We're not arguing that computerized voting is "too good" for a town of 80 people. We're arguing that computerized voting sucks, but is used as a compromise to speed things up in large districts. A town of 80 people, on the other hand, is small enough that paper ballots can be counted quickly, so they shouldn't have to stoop down to the inferior electronic voting. Get it?
Vertical market software does have a good reason to charge more than $500 a copy. Often the products are very difficult to develop and have a rather limited true market size, but for those in the true market (who use advanced features regularly), the software results in a huge improvement in productivity. If you can charge to help someone in person, why can't you charge to time-shift that service by implementing it through software? What you're thinking of is the more casual users, like students. Mathematica, for instance, does have a student version that's I belive $50/year. The problem is how do you provide everything that the casual users need without cannibalizing the market for the high-end market (which is often the anchor for the company)? Another problem with a legislated maximum prices is how does it account for inflation, cost of living, bundles of multiple software products, etc?
Now that's interesting. Back when I was working Private Industry, every single job I had to sign a statement that specifically assigned the company copyright for any idea I had, because there was no way to prove that the idea didn't come on paid time. Why are professors different?
Professors are different because they're the ones running the university system, so they get to make the rules more freely. Many universities still claim a percentage of income from marketable inventions, but that money goes back into research. Any dean, chancellor or university president (who are almost always former professors themselves) who tried to turn professors into slaves would immediately find themselves outsed by the faculty senate.
Fortunately, my parents weren't into spending a lot; the funny thing is I started getting Nikes when they moved downmarket ($40) because they consistently fit me better than other brands (narrow heels, high arches). Of course, now that Nike is so mass market, it's not as cool, and the cool (= spoiled rich) kids wear specialty brands like Merrill and Montrail (which are too heavy for general use, IMO).
1. an arrogant or presumptuous person (Sounds more like Microsoft then Google, I cannot attest for Apple.)
I work in recruiting at a major university. In my experience with Google and Apple, arrogant, presumptuous and lacking in follow through describes them to a T. Google and Apple can afford to be like that because they rely on their public brand image, but it's no pleasure to work with them. Microsoft, on the other hand, is always willing to help and treats us very well. Bear in mind, I'm a long-time Microsoft hater, and students have told me a lot of their interns do tend to be arrogant and presumptuous, but Google and Apple are also pretty sucky.
Reading other peoples' comments, it seems that eBay's biggest technical problem in implementing this strategy is learning more about the items being auctioned: how do their capabilities and qualities differ? are there hidden fees? is it likely to be delivered in tact? do they include features which the buyer doesn't want (hence driving up cost)? While better clustering and search algorithms can help, richer user feedback and (cheat-resistant) collaborative filtering is also important. A completely different way in which eBay can increase their knowledge about a transaction is by acting as a more prominent intermediary. Just as PayPal allows eBay to confirm the amount of money paid for an item after the fact, eBay, or trusted partner organizations, could offer, for a fee, to examine and hold in escrow items to be sold. Obviously this does not apply to all items, but it is particularly relevant to commodities or classes of items with similar characteristics, such as books. That said, a proper cost-benefit analysis is necessary.
The scaling problem which eBay is encountering is not limited to sellers. The core problem here is that a smaller fraction of the auctions are coming to a successful completion. If we assume that the ratio of sellers to buyers has remained fairly constant (an assumption which must be confirmed), then that means that more buyers are bidding on auctions but losing--or not bidding at all, fearing they will lose. In terms of products, there are two different categories: specialties, which are rare and specifically sought after; and commodities, which are common and substitutable. Hence the problem for both buyers and sellers is how to get more buyers to bid on more of the items for sale. The problem for a buyer of specialties is how to find them in the mass of other items for sale on eBay, particularly repeated instances of the same commodity. The problem for a buyer of commodities is which particular instance to bid on. eBay could solve this problem by implementing commodity auctions, where multiple different sellers' auctions are lumped together, and the highest bidder gets his pick of which seller to buy from, on down the line. This is similar to eBay's own half.com, but in a more time-limited auction setting; indeed, there is a continuum between these approaches, and eBay could offer their sellers more controller over the point which they occupy along the continuum. Grouping commodity auctions (even just in the search results, if not in the actual bidding) will also make it easier to find specialty items. There are many details to making this strategy work, but I believe it provides a sold start to a solution for eBay's current dilemma.
