Don't get me wrong, I value what teachers do immensely but hearing this crap all the time doesn't help the teachers cause. If teachers would ditch the unions and tenure they might start being considered professionals along with doctors/lawywers/engineers. This might allow the good teachers to actually be compensated above the average and get people into the profession.
Hate to break it to you, but doctors and lawyers (not sure about engineers) have their own form of unionization. The American Medical Association and the Bar find ways to restrict the supply of doctors and lawyers, respectively, as well as to reduce the number of competitors and alternatives to doctors and lawyers, sometimes with government force. In all states (I don't know of any counterexamples), doctors and lawyers must be licensed by these agencies; no competing agencies are allowed. In order to get licensed, you'll have to go to a AMA- or Bar-approved medical or law school (once again, no alternatives). Since these cartels don't want much competition (hence, keeping salaries high), admission to a medical or law school is very difficult; thousands of students competing for so few slots.
So, don't think for a minute that doctors and lawyers aren't in "unions." They're just called different names.
But for some reason, people won't go for it, perhaps because a stigma attached to mass transit. Yes, riding the bus can be uncomfortable, but so is being stuck in a traffic jam. Yes, it can take extra time, but so can searching for parking. Yes, you meet crazy people on the bus sometimes, but I've never noticed more of them there than in, say, the grocery store. So why hasn't the most easy idea caught on?
Because, most people would rather pay for gas, no matter what the price is, than to take double the time to get from point A to point B, dealing with crazy people (not a problem in small towns, but is an issue in large cities), and to base their entire life on somebody else's schedule rather than theirs. Sometimes, mass transit doesn't even get you exactly where you need to go (some suburbs have very little, if any, mass transit).
People use automobiles because of the independence that it gives you. You can go from door to door easily, quickly, and conveniently. You only have to deal with yourself and your passengers, and not deal with crazy people. You get places on your own time, not on somebody else's schedule. People drive not because they have a fanatical obsession with cars, but because of the independence that you get that you'll never get with mass transit.
Personally, I'm a cyclist; I'm just a poor college student who can't afford a car. I use a combination of cycling and mass transit (whenever I'm tired of cycling for the day), depending on the time and task at hand. I love cycling because of the independence, the decent speed (I can bike about 20-25mph on flat land, and 30mph downhill). as well as the fact that it costs $0 to fill it up (since it needs no gas). However, sometimes you just need a car. Try carrying a week or two of groceries on a bike or on the bus, for example (I don't have the time to cycle every other day to the store). Try going to a formal event (suit and tie) at night on a bike, after the buses stopped running (my college town's bus service stops running after 8:00). Try hauling heavy things around. Every now and then, something comes up that defeats cycling or mass transit.
I promote alternate forms of transportation, but I recognize that cars are very important for many tasks, and high gas prices will not suddenly get rid of these tasks. Many people have probably tried or at least explored mass transit, but it just doesn't fit the needs with many people.
Not many on slashdot care a whole lot about Vista sales.
I disagree. Since most of us are either students in computing fields, or work in some aspect of the computer industry, we are all affected by how well (or poorly) Microsoft sells Vista. If Vista sells well, we'll all have to use it, eventually, whether we like it or not. Microsoft still has that power. However, if Vista does not sell well, then a good number of us won't have to worry about touching it.
So, yes, the sales of Vista do impact Slashdotters.
The reason why nobody uses "mebibyte", "kibibyte", "gibibyte", and all of these other terms are because of two reasons: they are new and relatively unknown, and they just sound stupid and unnatural (try pronouncing them). It is commonly accepted knowledge in electrical engineering and computer science circles that we use 2^10, 2^20, 2^30, etc. when describing kilobytes, megabytes, and gigabytes, respectively, except when dealing with data storage capacities (which I feel is a marketroid invention and a sales gimmick. "10^9 vs. 2^30? Who'll know the difference?"). It's been that way since the 1960s. The new terms like "mebibyte," "gibibyte," and the rest of them just sound silly, hard to pronounce, and unnatural.
One problem. You still need a copy of Windows to do virtualization with. So you still need Windows; you're just running it in a VM instead of natively.
...is not because open source offers too many choices. After all, Microsoft's products are still a choice among many other solutions. The reason why much of us still use Microsoft software (to be more specific, Windows, Office, and programming environments related to those two products) is because of a few reasons:
Microsoft Windows is simply where the user base is; hence, software is prioritized to be written for Windows. For example, I recently had to buy Windows XP to install on my MacBook because my statistics class required the use of Minitab for its assignments, where no OS X or Linux version exist. AutoCad, a popular engineering tool, is also Windows only.
