Your degree cannot be worth much. And no, that "grounding" in Algebra is only necessary for applications, otherwise it is completely optional. In fact, most students seem to be struggling when they run into the first group where things work differently than in N. As to abstract algebra, if you build that cleanly, nothing besides set theory and logic is required. Algebra and Modern Algebra may come in as suppliers of examples, but that is it.
What you learn in school is _accounting_, i.e. the kind of very basic mathematics a merchant may need.
Sure, we had that too. About 10% of the students ever managed to solve any. (I got them all and was bored...) But easy elementary proofs do not tell you _at_ _all_ what is involved in more complicated ones. They do not give you a feeling of what it is like to work in mathematics. They are still simple use of known tools, when doing mathematics involves inventing tools for a task that is unsolvable with the known ones. Same with coding: Writing simple programs does not tell you at all whether you can write more complicated ones or whether you will be able to write tools. It does not tell you at all whether you can design algorithms. It does not tell you whether you will ever be able to find efficient solutions. It can well be detrimental, because it bores those with the respective talents and give them an entirely wrong impression.
From my experience, this holds for pretty much every STEM subject: School does not even begin to scratch the surface and teachers are universally clueless about the actual nature of the subject.
If you do not even know what you are and are not teaching, then I cannot help you. We had a lot of people fail Linear Algebra at university (in the CS course), because they thought they were "good at math". You know what? Turns out they never learned how to proof things, only how to calculate stuff cooking-recipe like. Completely worthless for any actual study of mathematics. The exam was 16 proofs for things we had never seen before, and these people universally failed. And that was the introductory course, nothing advanced in it at all. And here is an example from the "Introduction to Calculus" exam: "Let N be a norm in the following Hilbert space . Why does the Banach-fixed-point theorem not hold?". (And yes, you had to proof it and you had about 10 minutes and it was an easy question. The others were harder.)
And what they are forced to teach. I mean, if you are teaching creationist nonsense, then you really do not have any other real problem besides selection of teaching material (and that teachers are willing to tech it instead of finding other jobs). Technology addresses zero teaching problems. Technology only addresses the issue that some companies want to make even more money.
Modern Algebra and abstract Algebra is not taught in schools. At all. Neither is set theory. All you get is the dumbed-down counting an accountant may need. Ever wonder why? Oh, wait, you do not know what Modern Algebra and Abstract Algebra is?
Most people cannot learn the required skills to any reasonable degree. At best this initiative will increase the number of really bad programmers. There are far too many of those already.
That does not mean you will ever be any good at it or master more "advanced" things like addition. Really, "coding" is not putting basic building blocks together in obvious ways, because that is something any halfway smart and educated person can do.
Also, WTF has writing HTML to do with coding? Are we now so cretinized that people do not even have a basic understanding of what coding means?
I disagree. Most of the opposition to systemd is completely factual and based on technical arguments. There are a few loud-mouths, sure, but the actual majority of people using invalid emotional arguments, direct insults and "hate" are the systemd proponents. It is really quite fascinating to see how these people do not "mesh" at all with Unix culture, but rather seem to be a hostile invading force. There are rather strong suspicions that many of these people are paid-for PR shills, and not actual users. Their script is just too similar every time they start to put everybody down that does not profess love to systemd. And they almost universally go for the emotional approach, which means they do not have any strong tech arguments.
Very likely. And "creepy" is not the right word. Having files on everybody and laws that allow you to get everybody (and the US certainly has both) is necessary to establish and firm up a police-state and eventually full fascism.
As the average US citizen just does not seem to care, I guess it is time for the US to get its own hands-on taste of national fascism. Unfortunately, the rest of the world will not be able to bust them out, so it will be of the slow-decline form that takes a century or so to total economic collapse and the survivors will have to build up again from ruins.
And there is the problem: Actual scholars do not "believe", they have facts to back up what they say. Lets not glorify religion by assuming it has any factual basis...
You are certainly right about hate not being helpful at all.
It would also be good if the systemd-proponents would stop accusing anybody that does not like their gadget of "hate". It is just a transparent attempt to discredit them and actually spreads hate as it produces a counter-reaction. Not good at all.
By calling my stance "hate", you have already disqualified yourself from the discussion. "Mild disdain" would be more accurate, as I just do not like bad technology being adopted.
Well, unless Linux drops support for small embedded systems (don;t see that happening...), then Linux must work without udev. While the systemd fanatics are surely raging against that one, I do not see that changing either. udev is just way too complex for small systems.
So you think it will take ten years after widespread adoption to get the major problems with systemd fixed? What are you to want it now? Extremely masochistic?
It was a knee-jerk panic-reaction that played into the terrorist's hands by massively amplifying the damage. If that is not utterly stupid, I do not know what is. Of course, governments must always appear to "be in control", so they cannot admit any error. And of course, if the FBI had not screwed up so massively before, nothing noteworthy would have happened on 9/11. But again, that cannot really be admitted, and the very agency that made 9/11 possible is still in charge of fighting a repeat, when it should have been disbanded for utter incompetence.
The thing is (and this is conveniently overlooked by these utterly despicable and repulsive fear-mongers) that there is no effective way to fight terrorism. The only thing possible is after-the-fact identification. Almost all those "terrorists" caught by the FBI are fakes the FBI created itself. Any halfway competent terrorists got to detonate their bombs.
But that means one very important thing (which is really bad for the cause of the fear-mongers and that is one reason they frequently go into hysterics): There are not many halfway competent terrorists. And whether they use cars, planes or backpacks to transport and place their bombs is entirely immaterial, as, due to their small numbers, they do not actually represent an urgent problem. Sure, "law enforcement" loves any and all terrorists, after all they are what keeps them vastly over-funded and "important". That is why the FBI has addressed the terrorist-scarcity problem by growing its own. But the problem itself is so minor as to be irrelevant. And it will not get any larger with autonomous vehicles at all. But again, the fear mongers and terrorist-scare profiteers cannot have that.
Slashdot Mirror
Your degree cannot be worth much. And no, that "grounding" in Algebra is only necessary for applications, otherwise it is completely optional. In fact, most students seem to be struggling when they run into the first group where things work differently than in N. As to abstract algebra, if you build that cleanly, nothing besides set theory and logic is required. Algebra and Modern Algebra may come in as suppliers of examples, but that is it.
What you learn in school is _accounting_, i.e. the kind of very basic mathematics a merchant may need.
Sure, we had that too. About 10% of the students ever managed to solve any. (I got them all and was bored...) But easy elementary proofs do not tell you _at_ _all_
what is involved in more complicated ones. They do not give you a feeling of what it is like to work in mathematics. They are still simple use of known tools, when doing mathematics involves inventing tools for a task that is unsolvable with the known ones. Same with coding: Writing simple programs does not tell you at all whether you can write more complicated ones or whether you will be able to write tools. It does not tell you at all whether you can design algorithms. It does not tell you whether you will ever be able to find efficient solutions. It can well be detrimental, because it bores those with the respective talents and give them an entirely wrong impression.
From my experience, this holds for pretty much every STEM subject: School does not even begin to scratch the surface and teachers are universally clueless about the actual nature of the subject.
If you do not even know what you are and are not teaching, then I cannot help you. We had a lot of people fail Linear Algebra at university (in the CS course), because they thought they were "good at math". You know what? Turns out they never learned how to proof things, only how to calculate stuff cooking-recipe like. Completely worthless for any actual study of mathematics. The exam was 16 proofs for things we had never seen before, and these people universally failed. And that was the introductory course, nothing advanced in it at all. And here is an example from the "Introduction to Calculus" exam: "Let N be a norm in the following Hilbert space . Why does the Banach-fixed-point theorem not hold?". (And yes, you had to proof it and you had about 10 minutes and it was an easy question. The others were harder.)
Now that is still _beginner_ mathematics.
And what they are forced to teach. I mean, if you are teaching creationist nonsense, then you really do not have any other real problem besides selection of teaching material (and that teachers are willing to tech it instead of finding other jobs). Technology addresses zero teaching problems. Technology only addresses the issue that some companies want to make even more money.
It does not. For that you need to get into actual skills. School cannot do that.
Modern Algebra and abstract Algebra is not taught in schools. At all. Neither is set theory. All you get is the dumbed-down counting an accountant may need. Ever wonder why? Oh, wait, you do not know what Modern Algebra and Abstract Algebra is?