The problem with your argument is that managers don't program the entire project themselves. The whole point of a manager is to coordinate a group of people working on the project. Programming skills and management skills are different. But managers must have a sufficient understanding of programming skills to properly coordinate their employees, know what are reasonable expectations, and know when things are going wrong and how to set them right. On the other hand, managers also serve as an interface between the development team and their (perhaps internal) suppliers and customers, insulating team members from those concerns which they would rather not focus on.
If someone does not sufficiently understand both the process within the team and the environment in which the team operates, then that person has no business managing. If the product can be developed by a single person, there is no need for a team manager, but a product manager may still be useful if the developer feels overwhelmed by external relations. Perhaps the problem is that managers are selected solely externally, which may be appropriate for product managers, but is not appropriate for team managers? Should a team have two managers, then, or would that make it worse? Or should middle management be decided by consensus between employees and senior management?
Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
I don't know what actually happened, but given that the "(inaudible)" implies there was some uncertainty in the transcript, "as a" would make a lot more sense in place of "and the," i.e., "using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens as a missile to damage this building"
I/O channels would help IBM mainframe channels, which have an MMU between the peripheral and main memory...
I've heard from a friend at Intel that their new chipsets which fully support TCPA have this feature. So maybe trusted computing isn't just about copy prevention.
DeBeers will give you all sorts of fud saying that they will eventually have a process for telling the difference between the two, but they won't. Ever.
Actually, they do: excavated diamonds have more lattice defects and impurities than manufactured diamonds.
I would say don't bother with multi-majoring across closely related fields. Just take the classes which interest you, it will constrain you less and allow you to better customize your program. For instance, I could have triple-majored in CS, Math and EE, but I decided to just do CS with a math minor and take the additional classes I wanted to. My undergrad advisor particularly advised me to do this, and spend the time I saved on grad school instead. Rock on.
It's good to see that you're doing CS/Math, because math is a very important part of computer science. Math will help you develop the critical eye and attention to detail to be a real expert computer scientist, rather than a wishy-washy "computer guy." One thing you should be careful about is not to just be the smart guy. You need to take control into your own hands, and make your own opportunities--don't just rely on other people to give you a job because you have certain experience and qualifications. Aim to be an excellent, technicallly able computer scientist with good theoretical foundation and practical experience, but also skilled with people and business. The ways to go about this beyond classwork are doing your own independent team projects (perhaps with faculty guidance, but heavily student-lead), working with your computer science department on external and industry relations (run events, etc.), and amassing power through campus politics (but never take it too seriously). If your school has a special business program for engineers, that could also be a great opportunity. This attitude will set you up to be a leader in your field. Also, if you're concerned about having a social life (either because you need to socialize and don't want to be trapped in the labs, or because you fell a little awkward), these extracurricular activities will all help you meet friendly, driven people.
Regarding the Ph.D., if you're not exactly sure what you want to do, a few years of work experience may help put things in better perspective. I would recommend doing a Master's as soon as you finish undergrad (many places offer combo programs these days), as that will further distinguish you in the workplace, give you a little more time to mature if you're young (I know a lot of smart kids who graduate at 20, the extra year or two helps). The experience with grad school and a Master's thesis will also make you better informed as to whether you want to pursue a Ph.D. later, and in what area.
I hope that helps. I wish I knew this stuff when I was an undergrad; fortunately I was able to learn it in grad school. Feel free to ask if you want any more details on opportunities for success.
Software engineering is NOT computer science.
Computer science is a study of algorithms and efficiency. Who knows, some day we might figure out how to describe natural events with computer science and it will replace physics (See NKS). It differs from engineering because computer science doesn't concern itself with 'good enough.' It doesn't state "This algorithm's solution will fit within our 10% tolerance necessary for a 'good enough' search time specification as described in the document.
Electrical engineering is applied physics. Software engineering is applied computer science.
Says who? Little old you? I think you're taking too narrow a view of computer science. For instance, randomized and approximation algorithms most certainly are judged based on statistical bounds as to what you can tolerate. AI, one of the most classic areas of computer science, is all about "good enough"--the Turing test asks, is the machine good enough to convince a human that it's not a computer? Computer science is about computation, and what you can do with it. Sometimes, there are limits to computation and you just can't get exact answers efficiently--or at all.
Despite the word "science," computer science is well established as an applied field. And there's nothing wrong with being applied, despite the way some mathematicians hold a perverse disdain for anything practical. What makes routine programming uninteresting to the computer scientist is that it's routine and mundane, it's been done before, and, well, computers are all about automating tasks! But if you study the whole human-computer system involved in creating these programs, a la software engineering, it starts to get interesting again. Hope you can all see where I'm coming from.
