"
Again, you assume wrongly, as I'm not offended. Seems to be a bit of a pattern forming. It's probably best not to assume you know something based on very little information. The problem as I see it is not with what I wrote, but with the way you are reading the information set forth in a fairly brief comment."
Then WTF are you whining about? Clearly you are offended and are just making a poor attempt to hide that fact for some reason, or you are a whiny jackass. You pick which.
I had stated from the start that I didn't know your particular occupation as you had not thought to state it despite the fact that you were using it as an example to prove your point. I never stated I knew what you did for a living, rather I stated that your lack of content forced readers such as myself to make assumptions about what you were talking about. This is why that is a bad practice; if you don't want people making assumptions about what you were saying you should write more clearly.
"But, no, not really. I didn't need the sort of in-depth information required from a domain specific publication. "
I said nothing about requirements for in depth knowledge. Rather had you known enough about your domain to be competent at your job, you would have known of a better and more reliable source where you could have gotten a better and more reliable answer with less effort (using something like the Wikipedia usually requires you to sort through many irrelevant topics before you get what you want, and even then you have to make a sanity check to ensure the article is valid).
And of course a traditional search engine would more than make up for the functionality of the Wikipedia for the purposes you describe, so an office still wouldn't lose anything by blocking the Wikipedia.
I don't disagree that what you describe is the norm in today's corporate environment, but I do disagree that the problem is that my standards (ie, that I'm paying for someone's expertise, not for someone to look up the answer in an encyclopedia) are too high and not many companies set their expectations too low.
"Interestingly, you assume wrongly. Perhaps rereading what I wrote might be nice?"
I did. The only hint you gave as to your job function was that you are asked questions by clients. If you get offended when people get the wrong idea regarding your job responsibilities, write more clearly.
"For instance, I was once asked if our product supported BPEL. I had no idea what that actually was, but a short look at Wikipedia helped point me in the right direction."
But you had a general idea of the domain he was talking about, correct? You knew (or at least could have guessed) it was probably a technology format, correct? Then a true professional would have looked in a more reliable domain specific source and gotten a better, quicker answer.
"don't know how you came to this quite remarkable conclusion, but I think that there is a flaw in your thinking somewhere. Increasingly Wikipedia IS a legitimate resource for getting a first take on a subject that one is not familiar with. "
If your boss is paying you to write a proposal on something, you had better already be at least familiar with the subject. Or at least familiar enough with the general subject area to be able to find legitimate sources without its help.
While I don't have specific knowledge of your job function, I'm going to assume you do some sort of customer service job and your responsibilities involve answering questions your clients may have. If I pay someone in customer service to answer a question for me and then find that they are looking up the answer in an encyclopedia (be it the Wikipedia or World Book), I'm not going to be very happy with them.
The Wikipedia (or World Book, or any other encyclopedia) is great for looking up a subject you heard mentioned on TV or something you are simply curious about. In other words, it is great for dilettantish pursuits of knowledge. For example, I just used it to look up World Book to ensure the encyclopedia I was referencing was still in existence. However, if you are a paid professional, you should have sufficient knowledge of the subject you are dealing with to find a better source.
Here is a rule of thumb. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So before you use it for a particular purpose, ask yourself this. Could I look this up in World Book and not feel bad about myself for doing that? If the answer is no, find a better source.
"Unless doing research on the Internet is part of your job description, then almost everything one does on the Internet (as opposed to an Intranet) is for personal use."
I would disagree with that. There are plenty of legitimate resources on the net. For instance as a Java programmer, I often find myself accessing the official JDK Javadoc and related resources from SUN.
"And as for the censorship issue. Yep, it is censorship. It doesn't matter whether it may be justified or not, but it still is censorship. You could look up that word on wikipedia.org if it is not being censored from you."
Again, the wikipedia is not the appropriate resource for such a question. The appropriate resource here would be the dictionary, where under the word 'censor' you would find
A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
That is really not what is happening here.
"And why not through in one last rebuttal, even though it may seem quite redundant to the / community; Wikipedia and Slashdot are not bandwidth hogs. Sorry mate but your "wastes network resources" has not weight with me."
They are if half your office is using them when they should be working.
"It's like blocking Slashdot because a bunch of people were commenting obsessively."
Yeah, a lot of offices do that. Along with other potential time wasting web sites. Its not because of censorship, its because they want their employees doing their job instead of surfing the net. Plus it wastes network resources, which believe it or not are not free. Many employers ban employees from using their network for personal use.
And yes, surfing the Wikipedia is almost always personal use. It is not a legitimate resource that you would use while writing a proposal you intend to turn in to your boss. Yes it certainly has its uses, but that is not one of them.
