...being offered on the basis of the IT recruiter willing to suck the most dick (literally, I worked a job where a recruiter slept with 3 different hiring managers to get 20 techies into a 1-year contract.)
I guess being a manager has its perks;) Of course, it has its downsides too, when you get fired for having sex with an agent;)
Based on what you are saying, that person is more likely an agent than a recruiter. Usually recruiters are simply outsourced HR who get paid BY THE COMPANY no matter what and are supposed to hire the best people. Agents, on the other hand, get paid BY THE UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATE and hence the agent has to get the guy his/her job to get paid.
I never really understood the chasing of certs phenominon. The specific skills you have to train for have a shelf life which is why they have to expire.
Employers prefer that. It's easier to determine people's skills from that. I personally think it isn't such a good system but that's how the world is. Employers control it--especially during tight markets like now.
I'm assuming you are not being sarcastic with your post... hard to say... if you ARE being sarcastic, you need more practice;)
And when the liberals allow more jobs to be shipped...
Liberals? I think you must have the liberals and conservatives mixed up. It's the liberals (left wing) that is more protectionist. The right wing is the one that is in favour of what is happening. The capitalists, the vast majority of whom are from the right wing, are the ones that support the present policy, which is a direct result of neo-liberal economics--the most popular form of capitalism.
If things get bad for you, just get a GED or go on welfare. Everyone does it.
Learn something about socialism, my soon-to-be comrade;) If everyone used some socialist institution or system, it would collapse. If everyone went on welfare, the welfare system will collapse--just like how libraries will collapse if EVERYONE signed out books. The reason socialist institutions and ideals survive is precisely because the number of people "leeching" or "using" the system is kept low.
How about the first step of recruitment: resume selection? How do you go about doing that? Who selects the candidates: you or HR? I think a lot of people with problems, including me, get stuck on the first step. We don't even get selected for interviews. Once you get an interview, then it isn't a big deal. You either know it or you don't. I always find the first step the most difficult. I'm sure many others here feel the same way.
It's interesting that you mentioned computer games. I was looking into it (since I'm unemployed:( and I love computer games:))... how the hell are you suppposed to break into it? They ask for VERY SPECIFIC stuff? They don't want a C++ programmer. They don't want an AI programmer either. They want a programmer that has programmed AI for a role playing game. hmm... that pretty much rules out everyone except probably 5,000 who actually worked on RPG games:(
I post messages without proofing them. But this time I read the thing AFTER I posted and noticed something I missed. I said comp sci is better from an employment point of view. Let me say why I think that is.
I think comp eng is too narrow, relative to comp sci. It is too heavily focused towards hardware and there aren't many jobs that are hardware oriented. This depends on location I guess. I suppose if you were located in Taiwan, hardware has more jobs than software. In Canada, I would say comp eng has very few jobs. Just flip through job postings and you'll note that hardly any of it requires you to understand a harware circuits, or microprocessor architecture, or whatever.
Comp sci, on the other hand, is software oriented and there are more jobs. A comp eng guy would have a hard time getting into IT (say IT administration) than a comp sci guy. I still apply and I have some experience but most won't. Designing things like webpages (from simple ones all the way to sophisticated multi-million dollar infrastructure projects) is better suited for comp sci. I find that I am lacking compared to a comp sci graduate when it comes to websites, internet, and stuff like that (not counting networking). From my days in school several years ago, I remember my comp sci friends had greater exposure to programming languages. They knew more languages whereas programming was second thought in comp eng. I imagine that some of those comp sci guys will get a job that I won't because they will know more programming languages. I don't know if that is common everywhere or just in my school/program but that's how it was.
Having said all this, comp sci may have more jobs but there is more competition too. Literally anyone is "qualified" for most IT jobs (whether they can do the job or not is another story). In comp eng, the jobs are fewer but if you get a job, you are better off IMO. There are some jobs that comp sci people really aren't suited for and you'll have an advantage as a comp eng. An example would be some wireless communications jobs, or some jobs that require hardware interaction (say writing software that actually requires an understanding of the memory subsystem). I think your advantage as a comp eng grad in these cases won't be that large during the resume selection phase. But if you get an interview, you can destroy the comp sci opponent because you'll have a greater understanding of the hardware and the business.
So that's how I see it. Comp sci has more jobs but more competition; comp eng, the opposite. Overall, the computer industry is not so good and will never be what it was during the 70's, 80's and 90's*. It is still better than many other fields. Even though I'm unemployed, something like civil engineering or chemical engineering is still worse (very few graduates get jobs in their fields).
(* You know... people don't think of the 70's and 80's as being great for the computer field but it really was. Sure, you couldn't become rich but if you had a degree, knew your stuff, and kept up, you had a good job. Probability of unemployment at that time was pretty low in the field. )
I graduated from computer engineering and management a few years ago. Haven't really found a job yet:( I'm in Canada BTW. I'm not sure if I'm the right person to ask (since my "career" is a complete failure) but here is my opinion...
The Degree
I don't know if this is how all schools are but most Canadian universities are as follows (USA should be the same except what people call colleges is the same as universities in Canada. What is called colleges in Canada is called community colleges in USA I think??)
As far as the programs are concerned, comp eng covers a bit more hardware and electrical engineering. Comp sci, on the other hand, covers more computer theory and is heavily tilted towards software. To give you an idea of the difference, comp sci deals with databases. You would learn RDMS, theory behind it, etc. In comp eng, I hardly ever touched databases. In contrast, comp eng will cover things like wirless communications (especially from an electrical engineering point of view eg. studying electromagnetic waves, etc). I don't think anyone graduating from comp sci really knows much about wireless communications (as an example). In comp eng, you study microprocessor architecture. In comp sci you study it too but only to get an overall understanding of how it works. There is very little done on designing them. So if you want to design a CPU (at Intel for example), comp eng would be the right field. I just picked a few things from each that was different. Clearly there are many more differences. I just described that to give an idea.
