My guess is they were too busy trying to figure out how they could invade Iraq to care about real dangers to the country. How ironic that it worked out for them.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Having been in the military, going to the Navy Exchange (this is the equivalent of Px, just a store on base), you would get in line to find a frowning checkout clerk, basically you've inconvenienced them by coming to their register. That's just the tip of it, most of the administrative services run by civilians for the military are much, much worse. I called one (forget the name of it) regarding a movement of personal belongings to another state and her attitude was as if I were some kind of annoying telemarketer (and not the reason her highschool dropout butt had a job).
I can think of many examples, and there are probably many more I've forgotten. They are smart enough to perk up for officers though, I can say that for sure. One walks into the room and they're all professional. Looking back, it kind of disgusts me. I'm glad I got out when I did. But I digress, that's most government employees for ya. The bare minimum mantra.
You do have a point, but only two of the three examples you cited can be considered differing opinions.
Democrats vs. Republicans: two different ideologies.
Open Software vs. Proprietary: two different ideologies.
Evolution vs. Creationism: science vs. fantasy.
Of these three, that one doesn't belong on the list, as it's not a matter of opinion, but rather people who understand science, vs. people who either don't understand science or simply ignore it in favor of fiction that better suits their ideology.
However, I do agree with your point about how some people like to throw grenades and sit back and watch the fallout.
Looks like you got sucked in by a mere example of a grenade.
No, the disenfranchisement that happens now and will continue to happen is the same disenfranchisement and dirty tricks that always happens: the rise of the internet for the general population, particularly since the last pre-Bush presidential election, has enabled the kinds of incredible information exchange on all manner of topics that we've seen in the last two elections. That will only increase, and it cuts both ways: as much as it allows the exchange of legitimate information, it acts as a breeding ground for conspiracy theories, some wacky, some not-so-wacky, some with elements of truth, but still serving to subvert any faith we ever had in our system.
This seems to imply that there is no value in enforcing consistency in elections. I see much of this post to be simply "it's always been corrupt so why change it now."
Because we can. I find it strange that anyone would find fault in correcting problems with our electoral system.
Also, if this has "always" been happening, how come there hasn't been any research and/or major discussion of it until the close elections of 2000 and 2004? You can dismiss a lot as things as conspiracy theories, but you cannot dismiss statistics. Exit polls have historically never been wrong, until Ohio. And the differences were staggering. This is not proof of fraud, but it is in fact a completely unexplainable anomaly, and not a theory.
Eh, why is it always God's fault? Did they teach you about Satan? Pretty strange sect of Christianity without that. He presumably has dominion over the earth. Otherwise what would be the difference between Earth and Heaven? What power does God have over Satan? It's a complete mystery, but presumably enough to save us if we are willing. Just food for thought, not trying to convert you or whatever. You seem pretty set in your views.
I hear ya. If this becomes a big feeding frenzy by lawyers, I may just leave the country out of disgust. It seems people here are too easily swayed by pathos, and that is a lawyer's best weapon, rather than arguing from a stance of logic. It should be the opposite.
The Internet is a privilege, not a right. If it isn't, then people should get free internet service because it's annoying to see "cannot find server" when you havent paid your bill.
You might be surprised, but there are still a lot of people out there with their phone lines (and phones) configured for pulse-dialing/rotary instead of touch-tone. Unfortunately, speaking from personal experience, they make getting through a traditional digit-entry interface impossible.
Personally, I haven't had any real trouble using the voice interaction services that my cable company provides. I do try to call from a quiet spot though, and do tend to have to speak more clearly and loudly than I do to the service rep that I eventually get.
I don't mean to sound jaded, but you're living in fantasy land here. I work for an internet service provider, and I can tell you that the reason they have switched to voice activation is not, in fact, to cater to the 0.00001% of the population that uses pulse. They have fed you the prime rib of BS stories.
You might have a point if they offered *both* touch tone menu ability and voice substitutions, for the purposes of adding versatility. However, this is largely not the case. The goal is to discourage customers from reaching their destination, customer support. Plain and simple. It is part of a trend towards cost saving. They don't have call center's in India because it adds versatility to your customers. They do it because it saves money.
I can say that, at a quarterly "low-guys-on-the-totem-pole speak to the big boss man" meeting, I addressed this issue. I asked what the reasoning is behind the voice system. He responded that according to surveys, 70% of the customers liked it. I mentally called BS, as every other customer I had complains bitterly about it and how it appears to be an intentional barrier to support.
My next question was, "since some people seem to have trouble with the voice system, why not add touch tone ability also as a fallback for them?" His response: "We have no plans to change the phone system at this time." QED. It is intended to drive away customers. I personally do not care, as this is just a college job for me. However, it makes me long for the days when companies tried to earn customer loyalty, and not just go with the herd for the lowest common denominator.