Except more people in the world die of germs than they do of things like appendicitis. In those underdeveloped countries you mention, its not uncommon for people to die of those diseases we are sheltered against. The concept of the vast majority of children surviving into and beyond adulthood is a rather new one and pretty much only present in developed countries.
Yes, there may be some negatives from living a life sheltered from disease, but the net benefit is obviously good.
Yes, I am aware of they sell non-DRM music. That was sort of the point of my post. They realized they could squeeze out even more money by offering some music without DRM and charging more for it (as opposed to amazon, which sells only non-DRM music usually at a lower price than Apple's DRM music).
So this bridge is a suspension bridge over the East River that runs from Manhattan to Brooklyn, I'll let you have it for a mere sum of $10, just give me your credit card number, expiration date, and that little number on the back they all require nowadays...
Look, just because Apple says something publicly does not mean they believe it. Will they be willing to sell DRM-free music? Hell yeah if they think they can squeeze more money out of people! Amazon sells only DRM-free music, and most of it for a lower price than Apple sells their DRM music.
"This is partially true, but hardly Apple's fault: Apple will gladly sell non-DRMd music, which runs on all MP3 players, but so far, only EMI allows its music to be sold without DRM."
If you believe Apple honestly wants to sell music without DRM but are forced not to by the big bad record companies, I have a bridge to sell you.
"BS (no pun intended). If the company can't afford to pay the going rate, they'll just lowball you and hope they get lucky."
Oh no, companies really do avoid hiring "overqualified" employees. Even if they get lucky by hiring them for a lower wage than they would normally get, they know you will leave for a higher wage as soon as you can, and they usually want to be able to keep whoever they hire instead of having to hire a replacement every year or so.
"Having a Master's degree in hand means the company won't have to pay for you to go back to school "
They don't have pay you to go back to school even if you just have a BS. You might want to go back, but they are not in an obligation to pay for it. And hell, you might want to go back even with that MS, there are plenty of people who go back again, either for an PhD, MBA, or even another technical Masters.
"and means you should be productive faster than someone without one"
I would like to see how you intend to back up that assertion.
"More than that though, it is insurance against someone who is incapable of progressing beyond a Bachelor's understanding of the material."
Now thats just being naive. There are plenty of incompetent fools with a Masters degree out there. In fact, they may make up an even higher percentage of MS grads than BS grads because of all the people who go to graduate school because they can't get a job with just a BS.
"Of course, you're ignoring the impact that a Master's degree has on raises and promotions. "
No, I'm not ignoring it, it is just virtually nonexistent. Once you get in your career, the thing your employer is looking at is your performance at your last job; your education quickly becomes irrelevant (just as your BS becomes irrelevant once you get your Masters). Employers are looking at your most recent activity, not what you did decades ago.
"A two year difference in experience (which is largely imaginary to begin with because most Master's programs involve a good deal of "real" work) quickly becomes irrelevant."
I'm not saying you are not working in a MS program, but the work you do there is fundamentally different from the work you do in your job.
"The Master's degree is always a factor and, more importantly, not having a Master's degree can prevent you from getting promoted."
Not in most engineering fields. The only degrees that you might need to move up in our discipline would be a MBA (if you want to move in the business side of things) and a PhD (if you want to move in the research side of things). And neither of those are absolutely necessary; I've met rising execs without an MBA and stars in research departments with nothing more than a BS (though all of them would suggest you get those degrees if you want to do what they do).
And this isn't coming from someone who hates academia and thinks its useless. As I said, I'm planning to go back for my Master's myself. I have nothing against people continuing their education. But do it for the right reasons, not because you think that piece of sheepskin will automatically make you more money. And if you are puzzled as to what those "right reasons" could be, graduate school is not for you.
The concept of rapture didn't originate with the book of Revelations, it is generally considered to be from a vision by a 19th century 15 year old girl, which was then popularized by preachers of the era. Nowadays it is often taught as if it were part of Revelations in order to hide its apocryphal nature.
In fact, contrary to modern day popular opinion, Revelations itself is not about a future apocalypse, rather it is an allegory about the fall of Rome which, at the time Revelations was authored was not exactly amenable to the Christian movement (what with the whole feeding them to lions thing and Nero using them as lampposts in his garden).
First, that has nothing to do with the No Child Left Behind Act, I can assure you public schools were like that well before Bush was ever president. Hell schools were probably like that before any Bush was president, though that would be from before my time. Many (especially here on/. where Bush isn't exactly seen in high regard (not sure how the reconcile the fact Ted Kennedy was the one who really pushed it through though)) like to blame all the woes of our education system on that act, but that belies the fact that virtually all of these problems have been in existence for a long, long time.
