the field. Some knowledge of basic logic (prepositional logic, maybe some slight familiarity with predicate logic) is required. I'd also recommend a whole lot of "mathematical maturity". I recommend any of Raymond Smullyan's books (technical and popular science) sight unseen. Even his thesis (Theory of Formal Systems) was pretty good.
Any book by Howard Whitley Eves or Robert R. Stoll Both men wrote books on matrix theory (linear algebra and more) and set theory. Actually, both are top-notch textbook writers and many of their books are available from Dover Publications.
Calculus Made Easy by Silvanus P. Thompson (or by FRS [Fellow of the Royal Society] if it's really old) and Calculus by Michael Spivak
The first book is the closest thing to a competent Calculus for dummies. It's almost 100 years old and it's a classic. Incidentally Mr. Thompson was an engineer, not a mathematician. The second book is notoriously rigourous and is almost an introduction to analysis. I don't know if you really care about Calculus. You probably won't
First, read anything and everything by Chris Crawford. I hate most new media theorists, but he's an exception. He's a physicist by education and programmer/game designer by experience. I'd especially take a look at "Chris Crawford on Game Design".
You should also take a look at some of his old game design articles in Next Gen magazine. He had one article on level design in Doom that was quite unique.
Secondly, from a tricks/tools perspective, gamedev.net or xgames3d.com are your best bet.
I know that's a line that isn't very popular in any context, but I think it applies.
Our country has paid a great price for taking advantage of people. During the 90's a lot of companies brought over a bunch of H1-B visas to do our jobs. These corporations convinced congress that there weren't enough Americans that were skilled enough (perhaps this was true at one point). However, instead of making this people citizens, corporations turned these people into indentured servants. Often employing hundreds of them. These H1-Bs were highly motivated and often well educated (often times having a MS, sometimes even more than one, in some field of engineering while working in "advanced IT" or software engineering positions). Eventually, these glorified indentured servants grew sick of their corporate oppressors. They went back to India. We could have made these people US citizens. They could be CONTRIBUTING to this economy. These people could be demanding American-level wages.
Some of my friends are foreigners studying or working in the US as programmers. Every one of them has told me or demonstrated (by trying to become) an American citizen. However, as a few friends have put it, if the Americans don't want me here, I'll just go home. I can make quite a bit of money with my American degree. Why should I stay here and be abused.
I'm a naturally born American whose father and mother's father are immigrants. The latter came through Ellis Island. I'm proud of being a second and third generation American. We have stood by too long.
We are a morally bankrupt society. We don't want to make illegal aliens citizens, but we seem to enjoy the benefits of their labor. We complain because the Mexicans drain our social system, but we don't seem to mind the fact that they do jobs most Americans won't do. We are paying the price for this moral bankruptcy. Some day these Indians, who are taking our engineering jobs, will realize they don't need to outsource for US companies. Some day, some Indian will realize that he too can start his own company. That day will be the beginning of the end for our late great American empire. Our biggest fear is not terrorism; our biggest fear is our own greed.
If we wish to stop this event from occurring we must speak out on this issue. We need to find ways to re-open immigration. We must end this indentured servitude. We must allow the best and brightest to come to this society and contribute to our culture. We must become what we once were, the great melting pot of the world.
Perhaps a better analogy would place FreeBSD as a bomb shelter and Windows as a strip mall or convience store. Both have their uses. If I'm going to run a web or mail server, I'm going to seriously consider FreeBSD. If I need to deploy 200 workstations in an office, I'm going to use Windows or a locked down version of Linux. Frankly, I think this article is dead on. Of course, we already knew most of this before hand. You can't spell news without NEW.
Slashdot Mirror
We should be looking at physiological complexity -- not just pure brain size. How much sensory information runs through the body of an animal?
Incidentally, does anyone have a good definition of the word complex? Outside of algorithm analysis/combinatorics and algorithmic information theory, I can't find a good mathematical definition of complexity. Can anyone site a good paper on the subject?
