why was I not a victim of the oppression described above?
There are people out there who will unethically walk over anyone for the slightest benefit. They don't just exist in schools, they just manifest themselves differently. (we've all met that cut-throat person at work)
And, in some cases there are sadists. When people get older, they have less time and patience for people like this. But in high school, this behaviour can be rewarded. Once case is where a person dedicates themselves to a group, and then becomes aggresive to an outsider. The rest of the group then has the choice to ignore that aggression to the outsider, or support their friend. And most people will support their friends before they listen to anyone else.
In this scenario, the victim has not been given a choice in the matter. There can be outside circumstances, but ultimately, a divide has been created.
You were lucky, but not all of us can say the same. I went to 2 high schools years ago. In one, I was picked on, in the other, I wasn't. All it takes is one person.
Do they have a witness protection program? Let's assume they can get a bully banned from the town. Does that stop their friends from having a "conversation" with the victim?
Furthermore, what can they do in the normal channels? To get a kid expelled is serious. And in the end, the teacher is going to be at most the equivilent to a cop at a trial. Impartial, but only a witness to an event.
I can half see the point of the staying in class at lunch, but the student would probably be better off laying low elsewhere. Mainly, because if it is discovered that they are hiding in a class the result will most likely not be positive.
The only thing a teacher can really do is get someone kicked out of their class. But in the case of bullies, what good does it do when the person is left to have a "conversation" with the bully and their friends outside of school property?
I know I linked this earlier, but I think the blame is placed on the board of education for turning the school system into a prison. http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html/ This verbalizes a lot of my observations while in junior high and high school.
This article is pretty good. In the context of Columbine, it states, what I believe to be, a partial why of the situation. Other than the obvious fact the shooters were fucked up. Then again, save self-defense, what human being that shoots another isn't fucked up?
A) Government Involvment
How many/.'ers actually like the thought of government involvement in technology? The thought of it scares the hell out of me. For example, if, the American government, realized that there are security holes in an OS and that these OSes are hooked up to the internet and can potientially be exploited to become zombies used to attack said internet. What do you think they would do? Hopefully, they'd do the smart thing and create a list of recommendations and have a "safe OS" sticker program where the standards were well designed. Or something similar. But we all know what would happen. Companies like MS, and IBM would get preferenial treatment in creating these standards.
Let's assume that all "monopoly" laws were never created (and the concept never existed). Alternative OS advocates would then just focus more on the inferiority of windows, rather than hoping that the law would do the right thing. I think this is the type of battle most/.'ers would rather see anyway. At least the one we'd be more interested in.
B) The World's Digital Now
The moment that digital copying became feasible, the days of the old method of distribution became numbered. Trying to preserve them is an exercise in futility. Only demonstrating what the muscles of the legal system and government can do. The sad thing is that most people can't read between the lines. But I'd say that financial analysts and technologists agree on this one. Such a thing is surely a sign of the apocolypse.
C) Socialist Protection vs. Free-Market Revolution
In your system, what happens when something becomes entrenched? It's bound to happen. Think about a potiental revolution within a market over time. When it happens the old try to crush the new. Sound familiar? Because it is the current problem, and will be the outcome of the parent's solution. Which is why it is a band-aid at best.
D) Cut Throat Capitalism
I've always liked the thought of cut-throat capitalism. Companies no longer have any other option but to innovate, because they must out of neccesity. The problem is that if it is perfectly cut-throat, there may be too many players in a market and even the biggest party may not have the resources to do it properly (or the largest party may not be able to get a sufficient return from their investments). This is where concepts like open source become the winner (where resources are donated by the community). The amazing thing is that the concept of free software (in both sences) creates the cut-throat capitalism and then thrives in it. It is why the dominance of free software is inevitable.
E) There is no E, I'm just tempted to put ??? then list F as profit.
we are ALL disabled, because protein is a really crap technology
I have to agree with the parent (yes, I've also read Kurzweil) and grandparent on this perspective.
In particular, think about from another way: Consider a social situation in person. Where you are talking to someone who has a remarkable ability to read body language and other factors like reading eyes. The average person will practically be disabled talking to such a person. Do we look at it this way, generally no. But I'm sure we've all been in a situation where we are simply outclassed by someone more intuitive than ourselves.