Second, like it or not, you have to learn how to regurgitate facts. That is what a lot of the world consists of. Doctors have to regurgitate facts concerning human anatomy. Lawyers have to regurgitate legal precedents. Engineers have to regurgitate laws of physics. Software developers have to regurgitate design patterns. And etc. I know its not as fun as doing creative things, but if it was they wouldn't have to teach it. Students would do it on their own (which incidentally is what you can do with all the creative things you want to do, do them on your own instead of spending all day playing video games and writing on/.).
And furthermore, being comfortable with all those facts you had to memorize is generally a prerequisite to doing the creative stuff (or at least doing it well). For instance you have to first have a good understanding of musical theory in order to write a great symphony. So just tough it out, you will get to the creative stuff eventually.
Are you suggesting that there is no mathematics or science or any of the other things this program has to forgo in order to have its students attend the happy feel good courses it describes?
The problem with engineers today isn't that they look at their shoes when talking so someone like they say in the article, thats a joke, not real life. In reality, many engineers are very outgoing people, and those that are not are perfectly capable of working with a team. Real engineers rarely fit the stereotype of the "socially awkward clock-puncher", so these guys are trying to fix a problem that really doesn't exist.
Yeah, I'm studying for the GREs as we speak so I can go back for my MS on my employer's dime.
But a couple other things to take in consideration, the fact that perspective employees with a Masters or Doctorate usually are asking for more money means its often harder for them to find those first jobs. Its not enough to just get that sheepskin, you need to be able to prove that you deserve the additional pay your employer will be giving you. Otherwise you won't be stuck with the low paying job that BS grads get, you will be stuck with no job at all and a lot of student loans.
In addition, its not fair to compare the starting salaries of someone with a Masters with someone with a Bachelors, as by the time the MS student graduates the BS grad will have two or three years of work experience under his belt. Its very likely that a BS grad with 2 years of work experience will make more than a MS new grad. From an employers view, which would you rather have? Someone with 6 years experience in academia or someone with 4 years experience in academia and 2 years experience in the workplace?
In short, don't get the advanced degree because you want more money, do it because you love the field.
BTW, many of the Indians and Chinese immigrants I know in the field got their BS in their home country and then came here to get their MS. I'm guessing that often they need those Bachelor degrees in order to immigrate here, so that would help explain why you see so many foreigners going for advanced degrees.
Bad news, God takes the good people in the rapture and then leaves all us sinners here to deal with the upcoming apocalypse. So still being here is actually a very bad thing. And if he thought over 300 million people in this country alone were not sinners, he obviously has very low standards...
"That's certainly possible. On the other hand, there's lots of things on Wikipedia that don't include citations of verification on anything (like the "hard sciences" article). It just happens that as much as the Wikipedia foundation is supposedly for verification, a lot of articles (I wouldn't guess the ratio of science/engineering to historic) don't include any citations."
The frequency (or lack thereof) of citations within the Wikipedia is not the problem I am complaining about. It certainly is a problem if/when it occurs, but really has nothing to do with people using the Wikipedia as if it were a primary or secondary source.
"How, btw, do you know what's generally more accurate, or do you assume that "more edits" equals "more fixes" as well? Out of curiosity, do you mean more accurate as in a lower standard deviation in change, as the term accurate is general understood in science?"
I'm not basing that statement on any sort of quantifiable data, but rather on the empirical observations of many users (myself included).
"I'm not sure I quite get that. Encyclopedias/Wikipedia are there to provide a very cursory reference source, as a jumping off point to find more information. But, encyclopedias are unsuitable as a citable source, so you shouldn't ever reference them because to do so would qualify them as an authority of even the smallest nature. Or are you willing to understand that/. entries that include references to Wikipedia articles provide them as a tertiarty source beside the real "meat" of the entry and should only be used as a jumping off point? Ie, why is it alright for anyone to every reference the use of an encyclopedia? It seems they shouldn't exist (or if they did, that no one should tell anyone about them because they're unworthy of being referenced as any type of authority)."
Um, no. I never said they cannot be used, or even referenced in casual contexts (like when you are talking to a friend about something you learned about the behavior of cockroaches from the Wikipedia). However, when writing a paper, book, article, or other such work (and yes, I would place articles for slashdot in that category), sources should be limited to primary and secondary sources. Not only does using tertiary sources undercut your authority on the subject by exposing your knowledge on it to be shallow at best, it really is quite pointless. Any reader could easily look up the subject in the Wikipedia on their own; your link did nothing for them.
"I mean, if your teacher every said "look in the encyclopedia", that's a citation."
No its not. You really do need a better dictionary.
citation -noun, "the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent."
cite -verb, "to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example: He cited many instances of abuse of power."
"Good thing you didn't try to cite it."
I don't get it, was that an attempt at sarcasm? Do you want a full MLA citation? Or would you prefer APA?
Either you have a very low opinion of human knowledge and don't believe we will ever encounter more evidence with which we can revise our scientific understanding of the world, or you are an idiot. Actually, those are not mutually exclusive options.
