No you simply need to live within your means and consider savings to be the most important thing there is. Most people don't care about savings and spend money as soon as they get it. I lived for the first couple of years out of college absurdly below my means because I wanted to have money in the bank first. In life shit happens and if you don't save money for those occasions then you're an idiot.
Could you imagine if every time you fell into a hole in a Mario game you simply respawned right next to it? There goes the joy of learning to skillfully navigate the levels.
It's easy to imagine, go play mario on an emulator with many quick saves. I've seen people beat megaman games on emulators with nothing but horrid abuse of quick saves.
I guess that everyone who sees you selling your time at $8 thinks to themselves "he must be an idiot to have to ask that little, I don't want him anywhere near my project." Human reactions are fun, you can sell more product sometimes by increasing the cost.
Yes, let's combat global warming by fucking over the environment even more. After all despite almost everything living on this planet depending on sunlight for energy what could possibly go wrong by removing a chunk of it. It's not like some parts of the world are already have problems with food production.
Students at my high school dissembled a computer in the library in the five minutes it took the librarian to go into the back to do something. If they have access to something than they will bypass your security even if there is no sane reason for them to do so. Then they will tell their friends and one of those friends will be an asshole who wrecks havoc on the network.
You're giving these machines to kids who have plenty of free time and little regard for authority. The first thing they'll think of after learning of the monitoring feature is how they can gain access to it. Imagine the fun those bored kids will have with such access and imagine how much damage they'd do before anyone figures it out.
you get paid for yoru voertime, it's called your salary. Just because you're too idiotic to realize it's not based on a 40hour week doesn't mean anything except that you're an idiot. If you go hourly than the company simply lowers the hourly pay so that the cost per employee comes out equal in the end.
I don't disagree, my original point was simply that universities teach a lot more than just programming programming and, at least my university, often expected students to learn further programming languages (and their very specific details) on their own. As I said in my last post, good universities will also teach all the things you mentioned but that's only a starting point.
That there are tons of shitty universities with shitty students is an inevitable fact of life and happens everywhere. So a degree on it's own is only a piece of paper and doesn't really guarantee anything. If you're familiar enough with the university it's from than you might know what it requires for graduation but even then they'll be exceptions.
I'm also sure a good percentage of the good students at my university went for graduate degrees and/or aimed for positions other than run of the mill development (specialized software, research, modeling, etc.) which removes them from the ones you see. If they're aiming for software development than they'd finish with probably a year or two of actual development experience (projects, internships, etc.). It's also possible that the positions you're offering aren't comparable to ones that good students can get at other companies.
If you haven't had a C or C++ class, I'm not convinced you know ho pointers work. If you haven't had a Lisp or Scheme class, I'm not convinced you "get" recursion and functional programming. If you haven't had an assembly class, I'm not convinced you can debug anything nontrivial.
The intro classes covered all of that, the concepts were gone over in class but the programming language was mostly left up to the student to learn (aside from the "you barely know what a computer is" version of one of the classes). No need to waste class time with details that any intelligent person could learn much faster by reading a book and examples (or getting individual help from TAs if they have trouble). These classes were all taken in the first one or two years by any student who knew they were going into CS (along with various math classes and so on). If you think universities teach a couple programming languages then you basically have no idea about what computer science is.
If I'm not convinced you can know these concepts, I'm not going to hire you.
And someone who learned programming on their own is guaranteed to have studied all those languages why exactly?
Programming languages? Ha ha ha ha. I don't think my university bothered to teach any programming languages outside the first couple of intro courses (even then it was geared more at fundamentals). In some classes we were expected to learn whatever language the class required on our own and be able to use by the time the first assignment was due. Most classes didn't even care what you coded in as long as a TA knew it (if you wanted partial credit). Granted most of my classmates had aspiration higher than being code monkeys for the rest of their lives.