But do we need yet more government regulation? Aren't the sponsors of this bill saying that Google can't fend off this attack from Verizon/Bell/whoever, so Daddy Government has to step in and stop those mean ISPs from hurting poor Google? What tripe.
To me it seems like the Electricity company charging you extra to not get brownouts and blackouts. And when you don't pay the fee, you suddenly notice a ton more losses of power than you had before. It's almost extortion.
But do we need yet more government regulation? Aren't the sponsors of this bill saying that Google can't fend off this attack from Verizon/Bell/whoever, so Daddy Government has to step in and stop those mean ISPs from hurting poor Google? What tripe.
To me it seems like the Electricity company charging you extra to not get brownouts and blackouts. And when you don't pay the fee, you suddenly notice a ton more losses of power than you had before. It's almost extortion.
Why are ISPs in many other countries able to offer much better bandwidth for less than most of us in the US pay for 3Mbps/768Kbps?
Those other countries are smaller, and have much more dense infrastructure. Less travel time, less routing, newer communication lines. That's my guess.
Um dialup doesn't count. Hooray for you, you have multiple dialup providers.
You will not have multiple cable and DSL providers however. And maybe 1 crappy satellite provider.
So yeah when we say Internet providers, we don't mean dialup. Dialup is a slowboat *to* the Internet, not the same thing.
I think what he means is FOX news would have not covered this story, as it paints Republicans in a bad light. And thus, slashdot is not fair and balanced because they posted it.
Holy wall of text Batman. I'll post the readable version:
*scanning my post* WHAT religion? I didn't mention that I had one.
Man, I wish I would've checked my email sooner. Amazing that you ignore 90% of my post except the religion remark. But a lot of people would consider "meditating on people who have been killed by America" while eating "Ghandi's diet" somewhat of a spiritual thing. Unless you can show me scientific evidence of this accomplishing something, I'll call it a religious ceremony.
In any case, you don't have a religion? How novel. It reminds me of the people in the 1990s who "don't watch television." I guess this is supposed to imply pseudo-intellectual status. Not overly difficult to only believe in only what your 5 senses can detect, or to not watch TV, in my opinion.
Anyway, (since you doubtless notice by now that I have no problem expressing unpopular, controversial views!)
Cliche in 2005?
no, I don't believe in forgiveness, not in the sense that the Judeo-Christian, mono-theist, patriarchial faiths do.
Hurray for the atypical anti-western-civilization rant. Surely we've never seen this before. You were no doubt hoping someone would pop the lid off the subject so you could pretend it wasn't something you dwell on. I'm picturing someone in the 90s awkwardly starting a converation, "see anything on TV lately? Oh yeah? pshh, I don't watch TV...."
I *do* believe in atonement and restitution, where you follow up the admission that you did something wrong by doing your best to make things right again.
This idea is not unique to you, sorry. And the fact that it isn't answers your rant about how you *assume* over people view forgiveness.
And if your wrongdoing is so great that you *can't* make it better(i.e. whole races of people genocided cannot be brought back to life.), well, then, you SHOULD be damned! What else would damning exist for?
Yes but, was it one person who killed all those people, or was it an entire civilization? And do you damn an entire civilization? Perhaps. I could go either way here.
PS I do a similar bah humbug at Christmas in about a month; join me then. Once again, the wife and kids and folks can exchange all the gifts they please - I *insist* on not recieving presents, as I count my joys on the non-materialist spectrum (to put it simply, it's about what I do or what I learn or who I am - not about what I own!), and express disdain for the commercialization of the holiday, the historical pillaging of declaring a bogus holiday in the first place to overshadow the Wiccan Yule festival, yadda yadda yadda. It's tradition. I'm less of a pain in the ass on the other holidays, but that's an oversight - I'm working on it.
*scanning my post* WHAT religion? I didn't mention that I had one.
Man, I wish I would've checked my email sooner. Amazing that you ignore 90% of my post except the religion remark. But a lot of people would consider "meditating on people who have been killed by America" while eating "Ghandi's diet" somewhat of a spiritual thing. Unless you can show me scientific evidence of this accomplishing something, I'll call it a religious ceremony.
In any case, you don't have a religion? How novel. It reminds me of the people in the 1990s who "don't watch television." I guess this is supposed to imply pseudo-intellectual status. Not overly difficult to only believe in only what your 5 senses can detect, or to not watch TV, in my opinion.
Anyway, (since you doubtless notice by now that I have no problem expressing unpopular, controversial views!)
Isn't this cliche in 2005?
no, I don't believe in forgiveness, not in the sense that the Judeo-Christian, mono-theist, patriarchial faiths do.