To make things more confusing, you can usually (depends on prerequisites and stuff) pick either comp sci or comp eng courses in your senior years. For instance, I could have picked some database courses from comp sci, even though I was in comp eng. Similarly, someone from comp sci can pick some computer architecture courses from comp eng. In some sense, you can almost end up the same regardless of the program (there WILL be differences if you go 100% software or 100% harware but usually people choose a mix).
In summary, if you like (or want to) pursue something hardware oriented, comp eng is best. If you want something leaning towards software, comp sci is best. Ignoring employment opportunies, comp eng is more prestigious and harder to get into. Comp sci is easier and less prestigious. BUT, I'll come to this in a minute, comp sci has more jobs that you are qualified for.
Employers
Based on MY EXPERIENCE, which may or may not be reflective of a trend, employers do not care if you have comp eng or comp sci degree. It's all the same to them. The only difference would be in cases where you clearly don't have the background (eg. designing chips almost always requires a comp eng degree; system administration, database design, and things like that are generally suited for comp sci (unless you have experience)). So employers don't care about the degree for the most part. In fact, many jobs will simply require a "computer related degree" which can be anything.
What employers look for are SKILL sets. So employers will ask for skills like C, C++, networking, and so forth. That is pretty much what determines your job prospects. (A lot of the negative feelings held by degree holders is related to this. Read my footnote at the bottom on why I think this is). If you care about jobs, I think your goal should be to get the right skills. It doesn't matter whether you have a degree, or a certification, or whatever. It all boils down to skills. This is why, for example, you will hear corporations saying that there is a shortage of skilled workers even though there are millions of unemployed new graduates. People just don't have the right skills. This is especially true given that new grads have very few skills (but this is almost a given that many jobs require knowledge of proprietary technologies. So unless you have been working at some company and know their product, it's kind of hard to
Eliminating money markets is equivalent to poking a knife into the heart of capitalism. It isn't going to happen. If it does happen, capitalism will collapse.
Ignoring the case where capitalism collapses (which I think it will but let's not go there), I think what will happen is that USA will have to devalue their currency. Devaluing the currency will automatically make imports more expensive and result in the elimination of the present situation where people consume more than they "should". However, devaluing the currency will decrease US standard of living.
--OFF TOPIC--
If you want to know what I think will happen with the capitalism collapse case, here it is. Ok, this is just my theory and yes, it sounds very foolish to the capitalists:) I think if foreigners stop investing in USA, USA will collapse. This will happen because USA won't be able to pay off the debt (or at least get it into manageable levels). Difficulties on the debt front will cause USA to significantly cut government, eliminating most branches of governemnt. This will throw even more unemployed workers into the mix. These actions will be similar to what happens in many poor countries (with debt problems). In these poor countries, because of IMF pressure, the government is shrunk, resulting in many unemployed government employees. This results in higher unemployed and it never EVER gets better. One just needs to follow Argentina (when do you think it will get better?). Ultimately, USA will collapse and this will bring down capitalism. When capitalism goes down, all the capitalist countries (like 90% of hte world) will collapse. Capitalism is a global system so when USA collapses the whole world will collapse. It's not like fascism, mercantilism, communism, monarchy, or others--these are limited to one country/region. For example, when so-called Communism collapsed, it had almost zero impact on other countries. When capitalism collapses, USA will switch to fascism (start blaming all the immigrants, hispanics, blacks, etc for the collapse). And there will be World War III. The UN will collapse just before the start of the war, just like how the League of Nations collapsed just before WWII.
That's my theory of the collapse of capitalism. There is a bit more which I didn't mention (eg. instead of debt, a class war may cause the collapse too). I know there are a lot of if's and but's. This is also pure speculation with no "proof". So don't base your life on this:)
First of all, I'm not flaming you. Yes it's a harsh criticism but it's not a flame. A flame would be if I personally attacked you or something (eg. If I go "you are an idiot" or something). I'm not dissing you:)
Anyway, I DID speculate based on your view. What I said is what I think will happen in the future based on what you were proposing. If people were "expected" to volunteer in the electoral system, then they would eventually get an advantage of some sort. In fact, I would say that is one of the problems plaguing the system right now. YOU may have little impact (don't know) but when private wealthy individuals are throwing millions of dollars around, it DOES have an impact.
The system would be far better without ANYONE getting involved. I say it is undemocratic or at least will lead to it because those that work with the campaigners have a greater influence than a typical (non-participating, but voting) citizen. I mean, what's all the criticism regarding modern day politics? It's all about influence. Why do certain lobby groups influence goverment while others don't? It's precisely because these groups fund the politicians. Now, the argument by these people (often large corporations) is that funding political candidates is good for the system because it brings in money, and shows how they believe in the system. But the fact of the matter is something else. Under capitalism, all companies are profit-maximizers (with a few exceptions). There is no way a company would "donate" $100,000, let alone $1,000, during an election if they didn't get some profits back. What they get for giving this money is INFLUENCE. That is how the system is corrupted. What you are proposing will lead to precisely that, except with individuals corrupting the system (eg. someone who partakes in the campaigns will have greater influence than others).
So, I'm not saying that you are proposing that we start allocating weights to the vote. But people partaking in the system WILL get some advantage--and it's called influence.