People are comfortable with Microsoft products, and don't feel like switching to alternatives, even if the alternative is technologically superior or can improve their productivity. Why don't they switch? Well, many people figured that they've invested a lot of time learning a product, and they don't want to spend that same amount of time learning an alternative. As much as we geeks wish otherwise, not everybody is very interested in the tools that they use.
Microsoft alternatives do have their merits. To use operating systems as an example, OS X is a great general purpose OS, and I love the customizability of open-source OSes such as Linux and BSD. However, most software is written for Windows (you're guaranteed to find a Windows software package for almost anything, whereas you'll have to search harder when using an alternate platform), and if you have a Windows problem, somebody will know how to fix it.
I admit, I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft. However, most of us can't avoid their software, like it or not. After nearly a year of not having a Windows machine, I installed a Windows partition to do class assignments. I don't like Windows, but I need to do what is necessary to complete the assignment. For some people, replace assignment with job and add "to pay the bills."
I don't think MS's monopoly will last forever. But, for now, expect to be still using Windows and other Microsoft solutions. When you are in a lion's mouth, wiggle until you wiggle yourself out.
One problem with your last comment. There are many fields within computer science that require programming; in fact, the only field that doesn't require coding is theoretical computer science and its relatives (such as algorithm complexity), and even those fields can benefit from coding skills to provide some real world measurements that complement the theoretical ones. For example, systems research (my personal favorite area of computer science, which consists of operating systems, networking, databases, file systems, etc.) is heavily dependent on programming, because systems research is quite experimental. You make a hypothesis, design your system, implement your system (which involves coding), and do performance analysis. Most other fields in computer science work very similarly.
Yes, it is true that once you become a professor, you don't have to code; you can just hire some graduate students to code for you;). However, all computer scientists should know how to program. Do you have to be the best programmer in the world? No. However, programming is very important in computer science, even in the theoretical fields. Programming is one of the tools in a computer scientist's toolbox. A good computer scientist knows how to program well, even if they aren't the best in the world.
Removing programming removes a key component of the computer science curriculum and limits the choices to theoretical computer science (and that requires good algorithmic and mathematical skills, which is related to programming skills). Programming isn't rocket science. Perhaps we can encourage society that programming isn't something to be intimidated by, just like we have encouraged society over the past 40 years that mathematics and science are nothing to be intimidated by, either. In order to succeed in computer science, you have to learn how to program. Sorry, but it's the truth.
Some select quotes from the article (boldface font is emphasis by me):
This image discourages members of both sexes, but the problem seems to be more prevalent among women. "They think of it as programming," Dr. Cuny said. "They don't think of it as revolutionizing the way we are going to do medicine or create synthetic molecules or study our impact on the climate of the earth."
Like others in the field, Dr. Cuny speaks almost lyrically about the intellectual challenge of applying the study of cognition and the tools of computation to medicine, ecology, law, chemistry -- virtually any kind of human endeavor.
He and his colleagues at the University of Washington (which never had a programming requirement, he said) have produced a Web page for prospective students with an explicit goal of breaking stereotypes about computer science and demonstrating that computer scientists "work in a broad range of interesting fields" -- everything from designing prosthetics to devising new ways to fight forest fires.
The emphasis on scientific computing and other applications of computers to scientific and medical fields sounds interesting, but it is not computer science. That is called computational science or scientific computing. Computer science is about the study of computation and computers and has different subfields, which includes theoretical CS, algorithms, programming languages, systems (a wide range of topics such as OSes, file systems, networks, databases, compilers, etc.), graphics, and AI. Most computer scientists could care less about designing prosthetics or studying climate changes; they are generally interested in whatever subfield they specialize in.
There is a big difference between computer science and scientific computing. Scientific computing applies computer science skills to other disciplines, but it isn't computer science itself. When you are studying computer science, you study the aforementioned subdivisions above. When you study scientific computing, you know just enough CS to apply it to other disciplines, but it shouldn't be called CS.
I have no problem with attracting women to computing disciplines. I, for one, would strongly support such an effort. However, what is proposed by CMU is not computer science, and it shouldn't be called such. There should be no changes in the standard computer science curriculum. CMU's undergraduate computer science program is one of the best in the country, and if it isn't broken, then it shouldn't be fixed. Instead, CMU should start a scientific computing major inside of the School of Computer Science.
I dont see any harm in what apple is doing. Its loyalists can wait quite a bit for the next version of OSX. Its not like theyre going to jump ship to Dell.