Humans have pretty much short-circuited traditional evolution due to our very heavy reliance on learned information. It's sort of like suddenly switching your genetic algorithm from a Pentium 1 to a modern super computer. Regular evolution using DNA gets slower as an organism becomes more complex, for a variety of reasons. A bacteria can, for example, evolve immunity to antibiotics in weeks while it'd take humans centuries to evolve an even minor resistance to a disease.
Oh, so you don't care if you kill a kid while simply driving your car around (an unnecessary activity, you can bike or walk after all)? What if the truck delivering your food from 2000 miles away hits a kid so you can eat oranges instead of grapes? What about the kids who die in sweatshops while making your clothes, computer and furniture? What about all the ones who died as the trucks that were used to build your dwelling moved about? Or the ones who got sucked into farming equipment to provide you with less expensive food to stuff your mouth with? Doubt you even consider the ones who died because you didn't donate your whole income to child cancer research?
Well apparently you failed to read my post, let's replace what you said with something that probably applies to you personally:
Your bottom line is your saving two minutes driving at 65 instead of 30 miles an hour is more important to you than saving someone's life which is sociopathic and quite literally EVIL IMO. You want to know why some people HATE Americans you are looking at it in the response above, it's the careless, self centered, sociopathic, evil, greed stupid!
You likely do dozens if not hundreds of things that cause harm to others or increase the chance of harm simply to save some time or effort. It's likely that you even realize that many of them have possibly deadly side effects to other but you still don't stop. Of course since you do them they're automatically okay with you and you can feel morally righteous by complaining about what other people do despite ignoring your own faults. I love hypocrites.
It's all good until a little kid runs out in front of your car SUDDENLY, right selfish yuppie cell pone talking drivers?
If a kid manages to climb up onto the 30 foot up highway and run across two lanes then he seems rather determined to end it I'd say. Granted if he manages to get killed by a virtual parking lot of cars going 5mph than possibly god is determined to end his life.
Because we all know your S.O. telling you to pick up a quart of milk on the way home from work is way more important than some innocent child's life, right?
I'm controlling a giant metal can at 65mph while surrounded by other equally fast going metals cans. Why? So I can save 20 minutes of travel time and make my own life a bit more convenient. Apparently society doesn't value lives above convenience.
I am sooooo sick of people who rationalize talking on a cell phone while driving, DON'T period, end of story. Is this advice saves one childs life, or even a dog or cats life then yes it WAS worth getting all in your face about it! No your trivial blather is NOT worth the life of anyone or another living creature get over your self centered self already!
Go look at what it takes to get a driver's license in certain European nations and in the United States. It's a joke here. I could legally go 65+mph on a highway despite having never gone over 35mph before and being barely competent below that speed (I did take further lessons for my own safety afterwards).
If you want to complain and bitch then find things that actually do kill people every year and fix them. Of course they're not glamorous or popular so you can't use them to boost your own ego and feel you're somehow morally superior to others.
No, it means you added code illegally to a GPL project and releasing it would put the GPL project in potential liability. The code isn't GPL because you had no right to make it such. Of course your employer can't release the whole code either but neither can you.
Ha ha, okay. Truth hurts, I know, and it seems you can't deal with it. If prefer to continue with your own absurd illogical arguments and self-delusions then have fun.
LOL. Again people are talking about ideals. If people would fully comprehend over 10% of what they are taught then I would be impressed. If people would remember 10% of what they comprehend after they finish the semester I would also be impressed. If people would remember 10% of the 10% they learned just 1 year after graduating then I would be impressed. Otherwise, like one person told me; you don't have to remember anything because you can always look it up. Yep that's fine, but people can look things up in a reference manual without going into massive debt. In the real world (most) people actually apply very little of what they have learned. Some people aren't intelligent or logical enough to realize how much time they've wasted.
You learn the concepts and idea with enough details to know when to use them. I may not remember know how to do X but I know there is a way to do X. I know that for problem Y there are certain methods that work well. I can very quickly relearn those methods and use them as needed since it's a lot easier to learn something a second time. The thing is that you can't look everything up, you need a reference point, and those who think so simply have never had to combine multiple solutions together.