Actually, I may be spouting some quackery here.... However, how complex are the biofeedback systems of different animals? Certainly information theory can analyze this. I've got to believe humans are more "complex".
Set up one or two Linux boxes in a corner that you can putty (ssh) and WinSCP (scp) into. Having a couple of good Linux servers on the network with fairly open access is almost as good as having you're own machine. I'm a programmer, so this may not work for you.
Worse case scenario. Set up a linux box at someones house that you can remotely ssh into. Hopefully, they won't clamp down on the firewall. Not only do you have the luxury of a linux server, but it's outside the corporate network.*
Frankly, I've worked in environments that were all Linux or a mix of dumb Windows terminals and Linux/Unix boxes. With the exception of the occaisional utility (like an OSS IDE) you won't miss much.
*You're sys-admin my not like this for obvious reasons.
The rules of economics might have been broken in one area. The internet has changed some of the logistics involved in business. People can work at a distance more effectively. You can set up storefronts on the web. This is not to say some brick and mortar axioms don't still apply. You still need a supply chain. You still need some warehouses. However, the internet has removed the distance barrier. The internet, within reason, can be a powerful tool for business. Frankly, I think people will eventually, in a gradual and perhaps tepid fashion, rediscover some of the power of the internet.
Perhaps on the "people who had to start over" list, they should have added "the American programmer". We've taken a beating. The culture in computing has changed. It used to be the ultimate cross-disciplinary field. If you were a biologist who CAN write code and you had 10 years of experience, you'd have no problem finding a job. Now a BS in MIS is in some ways better than a MS in Physics and a few years experience. (I'm speaking from an HR perspective.) The science of computing (note I don't say computer science [I haven't recognized that field for years]) is still open. AI, complexity theory, and bioinformatics are very interdisciplinary. There are fresh fields on the academic side. However, the industrial side is dead. It can be reborn, but for now it seems dead.
Hopefully some of you will bring computing back to life.
these regular expressions were not "powerful enough for many data-parsing tasks
I will be the first to applaud Larry Wall and the Perl developers if they can clean up regex. However, I feel tinkering with a notoriously complex thing may make it worse. Or at best, may make more of an ugly thing. What we don't need is the new unreadable way and the old unreadable way of creating regexes. What fun it will be to debug code.
Frankly, how can you increase the power of regex and minimize the complexity of code. If you make regexes more powerful, you might as well make another high-level language for text processing. Let's hope they can pull it off.
Frankly, I for one like the power of Perl's regexes and I hope they succeed.
I know it's off-topic, but it relates to this thread. I've got some Karma to burn so please indulge my drudgery.
Hillary Clinton will be the 2004 Democratic nominee.
Wesley Clark will be her VP.
At the beginning of the primary, Bush looked strong. He had just caught Sadam. The economy was in an upturn. Deaniacs were raging strong. However, in a shrewd move, the primary caucui decide that they need a viable candidate. So, the tides shift from Dean to Kerry.
Let's flashback to 2000.
Gore eyes John F. Kerry. He's a better campaigner than Gore. Plus he can bring in some of that Boston Democratic money. One is a man from the south; the other is from the northeast. Both are Vietnam vets, so it would be a surprisingly strong match. Kerry couldn't run on Gore's ticket. He smacks too much of a Clinton-style candidate. Plus, Gore's trying to cast off a shadow, not step into a new one. Kerry has been known to be a rabid philanderer for years. Heck, even the I-man (Don Imus) has been known to make jokes about Kerry's unfaithful ways. These messy infidelities make a Gore/Kerry ticket improbable. However, good old honest Joe makes for a great fit. He's the ying to Gore's yang.
Now, back to the 2004 campaign.
Hillary Clinton fills out the paperwork to be a formal candidate. The ball is in her court. She surprisingly has a solid and moderate voting record. She starts to make a smattering of public appearances. She starts to speak around New York. She even gets some good publicity from her book. Plus, she made Tucker Carlson eat crow. That's always good. It's just a bonus that the all big money comes from Manhattan and Chicago anyway. She's a New York senator, so some of the big money is in her back yard.