That's what Apple thought when they discontinued the Apple II line in 1993. They thought that they'd switch to the Mac, but a good number of them went to PCs with DOS and Windows instead.
Apple also thought this during the days of Copland. They thought that people will stick to Apple no matter what. But when Copland was continuously delayed until it was eventually cancelled, and Apple had no choice but to release an updated OS 7 called OS 8 that is nothing like Copland (not to mention the hardware problems of 1995 and 1996), many Mac users meanwhile switched to Windows 95 or NT 4.0.
"It's not like they're going to jump ship to Dell" has been said by Apple a few times in its history whenever it has made questionable decisions about their computers. When computer users either feel that their products are becoming marginalized, or when they feel that there are greener pastures somewhere else, they will switch. It has happened before with Apple. And if Apple continues to display its non-interest in the Mac, Mac users (especially those who went to OS X because of Unix) might buy one of those new Dells with Linux coming out soon....
Well, this announcement illustrates the difference between Apple fans and Mac fans. Apple fans like the decision because they feel that the iPhone would be a great product. The Apple fans are the ones saying that the delay of the OS is fine; OS X 10.4 is good enough for them. Apple fans like the idea of Apple becoming a consumer electronics company. Mac fans, on the other hand, don't really care about the iPhone. They feel that this decision is a slap in the face to Apple's loyal Mac customers, who want to prioritize a new phone over their long-standing product with millions of users. They'd rather see better Macs and improvements to OS X than to see a phone. Mac fans are worried that the Mac would be marginalized as Apple chases profits from MP3 players, phones, media center boxes, and other consumer electronics.
I fall in the Mac fan category. Personally, I'm starting to get worried about Apple's change from Apple Computer, Inc. to just Apple, Inc. At MacWorld 2007, not a single Mac product was announced. The only hardware update that we've received in five months was the updated Mac Pros that came out recently. Now OS X is delayed to work on a phone. I, and many other Mac users who have switched away from Linux, BSD, and other Unices, are not interested in Apple because of their phones, media centers, or MP3 players. We're interested in Apple because of their easy to use Unix with commercial software support and easy to use GUI applications. I hope the Mac doesn't become marginalized, but I already feel that it has by Apple's actions this year.
I'll just have to wait and see. But for now, although I like my MacBook, I'll be very careful to not be locked-in. Just as I switched to the Mac last summer from Windows XP and FreeBSD, I will switch back if I discover that Apple doesn't care about us.
Apple didn't piss off IBM. IBM wasn't able to keep up with its schedule for PowerPC G5 chips (we were promised 3.0GHz PowerPC G5 chips by 2004, but to this day, they never materialized and the fastest the G5 went was 2.7GHz). Plus, notebook computers are a major source of Apple's marketshare, yet IBM wasn't able to produce a G5 for them. The G4 was also starting to get quite long in the tooth. I'd still lust over a PowerBook G5, but it is impossible to stick a G5 in a notebook barring an incredible change in architecture.
I'm personally also not too fond of the Intel switch, myself. Don't get me started on the x86 (little endian, lack of registers, CISC instruction set, etc.). However, Apple had very little choice but to switch. Besides, Intel's Pentium M and Core chips were getting very great performance for their power consumption, which is another factor. Plus, my complaints of the x86 comes from an architectural standpoint. But they do the job, and I like my Core Duo in my MacBook, thank you very much.
I emphasize with you here. However, I am not opposed to Apple branching out into other products. Apple's experience with usability and quality can go wonders in other electronics. Now if only they'd release an RPN calculator....
Apple's OS development pace is slowing because much of the low-hanging fruit of removing OS 9 and improving OS X has already been complete. Apple now has to work harder with each release because all of the major issues in OS X have been solved. We've came a long way since OS X 10.0. However, I agree that Apple better not rest on their laurels. Apple has rested on their laurels before in the mid-90s (*cough* Pink *cough* Copland *cough* Gershwin *cough*), which led to Microsoft's 95% marketshare.
Now, this is where I agree. I, as well as many other OS X users, could (or couldn't, in Britain) care less about a phone, media center box (iTV), or even a portable music player. I'm not interested in a "digital lifestyle." I want to buy high quality tools that allow me to do my work as a computer science student. They're the only place where you can buy a laptop loaded with an easy to use Unix with support for certain required proprietary software packages. That is why I am a Mac user. Apple already has the technical lead, and a spring release of Leopard would have made Vista look bad. But by waiting another six months, this gives Microsoft some time for Vista to get used more and even release a service pack that allows them to take the lead. Why would Apple sacrifice its flagship product over a phone that has nothing to do with what Apple is known for?