BTW, my 'fields' are in computer science and mathematics genius.
"Um, the hard sciences *are* the very basics because they're directly verifiable."
No, they really are not. I don't know how to state it more simply than that. You have a dangerously inaccurate view of the epistemology of science and its role in our world.
"If by "verify", you mean, "we can't go back in time to witness it", yes."
By 'verify' I mean to prove the truth of it, you know, the definition of the world 'verify'. And you had better not whine that that is too strong of a standard, you are the one who first used the word.
BTW, the reason scientific articles are in general more accurate than say, historical articles has nothing to do with whether or not they deal with "verifiable facts", its because of the population dynamics regarding who is editing the wikipedia. People with expertise in science and engineering are much more likely to be editing it than a historian.
"Perhaps you hadn't considered that that's what people view Wikipedia as? "
If so, we wouldn't be having this conversation as the submitter of the article wouldn't have cited it.
"And if you're upset because Wikipedia told you something and it's not backed by verifiable sources, you have reason to be upset. But, you seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia doesn't strive to provide verification for things. When it fails, it is a horrible source. That doesn't mean it's always a horrible source."
You are still missing the point. The problem isn't that the wikipedia is unreliable or doesn't always have citations, its that it is a tertiary source, which as you should have learned in the fifth grade makes it unsuitable for citations. Even the wikipedia itself has a disclaimer stating this.
BTW, Neil Waters provides an excellent summary of these problems in a column he wrote in this month's (September) issue of the Communications of the ACM, you might want to check it out. And don't give me any crap about the ACM not putting it for free online, either go to the library or buy a copy of the magazine.
"The types of fields in which persistent opinions are accurate opinions are those ruled by verifiable fact, the rule of mathematics and logic, and cooperative progress through explicit reasoning, not through debate. That includes mathematics and logic themselves, plus all the hard sciences and branches of engineering."
No, beliefs in the hard sciences are not ruled by verifiable fact, at least not when you get beyond the very basics. Most of science is based on hypotheses and theories. One cannot verify that all matter is made of tiny vibrating strings, or that the moon was formed from the collision of Earth with a smaller planet, or that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. All scientists can do is develop more hypotheses, test them, and use those results to support, fine tune, or occasionally throw out their theories. So the belief that persistent opinions are accurate ones is actually very dangerous to science.
But anyways, you miss the main problem with the wikipedia. It is not that it is often inaccurate or that it pushes the idea that popularity means accuracy. Those are disturbing consequences of it, but not the main problem. The biggest problem is that it is a tertiary source. This means that like an encyclopedia article, it makes for a very bad citation. The purpose of tertiary sources is to serve as an easy way to look things up and get a quick overview, they do not replace real research.
In fact it is insulting to give a link to the wikipedia to explain whatever it is you are talking about (like the submitter of this story did) because the implication is that the readers are too stupid to do a wikipedia search. If all you know about something is what the wikipedia told you, you are not an authority on the subject.
Seriously? This is Apple we are talking about, a company that makes MS look like the gold standard in terms of open standards. When have Apple ever embraced consumer freedom? The iPhone is full of restrictions (and not just the fact that it is locked to AT&T, there are other restrictions like on the ability to run third part apps), iTunes and the iPod are tied to each other (you can't play playforsure (or whatever they call it) music on the iPod, and you can't play iTunes on normal mp3 players), and since its inception MacOS is tied to Apple hardware.
This doesn't have an MS feel to it. It has an Apple feel to it. The fact that all the Mac fanboys have been blind to Apple's true nature just shows how gullible human nature can be.
It means he thought the game was crappy and wants to know what everyone who is participating in this circle jerk over it sees in it. I'm curious as well (though I don't consider it a crappy game as I've never played it).
And no, the story was definitely about Halo. Did you read the part about people taking sick days to play Halo? That had nothing to do with MIT or Harvard (except that some people connected with both universities probably took sick days as well).
Any company which doesn't have a policy requiring secure email for things like company confidential information is very troubling. And while I could be wrong, I believe any publicly traded company is going to have to be required to go through at least some security.
On a different subject, regarding intranet searches, moving to Google wouldn't necessarily bring that much of a difference. I am not familiar with their intranet search capabilities, but searching a small, private network is very different from searching a large network like the Internet. On the Internet, Google's page rank algorithms can make use of data like the number of cross links to determine what sites are credible. Thats much harder to do on a smaller network with much less data of this type. Really, searching on an intranet is a much different problem from searching on the Internet. On the former, you are just looking for a relevant resource, something that mentions what you are searching for. On the latter, you are looking for something that is reliable and not just a porn site including your search phrase in a meta-tag.
