Just call the number on the website, order over the phone... tax avoided. I think perhaps Tennessee governers need a refresher on the deliniation between the jurisdiction of Tennessee governers and jurisdiction of Interstate Commerce. Nobody tells the US Congess what to do. Nobody.
Am I the only person here that has grown sick and tired of people who don't wish to read Apple content that post about how sick and tired they are of the Apple content that they can't stop reading?
I'm much more interested in reading comments that include humor, insight, and interesting anacdotes that are in some way related to the topic than reading another Goddamn complaint about how some egotistical elitist doesn't understand why they're not interested in the same things as others and forgot how to shut their own fucking eyes and get on with their life.
I hope we get the same amount of fuss when someone complains about the complaints directed towards my complaint!
The only safe way to redact sensitive PDFs or Word (or other word-processing doc) is to black out the data, print it out, and rescan a hard-copy "original".
With PDF's, at least, If you know PostScript, you can actually do it with a text editor, vi, nano, BBEdit, WordPad, etc. Even if you don't know PS, you could probably bumble your way through deleting content... and still be left with a file that opens, even if sort of broken. Your success would depend largely on the size of the document (shorter documents with fewer redactions would be easier to deal with, obviously) and how well you manually parse markup/code. This assumes that the content is not in image scans.... you go and delete the OCRed txt from scans, but not the scanned pages, that won't do much good.
Its undeniable that for all practical puposes, GP is correct. Sure... talk about exceptions... but lets have a parade when a real person in the real world, and not some security researcher, gets a virus on their linux/os x/bsd box. Take 10K Windows users with user-level security consciousness, and 10K linux and 10K OS X users oblivious to security issues... put them in a room with the Internet, and take a look a month or a year later... and what you have is 20K users oblivious to security, with no issues, and most if not all of the Windows users will have had virus run-ins, many will have damaged systems, some will still have viruses, and all of them will be creeping along from the built-in rot (MS code for: time to buy new Windows version licenses!).
Trying to defend Windows in the way you are doing is fruitless. Trying to make a point about all systems being vulnerable is pedantic. The fact of the matter is: had the military chose linux, the drones would not be infected. Period. Not that they couldn't... not an impossibility, just an extreme unlikelyhood to the point that if you attempt the "but but but all systems are just as vulerable as Windows"-bullshit argument, you are justifiably ignored.
It wasn't America or Americans that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki... It was President Harry Truman. He alone took full responsibility, and tore Oppenheimer a new one for showing guilt and remorse and attempting to do the same.
I keep hearing people say that the council of Nicaea canonicalized the books of the bible, but I don't think there's any real evidence for it.
yeah, I agree... which is why I wrote "probably didn't take place then. The canon was lists of books made by the early Church Fathers." Probably my fault if you missed that... my sentences tend to run on sometimes, and flop just at the end.
Couple corrections, Dead Sea Scrolls belong to a Jewish sect and are old testament...
Right... I was thinking of the Nag Hamandi
Scholars date Gospel of John to be in it's final form between 90 and 100 AD, so it can't be in retort to Gospel of Thomas.
Well... it can be because we're not quite sure of the date of the Thomas Gospel authorship... scholars think it could be as early as mid-first or as late as mid-second century. My guess is it appeared in writing just before John's appeared. But regardless of its authorship, the gnostic sayings it contains certainly has roots in the 1st century gnostic movement, which John could be seen as a reaction to.
You are brave to comment this way, but honestly, I was thinking the same thing. By my count, this is the 5th time Apple has been hoodwinked, i.e., they took something from obscurity, moved it to the front and center, made it ubiquitous, attempted to own it, and lost.
First, the original MacOS GUI. They saw what was happening at Xerox PARC, but Xerox was taking it nowhere... Apple was a part of that, and took some things, but also created original ideas and great interface design, and nearly perfected it... and once it was very well known, if not quite a smashing success, Microsoft mimicked it (though Apple should not take what Microsoft did personally... for years this was Microsoft's modus operandi... they did it to almost every new technology company that came out with anything that looked like it might be successful, you know... create a similar yet inferior product, flood the market with it at a loss, and in this way often put the company that originally successfully brought the idea to market right out of business.