Once again, I have no problem with Apple branching out to consumer electronics. However, I seriously hope that Apple doesn't forget about the Macintosh platform, which is the impression that I'm starting to get. At MacWorld, there were no Mac announcements. The only hardware update that we've received since November was the new 8-core Mac Pros. Where is iWork 2007 (or even iLife 2007 for that matter)? I don't want the Mac to go the way of the old pre-Fiorina HP calculators; heavily demanded, great quality products that are no longer made (of the same quality) simply because the company wanted to rebrand itself. I've seen these trends in the technology industry before. The Mac is the heart of Apple. I know it's wrong to be attached to products, but I like my Mac a lot. It makes my job much easier, and I can't imagine having to go back to Windows, Linux, and BSD. Where will I go if something happened to my Mac and you can't get another new one? I think this is the sentiment of some of us Mac users.
Re:The end of competition?
on
AMD's New DRM
·
· Score: 1
Some would argue that we've already lost processor competition for desktops and servers. Look at what has happened to Alpha, PA-RISC, MIPS, and the PowerPC. With both Intel and AMD supporters of DRM and members of the TPCA, I knew it was only a matter of time before AMD caved in as well.
Microsoft can get away with these things without any serious repercussions from the market because it is a monopoly. To paraphrase an old SNL skit, "We're Microsoft. We don't care. We don't have to." However, Vista is still not ready for the masses, or the masses aren't ready for Vista. I'll speak as a college student. For example, Minitab (which I have to use in my statistics class) is not yet compatible with Vista. Our campus residential network will not allow Vista on the networks in the dorms until the fall because their security clearance software (Clean Access) and anti-malware software is not compatible yet. I would buy a copy of Vista to use Boot Camp with, but I'm buying a copy of XP instead due to these concerns, mostly with backwards compatibility.
Now, a fast phase out of XP may force software companies and hardware companies writing drivers to quickly release Vista versions of software and drivers. However, if XP is phased out too quickly, then Vista users will be up a creek, and people will stick to their copies of XP (or even 2000) longer. You might even create a market situation similar to what happened to older HP calculators when they were discontinued and later replaced with newer calculators that are reputed to not have the same quality (e.g., the older, pre-Fiorina HP 32SII vs. the newer HP 33S. A used 32SII from eBay can be triple or even quadruple the price of a new 33S from WalMart).
On the other hand, look how Apple made the transition from OS 9 to OS X. It took them nearly three years to fully convert their user base. Apple slowly phased out OS 9. In fact, I believe that you can still buy a copy of OS 9 from Apple for $20 (although I'm not sure if Apple recently discontinued it because they're now an Intel shop). We'll see how Vista fares in the long run.
Remember, the left-right spectrum is an economic spectrum, ranging from pure communism at the far left to pure capitalism at the far right, and everything in between. Not all leftists believe in civil liberties (look at Stalin, Mao, and Castro, for example). Respect of civil liberties are represented on a different scale.
The George Phillies for President site looks very nicely done, in my opinion. I would vote for the Libertarian candidate in the 2008 election unless Ron Paul wins the nomination for the Republican Party.
Now try buying OS X and installing it on the box you just built... can't do it.
Yeah, because you cannot buy a retail version of Mac OS X for Intel yet. This question won't be really answered until Leopard is released. How is Apple going to release Leopard upgrades to their Intel Mac customers while, at the same time, preventing people with non-Apple x86 machines from installing Leopard. I've read that some Intel Macs don't have TPM chips in them, so obviously OS X doesn't use TPM chips for DRM.
...nobody, except for libertarians, seems to care about the Tenth Amendment anymore. Whenever you bring up the Tenth Amendment, politicians would then find a clause in the Constitution, such as the "general welfare" clause or the commerce clause, and then use an extremely broad meaning of those clauses to justify their laws that clearly violate the original and correct meaning of the Constitution. If they can't do that, they then withhold funding to the states unless they comply (read the 55mph speed limit and 21-year old drinking age; they were passed neither because the states universally decided on them nor because it was constitutional, but because the federal government told them "either you pass these laws, or we're not giving you your money. Capice?").
I love the Tenth Amendment, but there are so many violations of the Tenth Amendment in modern America that it feels meaningless. Which is sad, because the Tenth Amendment was there to ensure that the federal government did not get too powerful and trample over the rights of the states and of individuals. But, as I said in a previous post on this same thread, it's not what's written in the Constitution, but who interprets the Constitution. And as long as we have Supreme Court justices who interpret the Constitution broadly instead of strictly to how the Founders intended, the Tenth Amendment will continue to be spat at, and government will be allowed to grow bigger and bigger until we have no freedoms and no economy.