Slashdot Mirror
" Again, you assume wrongly, as I'm not offended. Seems to be a bit of a pattern forming. It's probably best not to assume you know something based on very little information. The problem as I see it is not with what I wrote, but with the way you are reading the information set forth in a fairly brief comment."
Then WTF are you whining about? Clearly you are offended and are just making a poor attempt to hide that fact for some reason, or you are a whiny jackass. You pick which.
I had stated from the start that I didn't know your particular occupation as you had not thought to state it despite the fact that you were using it as an example to prove your point. I never stated I knew what you did for a living, rather I stated that your lack of content forced readers such as myself to make assumptions about what you were talking about. This is why that is a bad practice; if you don't want people making assumptions about what you were saying you should write more clearly.
"But, no, not really. I didn't need the sort of in-depth information required from a domain specific publication. "
I said nothing about requirements for in depth knowledge. Rather had you known enough about your domain to be competent at your job, you would have known of a better and more reliable source where you could have gotten a better and more reliable answer with less effort (using something like the Wikipedia usually requires you to sort through many irrelevant topics before you get what you want, and even then you have to make a sanity check to ensure the article is valid).
And of course a traditional search engine would more than make up for the functionality of the Wikipedia for the purposes you describe, so an office still wouldn't lose anything by blocking the Wikipedia.
I don't disagree that what you describe is the norm in today's corporate environment, but I do disagree that the problem is that my standards (ie, that I'm paying for someone's expertise, not for someone to look up the answer in an encyclopedia) are too high and not many companies set their expectations too low.
"Interestingly, you assume wrongly. Perhaps rereading what I wrote might be nice?"
I did. The only hint you gave as to your job function was that you are asked questions by clients. If you get offended when people get the wrong idea regarding your job responsibilities, write more clearly.
"For instance, I was once asked if our product supported BPEL. I had no idea what that actually was, but a short look at Wikipedia helped point me in the right direction."
But you had a general idea of the domain he was talking about, correct? You knew (or at least could have guessed) it was probably a technology format, correct? Then a true professional would have looked in a more reliable domain specific source and gotten a better, quicker answer.
"don't know how you came to this quite remarkable conclusion, but I think that there is a flaw in your thinking somewhere. Increasingly Wikipedia IS a legitimate resource for getting a first take on a subject that one is not familiar with. "
If your boss is paying you to write a proposal on something, you had better already be at least familiar with the subject. Or at least familiar enough with the general subject area to be able to find legitimate sources without its help.
While I don't have specific knowledge of your job function, I'm going to assume you do some sort of customer service job and your responsibilities involve answering questions your clients may have. If I pay someone in customer service to answer a question for me and then find that they are looking up the answer in an encyclopedia (be it the Wikipedia or World Book), I'm not going to be very happy with them.
The Wikipedia (or World Book, or any other encyclopedia) is great for looking up a subject you heard mentioned on TV or something you are simply curious about. In other words, it is great for dilettantish pursuits of knowledge. For example, I just used it to look up World Book to ensure the encyclopedia I was referencing was still in existence. However, if you are a paid professional, you should have sufficient knowledge of the subject you are dealing with to find a better source.
Here is a rule of thumb. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So before you use it for a particular purpose, ask yourself this. Could I look this up in World Book and not feel bad about myself for doing that? If the answer is no, find a better source.
"Unless doing research on the Internet is part of your job description, then almost everything one does on the Internet (as opposed to an Intranet) is for personal use."
I would disagree with that. There are plenty of legitimate resources on the net. For instance as a Java programmer, I often find myself accessing the official JDK Javadoc and related resources from SUN.
"And as for the censorship issue. Yep, it is censorship. It doesn't matter whether it may be justified or not, but it still is censorship. You could look up that word on wikipedia.org if it is not being censored from you."
Again, the wikipedia is not the appropriate resource for such a question. The appropriate resource here would be the dictionary, where under the word 'censor' you would find
That is really not what is happening here.
"And why not through in one last rebuttal, even though it may seem quite redundant to the / community; Wikipedia and Slashdot are not bandwidth hogs. Sorry mate but your "wastes network resources" has not weight with me."
They are if half your office is using them when they should be working.
"It's like blocking Slashdot because a bunch of people were commenting obsessively."
Yeah, a lot of offices do that. Along with other potential time wasting web sites. Its not because of censorship, its because they want their employees doing their job instead of surfing the net. Plus it wastes network resources, which believe it or not are not free. Many employers ban employees from using their network for personal use.
And yes, surfing the Wikipedia is almost always personal use. It is not a legitimate resource that you would use while writing a proposal you intend to turn in to your boss. Yes it certainly has its uses, but that is not one of them.
Except more people in the world die of germs than they do of things like appendicitis. In those underdeveloped countries you mention, its not uncommon for people to die of those diseases we are sheltered against. The concept of the vast majority of children surviving into and beyond adulthood is a rather new one and pretty much only present in developed countries.