On top of all that, what's the theoretical argument for getting people involved in politics? I would consider it a waste of my time if I was "required" to get involved. A working person only has around 3 or 4 hours of free time every day--the rest is wasted working. I imagine many don't really want to spend their precious time on politics. Just like how many wouldn't want to spend time with the legal system (say you "required" people to be involved in the legal system).
All i have to say to that is that someone has to be wrong, you have to have some spirited debate, or as you put it ideological "war".
I agree... but let's not do that with respect to the electoral system. I'm ok with debates and stuff like that; I'm just against a bunch of Republican crackers messing the system just because Democrats are going to win, or vice versa.
I don't know... usually the citizens start acting like sheeps when under a threat (regardless of real or bogus). People will rally behind the governmetn and you can literally get anything done. If there is another attack against USA, I think the Democrats will have very little chance of winning.
I think you would have a hard time justifying that to a capitalist. I'm not a capitalist so I'm in favour of govt funding for schools, libraries, theoretic research, etc. However, I doubt you can concretely justify that to a capitalist. Some of the examples you used are really due to private investment--not public. A capitalist will first ask for actual profits made from investment. For example, can you actually justify that NASA should receive its billions? Second, I don't know how you are going to prove that the private sector cannot do it any better under capitalism. One of the arguments by capitalists is not so much that research shouldn't be done but rather, private entites (like corporations, private citizens, non-profit organizations, etc) should fund them.
Terraforming doesn't need to be fast, if Mars becomes gradually warmer and moister during the next 100000 years because we dump greenhouse gases and CO2 producing genetic engineered bacteria there, it's terraforming.
Given that human history doesn't even go back 100,000 years, I don't think one can really consider that as true terraforming. I think when people talk about terraforming they are talking something very short (on the order of a 100 years maximum).
You are right that Global Warming is terraforming. However, like many other things in life, humans can only take it one way and we don't have much control over it. For example, we can't reverse Global Warming. Sure we can slow it down or eliminate it but not reverse it. This is just like how we can create desert out of plains (just chop down all the trees and eliminate vegetation) but we can't create plains out of a desert. Or how we can blow up a mountain but we can't put it together.
So I don't think you can count things like pollution (which is indeed terraforming) as true terraforming. Not only do we have little control over it, we can't even reverse it.
I believe that we need some planetary level capability for true terraforming. If we can control the weather (say eliminate storms) then we will be close to terraforming. Needless to say, we have very little control over the weather (let alone try to predict it to high precision).
As far as cruising with hyperspace engines is concerned, well, I don't believe in hypersapce engines. But I do believe in time travel via wormholes or tippler cylinders:) Time travel is even harder than terraforming so I'm not going to go there. Time travel requires manipulating star-like objects and right now we can't even manipulate a planet:(
People on slashdot have a serious problem with humour--not you. I can't believe some people thought this was real. When was the last time any scientist ever said "in your face", "your rover sucks", "we rule", etc?
Slashdot readers need to get some education on humour:)
That war theory is clearly wrong in my opinion. It might be true in some cases but it does not apply to all wars. There are wars that are driven by ideology. Examples include: European crusades to convert people to Christianity, battle between "Communism" and "capitalism" (eg. Cold War), etc. On top of that, many civil wars are NOT due to resources.
How do you know you died on Mars? Maybe you were on another planet? Or maybe your fate is for some alien to kidnap you and take you to another planet;) And when you meet that alien send him over to me--I have some questions to ask it (about the meaning of life, the origin of universe, and stuff like that;) )
As far as terraforming is concerned, that's way too difficult now. I'm not an expert either but I haven't read anything that comes anywhere near terraforming. Humans have enough problems terraforming earth (eg. we CAN'T convert a desert to a plain) that Mars is almost impossible. I think we will only develop terraforming after we develop planetary capabilities (eg. ability to use gravity, ability to move a satellite like the moon to a different orbit, etc). At least that's how most sci-fi games are:) Right now we have ZERO planetary-level capabilities.
BTW, I agree wholeheartedly that humans need to start cooperating. Space missions are way too expensive for one country to do it.
Human expansion in outer space will be driven by vastly different reasons, than those on earth. People in the past expanded mainly due to food and lack of land. I don't see these two problems causing the expansion into space.
When it comes to food, most of the hunger problems are caused by discrepancy in distribution. For instance, the world has enough food to feed everyone. But it doesn't happen. The reason is because rich countries have a ton of food, and also end up wasting a lot of it. The poor countries, in contrast, don't have enough but waste little.
So if food was one of the main reasons for driving expansion/colonialism in the past, going to outer space wouldn't really solve that. First of all, there isn't any food in space. There are no plants there, no animals, etc. Even if you can take them to say Mars, it is questionable how easy it will be grow them. So if someone is hungry they are not going to go to space. Second, it is probably cheaper to redistribute food or to improve food output on earth (and hence supplying the hungry) than it is to colonize Mars. By colonize, I mean an actual establishment of a large colony; scientific outposts (as in Antartica) don't count. Overall, food will not be the reason.
The other reason is space/territory. This is a more likely reason to colonize other planets but I don't see it happening now. Again, this reason likely isn't a big enough reason. Unlike humans in the past, modern humans have developed techniques to increase density. More people can live in a given area now than at any time in the past. Nowadays, you can easily build a skyscraper or an apartment building. The ancient humans, in contrast, really couldn't build high story buildings. That's one reason they had to keep expanding. In addition, even if countries had massive space problems (some of the highly populated countries may) it is probably easier and less costly to expand to oceans (buildings in the sea) than it is to go to space.