Don't they swear them in with an oath to protect the Constitution?
The problem is that the Constitution is interpreted by whomever sits in the Supreme Court, not necessarily based on the exact law of the Constitution. Certain administrations have twisted the meanings of certain parts of the Constitution (complete lack of respect of the Tenth Amendment, abuse of the "general welfare" and commerce clauses, etc.). It's not necessarily what's in the Constitution. It's who is interpreting it. It's sad, but this is how the US government has been running since 1933.
Luckily, FreeBSD has an excellent system for updating the operating system by source code. This guide teaches you how to update to the latest stable release of FreeBSD via source code. It's really nice and works well. Just remember to use FreeBSD-STABLE instead of FreeBSD-CURRENT, unless you are a FreeBSD developer or are interested in the absolute latest development version of FreeBSD, working or not.
It would be very tough to beat FDR's record, however. FDR was president for four terms, from 1933 to his death in 1945. That's over twelve years. The US Constitution now limits the president to two terms. 635 vetoes in 8 years is very difficult to achieve.
Office 2007's innovation is the ribbon interface, which does away from the traditional toolbar/menu interface. Although I personally don't like the interface (the ribbons are uncustomizable, and some options that used to require only one click on a toolbar now require two or three clicks), the interface does accomplish the task of placing related options together in an easily accessible way to novices of Office, as well as accessing less-commonly used features.
Like the interface or not, the ribbon interface is an innovative way of grouping tasks together, especially in a program such as Microsoft Office that supports hundreds of features. If the ribbon interface contained some concessions for experienced computer users (shortcuts and ribbon customization, for example), then the ribbon interface may be a serious contender to the traditional menu/toolbar paradigm on the Windows platform. This is probably the single most innovative thing I've seen coming from Microsoft yet, even if I personally don't like it;)
Slashdot Mirror
Hate to break it to you, but doctors and lawyers (not sure about engineers) have their own form of unionization. The American Medical Association and the Bar find ways to restrict the supply of doctors and lawyers, respectively, as well as to reduce the number of competitors and alternatives to doctors and lawyers, sometimes with government force. In all states (I don't know of any counterexamples), doctors and lawyers must be licensed by these agencies; no competing agencies are allowed. In order to get licensed, you'll have to go to a AMA- or Bar-approved medical or law school (once again, no alternatives). Since these cartels don't want much competition (hence, keeping salaries high), admission to a medical or law school is very difficult; thousands of students competing for so few slots.
So, don't think for a minute that doctors and lawyers aren't in "unions." They're just called different names.
Because, most people would rather pay for gas, no matter what the price is, than to take double the time to get from point A to point B, dealing with crazy people (not a problem in small towns, but is an issue in large cities), and to base their entire life on somebody else's schedule rather than theirs. Sometimes, mass transit doesn't even get you exactly where you need to go (some suburbs have very little, if any, mass transit).
People use automobiles because of the independence that it gives you. You can go from door to door easily, quickly, and conveniently. You only have to deal with yourself and your passengers, and not deal with crazy people. You get places on your own time, not on somebody else's schedule. People drive not because they have a fanatical obsession with cars, but because of the independence that you get that you'll never get with mass transit.
Personally, I'm a cyclist; I'm just a poor college student who can't afford a car. I use a combination of cycling and mass transit (whenever I'm tired of cycling for the day), depending on the time and task at hand. I love cycling because of the independence, the decent speed (I can bike about 20-25mph on flat land, and 30mph downhill). as well as the fact that it costs $0 to fill it up (since it needs no gas). However, sometimes you just need a car. Try carrying a week or two of groceries on a bike or on the bus, for example (I don't have the time to cycle every other day to the store). Try going to a formal event (suit and tie) at night on a bike, after the buses stopped running (my college town's bus service stops running after 8:00). Try hauling heavy things around. Every now and then, something comes up that defeats cycling or mass transit.
I promote alternate forms of transportation, but I recognize that cars are very important for many tasks, and high gas prices will not suddenly get rid of these tasks. Many people have probably tried or at least explored mass transit, but it just doesn't fit the needs with many people.
You know that Slashdot is viewed worldwide, not just in the US. (And, yes, I'm an American).
I disagree. Since most of us are either students in computing fields, or work in some aspect of the computer industry, we are all affected by how well (or poorly) Microsoft sells Vista. If Vista sells well, we'll all have to use it, eventually, whether we like it or not. Microsoft still has that power. However, if Vista does not sell well, then a good number of us won't have to worry about touching it.
So, yes, the sales of Vista do impact Slashdotters.