Another place to check is your local computer recycler, especially one which has long-standing contracts with local government, schools, or companies. That's where I got mine for $5. The guys working there were actually asking me if I was going to sell them on eBay when I bought 5 Model M keyboards for various family members' computers.
I'd like to add to Roydd's excellent analysis that accounting manipulations aren't always to apparently decrease costs. While obviuosly you want to emphasize the highest profits possible when talking to investors, you want just the opposite when talking to the IRS. Now, of course the honest thing to do is to give them both the same numbers, but people like to game their analysis to make investors think they're making lots of money, while the IRS thinks they're destitute and owe very little in taxes. Unfortunately, this is a survival strategy, so it persists.
yet people are going to treat it as an alternative and hack it so it keeps a distance of 3cm to the car in front of them. Just imagine, you're driving down the highway at 110km/h and there's someone 3cm behind you with his feet resting on the dashboard
Actually, that could be safer, if you take into account the longer braking distance. Since you can't change speed much before the guy behind you bumps into you, he doesn't impart much force on impact. After that, your cars are essentially coupled, and you need to stop both of them in order to stop. If his car is working correctly, it will realize it's within less than 3cm and comply. If, if.
"so when they buy or borrow another car that doesnt have tractional control power steering a fish finder
they will be a danger to themselves and others
and Thank Darwin for that!"
and others. And others.AND OTHERS. A reckless driver is a danger to everyone on the road. Sometimes you can't avoid the unexpected.
Apple hasn't always used Mach. Mach came to Apple via NeXT(Step). MacOS versions up to 9 used cooperative multitasking, and early versions didn't even have any memory protection (later versions had "guard pages," but no true application isolation).
Slashdot Mirror
We're not arguing that computerized voting is "too good" for a town of 80 people. We're arguing that computerized voting sucks, but is used as a compromise to speed things up in large districts. A town of 80 people, on the other hand, is small enough that paper ballots can be counted quickly, so they shouldn't have to stoop down to the inferior electronic voting. Get it?
Vertical market software does have a good reason to charge more than $500 a copy. Often the products are very difficult to develop and have a rather limited true market size, but for those in the true market (who use advanced features regularly), the software results in a huge improvement in productivity. If you can charge to help someone in person, why can't you charge to time-shift that service by implementing it through software? What you're thinking of is the more casual users, like students. Mathematica, for instance, does have a student version that's I belive $50/year. The problem is how do you provide everything that the casual users need without cannibalizing the market for the high-end market (which is often the anchor for the company)? Another problem with a legislated maximum prices is how does it account for inflation, cost of living, bundles of multiple software products, etc?
Now that's interesting. Back when I was working Private Industry, every single job I had to sign a statement that specifically assigned the company copyright for any idea I had, because there was no way to prove that the idea didn't come on paid time. Why are professors different?
Professors are different because they're the ones running the university system, so they get to make the rules more freely. Many universities still claim a percentage of income from marketable inventions, but that money goes back into research. Any dean, chancellor or university president (who are almost always former professors themselves) who tried to turn professors into slaves would immediately find themselves outsed by the faculty senate.
Fortunately, my parents weren't into spending a lot; the funny thing is I started getting Nikes when they moved downmarket ($40) because they consistently fit me better than other brands (narrow heels, high arches). Of course, now that Nike is so mass market, it's not as cool, and the cool (= spoiled rich) kids wear specialty brands like Merrill and Montrail (which are too heavy for general use, IMO).
1. an arrogant or presumptuous person (Sounds more like Microsoft then Google, I cannot attest for Apple.)
I work in recruiting at a major university. In my experience with Google and Apple, arrogant, presumptuous and lacking in follow through describes them to a T. Google and Apple can afford to be like that because they rely on their public brand image, but it's no pleasure to work with them. Microsoft, on the other hand, is always willing to help and treats us very well. Bear in mind, I'm a long-time Microsoft hater, and students have told me a lot of their interns do tend to be arrogant and presumptuous, but Google and Apple are also pretty sucky.
I like your analysis. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at mine.
