Wow. Your 'facts' regarding the nextgen Xbox are stunning. Rumors have been spreading about the lack of a harddrive in the Xbox2, but these rumors have about as much basis as the tech documents floating around that detail the Xbox2's hardware. Considering MS's tight-lipped stance on the Xbox2, making assumptions about hardware at this point are just that: assumptions. Even if a harddrive isn't included, I'd be surprised if MS didn't offer an aftermarket harddrive for it, meaning it would be entirely possible for the end user to supply their own drive.
A lack of backwards compatibility would be terribly unfortunate, and Microsoft is not dumb. If it is offered on the Xbox2, all of the old Xbox games will be marketable, and the Xbox2 will come onto the market with an existing library of games. Considering the PC-like hardware and software on the Xbox (P3 processor, standard DVD and hard drives, Windows 2000 kernel), it'd be fair to assume the Xbox2 would follow a similar design (some reports say multiple PowerPC G5 cores and an ATI graphics chipset). This would be very good news for compatibility issues, because it would allow the Xbox2 to run Xbox games without an additional processor (like the PlayStation2 and GameBoy Advance do).
Though rumors point to a lack of harddrive and backwards compatibility, one article reporting this provided some insight:
"Bear in mind that at this point in the lifespan of the original Xbox, almost none of the specifications as announced made it into the final product unchanged."
I'd just be careful when attributing speculation about the nextgen systems to absolute fact, especially given the amount of time before they actually come out.
A lot of the early Xboxes had problems with their DVD drives; two of my friends with 1.0 Xboxes had to send theirs to MS for a drive replacement (free, thankfully), but the newer ones (I have a 1.5 Xbox) shipped with different drives that did not have this problem.
In terms of hardware, the Xbox has obvious superiority over the other consoles of its generation. By turning a console system into an actual processing machine, Microsoft began to bridge the gap between consoles and PCs with the Xbox. Its value over the PlayStation (more powerful processor, internal harddrive) may very well represent the direction Microsoft will go with Xbox2, a console that could rise above the PS3.
As far as games go, both systems have very good exclusive titles. The newer Final Fantasy games on the PS and Halo on the Xbox come to mind immediately. Project Gotham Racing 2, an Xbox-only title, is easily the best racing game made. It captures the excitement of the Need For Speed series in a realistic fashion that the Gran Turismo games attempts but ultimately fall short.
Besides Halo 2, Doom 3 will most likely be released on only the PC and Xbox (with good reason; it's the only current console with enough horsepower). As far as FPS games go, Halo 2, Doom 3, and Half-Life 2 are the biggest names right now. Two out of three will be available on the Xbox, none on the PlayStation.
\
While I'm a PC gamer at heart, my Xbox takes precedence over any other system in my living room.
Most people tend to look at their home computer as an appliance; buy it and it should work just fine for a few years. Unlike cars where some upkeep is generally assumed, the average person does not see a computer in the same way.
Unlike an appliance, however, people don't often know when their computer is in need of 'repairs.' While a stove or a fridge often will either work or won't, there are varying levels of performance of a computer.
Computers *should* be treated more like cars. Running antivirus programs and keeping your machine up to date are as important as checking the fluid levels in your car. If only Joe Shmoe knew that too.
That Major was also convicted of cheating to win said million pounds. He also, interestingly enough, was convicted of fraud in an unrelated case that stems from his actions taking place slightly before the Millionaire scandal.
He's now hundreds of thousands of pounds in debt. Sucks to be him, I guess.
Best Buy was having one of their holiday sales and my dad and I went up there to buy a printer (free after rebate). Before we were able to leave the area we picked it up and go pay for it, my dad was told he *needed* a special USB cable for it to work. I knew full well that we had a few at home, one even from a similar printer, so I told the associate we wouldn't need one. At first he was a little surprised I was talking (my dad was holding the printer, and I guess I'm too young to sell things to at 20 years old. hmm) and then he said he'd hate to see us have to come back to the store after finding out our cables at home wouldn't work. I said "Hey, I'll tell you what. If I need that to drive back up to buy the cable, I'll admit to you that I was wrong and let you call me stupid." I felt a little bad because it was sarcastic and was probably a dick thing to say, but he shut up about the cable and let us leave. Sure enough, we were able to use one at home just fine.
You definitely make an interesting statement, but I'd be surprised if it's Microsoft behind this. I wouldn't really call Apple an enemy of theirs; there *is* MS software available on Mac OSs, and Apple and Microsoft don't really compete in the same arenas (primarily because Apple does not yet market a PC operating system).