Yes, there may be some negatives from living a life sheltered from disease, but the net benefit is obviously good.
Actually, I think Windows Vista has done more than virtually any OS release to promote the use of Linux.
Yes, I am aware of they sell non-DRM music. That was sort of the point of my post. They realized they could squeeze out even more money by offering some music without DRM and charging more for it (as opposed to amazon, which sells only non-DRM music usually at a lower price than Apple's DRM music).
So this bridge is a suspension bridge over the East River that runs from Manhattan to Brooklyn, I'll let you have it for a mere sum of $10, just give me your credit card number, expiration date, and that little number on the back they all require nowadays...
Look, just because Apple says something publicly does not mean they believe it. Will they be willing to sell DRM-free music? Hell yeah if they think they can squeeze more money out of people! Amazon sells only DRM-free music, and most of it for a lower price than Apple sells their DRM music.
"This is partially true, but hardly Apple's fault: Apple will gladly sell non-DRMd music, which runs on all MP3 players, but so far, only EMI allows its music to be sold without DRM."
If you believe Apple honestly wants to sell music without DRM but are forced not to by the big bad record companies, I have a bridge to sell you.
"BS (no pun intended). If the company can't afford to pay the going rate, they'll just lowball you and hope they get lucky."
Oh no, companies really do avoid hiring "overqualified" employees. Even if they get lucky by hiring them for a lower wage than they would normally get, they know you will leave for a higher wage as soon as you can, and they usually want to be able to keep whoever they hire instead of having to hire a replacement every year or so.
"Having a Master's degree in hand means the company won't have to pay for you to go back to school "
They don't have pay you to go back to school even if you just have a BS. You might want to go back, but they are not in an obligation to pay for it. And hell, you might want to go back even with that MS, there are plenty of people who go back again, either for an PhD, MBA, or even another technical Masters.
"and means you should be productive faster than someone without one"
I would like to see how you intend to back up that assertion.
"More than that though, it is insurance against someone who is incapable of progressing beyond a Bachelor's understanding of the material."
Now thats just being naive. There are plenty of incompetent fools with a Masters degree out there. In fact, they may make up an even higher percentage of MS grads than BS grads because of all the people who go to graduate school because they can't get a job with just a BS.
"Of course, you're ignoring the impact that a Master's degree has on raises and promotions. "
No, I'm not ignoring it, it is just virtually nonexistent. Once you get in your career, the thing your employer is looking at is your performance at your last job; your education quickly becomes irrelevant (just as your BS becomes irrelevant once you get your Masters). Employers are looking at your most recent activity, not what you did decades ago.
"A two year difference in experience (which is largely imaginary to begin with because most Master's programs involve a good deal of "real" work) quickly becomes irrelevant."
I'm not saying you are not working in a MS program, but the work you do there is fundamentally different from the work you do in your job.
"The Master's degree is always a factor and, more importantly, not having a Master's degree can prevent you from getting promoted."
Not in most engineering fields. The only degrees that you might need to move up in our discipline would be a MBA (if you want to move in the business side of things) and a PhD (if you want to move in the research side of things). And neither of those are absolutely necessary; I've met rising execs without an MBA and stars in research departments with nothing more than a BS (though all of them would suggest you get those degrees if you want to do what they do).
And this isn't coming from someone who hates academia and thinks its useless. As I said, I'm planning to go back for my Master's myself. I have nothing against people continuing their education. But do it for the right reasons, not because you think that piece of sheepskin will automatically make you more money. And if you are puzzled as to what those "right reasons" could be, graduate school is not for you.
The concept of rapture didn't originate with the book of Revelations, it is generally considered to be from a vision by a 19th century 15 year old girl, which was then popularized by preachers of the era. Nowadays it is often taught as if it were part of Revelations in order to hide its apocryphal nature.
In fact, contrary to modern day popular opinion, Revelations itself is not about a future apocalypse, rather it is an allegory about the fall of Rome which, at the time Revelations was authored was not exactly amenable to the Christian movement (what with the whole feeding them to lions thing and Nero using them as lampposts in his garden).
First, that has nothing to do with the No Child Left Behind Act, I can assure you public schools were like that well before Bush was ever president. Hell schools were probably like that before any Bush was president, though that would be from before my time. Many (especially here on /. where Bush isn't exactly seen in high regard (not sure how the reconcile the fact Ted Kennedy was the one who really pushed it through though)) like to blame all the woes of our education system on that act, but that belies the fact that virtually all of these problems have been in existence for a long, long time.