I need proof of that. I've argued with mathematicians and math fanboys about this issue. Their logic involved a lot of Flaimbait and Trolling and a lot of dubious and laughable arguments. Just because you believe in the religion doesn't mean that it has any reality to it. I've seen far too many stupid and illogical people graduate; which indicates to me that your statement is nothing more than an arrogant and unfounded opinion.
Well for one thing college computer science classes require you to take basic statistics which makes it clear why it's absurd to draw conclusion from outliers. You can find exceptions to everything but that means nothing, apparently you never learned that. Of course my statement are arrogant and unfounded opinions, just like yours. This is slashdot and I don't give a damn. Unlike you however I don't claim it's anything else.
You aren't making any sense here. People who don't go to university are not idiots. However every time I talk to somebody with your caliber of opinion it makes me have even more doubt about the educational systems throughout the world.
A lot of them are simply because universities pre-select people based on them being intelligent (indirectly, more or less). You get peers who are generally of similar intelligence and inclination with whom you can cooperate when learning.
I did not make any comparisons. I merely stated the facts. People can choose to believe in their religion if they wish.
No, you state what you believe and claim it as facts. You provide no data, no studies, no polls and no actual facts to back anything up. It's your own anecdotal evidence, self created conclusions, delusions and so on. It's everything that science has spent the last 300 years trying to work against. In other words you've created your own personal religion and then try to justify it by claiming it's logical while nothing else is. You're no better than the conspiracy nut who puts tin foil on their house and claims science is a conspiracy.
See, I don't claim to be right since this is all just amusement for me. People like you provide entertainment for me as I insult you and poke fun at your arguments in areas I don't much care about. See, if I care about something enough then I look up actual rigorous science to back up my views or change them to fit the science. Then and only then can I (or you) say that facts back something up.
I may be an idiot. Many people in real life as well as here on Slashdot think so. It's ironic because I always spend so much time educating myself (I've probably spent more time in school than most people here on Slashdot), and outside of school I spend much of my ti
There are various things a university degree provides: 1) Complete knowledge. Most people aren't insanely driven and many can't learn certain topics on their own. It's either too difficult without outside help (TAs, professors, etc.) or they fail to learn it properly (ie: massive holes in their knowledge). Some simply learn much better in a university setting for one reason or another. 2) Thinking. You can't make a person smarter but you can teach them to think in a logical manner. Have them learn enough basics and they'll be able to build on top of them. 3) Peers. It's amazing how much better and how much more you can learn when everyone around you isn't an idiot.
I'm guessing you're one of those idiots who thinks comparing a "brilliant self-taught person" to an "average university taught person" somehow makes a valid argument.
There were no programming classes except for the first parts of the basic series and even those were aimed more at the concepts than the language in question (they like I said used multiple languages to teach various concepts). That was my point. The rest were too busy covering advanced topics to hand hold you through every language in existence. Many didn't even care what language you used as long as one of the TAs knew it. Some of the classes did recommend books to learn the language from yourself but some didn't even bother with that. If you needed to be taught programming in every language under the sun by a teacher than you shouldn't have been, and wouldn't be for long, in that degree program.
That's more or less the difference between training someone to be a code monkey and a developer. It's also what a degree from a good university will imply about a person's capabilities.
Re:No degree needed, but Projects and Certs a must
on
IT Job Without a Degree?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A college degree is supposed to show that you can learn and that you have a depth of knowledge in the subject. A number of my classes expected us to pick up a new language in a couple weeks on our own and be able to use it by the first assignment. Another class went over four or so new languages that students were expected to pick up and use in a couple weeks mostly on their own (class time was too valuable to waste on such trivialities as programing language descriptions). Granted the two most important things about a degree are probably the paper and the connections.
And the other 99% in charge of hiring who don't go to slashdot would disagree but they're not geeks so this site will never hear from them. Heck even those who do post of slashdot probably had the resumes they see first go through HR which falls into that other 99%.
Slashdot Mirror
No you simply need to live within your means and consider savings to be the most important thing there is. Most people don't care about savings and spend money as soon as they get it. I lived for the first couple of years out of college absurdly below my means because I wanted to have money in the bank first. In life shit happens and if you don't save money for those occasions then you're an idiot.