Second, the iPod and the 'i' moniker. Long after Sony dropped the ball on Walkman, there were prior obscure devices that were similar, but they sold poorly and were not popular. Apple (re)created or resurrected the market. It seemed like every single other tech manufacturer came out with a very very similar device, and everyone started using the 'i' for iEverything (at least IBM used 'e' and should be given credit for not being completely brain dead.)
Third, of course, AppStore. I have seen evidence that other companies had used "App Store" prior to Apple, but it was not quite the same thing, not exactly a package management system, which is what AppStore really is (though Apple never refers to it that way). Arguably, Apple assimilated the idea from the jailbreak community who had a PMS available first, though, of course, Saurik, in a singularly amazing tour de force "merely" ported apt (along with all the standard UNIX utils) to iOS (hard to believe that guy is only one guy). Also, AppStore is a very clever name for Apple... referring the Andriod Marketplace genericly as "appstore" is not as apropos (App==short for Apple? or Application? both; Store==Shop? or Storage? both.). Almost immediately it became a generic term because uncreative people insisted on calling every new phone package management system an "appstore." So how come Kleenex and Laundromat got trademarks? There were no anti-Kleenex zealots I guess.
Forth, the tablet. Yes, there were lots of tablets before iPad... but they were obscure, expensive... and unpopular. Even though others were unpopular, many people wanted an Apple tablet, what they conceived as a touch based interface for a full OS X system, Inkwell handwriting recognition included. What we got was a new unexpected interface on a very closed system, sans Inkwell, but technically still OS X underneath, and it was (is) very very successful... and the new idea, Apple's take on it, was duplicated by everyone that has tried to release a tablet since iPad has been released.
And now Multitouch. As you say, and I agree... the term wasn't in wide use before Apple began marketing their touch interface. So how come Clear Coat got their trademark registered? There were no anti-Clear Coat zealots I guess.
Now that Steve Jobs has retired, I think maybe Apple should screw their competitors by simply naming every new idea they have as simply as possible, but adding "Turbo-" to the front of it. Then, after "Turbo-" gets saturated in the market by the inevitable copycat coattailers, they can switch to their hitherto kept top secret trademarks.
2000 years ago or so, "gospel" was an extremely popular form of political essay and very important genre of the time. There were probably new forged gospels popping up all the time. The first Nicene Council is attributed as having attempted to filter out the ones of the political genre, the forgeries, and keep the "real" ones, the literature that came from oral tradition, for the canon, in order to standardize the literature of the different ministries, temples and churches, though it, the creation of the standarized canon, probably didn't take place then. The canon was lists of books made by the early Church Fathers.
Prior to lists made by Irenaeous and other Church Fathers, there was no canon... every ministry/church had their saint and a gospel attributed to that saint. There were many different versions of some of the same gospels (which is proven by the existence of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
They did a great job of excising the obvious forgeries, but the Fathers made mistakes. A few of Paul's Letters could not have been written by Paul, but were surely forgeries written long after his death. Also, the author of the Gospel of Thomas (very interesting read, btw) which was indeed very early second century gospel, had a very distinct gnostic agenda that promoted the idea that we are all gods, or that in the same way that Jesus was God, every person had the divine within them: we are all God. The Gospel of John was a very specific reaction to the Gospel of Thomas, an attempt to squash this notion to maintain the divinity of Jesus. So John's Gospel was necessary to the early Church in order to help standardize what it meant to be Christian, to help lay out what the Christian beliefs actually were which was quite different from what the Gnostics believed. John very clearly elevates Jesus to the divine in a way no other gospel does.
Point is, the creation of the canon didn't really take place over the next 2000 years... for the most part it pretty much happened within a couple centuries. And it was more about revealing the Christian identity and removing the obvious forgeries than anything else. If you read about the people involved, they were not attempting anything nefarious by creating the standardized canon. They were actually trying to find legitimate testimony, but also standardizing who they were in the same way any organized group of people do, whether Americans, or Hell's Angels or some little league team.
