Personally, if I had it to do all over again, I'd have majored in something more abstract like math or physics. When I was in college (10 years ago), I figured if I wanted to be a programmer, I should major in computer science (assuming that if I didn't major in computer science, I wouldn't have the option of being a professional programmer). Now I'm surrounded by math majors, chemistry majors, biology majors, etc. all of whom jumped into programming. As it turns out, what you majored in doesn't have much impact on your hirability - so the more general you go, the easier it is to find something somewhere, and even change your mind years later.
What's easier? To teach a computer scientist physics, or to teach a physicst to produce software?
Hunh? I took three required semesters of physics , three of calculus, and two physics electives to complete my degree in computer science. Plus I know how to write maintainable code. Bring it on, snob.
Like a few weeks ago... I was talking to somebody about the new black woman who sat next to me at work, who had recently come here from Nigeria. He said, in all seriousness, "The term is 'african-american' these days".
Every time Alan Turing gets a mention, so does his preference in sexual partners.
I've never heard this... what was his preference? His picture is on the cover of my textbook from this semester, and I did think he looked a bit effeminate, so I have a guess...
If you're earning well above the average for CS majors at your school, shouldn't that be an indication that it's not easy to get a well-paying job in the field any more?
build a top down parser, he would define his language set and build a DFA to test the language
Actually, you need a Push-Down Automata (PDA) to test parsers (or anything generated by a context-free grammar), not a Deterministic Finite Automata (DFA).
Good thing that the cheap labor overseas will never realize they're doing all the work and we're getting all the money for it (for doing, and contributing, nothing), or we'd be in trouble... especially if, after a few years of this regime, they realize that we've been doing nothing for so many generations, none of us remember how to do anything.
I've had these nut jobs calling me at 11 o'clock at night
Sorry, I didn't realize that upset you. I'll work harder to call later, when you couldn't be expecting any other important calls. How about 2 AM? What's her phone number again?
the opinion that pornography actually "tempts" someone to do something is moot
There's where you're wrong, buddy. I was watching The Matrix this past weekend, and it tempted me to jump off of a tall building and land on the one on the other side of the street. As it turns out, this doesn't work in real life... but if it hadn't been for the movie, the thought would never have been put in my head. Fortunately, I'll be suing Warner Bros. for my hospital costs.
The summary quotes Lee Tien (attorney for the EFF), but doesn't include a link (Google's not very helpful here, either). I'd like to read more about the context of what Tien was saying... I don't suppose anybody has a link to the entire quote? I'm curious if Tien includes any examples.
On the flip side, according to my calculations, I lost e3 neurons, e1 synapses, and e0.5 operations per second to beer last weekend alone. That almost never happens to a computer.
Know your latin:
i.e.: "id est" or "that is"
e.g.: "exempli gratia" or "for example"
To which I'd like to add, "et cetera: et = and, cetera = the rest" . There is no work "eck" in the Latin language, and the phrase "Eck cetera" is nonsense. And you sound stupid if you say it. And, while I'm on the subject, there are two "s"s in the word asterisk. It's not an asterick, even if you verb it.
The fact that bringing ignorance to the attention of the general populace is considered worse than being ignorant itself is a sure sign that we've reached a period of pure intellectual unenlightenment - the second dark ages hath begun. Well, Paradox, let me be the first to stand behind you in solidarity in the battle against stupidity and deliberate ignorance.
I don't know how we (the software development industry) collectively got ourselves into this mess
Do you think bridge building firms get phone calls along the lines of, "Ok, the four-lane bridge you built looks great. Now, for phase II, we want to add one extra lane on the right. Since you already have the four lanes, it should be easy to throw in another." Or contracting firms getting a call like, "Ok, the drywall on the house went up great yesterday, but we just found out from the buyer that they want a basement. I'll allocate two extra laborers for the additional work, since we still need to sell the house in June." We must design for change, because of the nature of software; after all, as Martin Fowler says, "Software is supposed to be soft." That's why I have trouble beleiving that any traditional engineering process, applied to software, is doomed to fail.
You're just now catching on to the point that "freedom of speech" means exactly that? You're a little late to the party, my friend. "X should be free to condone and freely discuss Y". Substitute with any X and any Y. Go ahead, try to shock me. (You haven't even come close). Yes, by my standards X should be free to condone and freely discuss Y (maybe not to do it, but condone and discuss it), no matter who X is and no matter what Y is. And it's a good thing for you that there are so many people like me in the United States.
While that tends to be true, somebody who's planning projects that way is missing something fundamental. If the programming project is a "minor variation" of the same project, that project should be implemented once, templatized, and the template rolled out with new parameters, rather than implemented as a full-blown programming project. If, for some reason, this can't be done, then the project is no longer a "minor variation" of another one. Case in point - content management systems. Managers love to buy content management systems. Content management systems (simplified) are a "web-site in a box". You just fill out the parameters, press the button, and Presto! you've got a web-site. So how come so many e-commerce sites end up scrapping their content management system or severely underutilizing it? Because the parameters aren't generic enough to suit the business. And now you're back to a new, heretofore unsolved problem, whose implementation can't be rigidly scheduled. (Not that they won't insist you do so...)