However, there are new reasons people may expand to another planet. If someone deploys a biological weapon with no cure (it's pretty much a given that biological weapons have no cure... if they did, they aren't much of a weapon), I can see people fleeing to another planet. Or if some disease strikes earth (similar to the biological weapon), people may be forced to leave earth. Imminent threat of an asteroid strike or something like that may also cause people to leave (but the probability of such event is very low).
I could be wrong but I don't think the US is even supposed to have a permanent military according to the old laws. I know some of the Founding Fathers were against "standing armies" and I'm not sure what the Constitution says about that. You are also supposed to have militias that protect citizens. It seems militias have gone the way of the dodo bird.
I realize that you are a capitalist and that everything should be driven by profits in your world. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of scientific research generates ZERO profits--at least in the short term. With your attitude, should we eliminate all theoretical physics (eg. studying the origin of universe, black holes, etc), social science (hardly any money to be made here), biology (why waste time studying animals?), history (who cares), etc.
Knowledge is not a profit-generating instrument. Capitalists have a hard time understanding this. Unfortunately, I have a feeling you just never will realize it...
One common voter type I forgot to mention is the frontrunner, the one who votes not for who they think should win, but who they think will win. Bah!
That problem is mainly caused by the winner-takes-all system employed in Canada and USA. Introducing proportional representation will help that (along with other things)...
Everything I say is pure speculation... so it's speculation answering speculation:)
1) Saddam had a WMD development program, but it was all on computer, on the drawing board, as it were.
Iraq probably had a WMD program but it was probably concentrated on chemical weapons. I don't think they really had a program for nuclear weapons (at least nothing substantial or well developed).
2) Saddam lied to his military. Each general thought the next one over had CW, even though his own unit did not.
I think it would be the other way around. The Iraqi scietists lied to Saddam. Saddam wouldn't have known about the technology and the science behind it. He would just rely on this scientists. In situations like these (dictatorships), the scientists fabricate stuff to keep themselves alive. I'm reading Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne (THE definitive book on time travel for non-scientists--highly recommended to those (like me:) ) that believe in time travel from a scientific point of view). Kip mentions how Lev Davidovich Landau made up the theory of neutron core to keep himself from being executed by Stalin (there was a purge to eliminate "enemies of the state" (which pretty much meant ANYONE that Stalin didn't like)). Just like how Landau made up the neutron core to save himself, Iraqi scientists would have made up stuff to keep themselves safe. Saddam in all likelihood never knew how far the programs really were.
On top of that, it should be noted that most of the "information" that USA used came from the Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. Chalabi's goal was always to take over Iraq and run it by himself, which he seems to have done (although the proposed "democratic" elections might get in his way). Who knows how much of this was fabricated? It is quite plausible that a lot of the information was fabricated.
3) Saddam had made covert threats. This was meant to stave off both an Iranian invasion and a Shiite rebellion.
True but the threats weren't really directed against the Shiites or the Iranians. It was directed at other countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Isreal). Iran has never had any intention to invade Iraq; the Shiites are not going to be scared by WMD (what diference would that make? He was already using chemical weapons and that was doing the "job" just fine:( ).
4) Interestingly, Iraq didn't lie very much in their arms assessment they gave to the UN.
They didn't lie because they had nothing to lie about. The UN destroyed nearly all of his weapons and various other techniques (like sanctions, boycotts by other governments, close minotoring of Iraqi money) meant that he couldn't get the equipment. To show you how badly Iraq was, it didn't even have a fully functioning airforce. They apparently couldn't get parts and repair their MIG planes. I don't think a single Iraqi jet did a sortie (i.e. bomb) or intercept US planes during the Iraqi War (aka Gulf War II). There was nothing to lie about because he didn't have anything.
5) Hans Blix said he could finish inspections in six months.
He never really said that. He said that inspections could uncover WMD. He never gave a time frame. THe UN generally doesn't give time frames on anything (including combating malaria, peacekeeping missions, eliminating poverty, etc--no time frames in any of these, other than stated hopeful goals).
6) Bush knew that if Blix didn't find WMD, there was no way in hell he'd get the votes for war. Considering how conservatives have been clamoring for the overthrow of Saddam for YEARS, I don't think this is surprising or unsubstantiated. O'Neill + PNAC make a pretty convincing argument on their own.
I COMPLETELY disagree with your view. Yes, I feel strongly about it too...
What you are proposing is not democracy. You are proposing some sort of an elitist system. I'm not sure what but it is something new, that's for sure.
If you support an egalitarian view of democracy, EVERYONE should have the same access. That's what democracy is. One should NOT have to spend their own time on the electoral process. That's not how *I* want it--and that's not how most people want it either. One should not be forced to support the electoral system just because they want the vote counted. You are proposing exactly that.
As far as the hacking thing is concerned, it is totally irrelevant how many crackers are Democrats, and how many are Republican. It is also irrelevant how many are socialists, or how many are fascists, or how many are anarchists. The point is that the electoral system should not be TAMPERED with. Modifying the system alters the system and it won't be fair anymore. If your idea of electoral politics is to have a war between all the different ideologies, that's fine. But most people don't want that happening. The last thing we need are some fascist hackers taking on some anarchists, or whatever.
The system should be fair and clean. And one should not have to "volunteer" their time on it. If you are spening time on politics, that's your choice. But you should not be rewarded more than others. If you do get rewarded (I'm sure you do) then you are manipulating the electoral system. The perfect system, to me as well as most others I imagine, will be the opposite of what you propose. Namely, a system where there is ZERO influence or "volunteering by citizens" as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
...being offered on the basis of the IT recruiter willing to suck the most dick (literally, I worked a job where a recruiter slept with 3 different hiring managers to get 20 techies into a 1-year contract.)