Hurray for the atypical anti-western-civilization rant. Surely we've never seen this before. You were no doubt hoping someone would pop the lid off the subject so you could pretend it wasn't something you dwell on. I'm picturing someone in the 90s awkwardly starting a converation, "see anything on TV lately? Oh yeah? pshh, I don't watch TV, myself.."
I *do* believe in atonement and restitution, where you follow up the admission that you did something wrong by doing your best to make things right again.
This idea is not unique to you, sorry. And the fact that it isn't answers your rant about how you *assume* over people view forgiveness.
And if your wrongdoing is so great that you *can't* make it better(i.e. whole races of people genocided cannot be brought back to life.), well, then, you SHOULD be damned! What else would damning exist for?
Yes but, was it one person who killed all those people, or was it an entire civilization? And do you damn an entire civilization? Perhaps. I could go either way here.
PS I do a similar bah humbug at Christmas in about a month; join me then.
Once again, the wife and kids and folks can exchange all the gifts they please - I *insist* on not recieving presents, as I count my joys on the non-materialist spectrum (to put it simply, it's about what I do or what I learn or who I am - not about what I own!), and express disdain for the commercialization of the holiday, the historical pillaging of declaring a bogus holiday in the first place to overshadow the Wiccan Yule festival, yadda yadda yadda. It's tradition. I'm less of a pain in the ass on the other holidays, but that's an oversight - I'm working on it.
Sounds like fun. Work on the originality of your rants, though. These types of "radical thoughts" pass through everyone's mind at one point or another.
Pay no attention to the propaganda - or do what my family, social circle, and I did the first Thanksgiving after the beginning of the Iraq war: have a Ghandi Thanksgiving, in protest of the United States' global conquest. "Feast" on Ghandi's diet of rice, vegetables, goat's milk, and fruit. Spend the day in meditation and in remembrance of all the victims of the United States, be they the virtually genocided original American natives, the enslaved peoples imported to work and build the wealth the US currently wields as it's basis of power, or the various nations of the middle East currently being pirated under false pretenses.
I think you need to smoke some marijuana and chill out just a little bit. As Americans, we are well aware of the events that started this country. You are not telling us anything new. Yes, we pushed Indians out so we could move in. Though at that time we were actually Europeans:)
Doesn't your religion teach forgiveness? This is ancient history. Why dwell on negativity on a feast day of all things. Yes, American children are taught that thanksgiving involves European pilgrims (I might add) and the natives getting together for a feast, because the Indians helped the pilgrims survive by sharing resources and agricultural knowledge, doesn't sound too lopsided for that particular event. But yeah, there is a lot more to it and surely a lot of carnage when they began to compete for land.
I'll add that: In any country, the population there exists because they pushed out the previous occupants at one point in history.
I'll also add that no country is more self-analytical than America. Go to an American University. They do not sugarcoat anything. In fact, some americans consider Universities to be "anti american" because they are so blunt with the truth. As long as we are first to criticize ourselves, there is no need for your bitterness.
As for the middleeast, join the 65% of Americans who are dissatisfied with Bush. Yeah they reelected him, but that is the Democratic system at work. You convince enough little old ladies that the big bad terrorist is going to get them, and they will vote for you; turning a blind eye to just about any other issues. That is the flaw of Democracy, unfortunately. No body said it was perfect, just better than the alternatives.
That doesn't follow at all. When I see ants running around the back yard I sometimes like to confuse them and test their reactions
Even to ants you are not a "deity." You do not have the ability to create them, or to even eradicate them by yourself.
A deity is a higher level of abstraction than what you are describing. A deity would be something that allowed for the existence of the ants, not someone mindlessly screwing with them, someone bound by the same laws of physics and biology, as the ants themselves.
Ok you got me on a sentence contruction technicality, which doesn't take away from my point. There was a strong willed woman, princess Leia, and she was the main female character.
In the "new" series, there is also a main female character, Amidalia, but she is not very impressive in this respect. It seems to me that she could be more convincing on a WB sitcom.
Anakin, I won't even get started on that. I thought I was watching an after school special when I saw him crying about his mom dieing (ok I will get started but I won't finish).
As far as missing that she was impersonated, well I think I honestly fell asleep or zoned out halfway through the movie. Not that that's the movies fault, hm.. well maybe it was.. She's a cute girl, no doubt about that, but to me she wasn't very convincing as a character.
I'm not a very cynical person, I wanted those movies to be good. But they were just "ok."
by Myridon (719720) on Friday May 06, @02:38PM (#12457313)
Now our high school graduate applies for a job...
Can you use Excel?
No
Can you use Word?
No, Kedit
Can you use Windows?