The existence of these other, non-canonical gospels does not mean what you seem to insinuate. Nearly all of the non-canonical gospels are quite obvious forgeries. Most of the literature that made it in the canon is just as likely forged as not, and there are very few books that we know are legitimate (most of Paul's letters). But the Fathers earnestly attempted to chose books whose authors recorded the oral traditions of (who were believed to have been) the original legitimate witnesses.
Your ad hominem notwithstanding, that is more than likely the case. Without foundations in academic Computer Science, there is fat chance you will ever be doing computer science. Programming? Not so much... programming doesn't require any degree whatsoever... just self-discipline, or at the very least, desire or drive. Sure, a CS curriculum is a fantastic foundation for programming, but it is not required to do programming or development. Now, there are exceptions of course... but how many non-educated mathematicians do you know of working with differential calculus and non-linear algebra? I guess they exist, but with the ubiquity of the university degree programs, they must be getting rare. On the other hand, there are likely millions of programmers that live, or have lived, that had no related degree. (Sorry to be a broken record, but again, CS is not programming, and programming is not CS).
For the typical Mac user (think Hello Kitty stickers covering their MacBook), the proposed attack vector is a non-issue. In order for a Java applet to run, the attacker needs Java installed on the target system. Lion ships without Java. So, beyond getting the user to run the applet, and beyond having to brute force the passwords, the attacker somehow has to install Java on the target Lion system.
Unlike previous versions of OS X, Lion ships without Java. So the proposed attack vector of a Java Applet has one more distinct hurdle (on top of getting the user to run the code, and having to crack the password): the user must first install Java.
OK... I just spoke to an HR guy that was not an idiot... he didn't know IT, but he knew his job, and seemed very bright. Sorry HR guys! I am a jack ass, you HR guys can safely ignore me.
Nah, it seems that computer science types are pretentious and want to feel special and distance themselves from the "lowly IT folk"
Interesting that you read it that way, because the truth is "lowly IT folk" have better reason to keep computer science graduates out of their business, and computer scientists doing computer science, of course, have nothing to fear from IT critters. When CS grads go looking for work in IT, they throw off the curve, and they intoxicate HR with the notions that a CS graduate will be a better fit than a non CS-grad in any particular position in IT. Seems like that would be the case... but it can't be. A CS degree is not free... could cost $40K-$100K and more. But no one gets hired into top paying positions without experience, so the CS grad will be working along side the (for the purposes of this example) non-degreed IT guy, doing the same work, making the same money. The IT guy is happy about his job, and sees it as a career, a long long term position. If the CS grad is even remotely self-aware, It won't take long before s/he will wish to expand their horizons, and rightly so, to pay for that incredibly expensive degree. Meanwhile, HR is thinking "we can hire CS grads!" and write up job descriptions that way: "Tier II Support Specialist needed, CS degree required," which is absurd, because what they are doing is creating an IT ecosystem with a lot of turnover. This only serves to hurt a company's IT infrastructure because there just aren't enough people around, and sticking around, that are really familiar with how the specific environment was built and how it, this specific installation, works. So what you get is a swiss cheese effect on the intellectual capital within an IT department: you get an overly heterogeneous environment. Heterogeneous environments, as far as having multiple systems, can be a really good thing for the health and security of an IT department. But it can be detrimental if all the systems are the same, just a wide variety of version-levels of that system. It's good to have some Windows, some Linux, some Mac systems. Its not doing a company any good to have 4 different versions of MS Office being deployed, on 5 different versions of Windows. The more turnover, the more the environment begins to look this way. (I believe rapid expansion of a company has a similar effect on IT).
Sort of got away from my point, which is, I guess... HR wants CS grads filling IT. But IT guys (should) want CS grads doing computer science and not stealing their jobs or lowering their salaries.
Also, I don't think I've ever met a pretentious mathematician. Ironic, but I think pretentiousness comes from a desire to prove something (heh... not talking about logical proofs). A desire to prove something comes from a perceived deficit (this is why the short guy wants to fight you, or thinks you look down on him... just an example, short guy, if you're reading this, don't take it personally!).