;) Of course, it has its downsides too, when you get fired for having sex with an agent ;)
I guess being a manager has its perks
Based on what you are saying, that person is more likely an agent than a recruiter. Usually recruiters are simply outsourced HR who get paid BY THE COMPANY no matter what and are supposed to hire the best people. Agents, on the other hand, get paid BY THE UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATE and hence the agent has to get the guy his/her job to get paid.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
But the vast majority of employers are like that. Check out some job postings and you'll find that many require stuff like MCSE, A+, etc.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I never really understood the chasing of certs phenominon. The specific skills you have to train for have a shelf life which is why they have to expire.
Employers prefer that. It's easier to determine people's skills from that. I personally think it isn't such a good system but that's how the world is. Employers control it--especially during tight markets like now.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm assuming you are not being sarcastic with your post... hard to say... if you ARE being sarcastic, you need more practice ;)
;) If everyone used some socialist institution or system, it would collapse. If everyone went on welfare, the welfare system will collapse--just like how libraries will collapse if EVERYONE signed out books. The reason socialist institutions and ideals survive is precisely because the number of people "leeching" or "using" the system is kept low.
And when the liberals allow more jobs to be shipped...
Liberals? I think you must have the liberals and conservatives mixed up. It's the liberals (left wing) that is more protectionist. The right wing is the one that is in favour of what is happening. The capitalists, the vast majority of whom are from the right wing, are the ones that support the present policy, which is a direct result of neo-liberal economics--the most popular form of capitalism.
If things get bad for you, just get a GED or go on welfare. Everyone does it.
Learn something about socialism, my soon-to-be comrade
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How about the first step of recruitment: resume selection? How do you go about doing that? Who selects the candidates: you or HR? I think a lot of people with problems, including me, get stuck on the first step. We don't even get selected for interviews. Once you get an interview, then it isn't a big deal. You either know it or you don't. I always find the first step the most difficult. I'm sure many others here feel the same way.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's interesting that you mentioned computer games. I was looking into it (since I'm unemployed :( and I love computer games :))... how the hell are you suppposed to break into it? They ask for VERY SPECIFIC stuff? They don't want a C++ programmer. They don't want an AI programmer either. They want a programmer that has programmed AI for a role playing game. hmm... that pretty much rules out everyone except probably 5,000 who actually worked on RPG games :(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I post messages without proofing them. But this time I read the thing AFTER I posted and noticed something I missed. I said comp sci is better from an employment point of view. Let me say why I think that is.
I think comp eng is too narrow, relative to comp sci. It is too heavily focused towards hardware and there aren't many jobs that are hardware oriented. This depends on location I guess. I suppose if you were located in Taiwan, hardware has more jobs than software. In Canada, I would say comp eng has very few jobs. Just flip through job postings and you'll note that hardly any of it requires you to understand a harware circuits, or microprocessor architecture, or whatever.
Comp sci, on the other hand, is software oriented and there are more jobs. A comp eng guy would have a hard time getting into IT (say IT administration) than a comp sci guy. I still apply and I have some experience but most won't. Designing things like webpages (from simple ones all the way to sophisticated multi-million dollar infrastructure projects) is better suited for comp sci. I find that I am lacking compared to a comp sci graduate when it comes to websites, internet, and stuff like that (not counting networking). From my days in school several years ago, I remember my comp sci friends had greater exposure to programming languages. They knew more languages whereas programming was second thought in comp eng. I imagine that some of those comp sci guys will get a job that I won't because they will know more programming languages. I don't know if that is common everywhere or just in my school/program but that's how it was.
Having said all this, comp sci may have more jobs but there is more competition too. Literally anyone is "qualified" for most IT jobs (whether they can do the job or not is another story). In comp eng, the jobs are fewer but if you get a job, you are better off IMO. There are some jobs that comp sci people really aren't suited for and you'll have an advantage as a comp eng. An example would be some wireless communications jobs, or some jobs that require hardware interaction (say writing software that actually requires an understanding of the memory subsystem). I think your advantage as a comp eng grad in these cases won't be that large during the resume selection phase. But if you get an interview, you can destroy the comp sci opponent because you'll have a greater understanding of the hardware and the business.
So that's how I see it. Comp sci has more jobs but more competition; comp eng, the opposite. Overall, the computer industry is not so good and will never be what it was during the 70's, 80's and 90's*. It is still better than many other fields. Even though I'm unemployed, something like civil engineering or chemical engineering is still worse (very few graduates get jobs in their fields).
(* You know... people don't think of the 70's and 80's as being great for the computer field but it really was. Sure, you couldn't become rich but if you had a degree, knew your stuff, and kept up, you had a good job. Probability of unemployment at that time was pretty low in the field. )
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I graduated from computer engineering and management a few years ago. Haven't really found a job yet :( I'm in Canada BTW. I'm not sure if I'm the right person to ask (since my "career" is a complete failure) but here is my opinion...
The Degree
I don't know if this is how all schools are but most Canadian universities are as follows (USA should be the same except what people call colleges is the same as universities in Canada. What is called colleges in Canada is called community colleges in USA I think??)
As far as the programs are concerned, comp eng covers a bit more hardware and electrical engineering. Comp sci, on the other hand, covers more computer theory and is heavily tilted towards software. To give you an idea of the difference, comp sci deals with databases. You would learn RDMS, theory behind it, etc. In comp eng, I hardly ever touched databases. In contrast, comp eng will cover things like wirless communications (especially from an electrical engineering point of view eg. studying electromagnetic waves, etc). I don't think anyone graduating from comp sci really knows much about wireless communications (as an example). In comp eng, you study microprocessor architecture. In comp sci you study it too but only to get an overall understanding of how it works. There is very little done on designing them. So if you want to design a CPU (at Intel for example), comp eng would be the right field. I just picked a few things from each that was different. Clearly there are many more differences. I just described that to give an idea.
