scary. I mean, I know they're being careful. But what I said holds true. We have 110 or so reactors in the US now, and every single temp storage facility was at or over capacity last I checked. But let's double or triple the number of facilities, and increase the transportation rate too... there's a cloverleaf somewhere that will wreck your life (and the lives of your great great great grandchildren, assuming you've already procreated).
oh. I didn't realize it was by truck. I was thinking train (2009? 7000 train accidents in the US alone). But if it's by truck, then there's no cause for alarm, because those guys never have accidents.
So, you can--realistically, through reprocessing--have all of the waste for an entire generation from an entire country fit into a very dangerous house,
Realistically? Not really... it's too dangerous to transport it to... what was your address again? Seriously, we can't move the stuff. If we start to move it, realistically, from, say, merely 110 different temporary storage locations that are already over-capacity, there will be accidents. Expand that number, then you expand the number of accidents.
Riiight... because putting a nuclear reactor at the bottom of the ocean couldn't be any more difficult or dangerous than, you know, drilling into underwater oil fields. What could possibly go wrong?
I also studied TRUE Computer Science (subset of math... hell... it was all math), though I do not work as a scientist... I am a practitioner. I know what science is and I know what it is not. My issue is with the word "engineering." Bridges and roads and even computers ARE engineered. They are tangible, physical, REAL. Software is called SOFTware for a reason. You can't actually SEE it (the thing in itself), SMELL it, TASTE it or TOUCH it, or HEAR it, or empirically sense it it any way other than it's effects (a blip on the screen); software is conceptual. Engineering is not conceptual, it is always quite tangible. I think your examination of my example of poetry and hairstyling engineers is quite arbitrary. I'm not saying that what they want to call software engineering isn't science... just that it isn't engineering, in the same sense that a journalist isn't a news engineer. It dilutes the meaning of the word, your wiki definition notwithstanding. Prior to about 1995, there was no such term as a software engineer, yet there were certainly the same tasks being delt with to a large extent for at least the previous 30 years, if not the previous 6000 years. Even the work of a poet can withstand a large electro-magnetic pulse, either in our memory or in a printed piece of dead tree, so in a sense, a poem is far more "real" than a computer program. If you build a bridge, no matter how terrible it is, no matter how little planning you put into it, you still engineered it, because it physically exists, after all. A mathematical equation, on the other hand, can't truly be engineered. Philosophically speaking, that equation existed a priori, like all numbers, simple or complex, without the need for any anthropomorphic realization. There are no software engineers in the same sence that there are no mathematical engineers. This term was applied as a marketing device. Software Engineers ARE Software Developers with a cooler name. Marketing, nothing more.
I wish you luck with your studies. Computer Science is a cold unforgiving bitch, a true moving target of a curriculum if ever there was one.
Yes... Again, marketing buzzword. The universities are trying to attract tuition-paying students. Even they can't explain properly what exactly is being engineered. electrons? magnetic fields on spinning discs? Lines of code? Why not Poetry Engineers as well??
Your point taken, though... perhaps I was a bit harsh. No offense, developers!
(Love most of your post... been posting similarly for days.... but... ) What engineering? Software what what? It makes more sense to call a barber a hair style engineer than it does to use weird meaningless marketing terms like "software engineering." I have the greatest respect for programmers, computer scientists, and bone fide engineers... but I just feel sorry for anyone with either such low or far too elevated self-esteem to refer to themselves as a software engineer. It's no better than "sales engineer." Coding is respectable in it's own right without having to synthetically prop it up with a false title. Call me a flamebait engineer.
Sure, if you take a few steps back and look at everything from a different angle.
Objectively and accurately is how I like to look at things. But I suspect you are correct as far as people wanting to make up their own definitions. But there is a distinct line between science and practice. Even though I studied computer science (the real kind, that includes the math minor), I consider myself a computer practitioner, because that is what I do. I, for one, certainly didn't spend dozens of thousands of dollars on a degree so that I could do something that the best of those that do it taught it to themselves for free, like, say, programming. You don't need a degree or a license or anything but self-discipline to do that.
There's very little science involved in the computer industry in general, and not much involved in programming.
strictly speaking, programmers are not computer scientists.
Well, the scientific method comes into play when debugging, or working with unfamiliar code, but the field's so young that it's still really more of an art or a craft.