So... smart ass... I take it reading comprehension is not required for software development in the UK?
software development != information technology
software develoment != computer science
I'd really like to know where this ridiculous and widespread notion that "programming is computer science" came from... because its completely incorrect. The two have little to do with each other. You're a programmer, or if you like, a developer, NOT necessarily a computer scientist. A CS degree is a solid foundation for a career in development, but programming isn't a science, its a practice.
And no, it doesn't mean your job doesn't count, and no, you should not pack it in. You should marry and have babies and send them to college.
You are making hardly any sense. CS is *the* degree you go for if you want to work in IT. The only "CS" jobs that exists are academic ones.
That's what some people think, but it is completely incorrect. There is NO degree for working in IT (ok, there's a few systems adminstration degrees at a few universities now... pretty cool). This attitide, I believe, is what caused the bottom to drop out of entry level IT positions about 10 years ago. In 2001, a crappy Windows administrator position could start at $65K/yr... by 2004 it was part-time $12/hr. You can't really do computer science without the foundations givin in academia. But anyone with a knack for trouble-shooting that likes working with computers can work in information technology, and with experience, get really very good at it, no degree (or social skills) necessary. A lot of what IT is is simply familiarity with the specific systems with which one is working. You don't learn that in CS, and what you learn in CS will only be useful in the abstract in such a specific environment.
There are indeed real computer science jobs out there, but they are integrated into other disciplines. Just a couple that come to mind... in the field of Bioinformatics, and in the field of Meteorology —weather modelling (and, well... any complex computer modelling, fluid dynamics, cosmology, aeronautics... even marketing analytics).
It seems that only real computer scientists know that computer science really has nothing at all to do with what we think of as modern computers. Its really mathematics. You'd be far more correct to think of computer scientists as specialized mathemeticians than as some glorified high-level computer repair techician. Actually, if you think of a computer scientist as a glorified computer repair techician, you are utterly and completely mistaken, and you are insulting both the bone fide computer scientist and the genuine computer technician. These 2 disciplines have nothing to do with each other.
I am a medical doctor, and just finished my surgical rotation. But right now, working as a nurse would be very convenient for me. I am wondering if, as an M.D. working as an R.N., will hurt my future job prospects.
/bullshit
I'm just trying to show the OP what a really poor question he is asking. Its bad enough that the bottom has dropped out of IT jobs, and $12/hr part-time Windows Admin positions are requiring a CS degree (why? HR is entirely comprised of idiots).
OP, If you want your Masters degree to be completely meaningless, a complete waste of your efforts, money and your time... sure... jump right into IT, and be prepared to be managed and/or peered with someone with an HS diploma, a sweet sweet gaming rig, and 7 years experience over you with no degrees that will run circles around you and make you look and feel stupid.
The discipline of Computer Science offers nothing to the discipline of Information Technology.... or rather... it is absurd overkill. Computer Scientists working in IT (unless at the higher cognative level of Senior Systems Engineer, Systems Programmer, Systems Architect, Database Architect, etc.) are hurting themselves... hurting the CS discipline, lowering the salary expectations of both computer scientists and the lowly, bearded systems administrator.
Stop it, please. Aim high, and live up to your degree. If you want an easy job that pays well right now, look into database administration. But even that doesn't require any degree whatsoever.
Incorrect. There is much debate about what it is, but whatever Computer Science is, it certainly is NOT programming. Sure, a computer scientist may write software. But the same could be true of anyone at all, journalists, postal workers, physicists and philosophers. Programming does not make one a computer scientist. Programming is not computer science. Programming is programming.
Computer Science is a subset of the discipline of Mathematics. Programming is not.
You're just what they want, Coppertop. Facebook is a tool, alright, but its not what you say it is. You are the product that the tool creates. The monster says "jump into my mouth, you delicious mortal!" and you respond "gladly!" Facebook is a marketing pimp, and you, sir... well, guess what you are? Ho ho ho.
Nigel Tufnel: But if you keep folding it, then it keeps breaking...
Ian Faith: Why would you keep folding it?
Nigel Tufnel:...and then everything has to be folded... and then you have... this. And I don't want this.
Slashdot Mirror
Just call the number on the website, order over the phone... tax avoided. I think perhaps Tennessee governers need a refresher on the deliniation between the jurisdiction of Tennessee governers and jurisdiction of Interstate Commerce. Nobody tells the US Congess what to do. Nobody.