Heh, because it's basically just you and me left, I'll see if we can come to a quick consensus. That, and it's been a long day. If I have to declare another datatable anytime in the next week, I'm probably going to kill someone.
What you have:
+ extensive full-time work experience
+ limited college experience, but enough to formulate a sound opinion
What I have:
+ extensive college experience
+ limited full and part-time work experience, but enough to formulate a sound opinion
We both have a fair amount of technical knowledge, I'd assume, and have taken the opposite sides on the academic/real world argument. So far neither of us have been able to convince the other of his stance.
If the degreed people you've met have inflated the value of their education to something absurd, then I feel for you. That's the sort of unfounded elitist attitude that basically makes up a fair bit of the asshole population. Though I value my education and the educations of others, I'd hate to see myself or anyone I know turn into that.
Oh, sorry for the "faulty or nonexistent evidence" comment. I wasn't referring to your work experience anyway, but I probably shouldn't have said it at all.
I live in Duluth, MN, somewhere else that gets quite a bit of snow, so I really know what you mean. Family friends of ours in Texas say that the main reason schools and businesses close with so little snow is because they don't have the ability to deal with snow like we do up here. If it snows practically at *all* in Duluth (it's probably the same where you live), plows come out and salt/sand/plow some of the busier streets as early as 3 or 4 am. Towns that don't normally have snow probably don't have access to machinery like that.
Still think those people down south complain about snow too much:P
I have attended school for a total of three semesters at two community college's [sic].
I have no desire to demean anyone that has attended a community or technical college, but I will point out there are very real reasons why they offer two year programs for far less money than a four year university. Their degrees are less comprehensive and rarely offer study in the area of engineering.
[I] have done some serious research on a few of the online offering's [sic] (UofPheonix, Berkley) and found them seriously lacking in the "reality" department.
What kind of research have you done? Have you emailed professors and school officials? Have you previewed course materials? At any rate, a standard employer would have difficulty placing any amount of respect on an online-only degree. Ask around.
I have also been involved (on some level, not always as a student) with two other universities in the area (RIT and U of R).
I once ushered during a music concert at a college in my hometown, but that sort of involvement doesn't really apply.
In all honesty, how involved were you? You say "not always as a student," alluding to the statement that you were indeed a student some of the time. Considering your stance on this matter, it's a little surprising you didn't bring up before that you've been a student of RIT and U of R (Rochester, am I right?). If you were not enrolled, how exactly does 'being involved' help your credibility?
The two people who are the best at doing what we do do not have degree's [sic] (Not including myself.). This has Generally [sic] echo'd [sic] with all of our clients (AOL, Allstate, TimeWarner, Chase etc etc).
Unless the degreed employees are notably worse at their job than the non-degreed ones, you don't have much of an argument. The people that went to college obviously got more use out of a higher education than your two best people would have. I've never said "a college degree makes you the best and brightest." Hardly; it can make you better and foster intellect in a way not possible in a standard day job, but it isn't something magical like you seem to be skeptical of.
No one I know has had any difficulty in attaining a degree in computers. However obviously there are schools out there that are beyond what most grads can handle (or what most non-grads could handle) like MIT.
There is a huge spectrum from 'not difficult' to 'impossible.' If the previous example you gave with your co-workers is any indication, you don't seem to be the best at gathering sample sets. However, let's assume these people are the norm. What institutions did they go to? What degree programs were they in (example: I'd have an easier time with a CS degree than I would with an ECE degree, primarily because my geekiness and work history have been closer to software than hardware)?
Never actually looked into what the average employer does as far as research into grades and schools. I can guarantee [sic] its [sic] not as in-depth as you think.
Since you've relinquished any sort of credibility on this subject, I'll assure that it's quite a bit more in-depth than you think. Having been involved in a few hirings (not just my own:-P) at our company, two degreed applicants were turned down because of their sub-par grades. The one that got the job has been one of those straight-A 4.0 students all his life, something that ended up being terribly important.
I know several people who work for a major Linux company who lied their asses off on their resume's [sic] and got jobs paying very large amounts of money. They kept their jobs because it is very very difficult to fire someone where they are located, and because they can bullshit their way out of almost anything. We
Name one reputable educational institution where it's easy to get an IT degree. Oh, and what college did you go to that was so easy?