To make things more confusing, you can usually (depends on prerequisites and stuff) pick either comp sci or comp eng courses in your senior years. For instance, I could have picked some database courses from comp sci, even though I was in comp eng. Similarly, someone from comp sci can pick some computer architecture courses from comp eng. In some sense, you can almost end up the same regardless of the program (there WILL be differences if you go 100% software or 100% harware but usually people choose a mix).
In summary, if you like (or want to) pursue something hardware oriented, comp eng is best. If you want something leaning towards software, comp sci is best. Ignoring employment opportunies, comp eng is more prestigious and harder to get into. Comp sci is easier and less prestigious. BUT, I'll come to this in a minute, comp sci has more jobs that you are qualified for.
Employers
Based on MY EXPERIENCE, which may or may not be reflective of a trend, employers do not care if you have comp eng or comp sci degree. It's all the same to them. The only difference would be in cases where you clearly don't have the background (eg. designing chips almost always requires a comp eng degree; system administration, database design, and things like that are generally suited for comp sci (unless you have experience)). So employers don't care about the degree for the most part. In fact, many jobs will simply require a "computer related degree" which can be anything.
What employers look for are SKILL sets. So employers will ask for skills like C, C++, networking, and so forth. That is pretty much what determines your job prospects. (A lot of the negative feelings held by degree holders is related to this. Read my footnote at the bottom on why I think this is). If you care about jobs, I think your goal should be to get the right skills. It doesn't matter whether you have a degree, or a certification, or whatever. It all boils down to skills. This is why, for example, you will hear corporations saying that there is a shortage of skilled workers even though there are millions of unemployed new graduates. People just don't have the right skills. This is especially true given that new grads have very few skills (but this is almost a given that many jobs require knowledge of proprietary technologies. So unless you have been working at some company and know their product, it's kind of hard to
Eliminating money markets is equivalent to poking a knife into the heart of capitalism. It isn't going to happen. If it does happen, capitalism will collapse.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Ignoring the case where capitalism collapses (which I think it will but let's not go there), I think what will happen is that USA will have to devalue their currency. Devaluing the currency will automatically make imports more expensive and result in the elimination of the present situation where people consume more than they "should". However, devaluing the currency will decrease US standard of living.
:) I think if foreigners stop investing in USA, USA will collapse. This will happen because USA won't be able to pay off the debt (or at least get it into manageable levels). Difficulties on the debt front will cause USA to significantly cut government, eliminating most branches of governemnt. This will throw even more unemployed workers into the mix. These actions will be similar to what happens in many poor countries (with debt problems). In these poor countries, because of IMF pressure, the government is shrunk, resulting in many unemployed government employees. This results in higher unemployed and it never EVER gets better. One just needs to follow Argentina (when do you think it will get better?). Ultimately, USA will collapse and this will bring down capitalism. When capitalism goes down, all the capitalist countries (like 90% of hte world) will collapse. Capitalism is a global system so when USA collapses the whole world will collapse. It's not like fascism, mercantilism, communism, monarchy, or others--these are limited to one country/region. For example, when so-called Communism collapsed, it had almost zero impact on other countries. When capitalism collapses, USA will switch to fascism (start blaming all the immigrants, hispanics, blacks, etc for the collapse). And there will be World War III. The UN will collapse just before the start of the war, just like how the League of Nations collapsed just before WWII.
:)
--OFF TOPIC--
If you want to know what I think will happen with the capitalism collapse case, here it is. Ok, this is just my theory and yes, it sounds very foolish to the capitalists
That's my theory of the collapse of capitalism. There is a bit more which I didn't mention (eg. instead of debt, a class war may cause the collapse too). I know there are a lot of if's and but's. This is also pure speculation with no "proof". So don't base your life on this
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First of all, I'm not flaming you. Yes it's a harsh criticism but it's not a flame. A flame would be if I personally attacked you or something (eg. If I go "you are an idiot" or something). I'm not dissing you :)
Anyway, I DID speculate based on your view. What I said is what I think will happen in the future based on what you were proposing. If people were "expected" to volunteer in the electoral system, then they would eventually get an advantage of some sort. In fact, I would say that is one of the problems plaguing the system right now. YOU may have little impact (don't know) but when private wealthy individuals are throwing millions of dollars around, it DOES have an impact.
The system would be far better without ANYONE getting involved. I say it is undemocratic or at least will lead to it because those that work with the campaigners have a greater influence than a typical (non-participating, but voting) citizen. I mean, what's all the criticism regarding modern day politics? It's all about influence. Why do certain lobby groups influence goverment while others don't? It's precisely because these groups fund the politicians. Now, the argument by these people (often large corporations) is that funding political candidates is good for the system because it brings in money, and shows how they believe in the system. But the fact of the matter is something else. Under capitalism, all companies are profit-maximizers (with a few exceptions). There is no way a company would "donate" $100,000, let alone $1,000, during an election if they didn't get some profits back. What they get for giving this money is INFLUENCE. That is how the system is corrupted. What you are proposing will lead to precisely that, except with individuals corrupting the system (eg. someone who partakes in the campaigns will have greater influence than others).
So, I'm not saying that you are proposing that we start allocating weights to the vote. But people partaking in the system WILL get some advantage--and it's called influence.