Am I the only person here that has grown sick and tired of people who don't wish to read Apple content that post about how sick and tired they are of the Apple content that they can't stop reading?
I'm much more interested in reading comments that include humor, insight, and interesting anacdotes that are in some way related to the topic than reading another Goddamn complaint about how some egotistical elitist doesn't understand why they're not interested in the same things as others and forgot how to shut their own fucking eyes and get on with their life.
I hope we get the same amount of fuss when someone complains about the complaints directed towards my complaint!
I don't care what they found... if minors were involved they should be punished
The only safe way to redact sensitive PDFs or Word (or other word-processing doc) is to black out the data, print it out, and rescan a hard-copy "original".
With PDF's, at least, If you know PostScript, you can actually do it with a text editor, vi, nano, BBEdit, WordPad, etc. Even if you don't know PS, you could probably bumble your way through deleting content... and still be left with a file that opens, even if sort of broken. Your success would depend largely on the size of the document (shorter documents with fewer redactions would be easier to deal with, obviously) and how well you manually parse markup/code. This assumes that the content is not in image scans.... you go and delete the OCRed txt from scans, but not the scanned pages, that won't do much good.
Its undeniable that for all practical puposes, GP is correct. Sure... talk about exceptions... but lets have a parade when a real person in the real world, and not some security researcher, gets a virus on their linux/os x/bsd box. Take 10K Windows users with user-level security consciousness, and 10K linux and 10K OS X users oblivious to security issues... put them in a room with the Internet, and take a look a month or a year later... and what you have is 20K users oblivious to security, with no issues, and most if not all of the Windows users will have had virus run-ins, many will have damaged systems, some will still have viruses, and all of them will be creeping along from the built-in rot (MS code for: time to buy new Windows version licenses!).
Trying to defend Windows in the way you are doing is fruitless. Trying to make a point about all systems being vulnerable is pedantic. The fact of the matter is: had the military chose linux, the drones would not be infected. Period. Not that they couldn't... not an impossibility, just an extreme unlikelyhood to the point that if you attempt the "but but but all systems are just as vulerable as Windows"-bullshit argument, you are justifiably ignored.
A clear triumph for America's powers of ....
And a major defeat for Northeastern University's Department of Physics.
It wasn't America or Americans that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki... It was President Harry Truman. He alone took full responsibility, and tore Oppenheimer a new one for showing guilt and remorse and attempting to do the same.
I keep hearing people say that the council of Nicaea canonicalized the books of the bible, but I don't think there's any real evidence for it.
yeah, I agree... which is why I wrote "probably didn't take place then. The canon was lists of books made by the early Church Fathers." Probably my fault if you missed that... my sentences tend to run on sometimes, and flop just at the end.
Couple corrections, Dead Sea Scrolls belong to a Jewish sect and are old testament...
Right... I was thinking of the Nag Hamandi
Scholars date Gospel of John to be in it's final form between 90 and 100 AD, so it can't be in retort to Gospel of Thomas.
Well... it can be because we're not quite sure of the date of the Thomas Gospel authorship... scholars think it could be as early as mid-first or as late as mid-second century. My guess is it appeared in writing just before John's appeared. But regardless of its authorship, the gnostic sayings it contains certainly has roots in the 1st century gnostic movement, which John could be seen as a reaction to.
You are brave to comment this way, but honestly, I was thinking the same thing. By my count, this is the 5th time Apple has been hoodwinked, i.e., they took something from obscurity, moved it to the front and center, made it ubiquitous, attempted to own it, and lost.
First, the original MacOS GUI. They saw what was happening at Xerox PARC, but Xerox was taking it nowhere... Apple was a part of that, and took some things, but also created original ideas and great interface design, and nearly perfected it... and once it was very well known, if not quite a smashing success, Microsoft mimicked it (though Apple should not take what Microsoft did personally... for years this was Microsoft's modus operandi... they did it to almost every new technology company that came out with anything that looked like it might be successful, you know... create a similar yet inferior product, flood the market with it at a loss, and in this way often put the company that originally successfully brought the idea to market right out of business.