Sure, lots of people can get through relatively easily with mediocre grades, but a 2.0 GPA won't get someone a whole lot of job offers. Actually, anything less than 3.5 and you're terribly lucky if you graduate with an engineering degree.
It's disheartening to see your arguments boil down to a simple assumption you've made about something you know nothing about. I was kinda enjoying this up until now.
I'm getting a little confused as to what your stance is. If it bothers you that so many people have flooded the IT industry because of money, you should encourage people going to college. People who aren't interested can get weeded out without having to affect the market out there. Doing work with little immediate payoff (and, indeed, having to pay to do that work) is a good incentive to quit something that you don't like. However, if someone goes into a well-paying tech job out of high school, they may be inclined to stay there despite not being terribly adept at it.
Things I have gotten from Working [sic] since I was 18:
...Several awards from my employer.
Funny you'd use that as a benefit to working (vs. going to school) when it "is shit that some people need to validate themselves and feel accomplished." Oh, wait, you did just that.
It is one of the few things I can thank the.com bust for.
The companies that failed during the dotcom bust did so because they had no real revenue, something that wild-eyed entrepreneurs failed to see as a problem. Look at the companies that survived (and prospered) and compare them to the ones that floundered. Ebay, Google, and Yahoo did not employ individuals above and beyond every other company (there were many bright individuals who worked for failed dotcomers). They emerged because they've all had a sound business sense and made more money than they spent.
If you had a little less regard for a glorified piece of paper then I might take you a little more seriously.
Respect begets respect, my friend. I have a profound admiration for those who are successful in your situation, but the way you ridicule those who chose a different path is disturbing.
I have a high regard for what that piece of paper represents, not the physical object itself. I would assume you feel the same way about awards received from your employers.
Cause [sic] last time I checked most employers didn't exactly have a complete reference to [sic] how good each school is at teaching each discipline/course/field.
No, but they have a pretty good idea of what institutions are credible.
A Degree doesn't mean shite [sic]. How does U of Phoenix compare to a community college, how does a state school compare to private, large to small etc. Not all learning experiences or institutions are created equal.
You're absolutely right; that's why employers can (and do) place more importance on degrees from some schools than they do on degrees from others. The quality isn't just institution specific either; majoring in underwater basket weaving probably won't have as much gusto as an engineering degree.
Work is not like school, you cant [sic] put something off until the last minute, or try to maneuver yourself out of job requirement X because you kick ass at Y. Most employers (because they pay you) don't let things slide.
Procrastination may work in high school, but it rarely does as you go through college (especially if you hope to do well). Also, I've never had a professor or TA that just "let things slide." For people with circumstances beyond their control exceptions can be made... something a good employer would do as well.
You are going to do your job no matter what or your [sic] gone, no neat and fancy research project to replace a course etc... And you don't get to select what you want to do.
If you don't do your job in school, you fail. You may get more chances to stay in school, but it can be very difficult to get your GPA back up after slacking off. Also, very few of my courses have been electives; most are required by my major. Sure, I get to choose at what times I get to take them, but I also get to decide when I get to work on certain projects for work.
If you think college is a drudge compared to real life work, just wait until you endure 5 years of cube hell without any major breaks.
Neither is easy, and I know that the real world is just that: real. However, college is not a replacement; you still must enter the world after graduating.
College at most (for the average student) is 9 months out of the year with some major vacations in the mix as well. Work ? Try to tell your boss you want to work ~9 months per year, see how well that goes over.
It's September through May every year at a minimum for average students, and is year round for the many people that take summer courses. Factor in a part-time job, and you've got work weeks of 40 - 50 hours, plus time for studying and homework. Oh, and I'm assuming you get paid at your job year round, something that no student gets for their schooling.
The only jobs I have ever heard of that have "assignments" are clerical positions and grunt work.
I'd call development projects the equivalent of assignments. It's just a term.
Most jobs I have dealt with/had/heard of don't have someone hovering over you, no grades, no parents, usually not to much of a boss either. Its [sic] assumed you know what your supposed to be doing and are doing it, most employers don't want to run romper-room or pay management to babysit.
You're describing college almost perfectly; my professors, peers, and parents do not fawn over me to make sure I do work. In fact, most professors don't care if you slack off; try finding a boss with that same attitude. People with little or no work ethic in college are the ones that have a difficult time.
Some people walk out of college knowing enough to handle an average computer job. However its [sic] becoming increasingly uncommon to see this...
And just who gets to define "proper" english [sic]?