I'm not sure what field you are speaking of... computer science as a discipline is quite ancient. I would guess that programming, in so far as it is formulating algorithms, is also quite old. Coding Java, or Javascripting, or coding C++, I'd say, those tasks are babies, infants, fetus's, comparatively. And debugging is probably as old as our grandfathers.
I believe the the problem here is with ignoring the second term in the curriculum's title, namely, the concept of "science," i.e. if it is not Science, then it can not be Computer Science.
Weird... how many enter computer science in the hopes of a career in information technology. It wouldn't be so weird if many entered law school in the hopes of entering the paralegal field, or if many entered medical school in the hopes of a career in nursing, or entered a curriculum of fluid dynamics in the hopes of a solid plumbing career... but this only happens with CS and IT. Hey... I have an idea... why overshoot the Moon, when you can just study information technology instead? I, for one, have found precious little reason to use differential calculus nor descrete math and probability permeatations, nor set theory, while administrating computer systems or supporting applications or users. YMMV
Are you hiring? I can't see any way to send you a private message through/., or I'd tell you at least where I live... well, I guess I can do that by saying CMU loves to interview me... 14+ interviews so far... no offers. CMU is not corporate, of course, but the individuals there are very bright, educated, motivated yet laid back and drama-free. My interviews with Google went swimmingly until the interview with the fellow that I was to replace... when he found out that I "did things" with my cell phone out of curiosity, he ended all hope of my ever getting another interview there, much less an offer. Prejudgements are the hobgoblin of little minds, I keep telling myself.
based not on consensus or managerial decision making but by cliques and lobbying
I have worked, via contract, in at least a dozen medium to large sizes companies where this is the underlying mechanism. If you stick out in that you focus solely on the work and do not engage with the de facto clique leaders, who as often discuss droll subjects such as retiling their bathroom as often as they collectively decide how they want you to do their jobs for them, then absurd personal complaints will begin to stack up against you and you will be forced out of a job.
I used to flaunt my individuity, but since 9/11 I have been consciously conforming to old school business formality... never arrive late, never leave early, never get sick or take off, always dress nice, keep short hair, no superfluous non-work related conversations, never mentioning anything from my personal life, always ready with a polite smile and an enthusiasm for the work no matter how mundane it is... I've tried to embody what the ideal is for a person in my field. This doesn't work. One needs to become *good* friends with whomever that defacto leader is, who is as often as not NOT the management (but, indeed, through strength of personality has the manager under their thumb, and completely snowjobs the executives with an almost supernatural confidence).
If they like you, you win. And when you win, they like you. Otherwise... you are the first of any approaching cutbacks... you become the sacrifice that saves everyone elses jobs, the scapegoat for any complaints that come down from the executive levels.
The last 2 teams I worked with were more like a gang than a corporate division, whose self-preservation far outweights the work they are responsible for (My last contract ended abruptly when 3 of my counterparts in another building took heavy criticism for their laziness and distict lack of any work ethic... but because they were well liked, somehow I got the boot and the blame for their incompetance... without even remotely having anything to do with whatever incident occurred (never quite clear on exactly what it was... something to do with an assigned task that they kept passing between them and was never completed).
I hope someday my perserverance will pay off and I will be able to work not only with smart people (intelligence was rarely an issue), but educated and honest, and hopefully enlightened individuals that do not synthesize drama to manipulate perceptions such that those they like, towing the gang's loyalty, remain employed, while those that are effective, and thus throwing the curve, are terminated.
b bbut... Steve Jobs ducks out just as Baby Doc returns? Coincidence?! Yeah, of course, that's just a big unrelated coincidence. (crosses fingers in the hopes that this non sequitur causes a few smart people to think WTF).
P.S. I wish all republicans were like you (seen enough of your posts to know you are actually doing good works rather than getting rich off the backs of the bruised... plz keep it up)
Not so much, no. It means what it means, as defined, agreed upon, and accepted by actual computer scientists over the last millennia or so, and major accredited programs, and not what you want it to mean.
Computer Science is the systematic study of computing systems and computation. The body of knowledge resulting from this discipline contains theories for understanding computing systems and methods; design methodology, algorithms, and tools; methods for the testing of concepts; methods of analysis and verification; and knowledge representation and implementation.
In 2001, and prior, a new CS grad could claim a 65K/yr starting salary. Now... lucky to get $12/hr part time. What happened with law graduates has now happened with CS grads... too many of them... the market is flooded and their value is far less than the cost of education to produce them.