Clark is a Clinton man. Both are good old Arkansas boys. Both were Rhodes Scholars. Both grew up from moderately humble backgrounds. If it's possible, Clinton actually has a bit of fondness for him. Perhaps that is because he sees a little of himself in Clark. We all know Bill's favorite sight is his own reflection.
Gore knows that Clark is a Clinton man. Clark has the money and the strong military record. In the pre-caucui primaries, he's a reasonable contender. Gore's never forgiven Clinton for ruining his shot at the White House. Gore might not be the best campaigner, but he's a shrewd behind-the-scenes guy. He's a Washingtonian through-and-through. He backs Dean, and even sees this as a chance to shed the Clinton shadow.
A week ago, in an "off the record" interview, Wesley Clark plants the rumor [makes it public] that Kerry's got an intern issue. He cleverly plants a little seed before the next media cycle. He maintains plausible deniability and publicly makes nice with Kerry.
Bush's staff wouldn't use this type of material until the primaries are over. Why use the good poison during the primary. If the candidate survives it, it only means the Democrats have a stronger candidate. Plus, why did Clark make the public (yet "off-the-record") statement.
Dean's campaign chairman sees the battle for the Democratic Party. He desperately wants to see the Democratic Party break free of the stranglehold of the Clintons. Dean's a smart guy. He knows the battle is raging. Despite the pressure, he figures it's better for him to stay in.
I love the smell of strategery in the morning. It smells like war.
So the battle begins. It's Kerry versus Clinton. It's the battle for the Democratic nomination and perhaps the White House.
Sorry this post is somewhat off-topic.
First, I'm part of the politically disenfranchised. I'm very politically aware, but like Diogenes, I scour the polls in vain, in a desperate search for an honest politician. If you're merely making parody for parody's sake, then please forgive the following rant. However, if you're merely a whining liberal who hates any notion of conservatives or any resemblance of limited government, then this rant is specifically for you.
Heaven forbid that I'm not for the distribution of wealth. How can you compare socialism with evolution, heliocentrism, or cosmology? Unchecked greed is not a failure of capitalism; it is the failure of the legal system. When Lenin seized control of a Russia in the midst of change that was a failure of the communist system. While I agree communism is flawed, all of humanity is flawed. I'm greedy, lustful, and full of hubris. I'm naturally lazy. So are you.
The truth is that most of the United States is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We like the warm fuzzy middle of modern bipolar politics. We are all hypocrites.
I appreciate honest liberals. I may disagree with them, but I appreciate any American's honest discourse. I appreciate the gridlock that juxtaposing dissent provides. The more we argue; the more we strengthen each other's arguments. Frankly, that's the real reason every politician makes a run to the center during election time. It's the one part of the system that works.
I don't normally flame people.... But this AC is begging for it.
Why don't you try having a conference call in a conference room? Why are you in a meeting while shopping at the mall? I mean, I can understand you being upset if someone jams your office. However, I don't give a damn if you need to have a conference call while at the movies. I don't normally flame, but what a pain you must be to work for.
Frankly, you're not a brain surgeon. Your valuable expertise can be spared. Plus, no one can understand you on the speaker phone anyway.
Incidentally, I'm in a bookstore yesterday. I'm heading into the restroom and I can hear someone having a cell phone conversation while using the bathroom. People don't know when to stop. I mean at some point, you need to hang up. You aren't that important. This man has a 10-minute conversation on the toilet. He's so loud that you couldn't not hear him. Now if you don't mind your conversation being drowned out by the noise of flushing toilets and other activities.... Are you really guaranteed the right to use your cell phone everywhere?
This reminds me of a Steve Martin bit. "Do you mind if I smoke? WELL, DO YOU MIND IF I FART! I'M JUST GOING TO LIGHT ONE UP!" He's a wild and crazy guy you know.
