Absolutely since joining the real world I have found the visual studio debugger my most prized tool. Somehow I managed all through my degree to never come into contact with one (probably because all the free ones are rubbish and most schools won't shell out for visual studio). I now extol the virtues of debugging to all and sundry!
The hurdle I have always seen with these kind of meta-data collections is that it is a huge amount of for the large part manual effort to convert the plentiful textual data into "semantic" meta data. For example its easy for a person to know that something like "DOB: 1/1/01", "foo was born on Jan, 1, 1901", "foo born son of bar in the late 16th century" and a picture of a family tree with dates on it all represent the same semantic data but how can we extract that with little effort.
As far as I can tell the semantic web solution is to meta-tag by hand which is going to lead to problems such as interpretation, for example imagine classifying musical genres and you already run into problems, are acoustic guitar duo Rodrigo y gabriela "metal", "pop", "flamenco", "acoustic", all of the above? That is of course not to say the enormous amount of manual (or at best semi-automated) work involved in the tagging.
Further the space of semantic relations between an arbitrary set of objects is enormous (certainly lower bounded by n!, and given you can have an arbitrary selection of semantic relation types the total space is essentially infinite). Your example isn't actually very useful if you are researching computer scientists where DOB and DOD arent really very relevant. Can I for example make the much more useful query on Computer Scientists who have published at least 10 journal articles and who are alo behaviourists but not connectionists? It requires a domain expert to give judgement on exactly what denotes a behaviourist or a connectionist, and some of that information might be inferred. For example if a person has published a paper on novel back propagation techniques for neural nets they are probably a connectionist.
All this basically means is that by necesity the semantic space is (and always will be) sparsely populated until we have solved the natural language semantics problem. Which means that most of the time the data that someone would want to query for just won't be there.
It is also decreasing the value of video and photos as evidence in court cases.
Both as positive and negative evidence.
It will be as easy to "prove" that somebody was somewhere else as it is that someone was at the scene of a crime. Or that YOU were part of that riot mob at the football stadium.
Yesterday's movie fiction - today's reality.
Pretty soon the tech will be sufficiently advanced that filmakers won't actually need those really expensive actor chappies. Yay:-)
Big name actors are as much marketing as they are part of the artistic work. You could probably sell an hour of slideshowed photocopies of your ass if it was voiced over by several of hollywoods A-list.
It's been a few years now that amateur musicians could produce quality recordings at home with only a few thousand dollars worth of gear -- you only need to go to a traditional studio anymore to get into the real upper echelon of production value. It is nice to see movement in the same direction in cinema. Even if the entire entertainment industry insists on clinging desperately to 50-year-old ideas about copyright, despite the inevitable consequence of that doomed ideology, it's nice to know that we can lose them all and still not lose cinema and music as artistic media.
To a point. Most people still can't get a studio quality recording of anything that needs mic'd at home due to volume and acoustic constraints. Now most bands will pre-demo on home equipment then move into small budget studios to record a more professional product (so you can crank the amps, record the drums without getting nailed to the wall by the neighbours etc). It *is* certainly a lot more affordable to the average musician however.
I probably agree with you in principle, by what you actually wrote (in the context of TFA) is wrong. To be good at C++ you have to understand *both* pointers and OOP. These days the OOP is taught by most schools, but most schools don't teahc pointers *at all*. Yes, if your "multiple languages" include both one with pointers and an OO language, C++ is no big deal. The problem with schools today is that this isn't the case! Even CS grads come out having *never* done pointers.
I don't think pointers are necesarily that hard. People seem to be terrified of them. I think that anyone who has the kind of logical mind to get the CS and problem solving side of a job should be able to pick up pointers without too much trouble. I honestly think half the problem is that people end up getting thrown into maintaining or modifying badly written code where they see a string of *, &, -> and . operators before every single variable name (kinda like how when your new to perl it just looks like an explosion in a puntuation factory) and just panic rather than working through it step by step.
Of course tracking down bugs caused by dangling pointers can soemtimes be pretty tricky but its a good way to learn how to use a debugger. Something which I wasnt taught in uni but really wish I was.
You used to be able to buy boxed copies of red hat and suse in stores so this model *has* been tried before. Im not convinced that the market for FOSS is that so much bigger today that it could support enough demand to allow FOSS vendors to benefit from the economies of scale involved in retail distribution.
No don't, the last thing we need is more null terminated character buffer crap originating out of bad c tutorials on the net. Learn C++ and use STL. If you want to work for a good company code maintenance is as important if not more important than the initial code.
This is completely irrelevant, a grad will normally be applying to jobs through graduate schemes which will look at you general abilities rather than any particular programming language. To land a job for one of the major players you will need to demonstrate good technical skills (not necesarily programming, in my graduate intake there were 2 physicists who had done barely any programming), flexibility, good risk management and the ability to tackle problems both by skilling up and by identifying and working with people who are already strong in the area your having problems with)
So enjoy uni, take courses that will expose you to multiple languages since you'll end up having to be multi-lingual to get a decent job in the industry anyway (and c++ isn't really any harder than any other language). Take some maths courses because they look good on the cv. Every summer get relevant summer work so dont just go work in a bar or something.