Obviously, my statement was sort of a joke. A CS degree is an awesome individual accomplishment. But it's a shame when students enter the program because they "wanna fix computers." It's the same as someone seeking a degree in fluid mechanics because they want to be a good plumber (except that plumbers are well compensated even today... point is, the degree wasn't necessary). The C.S. degree was one of the few truly academic degrees that had immediate practical application. But now no one looks at it for what it is... namely, an academic degree, but it's now incorrectly seen as some sort of practitioners license to fix computers... which it is not and never was.
This is flamebait. Computer Science has nothing to do with computers and nothing to with operating systems, Linux included. Computer Science is a subset of Mathematics, and like Mathematics, predates computers and operating systems by about 6 thousand years or so. There is no such thing as software engineering in the same sense that there is no such thing as mathematics engineering. Programmers are not computer scientists, and neither are systems operators or administrators. If any of these occupations are your goal, perhaps you should consider other more pragmatic disciplines and avoid the strictly academic ones, such as Computer Science.
Yeah, right. Too bad Microsoft can't sue itself, their OS has been broken since they started calling NT something else! Are you shitting me? Microsoft has no case, even if what is claimed is true, what happened there and everywhere their OS is used is, apparently, expected behavior for that OS, a design intended to promote their product "Windows Defender." For all we know the attack vector was Windows Automatic Update and/or Genuine Advantage.
The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me.
No hold on, this is not some species that was obliterated by deforestation, or the building of a dam. [Mammoths], uh, had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction!
thx for posting.
just pasting from the wiki on PMS:
A software package management system (PMS) is a collection of software tools to automate the process of installing, upgrading, configuring, and removing software packages for a computer's operating system in a consistent manner. It typically maintains a database of software dependencies and version information to prevent software mismatches and missing prerequisites.
So even though they seem like pears and oranges, the perform the same function (making the bare minimum characteristics "installing software, tracking versioning). Also interesting to note, not all package managers are source based. pkgsrc is, but I believe apt is binary based, is it not?
Slashdot Mirror
scary. I mean, I know they're being careful. But what I said holds true. We have 110 or so reactors in the US now, and every single temp storage facility was at or over capacity last I checked. But let's double or triple the number of facilities, and increase the transportation rate too... there's a cloverleaf somewhere that will wreck your life (and the lives of your great great great grandchildren, assuming you've already procreated).
oh. I didn't realize it was by truck. I was thinking train (2009? 7000 train accidents in the US alone). But if it's by truck, then there's no cause for alarm, because those guys never have accidents.
So, you can--realistically, through reprocessing--have all of the waste for an entire generation from an entire country fit into a very dangerous house,
Realistically? Not really... it's too dangerous to transport it to... what was your address again? Seriously, we can't move the stuff. If we start to move it, realistically, from, say, merely 110 different temporary storage locations that are already over-capacity, there will be accidents. Expand that number, then you expand the number of accidents.
Riiight... because putting a nuclear reactor at the bottom of the ocean couldn't be any more difficult or dangerous than, you know, drilling into underwater oil fields. What could possibly go wrong?
I also studied TRUE Computer Science (subset of math... hell... it was all math), though I do not work as a scientist... I am a practitioner. I know what science is and I know what it is not. My issue is with the word "engineering." Bridges and roads and even computers ARE engineered. They are tangible, physical, REAL. Software is called SOFTware for a reason. You can't actually SEE it (the thing in itself), SMELL it, TASTE it or TOUCH it, or HEAR it, or empirically sense it it any way other than it's effects (a blip on the screen); software is conceptual. Engineering is not conceptual, it is always quite tangible. I think your examination of my example of poetry and hairstyling engineers is quite arbitrary. I'm not saying that what they want to call software engineering isn't science... just that it isn't engineering, in the same sense that a journalist isn't a news engineer. It dilutes the meaning of the word, your wiki definition notwithstanding. Prior to about 1995, there was no such term as a software engineer, yet there were certainly the same tasks being delt with to a large extent for at least the previous 30 years, if not the previous 6000 years. Even the work of a poet can withstand a large electro-magnetic pulse, either in our memory or in a printed piece of dead tree, so in a sense, a poem is far more "real" than a computer program. If you build a bridge, no matter how terrible it is, no matter how little planning you put into it, you still engineered it, because it physically exists, after all. A mathematical equation, on the other hand, can't truly be engineered. Philosophically speaking, that equation existed a priori, like all numbers, simple or complex, without the need for any anthropomorphic realization. There are no software engineers in the same sence that there are no mathematical engineers. This term was applied as a marketing device. Software Engineers ARE Software Developers with a cooler name. Marketing, nothing more.
I wish you luck with your studies. Computer Science is a cold unforgiving bitch, a true moving target of a curriculum if ever there was one.
Your point taken, though... perhaps I was a bit harsh. No offense, developers!
The difference between say, computer science and sociology, is that computer scientists require absolute proofs.
Fallicious! Not all sociologists and computer scientists are drunks!
(Love most of your post... been posting similarly for days.... but... ) What engineering? Software what what? It makes more sense to call a barber a hair style engineer than it does to use weird meaningless marketing terms like "software engineering." I have the greatest respect for programmers, computer scientists, and bone fide engineers... but I just feel sorry for anyone with either such low or far too elevated self-esteem to refer to themselves as a software engineer. It's no better than "sales engineer." Coding is respectable in it's own right without having to synthetically prop it up with a false title. Call me a flamebait engineer.
Sure, if you take a few steps back and look at everything from a different angle.
Objectively and accurately is how I like to look at things. But I suspect you are correct as far as people wanting to make up their own definitions. But there is a distinct line between science and practice. Even though I studied computer science (the real kind, that includes the math minor), I consider myself a computer practitioner, because that is what I do. I, for one, certainly didn't spend dozens of thousands of dollars on a degree so that I could do something that the best of those that do it taught it to themselves for free, like, say, programming. You don't need a degree or a license or anything but self-discipline to do that.
There's very little science involved in the computer industry in general, and not much involved in programming.
strictly speaking, programmers are not computer scientists.
Well, the scientific method comes into play when debugging, or working with unfamiliar code, but the field's so young that it's still really more of an art or a craft.
I'm not sure what field you are speaking of... computer science as a discipline is quite ancient. I would guess that programming, in so far as it is formulating algorithms, is also quite old. Coding Java, or Javascripting, or coding C++, I'd say, those tasks are babies, infants, fetus's, comparatively. And debugging is probably as old as our grandfathers.
I believe the the problem here is with ignoring the second term in the curriculum's title, namely, the concept of "science," i.e. if it is not Science, then it can not be Computer Science.
While not an exact metaphor, tell the old man to have a look at Matthew 20:1–16
Weird... how many enter computer science in the hopes of a career in information technology. It wouldn't be so weird if many entered law school in the hopes of entering the paralegal field, or if many entered medical school in the hopes of a career in nursing, or entered a curriculum of fluid dynamics in the hopes of a solid plumbing career... but this only happens with CS and IT. Hey... I have an idea... why overshoot the Moon, when you can just study information technology instead? I, for one, have found precious little reason to use differential calculus nor descrete math and probability permeatations, nor set theory, while administrating computer systems or supporting applications or users. YMMV
I would hire you in a flash
Are you hiring? I can't see any way to send you a private message through /., or I'd tell you at least where I live... well, I guess I can do that by saying CMU loves to interview me... 14+ interviews so far... no offers. CMU is not corporate, of course, but the individuals there are very bright, educated, motivated yet laid back and drama-free. My interviews with Google went swimmingly until the interview with the fellow that I was to replace... when he found out that I "did things" with my cell phone out of curiosity, he ended all hope of my ever getting another interview there, much less an offer. Prejudgements are the hobgoblin of little minds, I keep telling myself.
based not on consensus or managerial decision making but by cliques and lobbying
I have worked, via contract, in at least a dozen medium to large sizes companies where this is the underlying mechanism. If you stick out in that you focus solely on the work and do not engage with the de facto clique leaders, who as often discuss droll subjects such as retiling their bathroom as often as they collectively decide how they want you to do their jobs for them, then absurd personal complaints will begin to stack up against you and you will be forced out of a job.
I used to flaunt my individuity, but since 9/11 I have been consciously conforming to old school business formality... never arrive late, never leave early, never get sick or take off, always dress nice, keep short hair, no superfluous non-work related conversations, never mentioning anything from my personal life, always ready with a polite smile and an enthusiasm for the work no matter how mundane it is... I've tried to embody what the ideal is for a person in my field. This doesn't work. One needs to become *good* friends with whomever that defacto leader is, who is as often as not NOT the management (but, indeed, through strength of personality has the manager under their thumb, and completely snowjobs the executives with an almost supernatural confidence).