I guess it all comes down to simple etiquette. If you're in a place where it's okay to talk, then take the call and keep your voice at a moderate level. If you're at a funeral turn off the phone.
Ocean's Eleven did pretty well at the box office. It was a remake. I thought the Rat Pack version was better. Some remakes do okay. The more detached the viewing public is from the original source the better. I distinctly remember watching Planet of the Apes as a kid. However, I only have fuzzy memories when it comes to King Kong or Mighty Joe Young (or any other ape movie).
I wonder if I could mod an old version of Donkey Kong before King Kong hits the theaters.
Contrary to the claims of the council, Dr Baru believes there will be no trickle down of money to the impoverished public health system, which currently receives just 0.9% of India's gross domestic product. The MTC's plans may well benefit the doctors and patients involved, but it is currently unclear how a country that still suffers from malaria and TB will reap the rewards of a new wave of medical tourists coming to India.
India has a long way to go before Americans are going to accept their HMO's forcing them there.
Game programmers notoriously work long hours for poor compensation. (Yeah, it's not so uncommon among all engineers now...) Often times, the timetables are screwed from day one. The technology may even become obsolete in development. You've got a buggy paridigm in MMORPGs. You've got cheaters and hackers to worry about. Plus, if you do ship on time, you can probably expect a pink slip on completion.
So why do games take so long to make?
I know this is off-topic....
What books/resources can one find to teach them about auto repair? I want to learn more about a how a car works. Yeah, I'm a complete automotive novice. Is there anything between a ME textbook and some step-by-step (replace the oil filter) how to? Or is there a good intro to automotive engineering book for hobbiests?
For a long time, I have felt we need an old-fashioned BASIC language with a solid graphics primitive and mouse/joystick API. I've always toyed with the notion of writing a book that taught programming through examples involving mathematical and scientific programming. Maybe I'd even throw in a little logic (basic syllogisms and computability theory [just a Turing machine]). I'd be aimed at kids. No, I won't water it down. Smart kids will enjoy it, and dumb kids can go back to playing their playstation.
I first encountered programming on a TRS-80 in BASIC. It was simple. I like the simplicity of C or Java. However, C can get a little ugly for a beginner, and Java is a tad too complex (but not a bad overall choice). I definitely don't want to touch VB. That's like teaching recursion and logic programming in -- VB. VB is a great RAD tool. However, it teaches sloppy programming habits, makes building applications a little too easy (which is great when you know what you're doing, but is bad for someone whose sole purpose is to learn). Plus who wants to learn about pseudo-random number generation or the method of least squares in VB. Oh, and I'd prefer this language be available on Linux and Windows (kids in foreign countries often use Linux [i.e. Brazil and India]).
Does anyone have any suggestions for a good BASIC interpreter or another language I could use? I could work on enhancing a simple interpreter/compiler myself.
Take a look at:
"Concepts of Modern Mathematics"
by Ian Stewart
"Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics"
by Howard Eves
"Calculus Made Easy"
by Silvanus P. Thompson
I hated math coming out of high school. But I got hoodwinked into calculus and eventually I got used to it. Don't let the math scare you away. College math is different from High School math. Take a class in precalculus at the community college during the summer.
First, I bought and tried to read the book. I read some of it. I really wanted to like it. The problem was the rather LOOOOONG WINDED style of the book. He spends way too long focusing on mundane details with no real point. Also, Dr. Wolfram insists on using his Mathematica notation instead of the lambda calculus or other accepted notation. One logician referred to his work as containing such an annoying prolix style that no could read it. Even if there were some interesting stuff, anyone with some sophistication would get sick of the book. That's the problem. I think his ideas are interesting. Some of it is original, but he's made it very hard to read. The math is sparse. It's like a book I read on Relativity by Max Born. The book tried to explain problems in classical mechanics without calculus. It used this bizarre concoction of incremental algebra. It ruined the book. It tried to make something that was "hard", too simple. Some things require mathematical sophistication. Have you ever really tried to explain relativity without math? What was a simple matrix transformation in hyperspace becomes some weird discussion of how my space and your time cross. Absolutely meaningless! Try explaining algorithm analysis or mathematical logic without math. Why do think no one (in the general public) knows who Godel is?