I know in my case, I can read eyes pretty well. So I start to get disoriented when a person has sunglasses on (or my glasses are off meaning I can't see their eyes). It makes me feel disabled, even though the playing field has been leveled.
But as for technology being the ultimate pancacea, I don't think so. If a person can express themselves more elegantly than average, or if they have more wit, then they will have an advantage in not just the current text-based medium, but in all places. (in particular, I'd bet writers are given the greatest advantage by it).
An interesting point would be a place like/. Where you can see similar replies to an issue but one will be rated higher than the other. Possibly because a factor of time, elegance, wit, etc. But I don't think anyone can deny that the person has simply had an advantage of some sort over the other posters.
This would place "disabled" as a relative term, because nobody's perfect.
To be perfectly honest, I think the thing people expect most is an appeal to the pathos.
40 years ago, the easiest way to apply to the pathos was through a uniformed middle-aged employee (in this type of service). Now, it's a lot harder, but still revolves around delievering the same, cookie-cutter perfect image, just with new packaging.
You know, the unwritten requirement of employees to have a smile plastered on their faces while they do any job. No matter how difficult or frustrating.
Take computers for example, the average person can't look under the hood. All they can do is see and feel the responses of the interface. So services like spyware and virus removal don't really have to be complete, they just have to remove the signs a person can see.
Now as for competent customers, the only appeal one could make is to the logos. Which means having informed people working for them.
In either case, the thing people want the most is good sales people. We want good, quick (thinking and acting) people when the shit hits the fan.
Let's assume that we take the advice of this sage. And, in this "perfect" world we have created, everyone always has.
Oops, now there are no medical doctors. Well there goes Ellison's friend, Steve Jobs (due to cancer), but it's cool, he dropped out and got rich.
Speaking of Ellison, I'm sure that he's never used post-secondary graduate labour. So, I'm sure it would have been as easy and cheap (cheap because of high supply) to get talented people if everyone dropped out of university.
I could continue with this, but I think the point is clear. The world needs people to study at universities.
Furthermore, on average, what class of people is more successful, those with an education or those without? Even if we include a couple of lucky people who were at the right place at the right time.
Next he'll be telling us to commit suicide until we get reincarnated and have rich parents.
And I should probably note that some of us want knowledge for the sake of having that knowledge. But hey, the average person on slashdot is only interested in science and technology for the money, right?
I've made an observation that people defend their biased beliefs through what they understand of Christianity a lot more then they stand for what the Bible says about positive living.
But judging people isn't reflected positively in the Bible, so I guess I'm not one to talk. And, as you imply (and state in one case), this is a failing of many vocal "christians".
You said it before I could (I know this post is a little later, but I have other things to do)...
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it odd that slashdot posts an article that pretty much bashes the previous entry.
Can we call this a dupe^(-1)?
I don't think the data was skewed as much as what little is given cannot be taken seriously.
For starters, let's look at what little data was given about the testing method:
Next I tested the speed of the applications themselves by simply opening and closing them 5 times and finding the average.
Hrrm, that doesn't sound like a very clean environment, speaking of, what is the overall state of their computer? Do they have background processes running that may skew results?
Second, the author doesn't tell us the individual results (save the first) and just averages them for us. At the very least, they should give a standard deviation. (note, there is a non-functional link at the bottom which may contain such things, I do not know at this time)
Third, wouldn't it be a nice idea to test on different computers? Not just a single one? I can understand that the author may have limited resources, but it does limit the scope of the "experiment" (Unless everyone has the same computer as the author)
Fourth, in the "closing time" section the author mentions they closed a specific file. What about closing no files at all?
Fifth, the graphs, at which times did things start and complete? I have no idea what is going on here. For all I've been told the ending trails of the graph (which are all pretty low) are where the "experiment" happens.
I can only hope that the results link (which isn't working at the time that this was posted) contains such data. In any event, I'll admit my bias, I dislike using empirical data. And when I am forced (kicking and screaming) to collect it, I try to minimize the number of variables that may vary. This author does not appear to have attempted that. Thus I don't think that the results can be taken seriously. (and to be honest, I can't believe they were posted on/.)
I could be wrong on some of the points I made, or I could have missed something that is obvious, in any event, I just wanted to express my displeasure with calling this an "experiment" in the first place.