Second, the iPod and the 'i' moniker. Long after Sony dropped the ball on Walkman, there were prior obscure devices that were similar, but they sold poorly and were not popular. Apple (re)created or resurrected the market. It seemed like every single other tech manufacturer came out with a very very similar device, and everyone started using the 'i' for iEverything (at least IBM used 'e' and should be given credit for not being completely brain dead.)
Third, of course, AppStore. I have seen evidence that other companies had used "App Store" prior to Apple, but it was not quite the same thing, not exactly a package management system, which is what AppStore really is (though Apple never refers to it that way). Arguably, Apple assimilated the idea from the jailbreak community who had a PMS available first, though, of course, Saurik, in a singularly amazing tour de force "merely" ported apt (along with all the standard UNIX utils) to iOS (hard to believe that guy is only one guy). Also, AppStore is a very clever name for Apple... referring the Andriod Marketplace genericly as "appstore" is not as apropos (App==short for Apple? or Application? both; Store==Shop? or Storage? both.). Almost immediately it became a generic term because uncreative people insisted on calling every new phone package management system an "appstore." So how come Kleenex and Laundromat got trademarks? There were no anti-Kleenex zealots I guess.
Forth, the tablet. Yes, there were lots of tablets before iPad... but they were obscure, expensive... and unpopular. Even though others were unpopular, many people wanted an Apple tablet, what they conceived as a touch based interface for a full OS X system, Inkwell handwriting recognition included. What we got was a new unexpected interface on a very closed system, sans Inkwell, but technically still OS X underneath, and it was (is) very very successful... and the new idea, Apple's take on it, was duplicated by everyone that has tried to release a tablet since iPad has been released.
And now Multitouch. As you say, and I agree... the term wasn't in wide use before Apple began marketing their touch interface. So how come Clear Coat got their trademark registered? There were no anti-Clear Coat zealots I guess.
Now that Steve Jobs has retired, I think maybe Apple should screw their competitors by simply naming every new idea they have as simply as possible, but adding "Turbo-" to the front of it. Then, after "Turbo-" gets saturated in the market by the inevitable copycat coattailers, they can switch to their hitherto kept top secret trademarks.
2000 years ago or so, "gospel" was an extremely popular form of political essay and very important genre of the time. There were probably new forged gospels popping up all the time. The first Nicene Council is attributed as having attempted to filter out the ones of the political genre, the forgeries, and keep the "real" ones, the literature that came from oral tradition, for the canon, in order to standardize the literature of the different ministries, temples and churches, though it, the creation of the standarized canon, probably didn't take place then. The canon was lists of books made by the early Church Fathers.
Prior to lists made by Irenaeous and other Church Fathers, there was no canon... every ministry/church had their saint and a gospel attributed to that saint. There were many different versions of some of the same gospels (which is proven by the existence of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
They did a great job of excising the obvious forgeries, but the Fathers made mistakes. A few of Paul's Letters could not have been written by Paul, but were surely forgeries written long after his death. Also, the author of the Gospel of Thomas (very interesting read, btw) which was indeed very early second century gospel, had a very distinct gnostic agenda that promoted the idea that we are all gods, or that in the same way that Jesus was God, every person had the divine within them: we are all God. The Gospel of John was a very specific reaction to the Gospel of Thomas, an attempt to squash this notion to maintain the divinity of Jesus. So John's Gospel was necessary to the early Church in order to help standardize what it meant to be Christian, to help lay out what the Christian beliefs actually were which was quite different from what the Gnostics believed. John very clearly elevates Jesus to the divine in a way no other gospel does.
Point is, the creation of the canon didn't really take place over the next 2000 years... for the most part it pretty much happened within a couple centuries. And it was more about revealing the Christian identity and removing the obvious forgeries than anything else. If you read about the people involved, they were not attempting anything nefarious by creating the standardized canon. They were actually trying to find legitimate testimony, but also standardizing who they were in the same way any organized group of people do, whether Americans, or Hell's Angels or some little league team.