A lot of what we're seeing outsourced isn't really the sort of work good CS grads should be looking at anyway.
It would cost $11bn to fit them to every american airliner. BUT in reality only airframes bound for high rish destinations are likely to be fitted, particularly ones where the (lack of / inadequecy of) local security round the airport might give a MANPAD attack opportunity. Therefore it could reasonably be expected that the amount of tax dollars spend will be significantly lower than this quoted figure.
it's comparable to Radiohead's "pay what you like" model in that sense
br?
Yeah and thank god I didn't have to pay for that tripe. I keep hoping they'll get their magic back but everything after OK computer has been utter rot. I cant beleive they dissappeared up their own collective ass quite so far as they did.
Great, now we can soon get on with the job of assigning static ip addresses to all our toasters, refrigerators, furnaces, thermostats, tv sets, electric hairdryers, etc.
I like the way you included furnaces in that list of household items. Also are you obsessed with temperature related gizmos?
For some tasks sure a command line is fine, but lets take an example task that I find myself having to perform on a very regular basis:
perform an operation on an arbitrary sub-set of files in a directory
So my choice is spend half an hour composing a regex that selects the files I want to operate one or just control click them on the GUI?
I also disagree that microsoft apps are a bad example of GUI design, lets compare them to the much touted apple whose window control buttons have no glyphs and are only distinguished by colours which 25% of the male population have trouble in distinguishing. Or the speed of the start menu versus the dock.
Now yes the interfaces are more complicated than googles, but guess what visual studio does a hell of a lot more than google (and in fact can perform search). Its a busy interface but it shows a hell of a lot of information at a glance. Something I would have to toggle in and out of buffers for droppping into terminal windows and so on to accomplish through a emacs (say) type editing workflow. Each of these little context switches add up.
Why is the circular menu so good, I find them pretty appalling even to control things which are traditionally "circular variables". Take for example pan pots on cubase. Controlling these with the mouse is a royal PITA (linking them to hardware pots is another story of course)
Now I can see from the background you provided that busy interfaces aren't going to appeal to you since you like a minimal aesthetic but this isn't necesarily going to apply to all markets, and I think these days the proportion of feature utilisation of something like word is actually a lot higher these days since people are expected to produce much more carefully formatted documents in a flexible number of formats.
STOP SHAFTING THE ARTISTS. In fact, recording artists DO need record labels, as a corporation like a label has the assets to get music out and publicized in a way that a single recording artist could never do on their own. If the recording artists were just treated fairly, instead of being driven into debt while their CD sales make millions, then the record labels would have no difficulty retaining artistic talent.
I see so many people saying oh well artists dont need the labels and as the parent points out this is just rubbish. artists require the distribution channels and assets. Furthermore the distribution channels sewn up by the majors aren't even just cd's in HMV or virgin. The majority of radio stations and all tv stations just won't play material from smaller label players, with streaming radio facing huge broadcasting fees this is likely to continue to spread into the online world as well.
We will almost certainly see further dirty tactics from the industry heavyweights, for example by denying the use of the music they have licence to on stations which promote small talent making it impossible for these stations to compete in anything but niche spaces.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow thats comprehensive, i already thought it rocked and now ive learned a couple of new tricks!
Absolutely since joining the real world I have found the visual studio debugger my most prized tool. Somehow I managed all through my degree to never come into contact with one (probably because all the free ones are rubbish and most schools won't shell out for visual studio). I now extol the virtues of debugging to all and sundry!
I thought there was more episodes of law and order than there were atoms in the universe or grains of sand on the beach or something.
The hurdle I have always seen with these kind of meta-data collections is that it is a huge amount of for the large part manual effort to convert the plentiful textual data into "semantic" meta data. For example its easy for a person to know that something like "DOB: 1/1/01", "foo was born on Jan, 1, 1901", "foo born son of bar in the late 16th century" and a picture of a family tree with dates on it all represent the same semantic data but how can we extract that with little effort.
As far as I can tell the semantic web solution is to meta-tag by hand which is going to lead to problems such as interpretation, for example imagine classifying musical genres and you already run into problems, are acoustic guitar duo Rodrigo y gabriela "metal", "pop", "flamenco", "acoustic", all of the above? That is of course not to say the enormous amount of manual (or at best semi-automated) work involved in the tagging.
Further the space of semantic relations between an arbitrary set of objects is enormous (certainly lower bounded by n!, and given you can have an arbitrary selection of semantic relation types the total space is essentially infinite). Your example isn't actually very useful if you are researching computer scientists where DOB and DOD arent really very relevant. Can I for example make the much more useful query on Computer Scientists who have published at least 10 journal articles and who are alo behaviourists but not connectionists? It requires a domain expert to give judgement on exactly what denotes a behaviourist or a connectionist, and some of that information might be inferred. For example if a person has published a paper on novel back propagation techniques for neural nets they are probably a connectionist.
All this basically means is that by necesity the semantic space is (and always will be) sparsely populated until we have solved the natural language semantics problem. Which means that most of the time the data that someone would want to query for just won't be there.
I once trained a hidden markov model based chatterbot on timecube and set it loose on my contacts list over MSN. It was pretty funny.