And who, exactly, defines what being respectful or polite is? I'd say it's definitely an aspect of the society you're in. It does change, as you alluded to, but the comments people are making show that your writing doesn't reflect what most people deem as proper English.
Last time I checked most schools didn't offer a wide variety of classes dealing with real world situations or software, rather they cater to.com types who need to use WYSIWYG tools for admining a server or developing a program.
In the years of CS and ECE courses I've taken, I have never yet used WYSIWYG editors (hell, most of us don't even use IDEs). I'd like to know what college courses you're referring to and how much time you spent in each one to be able to generalize their material so well.
Getting a degree requires work for sure, however so does building a house. Not exactly the same TYPE of work is it?
You're exactly right! However, programming in an academic environment is a lot closer to real world programming than construction is (I've done all three, by the way). Besides, I was talking about work ethic; people who work hard in school won't necessarily know everything when they go out in the real world, but they'll be more inclined to work hard than a lot of other people.
In most work places there are not enough people to babysit the new guy or to explain things with great detail like a teacher.
You're right and wrong here, IMHO. While it's certainly not worth a company to babysit someone, as you said, many times the new person has more difficulty adjusting to the new work environment than they do to the 'real world.' Let's say you had been using C++ at your last job and I was using C++ in my last course. We were then hired by the same firm to program in Java. We would both have to adjust to a new language, new people, a new place to work.
A ton of college grads I have dealt with and trained were completely lost in this respect.
...and I'm sure you know exactly what was going on your first day of work, didn't you? Education or not, the first day on a job is still the first day.
When the hell did I say anything about a high school job?
Heh, that was a little twisting of your words for my benefit. I was referring to your comment that you had been working since you were 18 (an age where many people are still in school). I'd consider a 'high school job' one that you could easily get without a GED or high school diploma.
I suppose if I was writing a term paper I might give a damn.
Being a computer engineering major, I haven't had to write many papers at all. In fact, most of the writing I do is job related: project proposals, e-mail correspondence to my co-workers and clients, and memos that are read by my bosses. I'm expected to be professional when I write; instead of losing grading points like in school, my credibility suffers when I'm not able to converse well (something that I think you'd agree is a bit more important).
I have quite a bit of respect for those who go out into the world and succeed without a college degree (or any college at all). It just bothers me when others claim that I'm wasting my time and money on college. If you had a little more respect for higher education, I'd be more inclined take your opinion seriously.
College can more useful in opening doors than it is as a tome of information. As you said, you may have learned quite a bit from your on the job training, are in contact with numerous people in your field, and do not suffer the financial hardships of a recent college graduate. Unfortunately you may have a hard time competing with those who have a higher education background, especially if they've worked while going to school (like many of us do).
[A potential employer does not] have to worry about weather [sic] I can actually do the work.
Graduating from college with very good grades requires a lot of work, something any employer knows. If an applicant finishes with a 4.0 GPA, it can be safely assumed that they can "actually do the work."
What you say is a little alarming; your assumption that college is entirely worthless when compared to a high school job is entirely unfounded.
Oh, and before you apply anywhere in the future, work on that spelling and grammar;)
A professional mechanic and two others who have worked for years in a body shop agree that for all practical purposes the metric system is easier to use, more intuitive, and ultimately more helpful in their work. The mechanic (a family friend of ours) said lots of people in his field are skeptical of the metric system simply because they were brought up using only the imperial system, but many that are 'forced' to use base 10 give a begrudging respect for it. He mentioned that working with imperial-based measurements on some vehicles and projects is a pain, but unfortunately a necessary evil.
As far as practical applications go, I'd see what these three guys do as pretty applicable.
I personally just don't like the metric system.. to me, it represents a startling problem with society; people are getting so dumb that they can't even divide things in their head by a base other than 10.
You'd denounce a system that is easier to use (mathematically, at least) and more logical simply because you're stubborn? What about the thousands upon thousands of advances in the technical realm that are commonplace now because it makes life easier? Sure, computers can now be easily used by 'morons,' starting out only as neat tools for geeks... but the same ease of use that brings technology to the masses can even be beneficial to those of us that are very technically inclined.
With regards to computers, try going with binary instead of base-10 from now on. It *is* the natural base of the machines you'd be using, and I'm sure you can handle dividing by base-2 just fine;)
there have been a lot of people exploring options for cheap reuseable orbital flight with no results
I think you're confusing the usage of "cheap" and "cheaper" as interchangeable in this context. I'm arguing that individuals approaching space travel from a business stance will be able to do what our government has done using far less resources; it's still, however, quite a bit of money.