If they like you, you win. And when you win, they like you. Otherwise... you are the first of any approaching cutbacks... you become the sacrifice that saves everyone elses jobs, the scapegoat for any complaints that come down from the executive levels.
The last 2 teams I worked with were more like a gang than a corporate division, whose self-preservation far outweights the work they are responsible for (My last contract ended abruptly when 3 of my counterparts in another building took heavy criticism for their laziness and distict lack of any work ethic... but because they were well liked, somehow I got the boot and the blame for their incompetance... without even remotely having anything to do with whatever incident occurred (never quite clear on exactly what it was... something to do with an assigned task that they kept passing between them and was never completed).
I hope someday my perserverance will pay off and I will be able to work not only with smart people (intelligence was rarely an issue), but educated and honest, and hopefully enlightened individuals that do not synthesize drama to manipulate perceptions such that those they like, towing the gang's loyalty, remain employed, while those that are effective, and thus throwing the curve, are terminated.
Seriously. I'm a rocket scientist, and I'm baffled
C'mon, man! It ain't brain surgery!
b bbut... Steve Jobs ducks out just as Baby Doc returns? Coincidence?! Yeah, of course, that's just a big unrelated coincidence. (crosses fingers in the hopes that this non sequitur causes a few smart people to think WTF).
P.S. I wish all republicans were like you (seen enough of your posts to know you are actually doing good works rather than getting rich off the backs of the bruised... plz keep it up)
The definition of CS varies
Not so much, no. It means what it means, as defined, agreed upon, and accepted by actual computer scientists over the last millennia or so, and major accredited programs, and not what you want it to mean.
Computer Science is the systematic study of computing systems and computation. The body of knowledge resulting from this discipline contains theories for understanding computing systems and methods; design methodology, algorithms, and tools; methods for the testing of concepts; methods of analysis and verification; and knowledge representation and implementation.
In 2001, and prior, a new CS grad could claim a 65K/yr starting salary. Now... lucky to get $12/hr part time. What happened with law graduates has now happened with CS grads... too many of them... the market is flooded and their value is far less than the cost of education to produce them.
Obviously, my statement was sort of a joke. A CS degree is an awesome individual accomplishment. But it's a shame when students enter the program because they "wanna fix computers." It's the same as someone seeking a degree in fluid mechanics because they want to be a good plumber (except that plumbers are well compensated even today... point is, the degree wasn't necessary). The C.S. degree was one of the few truly academic degrees that had immediate practical application. But now no one looks at it for what it is... namely, an academic degree, but it's now incorrectly seen as some sort of practitioners license to fix computers... which it is not and never was.
This is flamebait. Computer Science has nothing to do with computers and nothing to with operating systems, Linux included. Computer Science is a subset of Mathematics, and like Mathematics, predates computers and operating systems by about 6 thousand years or so. There is no such thing as software engineering in the same sense that there is no such thing as mathematics engineering. Programmers are not computer scientists, and neither are systems operators or administrators. If any of these occupations are your goal, perhaps you should consider other more pragmatic disciplines and avoid the strictly academic ones, such as Computer Science.
Yeah, right. Too bad Microsoft can't sue itself, their OS has been broken since they started calling NT something else! Are you shitting me? Microsoft has no case, even if what is claimed is true, what happened there and everywhere their OS is used is, apparently, expected behavior for that OS, a design intended to promote their product "Windows Defender." For all we know the attack vector was Windows Automatic Update and/or Genuine Advantage.
Perhaps the attack vector was a "friendly" one... Quite possibly it was Windows Update that inserted the code.
The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me.
No hold on, this is not some species that was obliterated by deforestation, or the building of a dam. [Mammoths], uh, had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction!
Dr. Ian Malcolm (rockstar)
Flash is most appropriately used when completely unnecessary... and inappropriate.
just pasting from the wiki on PMS:
A software package management system (PMS) is a collection of software tools to automate the process of installing, upgrading, configuring, and removing software packages for a computer's operating system in a consistent manner. It typically maintains a database of software dependencies and version information to prevent software mismatches and missing prerequisites.
So even though they seem like pears and oranges, the perform the same function (making the bare minimum characteristics "installing software, tracking versioning). Also interesting to note, not all package managers are source based. pkgsrc is, but I believe apt is binary based, is it not?