On top of all that, what's the theoretical argument for getting people involved in politics? I would consider it a waste of my time if I was "required" to get involved. A working person only has around 3 or 4 hours of free time every day--the rest is wasted working. I imagine many don't really want to spend their precious time on politics. Just like how many wouldn't want to spend time with the legal system (say you "required" people to be involved in the legal system).
All i have to say to that is that someone has to be wrong, you have to have some spirited debate, or as you put it ideological "war".
I agree... but let's not do that with respect to the electoral system. I'm ok with debates and stuff like that; I'm just against a bunch of Republican crackers messing the system just because Democrats are going to win, or vice versa.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I didn't know National Guard was a militia. Thanks for letting me know. Do the states have control over them too?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know... usually the citizens start acting like sheeps when under a threat (regardless of real or bogus). People will rally behind the governmetn and you can literally get anything done. If there is another attack against USA, I think the Democrats will have very little chance of winning.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think you would have a hard time justifying that to a capitalist. I'm not a capitalist so I'm in favour of govt funding for schools, libraries, theoretic research, etc. However, I doubt you can concretely justify that to a capitalist. Some of the examples you used are really due to private investment--not public. A capitalist will first ask for actual profits made from investment. For example, can you actually justify that NASA should receive its billions? Second, I don't know how you are going to prove that the private sector cannot do it any better under capitalism. One of the arguments by capitalists is not so much that research shouldn't be done but rather, private entites (like corporations, private citizens, non-profit organizations, etc) should fund them.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Terraforming doesn't need to be fast, if Mars becomes gradually warmer and moister during the next 100000 years because we dump greenhouse gases and CO2 producing genetic engineered bacteria there, it's terraforming.
:) Time travel is even harder than terraforming so I'm not going to go there. Time travel requires manipulating star-like objects and right now we can't even manipulate a planet :(
Given that human history doesn't even go back 100,000 years, I don't think one can really consider that as true terraforming. I think when people talk about terraforming they are talking something very short (on the order of a 100 years maximum).
You are right that Global Warming is terraforming. However, like many other things in life, humans can only take it one way and we don't have much control over it. For example, we can't reverse Global Warming. Sure we can slow it down or eliminate it but not reverse it. This is just like how we can create desert out of plains (just chop down all the trees and eliminate vegetation) but we can't create plains out of a desert. Or how we can blow up a mountain but we can't put it together.
So I don't think you can count things like pollution (which is indeed terraforming) as true terraforming. Not only do we have little control over it, we can't even reverse it.
I believe that we need some planetary level capability for true terraforming. If we can control the weather (say eliminate storms) then we will be close to terraforming. Needless to say, we have very little control over the weather (let alone try to predict it to high precision).
As far as cruising with hyperspace engines is concerned, well, I don't believe in hypersapce engines. But I do believe in time travel via wormholes or tippler cylinders
Sivaram Velauthapillai
People on slashdot have a serious problem with humour--not you. I can't believe some people thought this was real. When was the last time any scientist ever said "in your face", "your rover sucks", "we rule", etc?
:)
Slashdot readers need to get some education on humour
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I agree that the two parties in power will prevent it from happening.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That war theory is clearly wrong in my opinion. It might be true in some cases but it does not apply to all wars. There are wars that are driven by ideology. Examples include: European crusades to convert people to Christianity, battle between "Communism" and "capitalism" (eg. Cold War), etc. On top of that, many civil wars are NOT due to resources.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How do you know you died on Mars? Maybe you were on another planet? Or maybe your fate is for some alien to kidnap you and take you to another planet ;) And when you meet that alien send him over to me--I have some questions to ask it (about the meaning of life, the origin of universe, and stuff like that ;) )
:) Right now we have ZERO planetary-level capabilities.
As far as terraforming is concerned, that's way too difficult now. I'm not an expert either but I haven't read anything that comes anywhere near terraforming. Humans have enough problems terraforming earth (eg. we CAN'T convert a desert to a plain) that Mars is almost impossible. I think we will only develop terraforming after we develop planetary capabilities (eg. ability to use gravity, ability to move a satellite like the moon to a different orbit, etc). At least that's how most sci-fi games are
BTW, I agree wholeheartedly that humans need to start cooperating. Space missions are way too expensive for one country to do it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Human expansion in outer space will be driven by vastly different reasons, than those on earth. People in the past expanded mainly due to food and lack of land. I don't see these two problems causing the expansion into space.
When it comes to food, most of the hunger problems are caused by discrepancy in distribution. For instance, the world has enough food to feed everyone. But it doesn't happen. The reason is because rich countries have a ton of food, and also end up wasting a lot of it. The poor countries, in contrast, don't have enough but waste little.
So if food was one of the main reasons for driving expansion/colonialism in the past, going to outer space wouldn't really solve that. First of all, there isn't any food in space. There are no plants there, no animals, etc. Even if you can take them to say Mars, it is questionable how easy it will be grow them. So if someone is hungry they are not going to go to space. Second, it is probably cheaper to redistribute food or to improve food output on earth (and hence supplying the hungry) than it is to colonize Mars. By colonize, I mean an actual establishment of a large colony; scientific outposts (as in Antartica) don't count. Overall, food will not be the reason.
The other reason is space/territory. This is a more likely reason to colonize other planets but I don't see it happening now. Again, this reason likely isn't a big enough reason. Unlike humans in the past, modern humans have developed techniques to increase density. More people can live in a given area now than at any time in the past. Nowadays, you can easily build a skyscraper or an apartment building. The ancient humans, in contrast, really couldn't build high story buildings. That's one reason they had to keep expanding. In addition, even if countries had massive space problems (some of the highly populated countries may) it is probably easier and less costly to expand to oceans (buildings in the sea) than it is to go to space.