The existence of these other, non-canonical gospels does not mean what you seem to insinuate. Nearly all of the non-canonical gospels are quite obvious forgeries. Most of the literature that made it in the canon is just as likely forged as not, and there are very few books that we know are legitimate (most of Paul's letters). But the Fathers earnestly attempted to chose books whose authors recorded the oral traditions of (who were believed to have been) the original legitimate witnesses.
Your ad hominem notwithstanding, that is more than likely the case. Without foundations in academic Computer Science, there is fat chance you will ever be doing computer science. Programming? Not so much... programming doesn't require any degree whatsoever... just self-discipline, or at the very least, desire or drive. Sure, a CS curriculum is a fantastic foundation for programming, but it is not required to do programming or development. Now, there are exceptions of course... but how many non-educated mathematicians do you know of working with differential calculus and non-linear algebra? I guess they exist, but with the ubiquity of the university degree programs, they must be getting rare. On the other hand, there are likely millions of programmers that live, or have lived, that had no related degree. (Sorry to be a broken record, but again, CS is not programming, and programming is not CS).
Hey... I've been put of school for some time. How old is that department? I doubt its even 5 years old.
For the typical Mac user (think Hello Kitty stickers covering their MacBook), the proposed attack vector is a non-issue. In order for a Java applet to run, the attacker needs Java installed on the target system. Lion ships without Java. So, beyond getting the user to run the applet, and beyond having to brute force the passwords, the attacker somehow has to install Java on the target Lion system.
Unlike previous versions of OS X, Lion ships without Java. So the proposed attack vector of a Java Applet has one more distinct hurdle (on top of getting the user to run the code, and having to crack the password): the user must first install Java.
OK... I just spoke to an HR guy that was not an idiot... he didn't know IT, but he knew his job, and seemed very bright. Sorry HR guys! I am a jack ass, you HR guys can safely ignore me.
Nah, it seems that computer science types are pretentious and want to feel special and distance themselves from the "lowly IT folk"
Interesting that you read it that way, because the truth is "lowly IT folk" have better reason to keep computer science graduates out of their business, and computer scientists doing computer science, of course, have nothing to fear from IT critters. When CS grads go looking for work in IT, they throw off the curve, and they intoxicate HR with the notions that a CS graduate will be a better fit than a non CS-grad in any particular position in IT. Seems like that would be the case... but it can't be. A CS degree is not free... could cost $40K-$100K and more. But no one gets hired into top paying positions without experience, so the CS grad will be working along side the (for the purposes of this example) non-degreed IT guy, doing the same work, making the same money. The IT guy is happy about his job, and sees it as a career, a long long term position. If the CS grad is even remotely self-aware, It won't take long before s/he will wish to expand their horizons, and rightly so, to pay for that incredibly expensive degree. Meanwhile, HR is thinking "we can hire CS grads!" and write up job descriptions that way: "Tier II Support Specialist needed, CS degree required," which is absurd, because what they are doing is creating an IT ecosystem with a lot of turnover. This only serves to hurt a company's IT infrastructure because there just aren't enough people around, and sticking around, that are really familiar with how the specific environment was built and how it, this specific installation, works. So what you get is a swiss cheese effect on the intellectual capital within an IT department: you get an overly heterogeneous environment. Heterogeneous environments, as far as having multiple systems, can be a really good thing for the health and security of an IT department. But it can be detrimental if all the systems are the same, just a wide variety of version-levels of that system. It's good to have some Windows, some Linux, some Mac systems. Its not doing a company any good to have 4 different versions of MS Office being deployed, on 5 different versions of Windows. The more turnover, the more the environment begins to look this way. (I believe rapid expansion of a company has a similar effect on IT).
Sort of got away from my point, which is, I guess... HR wants CS grads filling IT. But IT guys (should) want CS grads doing computer science and not stealing their jobs or lowering their salaries.
Also, I don't think I've ever met a pretentious mathematician. Ironic, but I think pretentiousness comes from a desire to prove something (heh... not talking about logical proofs). A desire to prove something comes from a perceived deficit (this is why the short guy wants to fight you, or thinks you look down on him... just an example, short guy, if you're reading this, don't take it personally!).
very nice.