The thing that's more amazing is that people think that clock frequency is the only factor of CPU speed. (The resulting overclocking religion is even more of a spectacle to me, yes, overclocking may be good, but not necessarily, hence, if you overclock, test the change in performance)
And the really scary thing is that I'm starting to see the size of cache used as a metric of a CPU's worth. Bigger doesn't automatically mean better, and depending on other factors, may make things worse.
Category Theory is a subset of math, but do all mathematicians know it? Hell, I'll bet there are a lot that haven't even heard of it.
Furthermore, I'm a CS major, but I haven't studied all the topics within the discipline, nor do I plan on it.
Take something like architecture, or cryptography. It is possible to earn a CS PhD in these from earlier studies in Engineering and Math (respectively), and not have a clue how to program.
But, for an undergraduate degree, knowledge of programming is required. Hence, if a CS undergrad does not know how to program then it reflects poorly upon their character, but not the degree as a whole.
So, according to the article, current rates appear to be about the same as 1978. And, ignoring the two major enrollment increases (peaking in 1982 and 1999) the levels about constant. And I would say that overall, it amounts to at least the 2x estimation I made. The interesting thing is that enrollment appears to be declining, so it appears that it might be possible that it might go lower, but I still doubt it.
So, I suppose that this may be the "invisible hand" at work. But as previously stated, I doubt it.
In any event, I will stand by my earlier statement concerning knowledge inflation.
I think the weakest point in my argument is the amount of jobs that will be available in the future (increasing use of computers, outsourcing, etc.). But Damnit Jim, I'm a computer scientist, not a business analyst.
But, again, using Alan Turing as an example, we are talking about someone who didn't use what we could consider essential elements of computing (specifically Networking and OSes), yet, no one would doubt that he is a great computer scientist. (I used the word "is" because I will say that the knowledge he had as a computer scientist still exists)
To make a more modern point, I've had a professor who could build an OS, but damned if he could use windows well.
I think the scariest part is people who leave CS without being able to program well. I feel that programming is perfectly taught (at least in CS departments I've seen), where time would only be wasted if any more was taught. Students are given enough knowledge and theory to go and learn everything they need to know independantly, giving a timeless quality to the degree.
As for the financial problem, I'm going to relate it to a belief I have about studying CS: "Focus on things that a code monkey cannot do, and avoid things that they can." The reason is that if you box yourself in, then you're going to get stuck in a smaller, less paid, pool that has more available "professionals" in it.
In other words, run faster then the herd. If a person doesn't have a CS degree, then they better earn a reputation worthy of one. Which is damned hard.
I say this, because I'm a student who is intermittently in the real world, and I know, that I made the right choice taking a degree. Because I worry about the quality of job that I'll get over the next 40 years.
Then, if one assumes that a generation lasts 40 years, and that "The first computer science department in the United States was founded at Purdue University in 1962" then we have come to the end of the first generation. But, enrollment in CS in 1962 doesn't compare to even enrollment in the 1980s. That would mean that even if enrollment started to massively decline to the amount it had in the 1960s, we would be left with the same amount of people that are computer scientists 20 years from now. However, we all know that will not happen. Let's further assume that enrollment in CS was really low up until the 1980s, and that it has only increased a little since, that would mean that we would have almost two times as many CS grads seeking employment 20 years from now.
Of course, I don't have the statistics to back this up, but I don't think that my assumptions are that unreasonable. And I think my point is clear. The modern observation that "you don't need a CS degree" will be much less true (yes, I used true in an analog capacity) 20 years from now. Now, jump forward to 40 years, when the massive hoarde of CS grads will have at least 20 years of experience. Or hell, 30 years with CS grads having at least 10 years experience, in either scenario, it creates a serious problem for those without a degree looking for a job in such a market where there will be tough competition on many angles (A lot of experience + degree, experience + degree, and cheap + recent degree).
Although the later part of the rant didn't exactly address the point you made, I felt it had to be said.
Logically, having a CS degree proves that you are capable with many elements of computing, while the absence of one does not prove that you are not.
The only problem is that if you don't have the degree, how can you prove that you are on the same level? Obviously there are avenues, such as job experience, but even then, it is lacking an non-partial authority.
Any CS-major can attest that programming can be hacked, but that making it properly is the hard part that the degree is useful for.