However, there are new reasons people may expand to another planet. If someone deploys a biological weapon with no cure (it's pretty much a given that biological weapons have no cure... if they did, they aren't much of a weapon), I can see people fleeing to another planet. Or if some disease strikes earth (similar to the biological weapon), people may be forced to leave earth. Imminent threat of an asteroid strike or something like that may also cause people to leave (but the probability of such event is very low).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I could be wrong but I don't think the US is even supposed to have a permanent military according to the old laws. I know some of the Founding Fathers were against "standing armies" and I'm not sure what the Constitution says about that. You are also supposed to have militias that protect citizens. It seems militias have gone the way of the dodo bird.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I realize that you are a capitalist and that everything should be driven by profits in your world. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of scientific research generates ZERO profits--at least in the short term. With your attitude, should we eliminate all theoretical physics (eg. studying the origin of universe, black holes, etc), social science (hardly any money to be made here), biology (why waste time studying animals?), history (who cares), etc.
Knowledge is not a profit-generating instrument. Capitalists have a hard time understanding this. Unfortunately, I have a feeling you just never will realize it...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
One common voter type I forgot to mention is the frontrunner, the one who votes not for who they think should win, but who they think will win. Bah!
That problem is mainly caused by the winner-takes-all system employed in Canada and USA. Introducing proportional representation will help that (along with other things)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Everything I say is pure speculation... so it's speculation answering speculation :)
:) ) that believe in time travel from a scientific point of view). Kip mentions how Lev Davidovich Landau made up the theory of neutron core to keep himself from being executed by Stalin (there was a purge to eliminate "enemies of the state" (which pretty much meant ANYONE that Stalin didn't like)). Just like how Landau made up the neutron core to save himself, Iraqi scientists would have made up stuff to keep themselves safe. Saddam in all likelihood never knew how far the programs really were.
:( ).
1) Saddam had a WMD development program, but it was all on computer, on the drawing board, as it were.
Iraq probably had a WMD program but it was probably concentrated on chemical weapons. I don't think they really had a program for nuclear weapons (at least nothing substantial or well developed).
2) Saddam lied to his military. Each general thought the next one over had CW, even though his own unit did not.
I think it would be the other way around. The Iraqi scietists lied to Saddam. Saddam wouldn't have known about the technology and the science behind it. He would just rely on this scientists. In situations like these (dictatorships), the scientists fabricate stuff to keep themselves alive. I'm reading Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne (THE definitive book on time travel for non-scientists--highly recommended to those (like me
On top of that, it should be noted that most of the "information" that USA used came from the Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. Chalabi's goal was always to take over Iraq and run it by himself, which he seems to have done (although the proposed "democratic" elections might get in his way). Who knows how much of this was fabricated? It is quite plausible that a lot of the information was fabricated.
3) Saddam had made covert threats. This was meant to stave off both an Iranian invasion and a Shiite rebellion.
True but the threats weren't really directed against the Shiites or the Iranians. It was directed at other countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Isreal). Iran has never had any intention to invade Iraq; the Shiites are not going to be scared by WMD (what diference would that make? He was already using chemical weapons and that was doing the "job" just fine
4) Interestingly, Iraq didn't lie very much in their arms assessment they gave to the UN.
They didn't lie because they had nothing to lie about. The UN destroyed nearly all of his weapons and various other techniques (like sanctions, boycotts by other governments, close minotoring of Iraqi money) meant that he couldn't get the equipment. To show you how badly Iraq was, it didn't even have a fully functioning airforce. They apparently couldn't get parts and repair their MIG planes. I don't think a single Iraqi jet did a sortie (i.e. bomb) or intercept US planes during the Iraqi War (aka Gulf War II). There was nothing to lie about because he didn't have anything.
5) Hans Blix said he could finish inspections in six months.
He never really said that. He said that inspections could uncover WMD. He never gave a time frame. THe UN generally doesn't give time frames on anything (including combating malaria, peacekeeping missions, eliminating poverty, etc--no time frames in any of these, other than stated hopeful goals).
6) Bush knew that if Blix didn't find WMD, there was no way in hell he'd get the votes for war. Considering how conservatives have been clamoring for the overthrow of Saddam for YEARS, I don't think this is surprising or unsubstantiated. O'Neill + PNAC make a pretty convincing argument on their own.
I COMPLETELY disagree with your view. Yes, I feel strongly about it too...
What you are proposing is not democracy. You are proposing some sort of an elitist system. I'm not sure what but it is something new, that's for sure.
If you support an egalitarian view of democracy, EVERYONE should have the same access. That's what democracy is. One should NOT have to spend their own time on the electoral process. That's not how *I* want it--and that's not how most people want it either. One should not be forced to support the electoral system just because they want the vote counted. You are proposing exactly that.
As far as the hacking thing is concerned, it is totally irrelevant how many crackers are Democrats, and how many are Republican. It is also irrelevant how many are socialists, or how many are fascists, or how many are anarchists. The point is that the electoral system should not be TAMPERED with. Modifying the system alters the system and it won't be fair anymore. If your idea of electoral politics is to have a war between all the different ideologies, that's fine. But most people don't want that happening. The last thing we need are some fascist hackers taking on some anarchists, or whatever.
The system should be fair and clean. And one should not have to "volunteer" their time on it. If you are spening time on politics, that's your choice. But you should not be rewarded more than others. If you do get rewarded (I'm sure you do) then you are manipulating the electoral system. The perfect system, to me as well as most others I imagine, will be the opposite of what you propose. Namely, a system where there is ZERO influence or "volunteering by citizens" as possible.
Sivaram Vealuthapillai