The reason why nobody uses "mebibyte", "kibibyte", "gibibyte", and all of these other terms are because of two reasons: they are new and relatively unknown, and they just sound stupid and unnatural (try pronouncing them). It is commonly accepted knowledge in electrical engineering and computer science circles that we use 2^10, 2^20, 2^30, etc. when describing kilobytes, megabytes, and gigabytes, respectively, except when dealing with data storage capacities (which I feel is a marketroid invention and a sales gimmick. "10^9 vs. 2^30? Who'll know the difference?"). It's been that way since the 1960s. The new terms like "mebibyte," "gibibyte," and the rest of them just sound silly, hard to pronounce, and unnatural.
I guess I will be looking forward to playing my hybrid vinyl records in my hybrid Toyota soon.
Sun doesn't own the rights to Improv; Improv was a Lotus product, so you'll have to talk to IBM about that.
One problem. You still need a copy of Windows to do virtualization with. So you still need Windows; you're just running it in a VM instead of natively.
...is not because open source offers too many choices. After all, Microsoft's products are still a choice among many other solutions. The reason why much of us still use Microsoft software (to be more specific, Windows, Office, and programming environments related to those two products) is because of a few reasons:
Microsoft alternatives do have their merits. To use operating systems as an example, OS X is a great general purpose OS, and I love the customizability of open-source OSes such as Linux and BSD. However, most software is written for Windows (you're guaranteed to find a Windows software package for almost anything, whereas you'll have to search harder when using an alternate platform), and if you have a Windows problem, somebody will know how to fix it.
I admit, I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft. However, most of us can't avoid their software, like it or not. After nearly a year of not having a Windows machine, I installed a Windows partition to do class assignments. I don't like Windows, but I need to do what is necessary to complete the assignment. For some people, replace assignment with job and add "to pay the bills."
I don't think MS's monopoly will last forever. But, for now, expect to be still using Windows and other Microsoft solutions. When you are in a lion's mouth, wiggle until you wiggle yourself out.
One problem with your last comment. There are many fields within computer science that require programming; in fact, the only field that doesn't require coding is theoretical computer science and its relatives (such as algorithm complexity), and even those fields can benefit from coding skills to provide some real world measurements that complement the theoretical ones. For example, systems research (my personal favorite area of computer science, which consists of operating systems, networking, databases, file systems, etc.) is heavily dependent on programming, because systems research is quite experimental. You make a hypothesis, design your system, implement your system (which involves coding), and do performance analysis. Most other fields in computer science work very similarly.
Yes, it is true that once you become a professor, you don't have to code; you can just hire some graduate students to code for you ;). However, all computer scientists should know how to program. Do you have to be the best programmer in the world? No. However, programming is very important in computer science, even in the theoretical fields. Programming is one of the tools in a computer scientist's toolbox. A good computer scientist knows how to program well, even if they aren't the best in the world.
Removing programming removes a key component of the computer science curriculum and limits the choices to theoretical computer science (and that requires good algorithmic and mathematical skills, which is related to programming skills). Programming isn't rocket science. Perhaps we can encourage society that programming isn't something to be intimidated by, just like we have encouraged society over the past 40 years that mathematics and science are nothing to be intimidated by, either. In order to succeed in computer science, you have to learn how to program. Sorry, but it's the truth.
Some select quotes from the article (boldface font is emphasis by me):
The emphasis on scientific computing and other applications of computers to scientific and medical fields sounds interesting, but it is not computer science. That is called computational science or scientific computing. Computer science is about the study of computation and computers and has different subfields, which includes theoretical CS, algorithms, programming languages, systems (a wide range of topics such as OSes, file systems, networks, databases, compilers, etc.), graphics, and AI. Most computer scientists could care less about designing prosthetics or studying climate changes; they are generally interested in whatever subfield they specialize in.
There is a big difference between computer science and scientific computing. Scientific computing applies computer science skills to other disciplines, but it isn't computer science itself. When you are studying computer science, you study the aforementioned subdivisions above. When you study scientific computing, you know just enough CS to apply it to other disciplines, but it shouldn't be called CS.
I have no problem with attracting women to computing disciplines. I, for one, would strongly support such an effort. However, what is proposed by CMU is not computer science, and it shouldn't be called such. There should be no changes in the standard computer science curriculum. CMU's undergraduate computer science program is one of the best in the country, and if it isn't broken, then it shouldn't be fixed. Instead, CMU should start a scientific computing major inside of the School of Computer Science.
That's what Apple thought when they discontinued the Apple II line in 1993. They thought that they'd switch to the Mac, but a good number of them went to PCs with DOS and Windows instead.