Second, like it or not, you have to learn how to regurgitate facts. That is what a lot of the world consists of. Doctors have to regurgitate facts concerning human anatomy. Lawyers have to regurgitate legal precedents. Engineers have to regurgitate laws of physics. Software developers have to regurgitate design patterns. And etc. I know its not as fun as doing creative things, but if it was they wouldn't have to teach it. Students would do it on their own (which incidentally is what you can do with all the creative things you want to do, do them on your own instead of spending all day playing video games and writing on /.).
And furthermore, being comfortable with all those facts you had to memorize is generally a prerequisite to doing the creative stuff (or at least doing it well). For instance you have to first have a good understanding of musical theory in order to write a great symphony. So just tough it out, you will get to the creative stuff eventually.
Are you suggesting that there is no mathematics or science or any of the other things this program has to forgo in order to have its students attend the happy feel good courses it describes?
The problem with engineers today isn't that they look at their shoes when talking so someone like they say in the article, thats a joke, not real life. In reality, many engineers are very outgoing people, and those that are not are perfectly capable of working with a team. Real engineers rarely fit the stereotype of the "socially awkward clock-puncher", so these guys are trying to fix a problem that really doesn't exist.
Yeah, I'm studying for the GREs as we speak so I can go back for my MS on my employer's dime.
But a couple other things to take in consideration, the fact that perspective employees with a Masters or Doctorate usually are asking for more money means its often harder for them to find those first jobs. Its not enough to just get that sheepskin, you need to be able to prove that you deserve the additional pay your employer will be giving you. Otherwise you won't be stuck with the low paying job that BS grads get, you will be stuck with no job at all and a lot of student loans.
In addition, its not fair to compare the starting salaries of someone with a Masters with someone with a Bachelors, as by the time the MS student graduates the BS grad will have two or three years of work experience under his belt. Its very likely that a BS grad with 2 years of work experience will make more than a MS new grad. From an employers view, which would you rather have? Someone with 6 years experience in academia or someone with 4 years experience in academia and 2 years experience in the workplace?
In short, don't get the advanced degree because you want more money, do it because you love the field.
BTW, many of the Indians and Chinese immigrants I know in the field got their BS in their home country and then came here to get their MS. I'm guessing that often they need those Bachelor degrees in order to immigrate here, so that would help explain why you see so many foreigners going for advanced degrees.
Bad news, God takes the good people in the rapture and then leaves all us sinners here to deal with the upcoming apocalypse. So still being here is actually a very bad thing. And if he thought over 300 million people in this country alone were not sinners, he obviously has very low standards...
"That's certainly possible. On the other hand, there's lots of things on Wikipedia that don't include citations of verification on anything (like the "hard sciences" article). It just happens that as much as the Wikipedia foundation is supposedly for verification, a lot of articles (I wouldn't guess the ratio of science/engineering to historic) don't include any citations."
The frequency (or lack thereof) of citations within the Wikipedia is not the problem I am complaining about. It certainly is a problem if/when it occurs, but really has nothing to do with people using the Wikipedia as if it were a primary or secondary source.
"How, btw, do you know what's generally more accurate, or do you assume that "more edits" equals "more fixes" as well? Out of curiosity, do you mean more accurate as in a lower standard deviation in change, as the term accurate is general understood in science?"
I'm not basing that statement on any sort of quantifiable data, but rather on the empirical observations of many users (myself included).
"I'm not sure I quite get that. Encyclopedias/Wikipedia are there to provide a very cursory reference source, as a jumping off point to find more information. But, encyclopedias are unsuitable as a citable source, so you shouldn't ever reference them because to do so would qualify them as an authority of even the smallest nature. Or are you willing to understand that /. entries that include references to Wikipedia articles provide them as a tertiarty source beside the real "meat" of the entry and should only be used as a jumping off point? Ie, why is it alright for anyone to every reference the use of an encyclopedia? It seems they shouldn't exist (or if they did, that no one should tell anyone about them because they're unworthy of being referenced as any type of authority)."
Um, no. I never said they cannot be used, or even referenced in casual contexts (like when you are talking to a friend about something you learned about the behavior of cockroaches from the Wikipedia). However, when writing a paper, book, article, or other such work (and yes, I would place articles for slashdot in that category), sources should be limited to primary and secondary sources. Not only does using tertiary sources undercut your authority on the subject by exposing your knowledge on it to be shallow at best, it really is quite pointless. Any reader could easily look up the subject in the Wikipedia on their own; your link did nothing for them.
"I mean, if your teacher every said "look in the encyclopedia", that's a citation."
No its not. You really do need a better dictionary.
citation -noun, "the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent."
cite -verb, "to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example: He cited many instances of abuse of power."
"Good thing you didn't try to cite it."
I don't get it, was that an attempt at sarcasm? Do you want a full MLA citation? Or would you prefer APA?