No, Linux
Thanks, we'll get back to you (in a million years)...
More like:
Employer: "you don't know microsoft stuff, eh?"
Highschool grad: "Wasn't taught it specifically in schools, however I learned similar programs. I also learned universal computing concepts which means when something minor goes wrong with the computer I will be able to handle it without flopping and twitching and being at the mercy of tech support."
Yes, to me it looked like they tried to pick the actors to get the teeny bopper audience; i.e. they look like backstreet boys, especially Anakin.
But there was no essence, or strong character. Just what appeared to be rehearsed lines and a "where's my paycheck now" attitude.
I think that's the biggest disappointment, even over the unnecessary jar jar appearances. And the princess Amidalia, although "cute", did not have the personality for it IMO. She just sat their looking pretty. The star wars movies have typically had very strong willed women, such as princess Leia. And it was a disappointment to see a character fall far short of that.
Ironically, in one of the movies Amidalia (dont know if this is spelled correctly, and don't care) had one of her servants impersonate her. Honestly, I could not tell the difference between her and her servant, and I don't think that was intentional on their part. My wife had to explain to me that she was being impersonated, as I was having a hard time staying interested in the storyline as it was. That is not good.
I interact with many CS's and it appears that your CS program does a lot more math than our program; it sounds like you are actually in a good one.
Thank you for that. As humans, when things we like are being criticized, (or appear to be), we tend to get defensive. I'll admit to falling victim to that instinct. You seem to have a fairly balanced perspective, afterall.
As far as logic gates, I did not intend to suggest it was your field in a nutshell, I'm sure it is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg, as you have happily informed me. It is just the bit that I know of it, I do not particularly enjoy.
I am not a moron, nor do I think you are. I think at this point we are just trading rhetorical attacks based on misunderstandings. A common occurence on the interweb. No need to go any further.
And I don't hope to ever out-math a physicist, I was just having a reaction to being compared to tech support. No one likes pee in their cereal.
I went into CE because I taught myself all sorts of software in highschool, and I thought it would be a good idea to generalize
So did I, dude. In high school I read 1,000 page books on C programming. In no way did it prepare me for CS, or even come close. Computer Science is about solving real world problems, in realistic time constraints, with computers. It is not, as you are probably assuming, some kind of grind through various programming languages. I think you're confusing it for MIS (which is a business focus), if anything.
In fact, they tell us up front you aren't going to learn languages, you're going to learn techniques for solving problems, and proving them correct. This involves a trip through graph theory, number theory, set theory, relations, automata, predicate calculus, grammars, loads of logic, and more I haven't taken yet, etc etc. Languages will come along the way, but the emphasis is on problem solving.
In short, play around.
This is not a summary of what you wrote. "In short" you compared Computer Science to special ed, touted the glory of becoming a CE major with ECE ambitions, and implied that physicists can solve problems from any other field without even cracking a book open.
I could tell you about the radio shack electronics kit I messed around with in highschool, and found to be a huge yawn fest, but I like rational discussions better.
From what I've seen, a physicist looks at CS like an EE/CE looks at a technician. Something along the lines of "You call that a complex problem?"
And from personal experience, upper level CS classes are like special ed compared to upper level physics
First of all, this is incorrect. People in different fields do not look at other fields like this. If they do then they are suffering from low self esteem and an inferiority complex. This goes back to which fields in science are more important, there are none that are more important. And to suggest there is, is something I would expect from a highschool student.
Another point is that, if true, said physicist (who is actually a female according to signature) would look at CE as "special-ed" also, because they have quite a bit in common. I've taken classes with CE students, you're not going to convince me that they have some kind of elite advantage. At my school, the GPA requirement is lower for CE students. But that aside, they are simply pursuing a different level of abstraction than I am.
I am less interested in logic gates and multipliers than I am in higher level programming. Although we take lots of classes on those topics, anyway. Don't mean to shatter your illusions of grandeur. Computer science is well rounded already, not overly specialized. It is your assumption that we learn only coding. And we know what assuming does.
Based on my experience, unless you're doing research, games, compilers, or the like (think MS Research or Google), you may end up (as a CS major) doing software engineering that's not that technically demanding in the sense of putting your math to work. Although architecting non-technical large applications is a challenge, it's not generally the challenge that requires proofs and development of new or specialized algorithms.
Engineers don't sit around making up new algorithms all day either. It's the application of existing algorithms which dominates CS and EE fields, really.
My observation is that there is a lot of uninformed bashing going on here, that is all. I'm not going to get into the "which is better" argument because it depends entirely on what you want to do.
Also, diversifying with a minor or two is fairly common. I'm specializing in business writing (English minor), but didn't think it was significant enough to bring up earlier. I'm interested in a lot of thing besides just CS.