Reading other peoples' comments, it seems that eBay's biggest technical problem in implementing this strategy is learning more about the items being auctioned: how do their capabilities and qualities differ? are there hidden fees? is it likely to be delivered in tact? do they include features which the buyer doesn't want (hence driving up cost)? While better clustering and search algorithms can help, richer user feedback and (cheat-resistant) collaborative filtering is also important. A completely different way in which eBay can increase their knowledge about a transaction is by acting as a more prominent intermediary. Just as PayPal allows eBay to confirm the amount of money paid for an item after the fact, eBay, or trusted partner organizations, could offer, for a fee, to examine and hold in escrow items to be sold. Obviously this does not apply to all items, but it is particularly relevant to commodities or classes of items with similar characteristics, such as books. That said, a proper cost-benefit analysis is necessary.
The scaling problem which eBay is encountering is not limited to sellers. The core problem here is that a smaller fraction of the auctions are coming to a successful completion. If we assume that the ratio of sellers to buyers has remained fairly constant (an assumption which must be confirmed), then that means that more buyers are bidding on auctions but losing--or not bidding at all, fearing they will lose. In terms of products, there are two different categories: specialties, which are rare and specifically sought after; and commodities, which are common and substitutable. Hence the problem for both buyers and sellers is how to get more buyers to bid on more of the items for sale. The problem for a buyer of specialties is how to find them in the mass of other items for sale on eBay, particularly repeated instances of the same commodity. The problem for a buyer of commodities is which particular instance to bid on. eBay could solve this problem by implementing commodity auctions, where multiple different sellers' auctions are lumped together, and the highest bidder gets his pick of which seller to buy from, on down the line. This is similar to eBay's own half.com, but in a more time-limited auction setting; indeed, there is a continuum between these approaches, and eBay could offer their sellers more controller over the point which they occupy along the continuum. Grouping commodity auctions (even just in the search results, if not in the actual bidding) will also make it easier to find specialty items. There are many details to making this strategy work, but I believe it provides a sold start to a solution for eBay's current dilemma.
Columbus, GA? I'm sorry. P.S. Do you work at Ft. Benning?
The problem with your argument is that managers don't program the entire project themselves. The whole point of a manager is to coordinate a group of people working on the project. Programming skills and management skills are different. But managers must have a sufficient understanding of programming skills to properly coordinate their employees, know what are reasonable expectations, and know when things are going wrong and how to set them right. On the other hand, managers also serve as an interface between the development team and their (perhaps internal) suppliers and customers, insulating team members from those concerns which they would rather not focus on.
If someone does not sufficiently understand both the process within the team and the environment in which the team operates, then that person has no business managing. If the product can be developed by a single person, there is no need for a team manager, but a product manager may still be useful if the developer feels overwhelmed by external relations. Perhaps the problem is that managers are selected solely externally, which may be appropriate for product managers, but is not appropriate for team managers? Should a team have two managers, then, or would that make it worse? Or should middle management be decided by consensus between employees and senior management?
Uh, Xah Lee just reposted it from Steve Yegge's blog (note the "by Steve Yegge" and "reposted with permission."
Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
I don't know what actually happened, but given that the "(inaudible)" implies there was some uncertainty in the transcript, "as a" would make a lot more sense in place of "and the," i.e., "using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens as a missile to damage this building"
I/O channels would help IBM mainframe channels, which have an MMU between the peripheral and main memory...
I've heard from a friend at Intel that their new chipsets which fully support TCPA have this feature. So maybe trusted computing isn't just about copy prevention.
DeBeers will give you all sorts of fud saying that they will eventually have a process for telling the difference between the two, but they won't. Ever.
Actually, they do: excavated diamonds have more lattice defects and impurities than manufactured diamonds.
I would say don't bother with multi-majoring across closely related fields. Just take the classes which interest you, it will constrain you less and allow you to better customize your program. For instance, I could have triple-majored in CS, Math and EE, but I decided to just do CS with a math minor and take the additional classes I wanted to. My undergrad advisor particularly advised me to do this, and spend the time I saved on grad school instead. Rock on.
It's good to see that you're doing CS/Math, because math is a very important part of computer science. Math will help you develop the critical eye and attention to detail to be a real expert computer scientist, rather than a wishy-washy "computer guy." One thing you should be careful about is not to just be the smart guy. You need to take control into your own hands, and make your own opportunities--don't just rely on other people to give you a job because you have certain experience and qualifications. Aim to be an excellent, technicallly able computer scientist with good theoretical foundation and practical experience, but also skilled with people and business. The ways to go about this beyond classwork are doing your own independent team projects (perhaps with faculty guidance, but heavily student-lead), working with your computer science department on external and industry relations (run events, etc.), and amassing power through campus politics (but never take it too seriously). If your school has a special business program for engineers, that could also be a great opportunity. This attitude will set you up to be a leader in your field. Also, if you're concerned about having a social life (either because you need to socialize and don't want to be trapped in the labs, or because you fell a little awkward), these extracurricular activities will all help you meet friendly, driven people.