And my opinion is that in the past people in the computer industry had to hire people without CS degrees, because, for example, if in Alan Turing's time employers put a requirement for CS degrees then no one could fill such a job. But now that CS degrees have become common place and the people who are most likely to have the skills that the degree certifies would get a degree in the subject anyway, save the aging community in the field, but that is becoming less and less of an argument as they retire.
Hence, if, in 2005 you wish to start a 30-40 year career in the computer field, the CS route is the best way to maintain job security with the quality of competition from present and future generations (where quality demanded will grow as time continues and CS majors will beget more CS majors through market pressure).
Think about it in terms of game theory where you have a pigeon-holed based inflation. And in such a system, as the number of people available with a degree increases, so will the preception that the degree is required. Hence the "managers who will insist that only Computer Scientists are "real" programmers" segment of the population will grow until it becomes a standard.
The only thing against this prediction is that code monkeys should be cheaper. But by the time that pigeon-hole inflation comes into effect, their jobs will already be threatened, and computer scientists who have to eat will start competing for such jobs. Assuming this hasn't already happened, but I'm going to assume it has.
For starters, I fully agree with the parent about using a ticket system to complain. It is one of the better ideas I've heard in a long time. And I highly recommend it as well.
A few months ago, I was officially a "programmer" for tech services at a 350 person company. There were seven people under tech support. Therefore, approximately 50 employees per person.
Now don't get me wrong, there were days when we had very little to do. And that's when I was pretty much a full-time programmer.
But, we all know that a service provider is a Markovian-based queue. That means there exists days like the one I spoke of before, but, in my experience, there exists an equal amount of days where you will be overwhelmed. Even with 7 employees in a company of 350, our phones were still ringing off the hooks.
This is typically because of a bigger problem. But the little things can add up. Like the parent mentioned, people can be completely unreasonable when it comes to how their computers function.
Now, I know that with 30 people, things won't be quite as bad. But, there are still going to be days where you will spend your entire day helping people. I hope for the person's sake that these days don't happen when they have something more important scheduled (like a meeting with a client) that they cannot be absent from.
Any bets that there will be someone hired after a higher up is stuck without a computer for a day because their "tech support" is busy as a programmer. Or will it be when a deadline is missed because the "programmer" was too busy with tech support.
Sadly, I agree with you. But just because the real world doesn't understand why I care so much about the little details of my computer doesn't mean that much to me (other than the obvious cost of buying towards my "beliefs" (I really should not be calling them that))
Just like the way I use Linux, even though that is somewhat of a compromise for me anyway because I want to use QNX. (I just have yet to find a free version, and don't have the money for textbooks, let alone a test OS)
Can I compare being a science student to being an innocent child now?
They aren't... I've calculated the advantages by hand using real-life data... I'm not going to say I enjoyed it, but it was definately enlightening.
Research is typically worth the effort. BSD, for example, has been worked on for decades. What it takes is a company like Apple to really put it out there in the global consciousness.
You never know when that crazy idea will be on every computer in the world next. Engelbart was mocked in the 60s, but he was just REALLY ahead of his time.
Can you tell I'm an academic looking for grant money?
But clean CPU designs don't seem to outperform dirty designs by enough of a margin to be useful.
That is assuming that both designs have equal resources pouring into them. In other words, that all variables save design are controled.
Unfortunately, in the real-world, might is right, and more money, R&D specifically, is poured into the x86 architecture.
Another way of looking at this is to say that if I use a clean architecture from today and compare it to an 8086 from the early 80s then the clean architecture would destroy the 86, because it has had a lot more money and man-hours invested in it.
Besides, Intel processors basically are clean, save the ugly emulation functions they preform to maintain reverse compatibility.
So if x86, with all it's hacks and kludges, is still faster and more efficient than these so called "clean" designs, what the heck is the point of having a clean design?
Consider 2 homes, one clean and one cluttered. Walking through the clean home is a much simpler process, and typically, faster because there is no mess to dictate where you are going.
But what if the first home is really small and the second is a mansion. Then, despite clutter, there is generally more room to move around in. Hence, you can get around faster, but not as fast as possible (then say, if you had a clean mansion).
This analogy could also be used in a RISC vs. CISC debate as well. I know it's limited and looks over certain things, but this is the simplest way I could think of to phrase it.
Slashdot Mirror
There are people out there who will unethically walk over anyone for the slightest benefit. They don't just exist in schools, they just manifest themselves differently. (we've all met that cut-throat person at work)
And, in some cases there are sadists. When people get older, they have less time and patience for people like this. But in high school, this behaviour can be rewarded. Once case is where a person dedicates themselves to a group, and then becomes aggresive to an outsider. The rest of the group then has the choice to ignore that aggression to the outsider, or support their friend. And most people will support their friends before they listen to anyone else.
In this scenario, the victim has not been given a choice in the matter. There can be outside circumstances, but ultimately, a divide has been created.
You were lucky, but not all of us can say the same. I went to 2 high schools years ago. In one, I was picked on, in the other, I wasn't. All it takes is one person.
Teachers have no real power.
Do they have a witness protection program? Let's assume they can get a bully banned from the town. Does that stop their friends from having a "conversation" with the victim?
Furthermore, what can they do in the normal channels? To get a kid expelled is serious. And in the end, the teacher is going to be at most the equivilent to a cop at a trial. Impartial, but only a witness to an event.
I can half see the point of the staying in class at lunch, but the student would probably be better off laying low elsewhere. Mainly, because if it is discovered that they are hiding in a class the result will most likely not be positive.
The only thing a teacher can really do is get someone kicked out of their class. But in the case of bullies, what good does it do when the person is left to have a "conversation" with the bully and their friends outside of school property?
I know I linked this earlier, but I think the blame is placed on the board of education for turning the school system into a prison.
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html/
This verbalizes a lot of my observations while in junior high and high school.
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html/
This article is pretty good. In the context of Columbine, it states, what I believe to be, a partial why of the situation. Other than the obvious fact the shooters were fucked up. Then again, save self-defense, what human being that shoots another isn't fucked up?
Does anyone else think that this placing is unfortunate? I know that I misread it on first-pass.
A) Government Involvment /.'ers actually like the thought of government involvement in technology? The thought of it scares the hell out of me. For example, if, the American government, realized that there are security holes in an OS and that these OSes are hooked up to the internet and can potientially be exploited to become zombies used to attack said internet. What do you think they would do? Hopefully, they'd do the smart thing and create a list of recommendations and have a "safe OS" sticker program where the standards were well designed. Or something similar. But we all know what would happen. Companies like MS, and IBM would get preferenial treatment in creating these standards.
/.'ers would rather see anyway. At least the one we'd be more interested in.
How many
Let's assume that all "monopoly" laws were never created (and the concept never existed). Alternative OS advocates would then just focus more on the inferiority of windows, rather than hoping that the law would do the right thing. I think this is the type of battle most
B) The World's Digital Now
The moment that digital copying became feasible, the days of the old method of distribution became numbered. Trying to preserve them is an exercise in futility. Only demonstrating what the muscles of the legal system and government can do. The sad thing is that most people can't read between the lines. But I'd say that financial analysts and technologists agree on this one. Such a thing is surely a sign of the apocolypse.
C) Socialist Protection vs. Free-Market Revolution
In your system, what happens when something becomes entrenched? It's bound to happen. Think about a potiental revolution within a market over time. When it happens the old try to crush the new. Sound familiar? Because it is the current problem, and will be the outcome of the parent's solution. Which is why it is a band-aid at best.
D) Cut Throat Capitalism
I've always liked the thought of cut-throat capitalism. Companies no longer have any other option but to innovate, because they must out of neccesity. The problem is that if it is perfectly cut-throat, there may be too many players in a market and even the biggest party may not have the resources to do it properly (or the largest party may not be able to get a sufficient return from their investments). This is where concepts like open source become the winner (where resources are donated by the community). The amazing thing is that the concept of free software (in both sences) creates the cut-throat capitalism and then thrives in it. It is why the dominance of free software is inevitable.
E) There is no E, I'm just tempted to put ??? then list F as profit.
I think it's more a question of, if it's better than google, how long until it's offered by google?
I have to agree with the parent (yes, I've also read Kurzweil) and grandparent on this perspective.
In particular, think about from another way: Consider a social situation in person. Where you are talking to someone who has a remarkable ability to read body language and other factors like reading eyes. The average person will practically be disabled talking to such a person. Do we look at it this way, generally no. But I'm sure we've all been in a situation where we are simply outclassed by someone more intuitive than ourselves.