Realistically, success is determined by what the individual makes of their degree, not which degree they choose. In order to make something out of a degree, having an interest in it is a pretty darn good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is they were too busy trying to figure out how they could invade Iraq to care about real dangers to the country. How ironic that it worked out for them.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Having been in the military, going to the Navy Exchange (this is the equivalent of Px, just a store on base), you would get in line to find a frowning checkout clerk, basically you've inconvenienced them by coming to their register. That's just the tip of it, most of the administrative services run by civilians for the military are much, much worse. I called one (forget the name of it) regarding a movement of personal belongings to another state and her attitude was as if I were some kind of annoying telemarketer (and not the reason her highschool dropout butt had a job). I can think of many examples, and there are probably many more I've forgotten. They are smart enough to perk up for officers though, I can say that for sure. One walks into the room and they're all professional. Looking back, it kind of disgusts me. I'm glad I got out when I did. But I digress, that's most government employees for ya. The bare minimum mantra.
You do have a point, but only two of the three examples you cited can be considered differing opinions. Democrats vs. Republicans: two different ideologies. Open Software vs. Proprietary: two different ideologies. Evolution vs. Creationism: science vs. fantasy. Of these three, that one doesn't belong on the list, as it's not a matter of opinion, but rather people who understand science, vs. people who either don't understand science or simply ignore it in favor of fiction that better suits their ideology. However, I do agree with your point about how some people like to throw grenades and sit back and watch the fallout. Looks like you got sucked in by a mere example of a grenade.
Mod parent up IMO.
No, the disenfranchisement that happens now and will continue to happen is the same disenfranchisement and dirty tricks that always happens: the rise of the internet for the general population, particularly since the last pre-Bush presidential election, has enabled the kinds of incredible information exchange on all manner of topics that we've seen in the last two elections. That will only increase, and it cuts both ways: as much as it allows the exchange of legitimate information, it acts as a breeding ground for conspiracy theories, some wacky, some not-so-wacky, some with elements of truth, but still serving to subvert any faith we ever had in our system.
This seems to imply that there is no value in enforcing consistency in elections. I see much of this post to be simply "it's always been corrupt so why change it now."
Because we can. I find it strange that anyone would find fault in correcting problems with our electoral system.
Also, if this has "always" been happening, how come there hasn't been any research and/or major discussion of it until the close elections of 2000 and 2004? You can dismiss a lot as things
as conspiracy theories, but you cannot dismiss statistics. Exit polls have historically never been wrong, until Ohio. And the differences were staggering. This is not proof of fraud, but it is in fact a completely unexplainable anomaly, and not a theory.
discuss
Eh, why is it always God's fault? Did they teach you about Satan? Pretty strange sect of Christianity without that. He presumably has dominion over the earth. Otherwise what would be the difference between Earth and Heaven? What power does God have over Satan? It's a complete mystery, but presumably enough to save us if we are willing. Just food for thought, not trying to convert you or whatever. You seem pretty set in your views.
I hear ya. If this becomes a big feeding frenzy by lawyers, I may just leave the country out of disgust. It seems people here are too easily swayed by pathos, and that is a lawyer's best weapon, rather than arguing from a stance of logic. It should be the opposite. The Internet is a privilege, not a right. If it isn't, then people should get free internet service because it's annoying to see "cannot find server" when you havent paid your bill.
I don't mean to sound jaded, but you're living in fantasy land here. I work for an internet service provider, and I can tell you that the reason they have switched to voice activation is not, in fact, to cater to the 0.00001% of the population that uses pulse. They have fed you the prime rib of BS stories.
You might have a point if they offered *both* touch tone menu ability and voice substitutions, for the purposes of adding versatility. However, this is largely not the case. The goal is to discourage customers from reaching their destination, customer support. Plain and simple. It is part of a trend towards cost saving. They don't have call center's in India because it adds versatility to your customers. They do it because it saves money.
I can say that, at a quarterly "low-guys-on-the-totem-pole speak to the big boss man" meeting, I addressed this issue. I asked what the reasoning is behind the voice system. He responded that according to surveys, 70% of the customers liked it. I mentally called BS, as every other customer I had complains bitterly about it and how it appears to be an intentional barrier to support.
My next question was, "since some people seem to have trouble with the voice system, why not add touch tone ability also as a fallback for them?" His response: "We have no plans to change the phone system at this time." QED. It is intended to drive away customers. I personally do not care, as this is just a college job for me. However, it makes me long for the days when companies tried to earn customer loyalty, and not just go with the herd for the lowest common denominator.