Either you have a very low opinion of human knowledge and don't believe we will ever encounter more evidence with which we can revise our scientific understanding of the world, or you are an idiot. Actually, those are not mutually exclusive options.
BTW, my 'fields' are in computer science and mathematics genius.
"Um, the hard sciences *are* the very basics because they're directly verifiable."
No, they really are not. I don't know how to state it more simply than that. You have a dangerously inaccurate view of the epistemology of science and its role in our world.
"If by "verify", you mean, "we can't go back in time to witness it", yes."
By 'verify' I mean to prove the truth of it, you know, the definition of the world 'verify'. And you had better not whine that that is too strong of a standard, you are the one who first used the word.
BTW, the reason scientific articles are in general more accurate than say, historical articles has nothing to do with whether or not they deal with "verifiable facts", its because of the population dynamics regarding who is editing the wikipedia. People with expertise in science and engineering are much more likely to be editing it than a historian.
"Perhaps you hadn't considered that that's what people view Wikipedia as? "
If so, we wouldn't be having this conversation as the submitter of the article wouldn't have cited it.
"And if you're upset because Wikipedia told you something and it's not backed by verifiable sources, you have reason to be upset. But, you seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia doesn't strive to provide verification for things. When it fails, it is a horrible source. That doesn't mean it's always a horrible source."
You are still missing the point. The problem isn't that the wikipedia is unreliable or doesn't always have citations, its that it is a tertiary source, which as you should have learned in the fifth grade makes it unsuitable for citations. Even the wikipedia itself has a disclaimer stating this.
BTW, Neil Waters provides an excellent summary of these problems in a column he wrote in this month's (September) issue of the Communications of the ACM, you might want to check it out. And don't give me any crap about the ACM not putting it for free online, either go to the library or buy a copy of the magazine.
"The types of fields in which persistent opinions are accurate opinions are those ruled by verifiable fact, the rule of mathematics and logic, and cooperative progress through explicit reasoning, not through debate. That includes mathematics and logic themselves, plus all the hard sciences and branches of engineering."
No, beliefs in the hard sciences are not ruled by verifiable fact, at least not when you get beyond the very basics. Most of science is based on hypotheses and theories. One cannot verify that all matter is made of tiny vibrating strings, or that the moon was formed from the collision of Earth with a smaller planet, or that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. All scientists can do is develop more hypotheses, test them, and use those results to support, fine tune, or occasionally throw out their theories. So the belief that persistent opinions are accurate ones is actually very dangerous to science.
But anyways, you miss the main problem with the wikipedia. It is not that it is often inaccurate or that it pushes the idea that popularity means accuracy. Those are disturbing consequences of it, but not the main problem. The biggest problem is that it is a tertiary source. This means that like an encyclopedia article, it makes for a very bad citation. The purpose of tertiary sources is to serve as an easy way to look things up and get a quick overview, they do not replace real research.
In fact it is insulting to give a link to the wikipedia to explain whatever it is you are talking about (like the submitter of this story did) because the implication is that the readers are too stupid to do a wikipedia search. If all you know about something is what the wikipedia told you, you are not an authority on the subject.
Seriously? This is Apple we are talking about, a company that makes MS look like the gold standard in terms of open standards. When have Apple ever embraced consumer freedom? The iPhone is full of restrictions (and not just the fact that it is locked to AT&T, there are other restrictions like on the ability to run third part apps), iTunes and the iPod are tied to each other (you can't play playforsure (or whatever they call it) music on the iPod, and you can't play iTunes on normal mp3 players), and since its inception MacOS is tied to Apple hardware.
This doesn't have an MS feel to it. It has an Apple feel to it. The fact that all the Mac fanboys have been blind to Apple's true nature just shows how gullible human nature can be.
It means he thought the game was crappy and wants to know what everyone who is participating in this circle jerk over it sees in it. I'm curious as well (though I don't consider it a crappy game as I've never played it).
And no, the story was definitely about Halo. Did you read the part about people taking sick days to play Halo? That had nothing to do with MIT or Harvard (except that some people connected with both universities probably took sick days as well).
Any company which doesn't have a policy requiring secure email for things like company confidential information is very troubling. And while I could be wrong, I believe any publicly traded company is going to have to be required to go through at least some security.
On a different subject, regarding intranet searches, moving to Google wouldn't necessarily bring that much of a difference. I am not familiar with their intranet search capabilities, but searching a small, private network is very different from searching a large network like the Internet. On the Internet, Google's page rank algorithms can make use of data like the number of cross links to determine what sites are credible. Thats much harder to do on a smaller network with much less data of this type. Really, searching on an intranet is a much different problem from searching on the Internet. On the former, you are just looking for a relevant resource, something that mentions what you are searching for. On the latter, you are looking for something that is reliable and not just a porn site including your search phrase in a meta-tag.