No major space program has ever had a reason to compete
In a monetary sense, you're exactly right. Unlike a corporation, NASA's end goals have always been achievement-driven, not money oriented. As long as they're still funded by our government, they'll have little concern for cost. Private commercial ventures, however, have a profit in mind; they can't afford to spend excessively if they wish to make a profit. Science and technology aside, any private venture (if it is to be successful) will be more efficient in its spending than NASA has been.
Also, I disagree with the assumption that future orbital flights will be substantially cheaper just because launches with Spaceship One were cheaper.
What's wrong with that assumption? Considering the amount of time and effort that went into the project (and the fact that it was fruitful) is reason enough to say that it is very possible for something like this to be done without an infinite bankroll.
It seems like much of your argument hinges on the belief that space travel has been possible only through vast expenditures only possible by a government. It may be costly, yes, but the only reason why it hadn't been touched by the private sector until now is because a market for space travel is just starting to exist. In the past, space has been explored in the name of science and the occasional national bragging right (read: The Moon Race). As soon as a demand for commercial space travel begins to increase, it will become lucrative and very interesting to the business-minded.
And yes, I realize you're just creatively ignoring the context of my post so you can make a smartass comment.
You should've been more specific in your original post when saying that "orbital flight becomes a much thornier problem that almost certainly won't be solved in a decade." As the Apollo post alluded to, the technology and science behind orbital flight has already be researched and implemented, thereby greatly lowing any potential costs.
I also think you misconstrued or misunderstood what the parent said about private firms paying millions compared to government billions. They made a sound assumption that based on the costs associated with this first flight, one could feasibly expect subsequent private ventures to be vastly cheaper than projects undertaken by our government.
Slashdot Mirror
Try lifting one.
Wow. Your 'facts' regarding the nextgen Xbox are stunning. Rumors have been spreading about the lack of a harddrive in the Xbox2, but these rumors have about as much basis as the tech documents floating around that detail the Xbox2's hardware. Considering MS's tight-lipped stance on the Xbox2, making assumptions about hardware at this point are just that: assumptions. Even if a harddrive isn't included, I'd be surprised if MS didn't offer an aftermarket harddrive for it, meaning it would be entirely possible for the end user to supply their own drive.
A lack of backwards compatibility would be terribly unfortunate, and Microsoft is not dumb. If it is offered on the Xbox2, all of the old Xbox games will be marketable, and the Xbox2 will come onto the market with an existing library of games. Considering the PC-like hardware and software on the Xbox (P3 processor, standard DVD and hard drives, Windows 2000 kernel), it'd be fair to assume the Xbox2 would follow a similar design (some reports say multiple PowerPC G5 cores and an ATI graphics chipset). This would be very good news for compatibility issues, because it would allow the Xbox2 to run Xbox games without an additional processor (like the PlayStation2 and GameBoy Advance do).
Though rumors point to a lack of harddrive and backwards compatibility, one article reporting this provided some insight:
I'd just be careful when attributing speculation about the nextgen systems to absolute fact, especially given the amount of time before they actually come out.
A lot of the early Xboxes had problems with their DVD drives; two of my friends with 1.0 Xboxes had to send theirs to MS for a drive replacement (free, thankfully), but the newer ones (I have a 1.5 Xbox) shipped with different drives that did not have this problem.
In terms of hardware, the Xbox has obvious superiority over the other consoles of its generation. By turning a console system into an actual processing machine, Microsoft began to bridge the gap between consoles and PCs with the Xbox. Its value over the PlayStation (more powerful processor, internal harddrive) may very well represent the direction Microsoft will go with Xbox2, a console that could rise above the PS3.
As far as games go, both systems have very good exclusive titles. The newer Final Fantasy games on the PS and Halo on the Xbox come to mind immediately. Project Gotham Racing 2, an Xbox-only title, is easily the best racing game made. It captures the excitement of the Need For Speed series in a realistic fashion that the Gran Turismo games attempts but ultimately fall short.
Besides Halo 2, Doom 3 will most likely be released on only the PC and Xbox (with good reason; it's the only current console with enough horsepower). As far as FPS games go, Halo 2, Doom 3, and Half-Life 2 are the biggest names right now. Two out of three will be available on the Xbox, none on the PlayStation.
\While I'm a PC gamer at heart, my Xbox takes precedence over any other system in my living room.
Most people tend to look at their home computer as an appliance; buy it and it should work just fine for a few years. Unlike cars where some upkeep is generally assumed, the average person does not see a computer in the same way.