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, if I had it to do all over again, I'd have majored in something more abstract like math or physics. When I was in college (10 years ago), I figured if I wanted to be a programmer, I should major in computer science (assuming that if I didn't major in computer science, I wouldn't have the option of being a professional programmer). Now I'm surrounded by math majors, chemistry majors, biology majors, etc. all of whom jumped into programming. As it turns out, what you majored in doesn't have much impact on your hirability - so the more general you go, the easier it is to find something somewhere, and even change your mind years later.
Hell, I can count on one hand the times I've ever seen anything else.
Hunh? I took three required semesters of physics , three of calculus, and two physics electives to complete my degree in computer science. Plus I know how to write maintainable code. Bring it on, snob.
Link please?
Like a few weeks ago... I was talking to somebody about the new black woman who sat next to me at work, who had recently come here from Nigeria. He said, in all seriousness, "The term is 'african-american' these days".
I've never heard this... what was his preference? His picture is on the cover of my textbook from this semester, and I did think he looked a bit effeminate, so I have a guess...
You forgot to say, "..., dumbass."
And I should be allowed to watch!
Actually, you need a Push-Down Automata (PDA) to test parsers (or anything generated by a context-free grammar), not a Deterministic Finite Automata (DFA).
Nah, too much system administration. Just cut off their hands when they start working for you - then they can't put USB drivers into anything.
They were safe right up until they walked into a bar...
"Great going, Skinner... we're two minutes into the routine and you've already killed the joke" -- Superintendent Chalmers.
Good thing that the cheap labor overseas will never realize they're doing all the work and we're getting all the money for it (for doing, and contributing, nothing), or we'd be in trouble... especially if, after a few years of this regime, they realize that we've been doing nothing for so many generations, none of us remember how to do anything.
Sorry, I didn't realize that upset you. I'll work harder to call later, when you couldn't be expecting any other important calls. How about 2 AM? What's her phone number again?
There's where you're wrong, buddy. I was watching The Matrix this past weekend, and it tempted me to jump off of a tall building and land on the one on the other side of the street. As it turns out, this doesn't work in real life... but if it hadn't been for the movie, the thought would never have been put in my head. Fortunately, I'll be suing Warner Bros. for my hospital costs.
The summary quotes Lee Tien (attorney for the EFF), but doesn't include a link (Google's not very helpful here, either). I'd like to read more about the context of what Tien was saying... I don't suppose anybody has a link to the entire quote? I'm curious if Tien includes any examples.
On the flip side, according to my calculations, I lost e3 neurons, e1 synapses, and e0.5 operations per second to beer last weekend alone. That almost never happens to a computer.
But in the context you used it, it's more like "I play all kinds of different video games, everything from Mario Brothers to Super Mario Brothers."
Actually, I beleive all changes to the Latin language were finalized over a thousand years ago.
To which I'd like to add, "et cetera: et = and, cetera = the rest" . There is no work "eck" in the Latin language, and the phrase "Eck cetera" is nonsense. And you sound stupid if you say it. And, while I'm on the subject, there are two "s"s in the word asterisk. It's not an asterick, even if you verb it.
The fact that bringing ignorance to the attention of the general populace is considered worse than being ignorant itself is a sure sign that we've reached a period of pure intellectual unenlightenment - the second dark ages hath begun. Well, Paradox, let me be the first to stand behind you in solidarity in the battle against stupidity and deliberate ignorance.
Do you think bridge building firms get phone calls along the lines of, "Ok, the four-lane bridge you built looks great. Now, for phase II, we want to add one extra lane on the right. Since you already have the four lanes, it should be easy to throw in another." Or contracting firms getting a call like, "Ok, the drywall on the house went up great yesterday, but we just found out from the buyer that they want a basement. I'll allocate two extra laborers for the additional work, since we still need to sell the house in June." We must design for change, because of the nature of software; after all, as Martin Fowler says, "Software is supposed to be soft." That's why I have trouble beleiving that any traditional engineering process, applied to software, is doomed to fail.
Evil bit?
That's because programming isn't engineering, Captain Obvious. (It's much more difficult).
You're just now catching on to the point that "freedom of speech" means exactly that? You're a little late to the party, my friend. "X should be free to condone and freely discuss Y". Substitute with any X and any Y. Go ahead, try to shock me. (You haven't even come close). Yes, by my standards X should be free to condone and freely discuss Y (maybe not to do it, but condone and discuss it), no matter who X is and no matter what Y is. And it's a good thing for you that there are so many people like me in the United States.
While that tends to be true, somebody who's planning projects that way is missing something fundamental. If the programming project is a "minor variation" of the same project, that project should be implemented once, templatized, and the template rolled out with new parameters, rather than implemented as a full-blown programming project. If, for some reason, this can't be done, then the project is no longer a "minor variation" of another one. Case in point - content management systems. Managers love to buy content management systems. Content management systems (simplified) are a "web-site in a box". You just fill out the parameters, press the button, and Presto! you've got a web-site. So how come so many e-commerce sites end up scrapping their content management system or severely underutilizing it? Because the parameters aren't generic enough to suit the business. And now you're back to a new, heretofore unsolved problem, whose implementation can't be rigidly scheduled. (Not that they won't insist you do so...)