Could you imagine if every time you fell into a hole in a Mario game you simply respawned right next to it? There goes the joy of learning to skillfully navigate the levels.
It's easy to imagine, go play mario on an emulator with many quick saves. I've seen people beat megaman games on emulators with nothing but horrid abuse of quick saves.
I guess that everyone who sees you selling your time at $8 thinks to themselves "he must be an idiot to have to ask that little, I don't want him anywhere near my project." Human reactions are fun, you can sell more product sometimes by increasing the cost.
Yes, let's combat global warming by fucking over the environment even more. After all despite almost everything living on this planet depending on sunlight for energy what could possibly go wrong by removing a chunk of it. It's not like some parts of the world are already have problems with food production.
Students at my high school dissembled a computer in the library in the five minutes it took the librarian to go into the back to do something. If they have access to something than they will bypass your security even if there is no sane reason for them to do so. Then they will tell their friends and one of those friends will be an asshole who wrecks havoc on the network.
You're giving these machines to kids who have plenty of free time and little regard for authority. The first thing they'll think of after learning of the monitoring feature is how they can gain access to it. Imagine the fun those bored kids will have with such access and imagine how much damage they'd do before anyone figures it out.
A company that I chose because they weren't an idiot ridden spawn of hell? In a field that you can't train a smart monkey to work in?
you get paid for yoru voertime, it's called your salary. Just because you're too idiotic to realize it's not based on a 40hour week doesn't mean anything except that you're an idiot. If you go hourly than the company simply lowers the hourly pay so that the cost per employee comes out equal in the end.
I don't disagree, my original point was simply that universities teach a lot more than just programming programming and, at least my university, often expected students to learn further programming languages (and their very specific details) on their own. As I said in my last post, good universities will also teach all the things you mentioned but that's only a starting point.
That there are tons of shitty universities with shitty students is an inevitable fact of life and happens everywhere. So a degree on it's own is only a piece of paper and doesn't really guarantee anything. If you're familiar enough with the university it's from than you might know what it requires for graduation but even then they'll be exceptions.
I'm also sure a good percentage of the good students at my university went for graduate degrees and/or aimed for positions other than run of the mill development (specialized software, research, modeling, etc.) which removes them from the ones you see. If they're aiming for software development than they'd finish with probably a year or two of actual development experience (projects, internships, etc.). It's also possible that the positions you're offering aren't comparable to ones that good students can get at other companies.
If you haven't had a C or C++ class, I'm not convinced you know ho pointers work. If you haven't had a Lisp or Scheme class, I'm not convinced you "get" recursion and functional programming. If you haven't had an assembly class, I'm not convinced you can debug anything nontrivial.
The intro classes covered all of that, the concepts were gone over in class but the programming language was mostly left up to the student to learn (aside from the "you barely know what a computer is" version of one of the classes). No need to waste class time with details that any intelligent person could learn much faster by reading a book and examples (or getting individual help from TAs if they have trouble). These classes were all taken in the first one or two years by any student who knew they were going into CS (along with various math classes and so on). If you think universities teach a couple programming languages then you basically have no idea about what computer science is.
If I'm not convinced you can know these concepts, I'm not going to hire you.
And someone who learned programming on their own is guaranteed to have studied all those languages why exactly?
Programming languages? Ha ha ha ha. I don't think my university bothered to teach any programming languages outside the first couple of intro courses (even then it was geared more at fundamentals). In some classes we were expected to learn whatever language the class required on our own and be able to use by the time the first assignment was due. Most classes didn't even care what you coded in as long as a TA knew it (if you wanted partial credit). Granted most of my classmates had aspiration higher than being code monkeys for the rest of their lives.
Humans have pretty much short-circuited traditional evolution due to our very heavy reliance on learned information. It's sort of like suddenly switching your genetic algorithm from a Pentium 1 to a modern super computer. Regular evolution using DNA gets slower as an organism becomes more complex, for a variety of reasons. A bacteria can, for example, evolve immunity to antibiotics in weeks while it'd take humans centuries to evolve an even minor resistance to a disease.