I know in my case, I can read eyes pretty well. So I start to get disoriented when a person has sunglasses on (or my glasses are off meaning I can't see their eyes). It makes me feel disabled, even though the playing field has been leveled.
But as for technology being the ultimate pancacea, I don't think so. If a person can express themselves more elegantly than average, or if they have more wit, then they will have an advantage in not just the current text-based medium, but in all places. (in particular, I'd bet writers are given the greatest advantage by it).
An interesting point would be a place like
This would place "disabled" as a relative term, because nobody's perfect.
Damn straight, my solution is to avoid the business world and stay in academia as long as possible.
To be perfectly honest, I think the thing people expect most is an appeal to the pathos.
40 years ago, the easiest way to apply to the pathos was through a uniformed middle-aged employee (in this type of service). Now, it's a lot harder, but still revolves around delievering the same, cookie-cutter perfect image, just with new packaging.
You know, the unwritten requirement of employees to have a smile plastered on their faces while they do any job. No matter how difficult or frustrating.
Take computers for example, the average person can't look under the hood. All they can do is see and feel the responses of the interface. So services like spyware and virus removal don't really have to be complete, they just have to remove the signs a person can see.
Now as for competent customers, the only appeal one could make is to the logos. Which means having informed people working for them.
In either case, the thing people want the most is good sales people. We want good, quick (thinking and acting) people when the shit hits the fan.
Good article, and it's time to nitpick it
Let's assume that we take the advice of this sage. And, in this "perfect" world we have created, everyone always has.
Oops, now there are no medical doctors. Well there goes Ellison's friend, Steve Jobs (due to cancer), but it's cool, he dropped out and got rich.
Speaking of Ellison, I'm sure that he's never used post-secondary graduate labour. So, I'm sure it would have been as easy and cheap (cheap because of high supply) to get talented people if everyone dropped out of university.
I could continue with this, but I think the point is clear. The world needs people to study at universities.
Furthermore, on average, what class of people is more successful, those with an education or those without? Even if we include a couple of lucky people who were at the right place at the right time.
Next he'll be telling us to commit suicide until we get reincarnated and have rich parents.
And I should probably note that some of us want knowledge for the sake of having that knowledge. But hey, the average person on slashdot is only interested in science and technology for the money, right?
I've made an observation that people defend their biased beliefs through what they understand of Christianity a lot more then they stand for what the Bible says about positive living.
But judging people isn't reflected positively in the Bible, so I guess I'm not one to talk. And, as you imply (and state in one case), this is a failing of many vocal "christians".
Point that poster to Matthew 7:1
You said it before I could (I know this post is a little later, but I have other things to do)...
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it odd that slashdot posts an article that pretty much bashes the previous entry.
Can we call this a dupe^(-1)?
For starters, let's look at what little data was given about the testing method: Hrrm, that doesn't sound like a very clean environment, speaking of, what is the overall state of their computer? Do they have background processes running that may skew results?
Second, the author doesn't tell us the individual results (save the first) and just averages them for us. At the very least, they should give a standard deviation. (note, there is a non-functional link at the bottom which may contain such things, I do not know at this time)
Third, wouldn't it be a nice idea to test on different computers? Not just a single one? I can understand that the author may have limited resources, but it does limit the scope of the "experiment" (Unless everyone has the same computer as the author)
Fourth, in the "closing time" section the author mentions they closed a specific file. What about closing no files at all?
Fifth, the graphs, at which times did things start and complete? I have no idea what is going on here. For all I've been told the ending trails of the graph (which are all pretty low) are where the "experiment" happens.
I can only hope that the results link (which isn't working at the time that this was posted) contains such data. In any event, I'll admit my bias, I dislike using empirical data. And when I am forced (kicking and screaming) to collect it, I try to minimize the number of variables that may vary. This author does not appear to have attempted that. Thus I don't think that the results can be taken seriously. (and to be honest, I can't believe they were posted on
I could be wrong on some of the points I made, or I could have missed something that is obvious, in any event, I just wanted to express my displeasure with calling this an "experiment" in the first place.