So... smart ass... I take it reading comprehension is not required for software development in the UK?
software development != information technology
software develoment != computer science
I'd really like to know where this ridiculous and widespread notion that "programming is computer science" came from... because its completely incorrect. The two have little to do with each other. You're a programmer, or if you like, a developer, NOT necessarily a computer scientist. A CS degree is a solid foundation for a career in development, but programming isn't a science, its a practice.
And no, it doesn't mean your job doesn't count, and no, you should not pack it in. You should marry and have babies and send them to college.
You are making hardly any sense. CS is *the* degree you go for if you want to work in IT. The only "CS" jobs that exists are academic ones.
That's what some people think, but it is completely incorrect. There is NO degree for working in IT (ok, there's a few systems adminstration degrees at a few universities now... pretty cool). This attitide, I believe, is what caused the bottom to drop out of entry level IT positions about 10 years ago. In 2001, a crappy Windows administrator position could start at $65K/yr... by 2004 it was part-time $12/hr. You can't really do computer science without the foundations givin in academia. But anyone with a knack for trouble-shooting that likes working with computers can work in information technology, and with experience, get really very good at it, no degree (or social skills) necessary. A lot of what IT is is simply familiarity with the specific systems with which one is working. You don't learn that in CS, and what you learn in CS will only be useful in the abstract in such a specific environment.
There are indeed real computer science jobs out there, but they are integrated into other disciplines. Just a couple that come to mind... in the field of Bioinformatics, and in the field of Meteorology —weather modelling (and, well... any complex computer modelling, fluid dynamics, cosmology, aeronautics... even marketing analytics).
It seems that only real computer scientists know that computer science really has nothing at all to do with what we think of as modern computers. Its really mathematics. You'd be far more correct to think of computer scientists as specialized mathemeticians than as some glorified high-level computer repair techician. Actually, if you think of a computer scientist as a glorified computer repair techician, you are utterly and completely mistaken, and you are insulting both the bone fide computer scientist and the genuine computer technician. These 2 disciplines have nothing to do with each other.
I am a medical doctor, and just finished my surgical rotation. But right now, working as a nurse would be very convenient for me. I am wondering if, as an M.D. working as an R.N., will hurt my future job prospects.
/bullshit
I'm just trying to show the OP what a really poor question he is asking. Its bad enough that the bottom has dropped out of IT jobs, and $12/hr part-time Windows Admin positions are requiring a CS degree (why? HR is entirely comprised of idiots).
OP, If you want your Masters degree to be completely meaningless, a complete waste of your efforts, money and your time... sure... jump right into IT, and be prepared to be managed and/or peered with someone with an HS diploma, a sweet sweet gaming rig, and 7 years experience over you with no degrees that will run circles around you and make you look and feel stupid.
The discipline of Computer Science offers nothing to the discipline of Information Technology.... or rather... it is absurd overkill. Computer Scientists working in IT (unless at the higher cognative level of Senior Systems Engineer, Systems Programmer, Systems Architect, Database Architect, etc.) are hurting themselves... hurting the CS discipline, lowering the salary expectations of both computer scientists and the lowly, bearded systems administrator.
Stop it, please. Aim high, and live up to your degree. If you want an easy job that pays well right now, look into database administration. But even that doesn't require any degree whatsoever.
CS is programming
Incorrect. There is much debate about what it is, but whatever Computer Science is, it certainly is NOT programming. Sure, a computer scientist may write software. But the same could be true of anyone at all, journalists, postal workers, physicists and philosophers. Programming does not make one a computer scientist. Programming is not computer science. Programming is programming.
Computer Science is a subset of the discipline of Mathematics. Programming is not.
You're just what they want, Coppertop. Facebook is a tool, alright, but its not what you say it is. You are the product that the tool creates. The monster says "jump into my mouth, you delicious mortal!" and you respond "gladly!" Facebook is a marketing pimp, and you, sir... well, guess what you are? Ho ho ho.
Fine. That software is still ill conceived, unoriginal garbage.
Nigel Tufnel: But if you keep folding it, then it keeps breaking... ...and then everything has to be folded... and then you have... this. And I don't want this.
Ian Faith: Why would you keep folding it?
Nigel Tufnel: