What I did/not/ say was that Windows was not as good for/playing/ games/today/ as any other platform. As you say, there are tonnes of games out there for Windows. The other platforms (sticking to the PC), not so much.
What I/did/ say, is that the/platform/ Windows is not inherently a better platform for gaming. It is arguably on par with MacOSX and Linux and.../as//a//platform/.
These are two/very/ separate things. The former says something about the current state of the market, while the latter says something about the what could/should be.
Similarly, if one would talk about which is better, the GameCube or the PS2/as//a//platform/, one would talk about specs, api's, etc./NOT/ the games available.
So, in summary, Windows isn't necessarily a better/platform/ for gaming. It just has more games available for it. Again, two very different things.
You used poor wording which resulted in a mis-communication of your opinion. That is a problem from you, not me. So, you don't have the right to be condescending to me your arrogant prat.
With the autotools, libsdl, opengl and many other cross-platform tools/libs, it doesn't take much to create cross-platform games or any other application for that matter. One would just have to start with that mind set from the beginning.
I think (as a developer) that cross-platform games aren't there because people start thinking of developing for one platform and then try to thunk it into another one. Which is clearly a bad idea in which problems will abound.
But ultimately, as things stand at the end of 2005, Windows is a better platform for gaming than Linux or MacOS -- the support is there, the games are there, and things generally work with little pain.
Arguably, no you are wrong.
The only points that you have brought up, basically state that the reason why Windows is a better platform is because the developers develop for it. Please note that this is *very* different from Windows actually being the better platform.
If the developers have actually developed cross-platform in mind, the world would be a different place. http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/ is a good example of this. It supports OSX, Win and Linux no problem.
So, it isn't a platform problem, it a *developer* problem.
I mean seriously! I don't think that that one guy out of 1000 is going to think, "Oh, this is wonderful! Look at all the crap that I have to deal with that only a few of us have to deal with. Isn't it wonderful that so few of us have this problem."
So, how is this a comfort?
unnecessarily alarming people who stand little chance of being victimized.
And this just plain disturbs me. Right now, I'm happy (very happy) I'm not a US citizen.
I worked in a small (~10 programmers). And when things got bad (.com bubble burst) I was one of the ones to get laid off. Since it was a small company and everyone knew me they gave me the option of not staying the 2 weeks notice they gave. But they did hint that they wanted me gone.
No harm, no foul. I left on good terms and got paid to look for another job for 2 weeks.
In a larger place that I worked prior (tech support), when someone left b/c of another job at a competitor, they got walked off the floor by security. This pretty much happened as soon as HR was made aware.
Quite frankly, given the number of crazies out there (not saying you're one), I'm surprised given your access you weren't walked out immediately, never mind let in the next day.
Sad how it is, it is the way of things now adays. Nobody trusts anyone else anymore.
reinforce the continuing U.S. commitment to the Internet's security and stability
If I wasn't soooo tired because I just woke up, I'd probably be laughing on the floor right now. How many agencies in the US government have failed there IT security tests again?
LOL
We believe that ICANN is dedicated to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities and to developing policy through consensus-based processes.
Now when has a corp interest ever been (after a little time) trumpted by the common good?
I'll read this as, we have friends over there and we don't want them to lose such a prestigious position and...
We have also expressed our interest in working with the international community to address legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to country code top-level domains (ccTLD).
Because the US is oh so known for doing that. You know, taking in comments from other countries and using them to make an informed decisions *coughiraqcough*.
We wish to underscore that, in our statement of June 30, we supported ongoing dialogue on issues related to Internet governance across international forums.
I'll finish the statement.
So, that we can ignore them if we don't like what is being said like we always do.
We firmly believe that the existing Internet system balances the stability and security we need with the innovation and dynamism that private sector leadership provides.
Let me see, how many viruses have been released that take advantage of still unpatched security flaws. Wait to go private sector leadership!
for all our citizens
Hmmm.
we ask the European Union to reconsider its new position on Internet governance and work together with us to bring the benefits of the Information Society to all.
I'll read this as, shut up and we might let you have a cookie.
My exams start next week, so I doubt that I'll have time to continue this for very much longer. So, this is just a quick reply.
Are you saying that some introverts can be arrogant, but most are not? Or are you saying that an introvert will not be arrogant most of the time, while an extrovert may be? Your comment that introverts can 'play the extrovert game' leads me to believe you mean the second, which I don't agree with.
Both.
Or perhaps I just disagree with it?
Or (probably) part thereof.
I'm using somewhat your "someone who is oriented inwards towards their own thoughts rather than outwards towards people." Perhaps we just interprit it differently, or see it from different angles, or...
An arrogant introvert would have an inflated view of the rightness of his or her ideas compared to other people's. They would state things as fact that lacked proper support, which is quite common among academics. Academic standards may try to work against arrogance, force citation, etc. and the internalization of those standards can be a hedge against arrogance, but that doesn't mean you can't have an arrogant academic. This would be seen in the way that some academics would use "arguments from authority" to argue with non-academics, and make untennable assumptions.
I think you're describing one of my math profs right now (except for the introvert part).
I never said that you can't have a arrogant academic, just that it isn't very likely. But, at this point, I should probably point out that I think that I thought that you were reading my mind while I was writing that. I'm only refering to math and/or physics people as that I what I have the most experience with. As for other feilds... let's just say that I've met some very arrogant people, but haven't reached a critical number of them that I will generalize with.
I'm not saying "having an opinion is arrogant." I'm saying that a person may equate their opinion with fact as a result of arrogance, and that introversion will not protect them from this.
No disagreement here.
You can, of course, have humble extroverts who want to get along with everyone just as easily you can have arrogant introverts who see the people around them as dull or stupid.
My personal belief is that extrovertion creates an personality that is more likely to develope arrogance than introvertion. I could be wrong in general, but in my experience, this is true.
Arrogance is usually defined as an excessive form of pride.
The key word here being excessive. Pride, in general, does not equal arrogance.
In my opinion, if you don't have some knowlege of security (and how to write secure code in your language of choice), you probably shouldn't be a (professional) programmer to begin with.
This I agree with.
But, at the same time, I know this to be far from reality. What will happen now, is that some piss poor programmer will read the book, assume they know what they are doing, and do very, very stupid things that make the encryption essentially useless.
Case in point, look at all the misconfigured systems out there. How easy is it to read a man page and look on the net for something that says "Don't do X, or you'll get owned." There are tonnes of sites that do this for various applications/systems. Yet we still have a wildly insecure world.
And this isn't as nearly as complicated as crytpo!
Books like this will help a select few, but in the end will probably make things worse.
In the above quote, you stated "can." What I'm getting at is that this is the exception (or at least not the norm).
For that matter, being proud of ones accomplishments and even telling others about them is a lot different than being arrogant. It is not arrogant to have a different opinion, nor is it an indication of arrogance if one has a (even heated) discussion with someone about something.
I think you are mixing up definitions of words here.
And again, I'm not saying that introverts cannot be arrogant. Just that it is unlikely or rare. Especially in the academic circles that you mention. Research is quite humbling after all.
I'd also like to know how I'm using an odd definition of introvert. I did get it from dictionary.reference.com after all. So, calling it odd is rather an act of hubris on you part now isn't it.
I'm starting to think that you are one of those extraverts that don't understand us introverts. After all, proud being arrogant?!? Seriously.
The last line of defense? What's going to stop someone if they own the system? Poke poke poke, oh, looky lou, I've found a key.
Point of fact, you don't implement crypto yourself. That is the most horrid mis take that anyone can make. Let the security professionals implement it, and just use it. They are far more paranoid that you are and are far better to do this specialised way of coding.
Security is a feild in which you must have a good level of mastery of many different areas otherwise you are a liability. If you don't got that, then don't implement a system. Use one that someone else has written.