But do we need yet more government regulation? Aren't the sponsors of this bill saying that Google can't fend off this attack from Verizon/Bell/whoever, so Daddy Government has to step in and stop those mean ISPs from hurting poor Google? What tripe.
To me it seems like the Electricity company charging you extra to not get brownouts and blackouts. And when you don't pay the fee, you suddenly notice a ton more losses of power than you had before. It's almost extortion.
But do we need yet more government regulation? Aren't the sponsors of this bill saying that Google can't fend off this attack from Verizon/Bell/whoever, so Daddy Government has to step in and stop those mean ISPs from hurting poor Google? What tripe. To me it seems like the Electricity company charging you extra to not get brownouts and blackouts. And when you don't pay the fee, you suddenly notice a ton more losses of power than you had before. It's almost extortion.
Why are ISPs in many other countries able to offer much better bandwidth for less than most of us in the US pay for 3Mbps/768Kbps? Those other countries are smaller, and have much more dense infrastructure. Less travel time, less routing, newer communication lines. That's my guess.
Um dialup doesn't count. Hooray for you, you have multiple dialup providers. You will not have multiple cable and DSL providers however. And maybe 1 crappy satellite provider. So yeah when we say Internet providers, we don't mean dialup. Dialup is a slowboat *to* the Internet, not the same thing.
I think what he means is FOX news would have not covered this story, as it paints Republicans in a bad light. And thus, slashdot is not fair and balanced because they posted it.
Holy wall of text Batman. I'll post the readable version:
*scanning my post* WHAT religion? I didn't mention that I had one.
Man, I wish I would've checked my email sooner. Amazing that you ignore 90% of my post except the religion remark. But a lot of people would consider "meditating on people who have been killed by America" while eating "Ghandi's diet" somewhat of a spiritual thing. Unless you can show me scientific evidence of this accomplishing something, I'll call it a religious ceremony.
In any case, you don't have a religion? How novel. It reminds me of the people in the 1990s who "don't watch television." I guess this is supposed to imply pseudo-intellectual status. Not overly difficult to only believe in only what your 5 senses can detect, or to not watch TV, in my opinion.
Anyway, (since you doubtless notice by now that I have no problem expressing unpopular, controversial views!)
Cliche in 2005?
no, I don't believe in forgiveness, not in the sense that the Judeo-Christian, mono-theist, patriarchial faiths do.
Hurray for the atypical anti-western-civilization rant. Surely we've never seen this before. You were no doubt hoping someone would pop the lid off the subject so you could pretend it wasn't something you dwell on. I'm picturing someone in the 90s awkwardly starting a converation, "see anything on TV lately? Oh yeah? pshh, I don't watch TV...."
I *do* believe in atonement and restitution, where you follow up the admission that you did something wrong by doing your best to make things right again.
This idea is not unique to you, sorry. And the fact that it isn't answers your rant about how you *assume* over people view forgiveness.
And if your wrongdoing is so great that you *can't* make it better(i.e. whole races of people genocided cannot be brought back to life.), well, then, you SHOULD be damned! What else would damning exist for?
Yes but, was it one person who killed all those people, or was it an entire civilization? And do you damn an entire civilization? Perhaps. I could go either way here.
PS I do a similar bah humbug at Christmas in about a month; join me then. Once again, the wife and kids and folks can exchange all the gifts they please - I *insist* on not recieving presents, as I count my joys on the non-materialist spectrum (to put it simply, it's about what I do or what I learn or who I am - not about what I own!), and express disdain for the commercialization of the holiday, the historical pillaging of declaring a bogus holiday in the first place to overshadow the Wiccan Yule festival, yadda yadda yadda. It's tradition. I'm less of a pain in the ass on the other holidays, but that's an oversight - I'm working on it.
Sounds like fun.