I like my math terse and rigourous. Stephen Wolfram made an ambitious popular science book. It's like a weird cross between Principia Mathematica and Godel, Escher, and Bach. The only real thesis I got out of the book was the Principle of Computational Equivalence, which states that if the universe were governed by simple rules (like those expressed by a cellular automata) then any calculations with those rules (thus an attempt to predict phenomena) would take as long as the actual act itself. Frankly, I think Gregory Chaitin's work in Algorithmic Information Theory has a lot more to offer. It's rigourous and answers a seemingly inverted version of PCE.
Mr. Wolfram is not a crank. Is he a pompous jackass? Yes. Did he stay out of research too long? Yes. That's the problem.
By dumb luck, I actually picked up a couple of books to read on some related stuff yesterday.
"From Complexity to Life", edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen
Gregory Chaitin, Stuart Kauffman, Paul Davies and many more
This book actually gives you some definitions in a non-technical way. Things are made simple to a point, but some thought is required.
"Feynman and Computation", edited by Anthony Hey
Ed Friedkin, John Wheeler, Marvin Minsky, and many more
It's a book about computation, physics, and what should be in ANKOS.
A long time ago, it was asked via the newsgroups and around the various departments around the country, who actually read all of the Principia Mathematica. This book did inspire a generation of logicians. They studied it at Harvard and all over the world. Yet by the 1980's, only 13 people responded to having read it in it's entirity. People joked that the number was still too high and that over half of them must have been lying.
Incidently, I've studied several books on mathematical logic, yet I've never completely read Godel, Escher, and Bach. I just didn't see the point.
You have been trained to understand both analog and digital gauges.
When you first learned to count, you had to view natural numbers (i.e. 0,1,2,3...) and collections of discrete objects in their singularity and plurality. Eventually you're mind made a mapping between digits and abstract quantities of discrete objects (i.e. 2->pairs, 12->dozen etc). The only remotely innate intuition may have been the basic set theoretic framework the entire number system is built on. Maybe.
The analog gauge is defined in terms of the digital representation. You had to learn about a 12-modulus system in order to understand how to read and interpret your analog wristwatch. You also had to develop the abstraction of a mapping between radial coordinates of a wristwatch and the digital, base 10, modulus 12 representation. Heck, even to look at a sundial and say that the day is half done requires some knowledge of fractions.
So if intuition is defined by Occam's Razor, by which I mean if intuition is based on what abstraction can be interpreted by the most canonical collection of knowledge, the digital wristwatch would in my opinion be more intuitive.
Also, from a geeky perspective, I like analog watches because of their true continuity of temporal representation. Also, IMHO, gears and pendulums (in old clocks) are just so much cooler than quartz crystals.
I think the biggest fallacy is that people believe that the news can be unbiased. You're getting a report of the news through someone else's eyes. Frankly, right or left, you've got to be able to filter out some of it. Sure, you won't get everything, but some of it is obvious. Frankly, I'm not too worried about the Slashdot crowd being able to discern the media. It's everyone else that seems to have problems. I've seen too many people quote the news verbatim.
Actually, they're both pretty smart.
Tom Bio
Ray's Bio
Tom had scholarships to both MIT and Harvard, worked as an engineer, got an MBA, earned a PhD, taught for several years as a professor, taught international business abroad, started his own do-it-yourself auto repair shop (very hacker like), and has a successful auto repair show. Oh, and Ray, the "stupid" one, went to MIT too.
Also, if you listen to their show, every week they have a math problem for their listeners to solve. The show is great. They're both pretty funny and the show is surprisingly entertaining. Who said gearheads are stupid?