Unlike an appliance, however, people don't often know when their computer is in need of 'repairs.' While a stove or a fridge often will either work or won't, there are varying levels of performance of a computer.
Computers *should* be treated more like cars. Running antivirus programs and keeping your machine up to date are as important as checking the fluid levels in your car. If only Joe Shmoe knew that too.
That Major was also convicted of cheating to win said million pounds. He also, interestingly enough, was convicted of fraud in an unrelated case that stems from his actions taking place slightly before the Millionaire scandal.
He's now hundreds of thousands of pounds in debt. Sucks to be him, I guess.
Best Buy was having one of their holiday sales and my dad and I went up there to buy a printer (free after rebate). Before we were able to leave the area we picked it up and go pay for it, my dad was told he *needed* a special USB cable for it to work. I knew full well that we had a few at home, one even from a similar printer, so I told the associate we wouldn't need one. At first he was a little surprised I was talking (my dad was holding the printer, and I guess I'm too young to sell things to at 20 years old. hmm) and then he said he'd hate to see us have to come back to the store after finding out our cables at home wouldn't work. I said "Hey, I'll tell you what. If I need that to drive back up to buy the cable, I'll admit to you that I was wrong and let you call me stupid." I felt a little bad because it was sarcastic and was probably a dick thing to say, but he shut up about the cable and let us leave. Sure enough, we were able to use one at home just fine.
You definitely make an interesting statement, but I'd be surprised if it's Microsoft behind this. I wouldn't really call Apple an enemy of theirs; there *is* MS software available on Mac OSs, and Apple and Microsoft don't really compete in the same arenas (primarily because Apple does not yet market a PC operating system).
Also, considering Dell's positive disposition toward Linux, I'd say that Microsoft is more unhappy with Dell than Apple at the moment.
OTOH, I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to play *all* sides of the market to further their means.
Heh, because it's basically just you and me left, I'll see if we can come to a quick consensus. That, and it's been a long day. If I have to declare another datatable anytime in the next week, I'm probably going to kill someone.
What you have:
+ extensive full-time work experience
+ limited college experience, but enough to formulate a sound opinion
What I have:
+ extensive college experience
+ limited full and part-time work experience, but enough to formulate a sound opinion
We both have a fair amount of technical knowledge, I'd assume, and have taken the opposite sides on the academic/real world argument. So far neither of us have been able to convince the other of his stance.
If the degreed people you've met have inflated the value of their education to something absurd, then I feel for you. That's the sort of unfounded elitist attitude that basically makes up a fair bit of the asshole population. Though I value my education and the educations of others, I'd hate to see myself or anyone I know turn into that.
Oh, sorry for the "faulty or nonexistent evidence" comment. I wasn't referring to your work experience anyway, but I probably shouldn't have said it at all.
I live in Duluth, MN, somewhere else that gets quite a bit of snow, so I really know what you mean. Family friends of ours in Texas say that the main reason schools and businesses close with so little snow is because they don't have the ability to deal with snow like we do up here. If it snows practically at *all* in Duluth (it's probably the same where you live), plows come out and salt/sand/plow some of the busier streets as early as 3 or 4 am. Towns that don't normally have snow probably don't have access to machinery like that.
Still think those people down south complain about snow too much :P
I have no desire to demean anyone that has attended a community or technical college, but I will point out there are very real reasons why they offer two year programs for far less money than a four year university. Their degrees are less comprehensive and rarely offer study in the area of engineering.
What kind of research have you done? Have you emailed professors and school officials? Have you previewed course materials? At any rate, a standard employer would have difficulty placing any amount of respect on an online-only degree. Ask around.
I once ushered during a music concert at a college in my hometown, but that sort of involvement doesn't really apply.
In all honesty, how involved were you? You say "not always as a student," alluding to the statement that you were indeed a student some of the time. Considering your stance on this matter, it's a little surprising you didn't bring up before that you've been a student of RIT and U of R (Rochester, am I right?). If you were not enrolled, how exactly does 'being involved' help your credibility?
Unless the degreed employees are notably worse at their job than the non-degreed ones, you don't have much of an argument. The people that went to college obviously got more use out of a higher education than your two best people would have. I've never said "a college degree makes you the best and brightest." Hardly; it can make you better and foster intellect in a way not possible in a standard day job, but it isn't something magical like you seem to be skeptical of.