The thing that's more amazing is that people think that clock frequency is the only factor of CPU speed. (The resulting overclocking religion is even more of a spectacle to me, yes, overclocking may be good, but not necessarily, hence, if you overclock, test the change in performance)
And the really scary thing is that I'm starting to see the size of cache used as a metric of a CPU's worth. Bigger doesn't automatically mean better, and depending on other factors, may make things worse.
Category Theory is a subset of math, but do all mathematicians know it? Hell, I'll bet there are a lot that haven't even heard of it.
Furthermore, I'm a CS major, but I haven't studied all the topics within the discipline, nor do I plan on it.
Take something like architecture, or cryptography. It is possible to earn a CS PhD in these from earlier studies in Engineering and Math (respectively), and not have a clue how to program.
But, for an undergraduate degree, knowledge of programming is required. Hence, if a CS undergrad does not know how to program then it reflects poorly upon their character, but not the degree as a whole.
After posting, I remembered this:3 4224&tid=146&tid=218
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/23/14
So, according to the article, current rates appear to be about the same as 1978. And, ignoring the two major enrollment increases (peaking in 1982 and 1999) the levels about constant. And I would say that overall, it amounts to at least the 2x estimation I made. The interesting thing is that enrollment appears to be declining, so it appears that it might be possible that it might go lower, but I still doubt it.
So, I suppose that this may be the "invisible hand" at work. But as previously stated, I doubt it.
In any event, I will stand by my earlier statement concerning knowledge inflation.
I think the weakest point in my argument is the amount of jobs that will be available in the future (increasing use of computers, outsourcing, etc.). But Damnit Jim, I'm a computer scientist, not a business analyst.
Sadly, I must agree with you on both points.
But, again, using Alan Turing as an example, we are talking about someone who didn't use what we could consider essential elements of computing (specifically Networking and OSes), yet, no one would doubt that he is a great computer scientist. (I used the word "is" because I will say that the knowledge he had as a computer scientist still exists)
To make a more modern point, I've had a professor who could build an OS, but damned if he could use windows well.
I think the scariest part is people who leave CS without being able to program well. I feel that programming is perfectly taught (at least in CS departments I've seen), where time would only be wasted if any more was taught. Students are given enough knowledge and theory to go and learn everything they need to know independantly, giving a timeless quality to the degree.
As for the financial problem, I'm going to relate it to a belief I have about studying CS:
"Focus on things that a code monkey cannot do, and avoid things that they can." The reason is that if you box yourself in, then you're going to get stuck in a smaller, less paid, pool that has more available "professionals" in it.
In other words, run faster then the herd. If a person doesn't have a CS degree, then they better earn a reputation worthy of one. Which is damned hard.
I say this, because I'm a student who is intermittently in the real world, and I know, that I made the right choice taking a degree. Because I worry about the quality of job that I'll get over the next 40 years.
Then, if one assumes that a generation lasts 40 years, and that "The first computer science department in the United States was founded at Purdue University in 1962" then we have come to the end of the first generation. But, enrollment in CS in 1962 doesn't compare to even enrollment in the 1980s. That would mean that even if enrollment started to massively decline to the amount it had in the 1960s, we would be left with the same amount of people that are computer scientists 20 years from now. However, we all know that will not happen. Let's further assume that enrollment in CS was really low up until the 1980s, and that it has only increased a little since, that would mean that we would have almost two times as many CS grads seeking employment 20 years from now.
Of course, I don't have the statistics to back this up, but I don't think that my assumptions are that unreasonable. And I think my point is clear. The modern observation that "you don't need a CS degree" will be much less true (yes, I used true in an analog capacity) 20 years from now. Now, jump forward to 40 years, when the massive hoarde of CS grads will have at least 20 years of experience. Or hell, 30 years with CS grads having at least 10 years experience, in either scenario, it creates a serious problem for those without a degree looking for a job in such a market where there will be tough competition on many angles (A lot of experience + degree, experience + degree, and cheap + recent degree).
Although the later part of the rant didn't exactly address the point you made, I felt it had to be said.
Logically, having a CS degree proves that you are capable with many elements of computing, while the absence of one does not prove that you are not.
The only problem is that if you don't have the degree, how can you prove that you are on the same level? Obviously there are avenues, such as job experience, but even then, it is lacking an non-partial authority.
Any CS-major can attest that programming can be hacked, but that making it properly is the hard part that the degree is useful for.