Apple also thought this during the days of Copland. They thought that people will stick to Apple no matter what. But when Copland was continuously delayed until it was eventually cancelled, and Apple had no choice but to release an updated OS 7 called OS 8 that is nothing like Copland (not to mention the hardware problems of 1995 and 1996), many Mac users meanwhile switched to Windows 95 or NT 4.0.
"It's not like they're going to jump ship to Dell" has been said by Apple a few times in its history whenever it has made questionable decisions about their computers. When computer users either feel that their products are becoming marginalized, or when they feel that there are greener pastures somewhere else, they will switch. It has happened before with Apple. And if Apple continues to display its non-interest in the Mac, Mac users (especially those who went to OS X because of Unix) might buy one of those new Dells with Linux coming out soon....
Well, this announcement illustrates the difference between Apple fans and Mac fans. Apple fans like the decision because they feel that the iPhone would be a great product. The Apple fans are the ones saying that the delay of the OS is fine; OS X 10.4 is good enough for them. Apple fans like the idea of Apple becoming a consumer electronics company. Mac fans, on the other hand, don't really care about the iPhone. They feel that this decision is a slap in the face to Apple's loyal Mac customers, who want to prioritize a new phone over their long-standing product with millions of users. They'd rather see better Macs and improvements to OS X than to see a phone. Mac fans are worried that the Mac would be marginalized as Apple chases profits from MP3 players, phones, media center boxes, and other consumer electronics.
I fall in the Mac fan category. Personally, I'm starting to get worried about Apple's change from Apple Computer, Inc. to just Apple, Inc. At MacWorld 2007, not a single Mac product was announced. The only hardware update that we've received in five months was the updated Mac Pros that came out recently. Now OS X is delayed to work on a phone. I, and many other Mac users who have switched away from Linux, BSD, and other Unices, are not interested in Apple because of their phones, media centers, or MP3 players. We're interested in Apple because of their easy to use Unix with commercial software support and easy to use GUI applications. I hope the Mac doesn't become marginalized, but I already feel that it has by Apple's actions this year.
I'll just have to wait and see. But for now, although I like my MacBook, I'll be very careful to not be locked-in. Just as I switched to the Mac last summer from Windows XP and FreeBSD, I will switch back if I discover that Apple doesn't care about us.
I'm personally also not too fond of the Intel switch, myself. Don't get me started on the x86 (little endian, lack of registers, CISC instruction set, etc.). However, Apple had very little choice but to switch. Besides, Intel's Pentium M and Core chips were getting very great performance for their power consumption, which is another factor. Plus, my complaints of the x86 comes from an architectural standpoint. But they do the job, and I like my Core Duo in my MacBook, thank you very much.
Once again, I have no problem with Apple branching out to consumer electronics. However, I seriously hope that Apple doesn't forget about the Macintosh platform, which is the impression that I'm starting to get. At MacWorld, there were no Mac announcements. The only hardware update that we've received since November was the new 8-core Mac Pros. Where is iWork 2007 (or even iLife 2007 for that matter)? I don't want the Mac to go the way of the old pre-Fiorina HP calculators; heavily demanded, great quality products that are no longer made (of the same quality) simply because the company wanted to rebrand itself. I've seen these trends in the technology industry before. The Mac is the heart of Apple. I know it's wrong to be attached to products, but I like my Mac a lot. It makes my job much easier, and I can't imagine having to go back to Windows, Linux, and BSD. Where will I go if something happened to my Mac and you can't get another new one? I think this is the sentiment of some of us Mac users.
Some would argue that we've already lost processor competition for desktops and servers. Look at what has happened to Alpha, PA-RISC, MIPS, and the PowerPC. With both Intel and AMD supporters of DRM and members of the TPCA, I knew it was only a matter of time before AMD caved in as well.
Microsoft can get away with these things without any serious repercussions from the market because it is a monopoly. To paraphrase an old SNL skit, "We're Microsoft. We don't care. We don't have to." However, Vista is still not ready for the masses, or the masses aren't ready for Vista. I'll speak as a college student. For example, Minitab (which I have to use in my statistics class) is not yet compatible with Vista. Our campus residential network will not allow Vista on the networks in the dorms until the fall because their security clearance software (Clean Access) and anti-malware software is not compatible yet. I would buy a copy of Vista to use Boot Camp with, but I'm buying a copy of XP instead due to these concerns, mostly with backwards compatibility.