Oh, so you don't care if you kill a kid while simply driving your car around (an unnecessary activity, you can bike or walk after all)? What if the truck delivering your food from 2000 miles away hits a kid so you can eat oranges instead of grapes? What about the kids who die in sweatshops while making your clothes, computer and furniture? What about all the ones who died as the trucks that were used to build your dwelling moved about? Or the ones who got sucked into farming equipment to provide you with less expensive food to stuff your mouth with? Doubt you even consider the ones who died because you didn't donate your whole income to child cancer research?
Well apparently you failed to read my post, let's replace what you said with something that probably applies to you personally:
Your bottom line is your saving two minutes driving at 65 instead of 30 miles an hour is more important to you than saving someone's life which is sociopathic and quite literally EVIL IMO. You want to know why some people HATE Americans you are looking at it in the response above, it's the careless, self centered, sociopathic, evil, greed stupid!
You likely do dozens if not hundreds of things that cause harm to others or increase the chance of harm simply to save some time or effort. It's likely that you even realize that many of them have possibly deadly side effects to other but you still don't stop. Of course since you do them they're automatically okay with you and you can feel morally righteous by complaining about what other people do despite ignoring your own faults. I love hypocrites.
It's all good until a little kid runs out in front of your car SUDDENLY, right selfish yuppie cell pone talking drivers?
If a kid manages to climb up onto the 30 foot up highway and run across two lanes then he seems rather determined to end it I'd say. Granted if he manages to get killed by a virtual parking lot of cars going 5mph than possibly god is determined to end his life.
Because we all know your S.O. telling you to pick up a quart of milk on the way home from work is way more important than some innocent child's life, right?
I'm controlling a giant metal can at 65mph while surrounded by other equally fast going metals cans. Why? So I can save 20 minutes of travel time and make my own life a bit more convenient. Apparently society doesn't value lives above convenience.
I am sooooo sick of people who rationalize talking on a cell phone while driving, DON'T period, end of story. Is this advice saves one childs life, or even a dog or cats life then yes it WAS worth getting all in your face about it! No your trivial blather is NOT worth the life of anyone or another living creature get over your self centered self already!
Go look at what it takes to get a driver's license in certain European nations and in the United States. It's a joke here. I could legally go 65+mph on a highway despite having never gone over 35mph before and being barely competent below that speed (I did take further lessons for my own safety afterwards).
If you want to complain and bitch then find things that actually do kill people every year and fix them. Of course they're not glamorous or popular so you can't use them to boost your own ego and feel you're somehow morally superior to others.
No, it means you added code illegally to a GPL project and releasing it would put the GPL project in potential liability. The code isn't GPL because you had no right to make it such. Of course your employer can't release the whole code either but neither can you.
Humanoid != human
Exactly, when I'm on the phone and driving I tell the other party to be quite every time I encounter less-than-trivial driving conditions.
Ha ha, okay. Truth hurts, I know, and it seems you can't deal with it. If prefer to continue with your own absurd illogical arguments and self-delusions then have fun.
LOL. Again people are talking about ideals. If people would fully comprehend over 10% of what they are taught then I would be impressed. If people would remember 10% of what they comprehend after they finish the semester I would also be impressed. If people would remember 10% of the 10% they learned just 1 year after graduating then I would be impressed. Otherwise, like one person told me; you don't have to remember anything because you can always look it up. Yep that's fine, but people can look things up in a reference manual without going into massive debt. In the real world (most) people actually apply very little of what they have learned. Some people aren't intelligent or logical enough to realize how much time they've wasted.
You learn the concepts and idea with enough details to know when to use them. I may not remember know how to do X but I know there is a way to do X. I know that for problem Y there are certain methods that work well. I can very quickly relearn those methods and use them as needed since it's a lot easier to learn something a second time. The thing is that you can't look everything up, you need a reference point, and those who think so simply have never had to combine multiple solutions together.