*scanning my post* WHAT religion? I didn't mention that I had one. Man, I wish I would've checked my email sooner. Amazing that you ignore 90% of my post except the religion remark. But a lot of people would consider "meditating on people who have been killed by America" while eating "Ghandi's diet" somewhat of a spiritual thing. Unless you can show me scientific evidence of this accomplishing something, I'll call it a religious ceremony. In any case, you don't have a religion? How novel. It reminds me of the people in the 1990s who "don't watch television." I guess this is supposed to imply pseudo-intellectual status. Not overly difficult to only believe in only what your 5 senses can detect, or to not watch TV, in my opinion. Anyway, (since you doubtless notice by now that I have no problem expressing unpopular, controversial views!) Isn't this cliche in 2005? no, I don't believe in forgiveness, not in the sense that the Judeo-Christian, mono-theist, patriarchial faiths do. Hurray for the atypical anti-western-civilization rant. Surely we've never seen this before. You were no doubt hoping someone would pop the lid off the subject so you could pretend it wasn't something you dwell on. I'm picturing someone in the 90s awkwardly starting a converation, "see anything on TV lately? Oh yeah? pshh, I don't watch TV, myself.." I *do* believe in atonement and restitution, where you follow up the admission that you did something wrong by doing your best to make things right again. This idea is not unique to you, sorry. And the fact that it isn't answers your rant about how you *assume* over people view forgiveness. And if your wrongdoing is so great that you *can't* make it better(i.e. whole races of people genocided cannot be brought back to life.), well, then, you SHOULD be damned! What else would damning exist for? Yes but, was it one person who killed all those people, or was it an entire civilization? And do you damn an entire civilization? Perhaps. I could go either way here. PS I do a similar bah humbug at Christmas in about a month; join me then. Once again, the wife and kids and folks can exchange all the gifts they please - I *insist* on not recieving presents, as I count my joys on the non-materialist spectrum (to put it simply, it's about what I do or what I learn or who I am - not about what I own!), and express disdain for the commercialization of the holiday, the historical pillaging of declaring a bogus holiday in the first place to overshadow the Wiccan Yule festival, yadda yadda yadda. It's tradition. I'm less of a pain in the ass on the other holidays, but that's an oversight - I'm working on it. Sounds like fun. Work on the originality of your rants, though. These types of "radical thoughts" pass through everyone's mind at one point or another.
Pay no attention to the propaganda - or do what my family, social circle, and I did the first Thanksgiving after the beginning of the Iraq war: have a Ghandi Thanksgiving, in protest of the United States' global conquest. "Feast" on Ghandi's diet of rice, vegetables, goat's milk, and fruit. Spend the day in meditation and in remembrance of all the victims of the United States, be they the virtually genocided original American natives, the enslaved peoples imported to work and build the wealth the US currently wields as it's basis of power, or the various nations of the middle East currently being pirated under false pretenses.
:)
I think you need to smoke some marijuana and chill out just a little bit. As Americans, we are well aware of the events that started this country. You are not telling us anything new. Yes, we pushed Indians out so we could move in. Though at that time we were actually Europeans
Doesn't your religion teach forgiveness? This is ancient history. Why dwell on negativity on a feast day of all things. Yes, American children are taught that thanksgiving involves European pilgrims (I might add) and the natives getting together for a feast, because the Indians helped the pilgrims survive by sharing resources and agricultural knowledge, doesn't sound too lopsided for that particular event. But yeah, there is a lot more to it and surely a lot of carnage when they began to compete for land.
I'll add that: In any country, the population there exists because they pushed out the previous occupants at one point in history.
I'll also add that no country is more self-analytical than America. Go to an American University. They do not sugarcoat anything. In fact, some americans consider Universities to be "anti american" because they are so blunt with the truth. As long as we are first to criticize ourselves, there is no need for your bitterness.
As for the middleeast, join the 65% of Americans who are dissatisfied with Bush. Yeah they reelected him, but that is the Democratic system at work. You convince enough little old ladies that the big bad terrorist is going to get them, and they will vote for you; turning a blind eye to just about any other issues. That is the flaw of Democracy, unfortunately. No body said it was perfect, just better than the alternatives.
That doesn't follow at all. When I see ants running around the back yard I sometimes like to confuse them and test their reactions
Even to ants you are not a "deity." You do not have the ability to create them, or to even eradicate them by yourself.
A deity is a higher level of abstraction than what you are describing. A deity would be something that allowed for the existence of the ants, not someone mindlessly screwing with them, someone bound by the same laws of physics and biology, as the ants themselves.
Ok you got me on a sentence contruction technicality, which doesn't take away from my point. There was a strong willed woman, princess Leia, and she was the main female character.
In the "new" series, there is also a main female character, Amidalia, but she is not very impressive in this respect. It seems to me that she could be more convincing on a WB sitcom.
Anakin, I won't even get started on that. I thought I was watching an after school special when I saw him crying about his mom dieing (ok I will get started but I won't finish).
As far as missing that she was impersonated, well I think I honestly fell asleep or zoned out halfway through the movie. Not that that's the movies fault, hm.. well maybe it was.. She's a cute girl, no doubt about that, but to me she wasn't very convincing as a character.
I'm not a very cynical person, I wanted those movies to be good. But they were just "ok."
by Myridon (719720) on Friday May 06, @02:38PM (#12457313) Now our high school graduate applies for a job... Can you use Excel? No Can you use Word? No, Kedit Can you use Windows? No, Linux Thanks, we'll get back to you (in a million years)...
More like: Employer: "you don't know microsoft stuff, eh?"
Highschool grad: "Wasn't taught it specifically in schools, however I learned similar programs. I also learned universal computing concepts which means when something minor goes wrong with the computer I will be able to handle it without flopping and twitching and being at the mercy of tech support."