Regarding the Ph.D., if you're not exactly sure what you want to do, a few years of work experience may help put things in better perspective. I would recommend doing a Master's as soon as you finish undergrad (many places offer combo programs these days), as that will further distinguish you in the workplace, give you a little more time to mature if you're young (I know a lot of smart kids who graduate at 20, the extra year or two helps). The experience with grad school and a Master's thesis will also make you better informed as to whether you want to pursue a Ph.D. later, and in what area.
I hope that helps. I wish I knew this stuff when I was an undergrad; fortunately I was able to learn it in grad school. Feel free to ask if you want any more details on opportunities for success.
Software engineering is NOT computer science.
Computer science is a study of algorithms and efficiency. Who knows, some day we might figure out how to describe natural events with computer science and it will replace physics (See NKS). It differs from engineering because computer science doesn't concern itself with 'good enough.' It doesn't state "This algorithm's solution will fit within our 10% tolerance necessary for a 'good enough' search time specification as described in the document.
Electrical engineering is applied physics. Software engineering is applied computer science.
Says who? Little old you? I think you're taking too narrow a view of computer science. For instance, randomized and approximation algorithms most certainly are judged based on statistical bounds as to what you can tolerate. AI, one of the most classic areas of computer science, is all about "good enough"--the Turing test asks, is the machine good enough to convince a human that it's not a computer? Computer science is about computation, and what you can do with it. Sometimes, there are limits to computation and you just can't get exact answers efficiently--or at all.
Despite the word "science," computer science is well established as an applied field. And there's nothing wrong with being applied, despite the way some mathematicians hold a perverse disdain for anything practical. What makes routine programming uninteresting to the computer scientist is that it's routine and mundane, it's been done before, and, well, computers are all about automating tasks! But if you study the whole human-computer system involved in creating these programs, a la software engineering, it starts to get interesting again. Hope you can all see where I'm coming from.
All this was about 1990. The 80386 did not exist yet.
Intel released the 80386 in 1985. Compaq released the first IBM PC-compatible based on the 386 in 1989.
Another place to check is your local computer recycler, especially one which has long-standing contracts with local government, schools, or companies. That's where I got mine for $5. The guys working there were actually asking me if I was going to sell them on eBay when I bought 5 Model M keyboards for various family members' computers.
Dude, I use the IBM Model M Space Saver keyboard, and it's totally awesome. It's just like a regular Model M high-durability buckling-spring keyboard, except minus the numeric keypad. Here's a page with a picture comparing the Space Saver to a full M and a Happy Hacking. This other page depicts the more typical beige Model M Space Saver, albeit retrofitted for Dvorak. BitchKapoor, over and out!
I'd like to add to Roydd's excellent analysis that accounting manipulations aren't always to apparently decrease costs. While obviuosly you want to emphasize the highest profits possible when talking to investors, you want just the opposite when talking to the IRS. Now, of course the honest thing to do is to give them both the same numbers, but people like to game their analysis to make investors think they're making lots of money, while the IRS thinks they're destitute and owe very little in taxes. Unfortunately, this is a survival strategy, so it persists.
I barely know any AppleScript, but here is a simple script which, assuming you have one video open in QuickTime, will play it full-screen:
yet people are going to treat it as an alternative and hack it so it keeps a distance of 3cm to the car in front of them. Just imagine, you're driving down the highway at 110km/h and there's someone 3cm behind you with his feet resting on the dashboard
Actually, that could be safer, if you take into account the longer braking distance. Since you can't change speed much before the guy behind you bumps into you, he doesn't impart much force on impact. After that, your cars are essentially coupled, and you need to stop both of them in order to stop. If his car is working correctly, it will realize it's within less than 3cm and comply. If, if."so when they buy or borrow another car that doesnt have tractional control power steering a fish finder they will be a danger to themselves and others
and Thank Darwin for that!"
and others. And others. AND OTHERS. A reckless driver is a danger to everyone on the road. Sometimes you can't avoid the unexpected.Apple hasn't always used Mach. Mach came to Apple via NeXT(Step). MacOS versions up to 9 used cooperative multitasking, and early versions didn't even have any memory protection (later versions had "guard pages," but no true application isolation).