I think a better way of putting it, is that you have to expound a great ammount of effort to make Perl readable. It's a great langauge for scripting and odd projects, but IMHO it's not the best language for full blown development. I have friends who swear by Perl, but I've also had to wade through quite a bit of ugly Perl code.
First, being a former high school jock (yeah, me and Al Bundy... great), I can tell you that being popular with women in high school is a combination of looks, status, and confidence. That's not to say you have to look like a movie star, that's not what I mean about looks. You have to have a look. It has very little to do with salesmanship in a clever sense. Frankly, if Bill Gates wasn't loaded, I doubt he could get a date, but he certainly knows how to run a business. I also doubt Brad Pitt is much of a salesman.
Being a good salesman IS a hard skill. Managing people effectively is hard (unfortunately you can't learn that in school, thus the MBA problem). Having to work as an independent contractor has been a mixed blessing for me. I've seen my share of stupid businessmen. I've also seen my share of smart businessmen. Frankly, most geeks are smarter. You just have to acquire a new skill. So, don't buy into this geeks can't run a business hype. You have to like it or be willing to tolerate it. That's the problem. I hate meetings. I just don't enjoy chewing the fat with clients. I can do it, but I'm miserable. Frankly, every competent geek needs to find a good salesman. You also have to mature. If you're still whining about sticking it to da' man, you're probably not ready to handle running a business. However, like I've said, that hasn't stopped a lot of non-geeks.
I've also seen my share of dishonest yet rich businessman. They lie through their teeth, or at least spew enough bovine fecal matter to make the sale. I don't like doing that. I've lost a few contracts because I wasn't willing to tell the client what they wanted to hear. That happens too.
The biggest thing is that you need to network. You've got to get connected. You need to be attending chamber of commerce meetings, not industry meetings. You need to be at the country club or the rotary club. You need to go and smooze at the local Democratic or Republican party meetings. That's all part of real business. It's where skill and OPPORTUNITY meet.
First, you need to do what you like to do. I think a warning about the tough times in computing is fair. However, the employment situation is much better for harder skills (i.e. CS versus IT, research level CS versus UML/OOP/J2EE). I think there's still plenty of room for highly educated and motivated people.
Actually I saw a program at Dartmouth for a dual MD and PhD in CS (odd combination, but definitely useful). You may also be interested in the field of computational biophysics. It's all of the same ilk.
The article poster said he was interested in CS. Are you interested in research or business? There are a lot of different routes you could take. Do you want to deal with biomedical engineers, biochemists, or lawyers? Frankly, you were way too broad.
Incidentally, for what ever it's worth. You may get a kick out of http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/">Stuar t Kauffman's work. He's regarded as one of the best in the field of complexity research. He also has an MD and no PhD. He taught himself quite a bit.
Some good Math and CS books:
"The (New) Turing Omnibus: 66 Excursions in Computer Science" by A. K. Dewdney
This book is a great advanced introduction to all of the major topics of CS (except neural networks). This book has sections on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Relational Algebra (database theory), viruses, operating systems, data structures, and more. This is a great book for you.
http://aduni.org/
This site has lectures from an entire CS curriculum online. It was an experimental program designed for people like you.
You'll need a good introductory book on programming. Since you're probably not worrying about polishing up your resume, and you seem to be more interested in learning, you should take a look at:
"The Little Schemer" or "The Little LISPer" by Daniel Friedman.
If you really want the traditional route, take a look at "Thinking in Java" by Bruce Eckel. It's free and most people recommend Java or C++ as a good first language.
If you're really daring, try the "Perl" book by Larry Wall or "Learning Perl" by Randall Schwartz. Although, I think Perl is a horrible first language to learn. It's way too exotic.
Take a look at "Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment" by W. Richard Stevens. It's a great book on the internals in Unix.
Learn assembly language, it's a poor man's computer architecture course. Try to make a small graphics program (draw some primitives [lines and circles]) with assembly. Of course, you can't do that in Windows (unless you call some Win32 libraries or are VERY good.