Now, a fast phase out of XP may force software companies and hardware companies writing drivers to quickly release Vista versions of software and drivers. However, if XP is phased out too quickly, then Vista users will be up a creek, and people will stick to their copies of XP (or even 2000) longer. You might even create a market situation similar to what happened to older HP calculators when they were discontinued and later replaced with newer calculators that are reputed to not have the same quality (e.g., the older, pre-Fiorina HP 32SII vs. the newer HP 33S. A used 32SII from eBay can be triple or even quadruple the price of a new 33S from WalMart).
On the other hand, look how Apple made the transition from OS 9 to OS X. It took them nearly three years to fully convert their user base. Apple slowly phased out OS 9. In fact, I believe that you can still buy a copy of OS 9 from Apple for $20 (although I'm not sure if Apple recently discontinued it because they're now an Intel shop). We'll see how Vista fares in the long run.
Remember, the left-right spectrum is an economic spectrum, ranging from pure communism at the far left to pure capitalism at the far right, and everything in between. Not all leftists believe in civil liberties (look at Stalin, Mao, and Castro, for example). Respect of civil liberties are represented on a different scale.
The George Phillies for President site looks very nicely done, in my opinion. I would vote for the Libertarian candidate in the 2008 election unless Ron Paul wins the nomination for the Republican Party.
...Microsoft is announcing an optimized ISA (IIS Server, SQL Server, ASP.NET) Linked List on Windows Vista(TM). More details to follow.
Yeah, because you cannot buy a retail version of Mac OS X for Intel yet. This question won't be really answered until Leopard is released. How is Apple going to release Leopard upgrades to their Intel Mac customers while, at the same time, preventing people with non-Apple x86 machines from installing Leopard. I've read that some Intel Macs don't have TPM chips in them, so obviously OS X doesn't use TPM chips for DRM.
...nobody, except for libertarians, seems to care about the Tenth Amendment anymore. Whenever you bring up the Tenth Amendment, politicians would then find a clause in the Constitution, such as the "general welfare" clause or the commerce clause, and then use an extremely broad meaning of those clauses to justify their laws that clearly violate the original and correct meaning of the Constitution. If they can't do that, they then withhold funding to the states unless they comply (read the 55mph speed limit and 21-year old drinking age; they were passed neither because the states universally decided on them nor because it was constitutional, but because the federal government told them "either you pass these laws, or we're not giving you your money. Capice?").
I love the Tenth Amendment, but there are so many violations of the Tenth Amendment in modern America that it feels meaningless. Which is sad, because the Tenth Amendment was there to ensure that the federal government did not get too powerful and trample over the rights of the states and of individuals. But, as I said in a previous post on this same thread, it's not what's written in the Constitution, but who interprets the Constitution. And as long as we have Supreme Court justices who interpret the Constitution broadly instead of strictly to how the Founders intended, the Tenth Amendment will continue to be spat at, and government will be allowed to grow bigger and bigger until we have no freedoms and no economy.
The problem is that the Constitution is interpreted by whomever sits in the Supreme Court, not necessarily based on the exact law of the Constitution. Certain administrations have twisted the meanings of certain parts of the Constitution (complete lack of respect of the Tenth Amendment, abuse of the "general welfare" and commerce clauses, etc.). It's not necessarily what's in the Constitution. It's who is interpreting it. It's sad, but this is how the US government has been running since 1933.
Luckily, FreeBSD has an excellent system for updating the operating system by source code. This guide teaches you how to update to the latest stable release of FreeBSD via source code. It's really nice and works well. Just remember to use FreeBSD-STABLE instead of FreeBSD-CURRENT, unless you are a FreeBSD developer or are interested in the absolute latest development version of FreeBSD, working or not.
It would be very tough to beat FDR's record, however. FDR was president for four terms, from 1933 to his death in 1945. That's over twelve years. The US Constitution now limits the president to two terms. 635 vetoes in 8 years is very difficult to achieve.
Office 2007's innovation is the ribbon interface, which does away from the traditional toolbar/menu interface. Although I personally don't like the interface (the ribbons are uncustomizable, and some options that used to require only one click on a toolbar now require two or three clicks), the interface does accomplish the task of placing related options together in an easily accessible way to novices of Office, as well as accessing less-commonly used features.
Like the interface or not, the ribbon interface is an innovative way of grouping tasks together, especially in a program such as Microsoft Office that supports hundreds of features. If the ribbon interface contained some concessions for experienced computer users (shortcuts and ribbon customization, for example), then the ribbon interface may be a serious contender to the traditional menu/toolbar paradigm on the Windows platform. This is probably the single most innovative thing I've seen coming from Microsoft yet, even if I personally don't like it ;)