Actual mathematics is not taught at school and neither is actual actual science. And I disagree on the languages.
Most people cannot learn the required skills to any reasonable degree. At best this initiative will increase the number of really bad programmers. There are far too many of those already.
And for good measure, crucify a random _half_ of the current one. Maybe that will send a message....
That does not mean you will ever be any good at it or master more "advanced" things like addition. Really, "coding" is not putting basic building blocks together in obvious ways, because that is something any halfway smart and educated person can do.
Also, WTF has writing HTML to do with coding? Are we now so cretinized that people do not even have a basic understanding of what coding means?
I disagree. Most of the opposition to systemd is completely factual and based on technical arguments. There are a few loud-mouths, sure, but the actual majority of people using invalid emotional arguments, direct insults and "hate" are the systemd proponents. It is really quite fascinating to see how these people do not "mesh" at all with Unix culture, but rather seem to be a hostile invading force. There are rather strong suspicions that many of these people are paid-for PR shills, and not actual users. Their script is just too similar every time they start to put everybody down that does not profess love to systemd. And they almost universally go for the emotional approach, which means they do not have any strong tech arguments.
With blanket-surveillance of the Internet, informants have lost their critical role.
Very likely. And "creepy" is not the right word. Having files on everybody and laws that allow you to get everybody (and the US certainly has both) is necessary to establish and firm up a police-state and eventually full fascism.
As the average US citizen just does not seem to care, I guess it is time for the US to get its own hands-on taste of national fascism. Unfortunately, the rest of the world will not be able to bust them out, so it will be of the slow-decline form that takes a century or so to total economic collapse and the survivors will have to build up again from ruins.
And there is the problem: Actual scholars do not "believe", they have facts to back up what they say. Lets not glorify religion by assuming it has any factual basis...
well, we are all part of gods plan..... :o)
I am not. Unless I am subject to apotheosis, then maybe, if I develop a plan afterwards.
Calling something "silly" has zero argumentative value. It just illustrates that you have no good arguments.
You are certainly right about hate not being helpful at all.
It would also be good if the systemd-proponents would stop accusing anybody that does not like their gadget of "hate". It is just a transparent attempt to discredit
them and actually spreads hate as it produces a counter-reaction. Not good at all.
By calling my stance "hate", you have already disqualified yourself from the discussion. "Mild disdain" would be more accurate, as I just do not like bad technology being adopted.
Well, unless Linux drops support for small embedded systems (don;t see that happening...), then Linux must work without udev. While the systemd fanatics are surely raging against that one, I do not see that changing either. udev is just way too complex for small systems.
So you think it will take ten years after widespread adoption to get the major problems with systemd fixed? What are you to want it now? Extremely masochistic?
That is all you have? Well, what can you expect from a nil-whit...
Wrong and wrong and wrong again. Public moaning does not make policy, but it takes some actual understanding to see that. You obviously have none.
It was a knee-jerk panic-reaction that played into the terrorist's hands by massively amplifying the damage. If that is not utterly stupid, I do not know what is. Of course, governments must always appear to "be in control", so they cannot admit any error. And of course, if the FBI had not screwed up so massively before, nothing noteworthy would have happened on 9/11. But again, that cannot really be admitted, and the very agency that made 9/11 possible is still in charge of fighting a repeat, when it should have been disbanded for utter incompetence.
The thing is (and this is conveniently overlooked by these utterly despicable and repulsive fear-mongers) that there is no effective way to fight terrorism. The only thing possible is after-the-fact identification. Almost all those "terrorists" caught by the FBI are fakes the FBI created itself. Any halfway competent terrorists got to detonate their bombs.
But that means one very important thing (which is really bad for the cause of the fear-mongers and that is one reason they frequently go into hysterics): There are not many halfway competent terrorists. And whether they use cars, planes or backpacks to transport and place their bombs is entirely immaterial, as, due to their small numbers, they do not actually represent an urgent problem. Sure, "law enforcement" loves any and all terrorists, after all they are what keeps them vastly over-funded and "important". That is why the FBI has addressed the terrorist-scarcity problem by growing its own. But the problem itself is so minor as to be irrelevant. And it will not get any larger with autonomous vehicles at all. But again, the fear mongers and terrorist-scare profiteers cannot have that.