Yes, to me it looked like they tried to pick the actors to get the teeny bopper audience; i.e. they look like backstreet boys, especially Anakin.
But there was no essence, or strong character. Just what appeared to be rehearsed lines and a "where's my paycheck now" attitude.
I think that's the biggest disappointment, even over the unnecessary jar jar appearances. And the princess Amidalia, although "cute", did not have the personality for it IMO. She just sat their looking pretty. The star wars movies have typically had very strong willed women, such as princess Leia. And it was a disappointment to see a character fall far short of that.
Ironically, in one of the movies Amidalia (dont know if this is spelled correctly, and don't care) had one of her servants impersonate her. Honestly, I could not tell the difference between her and her servant, and I don't think that was intentional on their part. My wife had to explain to me that she was being impersonated, as I was having a hard time staying interested in the storyline as it was. That is not good.
I interact with many CS's and it appears that your CS program does a lot more math than our program; it sounds like you are actually in a good one.
Thank you for that. As humans, when things we like are being criticized, (or appear to be), we tend to get defensive. I'll admit to falling victim to that instinct. You seem to have a fairly balanced perspective, afterall.
As far as logic gates, I did not intend to suggest it was your field in a nutshell, I'm sure it is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg, as you have happily informed me. It is just the bit that I know of it, I do not particularly enjoy.
I am not a moron, nor do I think you are. I think at this point we are just trading rhetorical attacks based on misunderstandings. A common occurence on the interweb. No need to go any further.
And I don't hope to ever out-math a physicist, I was just having a reaction to being compared to tech support. No one likes pee in their cereal.
If I've offended you, I apologize.
Just skimming your post I missed a lot...
I went into CE because I taught myself all sorts of software in highschool, and I thought it would be a good idea to generalize
So did I, dude. In high school I read 1,000 page books on C programming. In no way did it prepare me for CS, or even come close. Computer Science is about solving real world problems, in realistic time constraints, with computers. It is not, as you are probably assuming, some kind of grind through various programming languages. I think you're confusing it for MIS (which is a business focus), if anything.
In fact, they tell us up front you aren't going to learn languages, you're going to learn techniques for solving problems, and proving them correct. This involves a trip through graph theory, number theory, set theory, relations, automata, predicate calculus, grammars, loads of logic, and more I haven't taken yet, etc etc. Languages will come along the way, but the emphasis is on problem solving.
In short, play around.
This is not a summary of what you wrote. "In short" you compared Computer Science to special ed, touted the glory of becoming a CE major with ECE ambitions, and implied that physicists can solve problems from any other field without even cracking a book open.
I could tell you about the radio shack electronics kit I messed around with in highschool, and found to be a huge yawn fest, but I like rational discussions better.
From what I've seen, a physicist looks at CS like an EE/CE looks at a technician. Something along the lines of "You call that a complex problem?"
And from personal experience, upper level CS classes are like special ed compared to upper level physics
First of all, this is incorrect. People in different fields do not look at other fields like this. If they do then they are suffering from low self esteem and an inferiority complex. This goes back to which fields in science are more important, there are none that are more important. And to suggest there is, is something I would expect from a highschool student.
Another point is that, if true, said physicist (who is actually a female according to signature) would look at CE as "special-ed" also, because they have quite a bit in common. I've taken classes with CE students, you're not going to convince me that they have some kind of elite advantage. At my school, the GPA requirement is lower for CE students. But that aside, they are simply pursuing a different level of abstraction than I am.
I am less interested in logic gates and multipliers than I am in higher level programming. Although we take lots of classes on those topics, anyway. Don't mean to shatter your illusions of grandeur. Computer science is well rounded already, not overly specialized. It is your assumption that we learn only coding. And we know what assuming does.
Based on my experience, unless you're doing research, games, compilers, or the like (think MS Research or Google), you may end up (as a CS major) doing software engineering that's not that technically demanding in the sense of putting your math to work. Although architecting non-technical large applications is a challenge, it's not generally the challenge that requires proofs and development of new or specialized algorithms.
Engineers don't sit around making up new algorithms all day either. It's the application of existing algorithms which dominates CS and EE fields, really.
My observation is that there is a lot of uninformed bashing going on here, that is all. I'm not going to get into the "which is better" argument because it depends entirely on what you want to do.
Also, diversifying with a minor or two is fairly common. I'm specializing in business writing (English minor), but didn't think it was significant enough to bring up earlier. I'm interested in a lot of thing besides just CS.
Realistically, success is determined by what the individual makes of their degree, not which degree they choose. In order to make something out of a degree, having an interest in it is a pretty darn good idea.