There is a huge spectrum from 'not difficult' to 'impossible.' If the previous example you gave with your co-workers is any indication, you don't seem to be the best at gathering sample sets. However, let's assume these people are the norm. What institutions did they go to? What degree programs were they in (example: I'd have an easier time with a CS degree than I would with an ECE degree, primarily because my geekiness and work history have been closer to software than hardware)?
Since you've relinquished any sort of credibility on this subject, I'll assure that it's quite a bit more in-depth than you think. Having been involved in a few hirings (not just my own :-P) at our company, two degreed applicants were turned down because of their sub-par grades. The one that got the job has been one of those straight-A 4.0 students all his life, something that ended up being terribly important.
Name one reputable educational institution where it's easy to get an IT degree. Oh, and what college did you go to that was so easy?
Sure, lots of people can get through relatively easily with mediocre grades, but a 2.0 GPA won't get someone a whole lot of job offers. Actually, anything less than 3.5 and you're terribly lucky if you graduate with an engineering degree.
It's disheartening to see your arguments boil down to a simple assumption you've made about something you know nothing about. I was kinda enjoying this up until now.
I'm getting a little confused as to what your stance is. If it bothers you that so many people have flooded the IT industry because of money, you should encourage people going to college. People who aren't interested can get weeded out without having to affect the market out there. Doing work with little immediate payoff (and, indeed, having to pay to do that work) is a good incentive to quit something that you don't like. However, if someone goes into a well-paying tech job out of high school, they may be inclined to stay there despite not being terribly adept at it.
Funny you'd use that as a benefit to working (vs. going to school) when it "is shit that some people need to validate themselves and feel accomplished." Oh, wait, you did just that.
The companies that failed during the dotcom bust did so because they had no real revenue, something that wild-eyed entrepreneurs failed to see as a problem. Look at the companies that survived (and prospered) and compare them to the ones that floundered. Ebay, Google, and Yahoo did not employ individuals above and beyond every other company (there were many bright individuals who worked for failed dotcomers). They emerged because they've all had a sound business sense and made more money than they spent.
Respect begets respect, my friend. I have a profound admiration for those who are successful in your situation, but the way you ridicule those who chose a different path is disturbing.
I have a high regard for what that piece of paper represents, not the physical object itself. I would assume you feel the same way about awards received from your employers.
No, but they have a pretty good idea of what institutions are credible.
You're absolutely right; that's why employers can (and do) place more importance on degrees from some schools than they do on degrees from others. The quality isn't just institution specific either; majoring in underwater basket weaving probably won't have as much gusto as an engineering degree.
Procrastination may work in high school, but it rarely does as you go through college (especially if you hope to do well). Also, I've never had a professor or TA that just "let things slide." For people with circumstances beyond their control exceptions can be made... something a good employer would do as well.
If you don't do your job in school, you fail. You may get more chances to stay in school, but it can be very difficult to get your GPA back up after slacking off. Also, very few of my courses have been electives; most are required by my major. Sure, I get to choose at what times I get to take them, but I also get to decide when I get to work on certain projects for work.
Neither is easy, and I know that the real world is just that: real. However, college is not a replacement; you still must enter the world after graduating.
It's September through May every year at a minimum for average students, and is year round for the many people that take summer courses. Factor in a part-time job, and you've got work weeks of 40 - 50 hours, plus time for studying and homework. Oh, and I'm assuming you get paid at your job year round, something that no student gets for their schooling.
I'd call development projects the equivalent of assignments. It's just a term.
You're describing college almost perfectly; my professors, peers, and parents do not fawn over me to make sure I do work. In fact, most professors don't care if you slack off; try finding a boss with that same attitude. People with little or no work ethic in college are the ones that have a difficult time.
And who, exactly, defines what being respectful or polite is? I'd say it's definitely an aspect of the society you're in. It does change, as you alluded to, but the comments people are making show that your writing doesn't reflect what most people deem as proper English.
In the years of CS and ECE courses I've taken, I have never yet used WYSIWYG editors (hell, most of us don't even use IDEs). I'd like to know what college courses you're referring to and how much time you spent in each one to be able to generalize their material so well.
You're exactly right! However, programming in an academic environment is a lot closer to real world programming than construction is (I've done all three, by the way). Besides, I was talking about work ethic; people who work hard in school won't necessarily know everything when they go out in the real world, but they'll be more inclined to work hard than a lot of other people.