"First Order Logic" by Raymond Smullyan
This book essentially covers the mathematics of automated theorem proving. Armed only with this, I was able to read papers in the field. Some knowledge of basic logic (prepositional logic, maybe some slight familiarity with predicate logic) is required. I'd also recommend a whole lot of "mathematical maturity". I recommend any of Raymond Smullyan's books (technical and popular science) sight unseen. Even his thesis (Theory of Formal Systems) was pretty good.
Any book by Howard Whitley Eves or Robert R. Stoll
Both men wrote books on matrix theory (linear algebra and more) and set theory. Actually, both are top-notch textbook writers and many of their books are available from Dover Publications.
Calculus Made Easy by Silvanus P. Thompson (or by FRS [Fellow of the Royal Society] if it's really old) and Calculus by Michael Spivak
The first book is the closest thing to a competent Calculus for dummies. It's almost 100 years old and it's a classic. Incidentally Mr. Thompson was an engineer, not a mathematician. The second book is notoriously rigourous and is almost an introduction to analysis. I don't know if you really care about Calculus. You probably won't
First, read anything and everything by Chris Crawford. I hate most new media theorists, but he's an exception. He's a physicist by education and programmer/game designer by experience. I'd especially take a look at "Chris Crawford on Game Design".
You should also take a look at some of his old game design articles in Next Gen magazine. He had one article on level design in Doom that was quite unique.
Secondly, from a tricks/tools perspective, gamedev.net or xgames3d.com are your best bet.
I know that's a line that isn't very popular in any context, but I think it applies.
Our country has paid a great price for taking advantage of people. During the 90's a lot of companies brought over a bunch of H1-B visas to do our jobs. These corporations convinced congress that there weren't enough Americans that were skilled enough (perhaps this was true at one point). However, instead of making this people citizens, corporations turned these people into indentured servants. Often employing hundreds of them. These H1-Bs were highly motivated and often well educated (often times having a MS, sometimes even more than one, in some field of engineering while working in "advanced IT" or software engineering positions). Eventually, these glorified indentured servants grew sick of their corporate oppressors. They went back to India. We could have made these people US citizens. They could be CONTRIBUTING to this economy. These people could be demanding American-level wages.
Some of my friends are foreigners studying or working in the US as programmers. Every one of them has told me or demonstrated (by trying to become) an American citizen. However, as a few friends have put it, if the Americans don't want me here, I'll just go home. I can make quite a bit of money with my American degree. Why should I stay here and be abused.
I'm a naturally born American whose father and mother's father are immigrants. The latter came through Ellis Island. I'm proud of being a second and third generation American. We have stood by too long.
We are a morally bankrupt society. We don't want to make illegal aliens citizens, but we seem to enjoy the benefits of their labor. We complain because the Mexicans drain our social system, but we don't seem to mind the fact that they do jobs most Americans won't do. We are paying the price for this moral bankruptcy. Some day these Indians, who are taking our engineering jobs, will realize they don't need to outsource for US companies. Some day, some Indian will realize that he too can start his own company. That day will be the beginning of the end for our late great American empire. Our biggest fear is not terrorism; our biggest fear is our own greed.
If we wish to stop this event from occurring we must speak out on this issue. We need to find ways to re-open immigration. We must end this indentured servitude. We must allow the best and brightest to come to this society and contribute to our culture. We must become what we once were, the great melting pot of the world.
Perhaps a better analogy would place FreeBSD as a bomb shelter and Windows as a strip mall or convience store. Both have their uses. If I'm going to run a web or mail server, I'm going to seriously consider FreeBSD. If I need to deploy 200 workstations in an office, I'm going to use Windows or a locked down version of Linux. Frankly, I think this article is dead on. Of course, we already knew most of this before hand. You can't spell news without NEW.
I'm going to ask what I believe is the most obvious question. I also ask this question in the most sincere way.
How is Linux going to help Iraq?
I believe Linux could help Iraq in terms of infrastructure and perhaps it can help low-cost news organizations (radio, newspapers).