And my opinion is that in the past people in the computer industry had to hire people without CS degrees, because, for example, if in Alan Turing's time employers put a requirement for CS degrees then no one could fill such a job. But now that CS degrees have become common place and the people who are most likely to have the skills that the degree certifies would get a degree in the subject anyway, save the aging community in the field, but that is becoming less and less of an argument as they retire.
Hence, if, in 2005 you wish to start a 30-40 year career in the computer field, the CS route is the best way to maintain job security with the quality of competition from present and future generations (where quality demanded will grow as time continues and CS majors will beget more CS majors through market pressure).
Think about it in terms of game theory where you have a pigeon-holed based inflation. And in such a system, as the number of people available with a degree increases, so will the preception that the degree is required. Hence the "managers who will insist that only Computer Scientists are "real" programmers" segment of the population will grow until it becomes a standard.
The only thing against this prediction is that code monkeys should be cheaper. But by the time that pigeon-hole inflation comes into effect, their jobs will already be threatened, and computer scientists who have to eat will start competing for such jobs. Assuming this hasn't already happened, but I'm going to assume it has.
For starters, I fully agree with the parent about using a ticket system to complain. It is one of the better ideas I've heard in a long time. And I highly recommend it as well.
A few months ago, I was officially a "programmer" for tech services at a 350 person company. There were seven people under tech support. Therefore, approximately 50 employees per person.
Now don't get me wrong, there were days when we had very little to do. And that's when I was pretty much a full-time programmer.
But, we all know that a service provider is a Markovian-based queue. That means there exists days like the one I spoke of before, but, in my experience, there exists an equal amount of days where you will be overwhelmed. Even with 7 employees in a company of 350, our phones were still ringing off the hooks.
This is typically because of a bigger problem. But the little things can add up. Like the parent mentioned, people can be completely unreasonable when it comes to how their computers function.
Now, I know that with 30 people, things won't be quite as bad. But, there are still going to be days where you will spend your entire day helping people. I hope for the person's sake that these days don't happen when they have something more important scheduled (like a meeting with a client) that they cannot be absent from.
Any bets that there will be someone hired after a higher up is stuck without a computer for a day because their "tech support" is busy as a programmer. Or will it be when a deadline is missed because the "programmer" was too busy with tech support.
And Bill was just about to buy that ivory back-scratcher that he wanted.
Sadly, I agree with you. But just because the real world doesn't understand why I care so much about the little details of my computer doesn't mean that much to me (other than the obvious cost of buying towards my "beliefs" (I really should not be calling them that))
Just like the way I use Linux, even though that is somewhat of a compromise for me anyway because I want to use QNX. (I just have yet to find a free version, and don't have the money for textbooks, let alone a test OS)
Can I compare being a science student to being an innocent child now?
They aren't... I've calculated the advantages by hand using real-life data... I'm not going to say I enjoyed it, but it was definately enlightening.
Research is typically worth the effort. BSD, for example, has been worked on for decades. What it takes is a company like Apple to really put it out there in the global consciousness.
You never know when that crazy idea will be on every computer in the world next. Engelbart was mocked in the 60s, but he was just REALLY ahead of his time.
Can you tell I'm an academic looking for grant money?
That is assuming that both designs have equal resources pouring into them. In other words, that all variables save design are controled.
Unfortunately, in the real-world, might is right, and more money, R&D specifically, is poured into the x86 architecture.
Another way of looking at this is to say that if I use a clean architecture from today and compare it to an 8086 from the early 80s then the clean architecture would destroy the 86, because it has had a lot more money and man-hours invested in it.
Besides, Intel processors basically are clean, save the ugly emulation functions they preform to maintain reverse compatibility.
Consider 2 homes, one clean and one cluttered. Walking through the clean home is a much simpler process, and typically, faster because there is no mess to dictate where you are going.
But what if the first home is really small and the second is a mansion. Then, despite clutter, there is generally more room to move around in. Hence, you can get around faster, but not as fast as possible (then say, if you had a clean mansion).
This analogy could also be used in a RISC vs. CISC debate as well. I know it's limited and looks over certain things, but this is the simplest way I could think of to phrase it.
Or they could just cut out the middleman and start using FPGAs.
Then again, there is probably a bias on my part because I want to use FPGAs damnit!