You're right and wrong here, IMHO. While it's certainly not worth a company to babysit someone, as you said, many times the new person has more difficulty adjusting to the new work environment than they do to the 'real world.' Let's say you had been using C++ at your last job and I was using C++ in my last course. We were then hired by the same firm to program in Java. We would both have to adjust to a new language, new people, a new place to work.
...and I'm sure you know exactly what was going on your first day of work, didn't you? Education or not, the first day on a job is still the first day.
Heh, that was a little twisting of your words for my benefit. I was referring to your comment that you had been working since you were 18 (an age where many people are still in school). I'd consider a 'high school job' one that you could easily get without a GED or high school diploma.
Being a computer engineering major, I haven't had to write many papers at all. In fact, most of the writing I do is job related: project proposals, e-mail correspondence to my co-workers and clients, and memos that are read by my bosses. I'm expected to be professional when I write; instead of losing grading points like in school, my credibility suffers when I'm not able to converse well (something that I think you'd agree is a bit more important).
I have quite a bit of respect for those who go out into the world and succeed without a college degree (or any college at all). It just bothers me when others claim that I'm wasting my time and money on college. If you had a little more respect for higher education, I'd be more inclined take your opinion seriously.
^be
:-P
College can more useful in opening doors than it is as a tome of information. As you said, you may have learned quite a bit from your on the job training, are in contact with numerous people in your field, and do not suffer the financial hardships of a recent college graduate. Unfortunately you may have a hard time competing with those who have a higher education background, especially if they've worked while going to school (like many of us do).
Graduating from college with very good grades requires a lot of work, something any employer knows. If an applicant finishes with a 4.0 GPA, it can be safely assumed that they can "actually do the work."
What you say is a little alarming; your assumption that college is entirely worthless when compared to a high school job is entirely unfounded.
Oh, and before you apply anywhere in the future, work on that spelling and grammar ;)
A professional mechanic and two others who have worked for years in a body shop agree that for all practical purposes the metric system is easier to use, more intuitive, and ultimately more helpful in their work. The mechanic (a family friend of ours) said lots of people in his field are skeptical of the metric system simply because they were brought up using only the imperial system, but many that are 'forced' to use base 10 give a begrudging respect for it. He mentioned that working with imperial-based measurements on some vehicles and projects is a pain, but unfortunately a necessary evil.
As far as practical applications go, I'd see what these three guys do as pretty applicable.
You'd denounce a system that is easier to use (mathematically, at least) and more logical simply because you're stubborn? What about the thousands upon thousands of advances in the technical realm that are commonplace now because it makes life easier? Sure, computers can now be easily used by 'morons,' starting out only as neat tools for geeks... but the same ease of use that brings technology to the masses can even be beneficial to those of us that are very technically inclined.
With regards to computers, try going with binary instead of base-10 from now on. It *is* the natural base of the machines you'd be using, and I'm sure you can handle dividing by base-2 just fine ;)
I think you're confusing the usage of "cheap" and "cheaper" as interchangeable in this context. I'm arguing that individuals approaching space travel from a business stance will be able to do what our government has done using far less resources; it's still, however, quite a bit of money.
In a monetary sense, you're exactly right. Unlike a corporation, NASA's end goals have always been achievement-driven, not money oriented. As long as they're still funded by our government, they'll have little concern for cost. Private commercial ventures, however, have a profit in mind; they can't afford to spend excessively if they wish to make a profit. Science and technology aside, any private venture (if it is to be successful) will be more efficient in its spending than NASA has been.
What's wrong with that assumption? Considering the amount of time and effort that went into the project (and the fact that it was fruitful) is reason enough to say that it is very possible for something like this to be done without an infinite bankroll.
It seems like much of your argument hinges on the belief that space travel has been possible only through vast expenditures only possible by a government. It may be costly, yes, but the only reason why it hadn't been touched by the private sector until now is because a market for space travel is just starting to exist. In the past, space has been explored in the name of science and the occasional national bragging right (read: The Moon Race). As soon as a demand for commercial space travel begins to increase, it will become lucrative and very interesting to the business-minded.
You should've been more specific in your original post when saying that "orbital flight becomes a much thornier problem that almost certainly won't be solved in a decade." As the Apollo post alluded to, the technology and science behind orbital flight has already be researched and implemented, thereby greatly lowing any potential costs.
I also think you misconstrued or misunderstood what the parent said about private firms paying millions compared to government billions. They made a sound assumption that based on the costs associated with this first flight, one could feasibly expect subsequent private ventures to be vastly cheaper than projects undertaken by our government.