Big name actors are as much marketing as they are part of the artistic work. You could probably sell an hour of slideshowed photocopies of your ass if it was voiced over by several of hollywoods A-list.
To a point. Most people still can't get a studio quality recording of anything that needs mic'd at home due to volume and acoustic constraints. Now most bands will pre-demo on home equipment then move into small budget studios to record a more professional product (so you can crank the amps, record the drums without getting nailed to the wall by the neighbours etc). It *is* certainly a lot more affordable to the average musician however.
I don't think pointers are necesarily that hard. People seem to be terrified of them. I think that anyone who has the kind of logical mind to get the CS and problem solving side of a job should be able to pick up pointers without too much trouble. I honestly think half the problem is that people end up getting thrown into maintaining or modifying badly written code where they see a string of *, &, -> and . operators before every single variable name (kinda like how when your new to perl it just looks like an explosion in a puntuation factory) and just panic rather than working through it step by step.
Of course tracking down bugs caused by dangling pointers can soemtimes be pretty tricky but its a good way to learn how to use a debugger. Something which I wasnt taught in uni but really wish I was.
Why is creepy a positive mod?
You used to be able to buy boxed copies of red hat and suse in stores so this model *has* been tried before. Im not convinced that the market for FOSS is that so much bigger today that it could support enough demand to allow FOSS vendors to benefit from the economies of scale involved in retail distribution.
Clearly someone hasnt been watching the endless american idol style programs. In which they take an idiot off the street and make them a star.
Yeah but it was the worst car analogy ever
No don't, the last thing we need is more null terminated character buffer crap originating out of bad c tutorials on the net. Learn C++ and use STL. If you want to work for a good company code maintenance is as important if not more important than the initial code.
This is completely irrelevant, a grad will normally be applying to jobs through graduate schemes which will look at you general abilities rather than any particular programming language. To land a job for one of the major players you will need to demonstrate good technical skills (not necesarily programming, in my graduate intake there were 2 physicists who had done barely any programming), flexibility, good risk management and the ability to tackle problems both by skilling up and by identifying and working with people who are already strong in the area your having problems with)
So enjoy uni, take courses that will expose you to multiple languages since you'll end up having to be multi-lingual to get a decent job in the industry anyway (and c++ isn't really any harder than any other language). Take some maths courses because they look good on the cv. Every summer get relevant summer work so dont just go work in a bar or something.
A lot of what we're seeing outsourced isn't really the sort of work good CS grads should be looking at anyway.
I think had the attack occurred in Germany he may have been under a tad more political pressure to make some kind of empty gesture.
It would cost $11bn to fit them to every american airliner. BUT in reality only airframes bound for high rish destinations are likely to be fitted, particularly ones where the (lack of / inadequecy of) local security round the airport might give a MANPAD attack opportunity. Therefore it could reasonably be expected that the amount of tax dollars spend will be significantly lower than this quoted figure.
br? Yeah and thank god I didn't have to pay for that tripe. I keep hoping they'll get their magic back but everything after OK computer has been utter rot. I cant beleive they dissappeared up their own collective ass quite so far as they did.
yeah media player is fugly
For some tasks sure a command line is fine, but lets take an example task that I find myself having to perform on a very regular basis:
perform an operation on an arbitrary sub-set of files in a directory
So my choice is spend half an hour composing a regex that selects the files I want to operate one or just control click them on the GUI?
I also disagree that microsoft apps are a bad example of GUI design, lets compare them to the much touted apple whose window control buttons have no glyphs and are only distinguished by colours which 25% of the male population have trouble in distinguishing. Or the speed of the start menu versus the dock.
Now yes the interfaces are more complicated than googles, but guess what visual studio does a hell of a lot more than google (and in fact can perform search). Its a busy interface but it shows a hell of a lot of information at a glance. Something I would have to toggle in and out of buffers for droppping into terminal windows and so on to accomplish through a emacs (say) type editing workflow. Each of these little context switches add up.
Why is the circular menu so good, I find them pretty appalling even to control things which are traditionally "circular variables". Take for example pan pots on cubase. Controlling these with the mouse is a royal PITA (linking them to hardware pots is another story of course)
Now I can see from the background you provided that busy interfaces aren't going to appeal to you since you like a minimal aesthetic but this isn't necesarily going to apply to all markets, and I think these days the proportion of feature utilisation of something like word is actually a lot higher these days since people are expected to produce much more carefully formatted documents in a flexible number of formats.
Not a linux fan then?
I see so many people saying oh well artists dont need the labels and as the parent points out this is just rubbish. artists require the distribution channels and assets. Furthermore the distribution channels sewn up by the majors aren't even just cd's in HMV or virgin. The majority of radio stations and all tv stations just won't play material from smaller label players, with streaming radio facing huge broadcasting fees this is likely to continue to spread into the online world as well.
We will almost certainly see further dirty tactics from the industry heavyweights, for example by denying the use of the music they have licence to on stations which promote small talent making it impossible for these stations to compete in anything but niche spaces.
Me too Im holding out for a clippy alternative at which point I will move over and then bitch about how stupid it is loudly.