I need proof of that. I've argued with mathematicians and math fanboys about this issue. Their logic involved a lot of Flaimbait and Trolling and a lot of dubious and laughable arguments. Just because you believe in the religion doesn't mean that it has any reality to it. I've seen far too many stupid and illogical people graduate; which indicates to me that your statement is nothing more than an arrogant and unfounded opinion.
Well for one thing college computer science classes require you to take basic statistics which makes it clear why it's absurd to draw conclusion from outliers. You can find exceptions to everything but that means nothing, apparently you never learned that. Of course my statement are arrogant and unfounded opinions, just like yours. This is slashdot and I don't give a damn. Unlike you however I don't claim it's anything else.
You aren't making any sense here. People who don't go to university are not idiots. However every time I talk to somebody with your caliber of opinion it makes me have even more doubt about the educational systems throughout the world.
A lot of them are simply because universities pre-select people based on them being intelligent (indirectly, more or less). You get peers who are generally of similar intelligence and inclination with whom you can cooperate when learning.
I did not make any comparisons. I merely stated the facts. People can choose to believe in their religion if they wish.
No, you state what you believe and claim it as facts. You provide no data, no studies, no polls and no actual facts to back anything up. It's your own anecdotal evidence, self created conclusions, delusions and so on. It's everything that science has spent the last 300 years trying to work against. In other words you've created your own personal religion and then try to justify it by claiming it's logical while nothing else is. You're no better than the conspiracy nut who puts tin foil on their house and claims science is a conspiracy.
See, I don't claim to be right since this is all just amusement for me. People like you provide entertainment for me as I insult you and poke fun at your arguments in areas I don't much care about. See, if I care about something enough then I look up actual rigorous science to back up my views or change them to fit the science. Then and only then can I (or you) say that facts back something up.
I may be an idiot. Many people in real life as well as here on Slashdot think so. It's ironic because I always spend so much time educating myself (I've probably spent more time in school than most people here on Slashdot), and outside of school I spend much of my ti
There are various things a university degree provides:
1) Complete knowledge. Most people aren't insanely driven and many can't learn certain topics on their own. It's either too difficult without outside help (TAs, professors, etc.) or they fail to learn it properly (ie: massive holes in their knowledge). Some simply learn much better in a university setting for one reason or another.
2) Thinking. You can't make a person smarter but you can teach them to think in a logical manner. Have them learn enough basics and they'll be able to build on top of them.
3) Peers. It's amazing how much better and how much more you can learn when everyone around you isn't an idiot.
I'm guessing you're one of those idiots who thinks comparing a "brilliant self-taught person" to an "average university taught person" somehow makes a valid argument.
The guy who gets a masters part time, pays it back in two years due to extra wages and retires 5 years earlier due to continuing greater income.
There were no programming classes except for the first parts of the basic series and even those were aimed more at the concepts than the language in question (they like I said used multiple languages to teach various concepts). That was my point. The rest were too busy covering advanced topics to hand hold you through every language in existence. Many didn't even care what language you used as long as one of the TAs knew it. Some of the classes did recommend books to learn the language from yourself but some didn't even bother with that. If you needed to be taught programming in every language under the sun by a teacher than you shouldn't have been, and wouldn't be for long, in that degree program.
That's more or less the difference between training someone to be a code monkey and a developer. It's also what a degree from a good university will imply about a person's capabilities.
A college degree is supposed to show that you can learn and that you have a depth of knowledge in the subject. A number of my classes expected us to pick up a new language in a couple weeks on our own and be able to use it by the first assignment. Another class went over four or so new languages that students were expected to pick up and use in a couple weeks mostly on their own (class time was too valuable to waste on such trivialities as programing language descriptions). Granted the two most important things about a degree are probably the paper and the connections.
And the other 99% in charge of hiring who don't go to slashdot would disagree but they're not geeks so this site will never hear from them. Heck even those who do post of slashdot probably had the resumes they see first go through HR which falls into that other 99%.