IMO, this book will make too many people think that they are good enough to do what they can't do. I can only imagine how many insecure system will be developed because of it.
Then your example is the exception to the rule and quite opposite to the rule itself, by definition of introvert. ie You cannot prove a rule by one example or person, we must consider the whole, the generality.
Yes, introverts, when "poked," can act like an extrovert and we all have different buttons that cause it. But, that isn't the rule.
I think you're confusing introverts with... um... mimes?
Um, no.
An introvert will inform others. He's just more likely to do it online. ;
Introverts can be very public people, even actors. They just need time to recharge after socializing, prefer smaller groups etc.
Of course introverts can play the extrovert game. I didn't challenge that nor do I see mentioning it, relevant.
I'd like to know how you are defining "inform others" before continuing.
Result: The fact that one informs others of one's superiority makes one a person who is less than superior, but nonetheless acting in an overbearing manner and/or making a presumptuous claim. In other words, arrogant.:)
Point of fact. This is an extrovert way of being. An introvert won't inform people of it by definition. They are introverts.
There is a difference between whining and complaining. I did the latter and had ever right to under the circumstances.
You can read that as, something happened that was provably unjust, which I proved (and anyone with half a brain wouldn've seen in the first place). This is not whining, it is attempting to fix something that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
This is what adults do. We don't adhere to some elementary school notion of not speaking up when someone in a presumed roll of authority does something. Point of fact, some other user was most likely the culprit. So, now we have some sort of notion of elementary school tattling going on here.
In any case, the mentality of not saying something is rather immature and I would have hoped that we all would've grown past it. Seems that not all of us have.
But, to answer you're question, we'd have to have a somewhat involved conversation to figure out what you know and what you don't so as to recommend books (or give you stuff to look up).
The set theory recommendation is good as it has no pre-requisites beyond mathematical maturity. Number theory is another example of this (and fun!). I have Underwood Dudley's Elementary Number Theory. But that is a book that is difficult to learn just on your own.
You should probably go to your local university and have a sit down with the math chair. Definitely make an appointment as they are notoriously difficult to find.
But, for now I'll assume that you're ready to enter first year.
Calculus - Stewart seems to be the standard text at most universities. Finish that and you'll have more that two years of calc. It's expensive, so look for the universities used book store or the library. Or find another one as there are tonnes of beginning calc books out there. I like Calculus a Complete Course by Robert Adams. Most don't.
Discrete math should have its own little $20 department made book (you should ask about those, they probably have them for a few classes).
Graph theory is something that is accessable to most as well.
A group is a set of elements under a binary operation (that is associative) such that:
1) there is an element call the identity such that:
- it is commutative with all elements of the group
- under the binary operation, the identity with a non-identity element results in that same non-identity element
2) for every non-identity element there is another non-identity element that under the binary operation results in the identity that commutes with said non-identity element.
3) for any two elements in the group, under the binary operation of the group, the result is in the group.
I think that given this word definition of a group, no-one will argue that the equation form is not superior.
I'm currently using Gallian for my Mod Alg course and I find it a raging peice of crap. I must mention that most of the books that I like are from the 60's or earlier, so take that into consideration when accessing my opinion.
My instructor says all (knowing him, take 'all' with a grain of salt) his students love this book. Most of the students in the class seem to like it, but again, I'd take that with a grain of salt. Most of them are not exactly mathematically literate. You can read that as most of them don't even recognize when induction is appropriate. How most of them made it to 3rd year, I have no idea. Thankfully, I'm a visiting student and this is the only year I have to spend here.
But, I digress. My thoughts on his book.
His proofs go into far to much detail when things are obvious and not enough detail when things are not trivial. Which brings me to his "liberal" usage of, proof let to the reader, exercise x. I expect this to a degree, but his usage is a bit much.
There is also his lack of precision. Which is interesting as this is a math book and precision is expected. This is especially apparent in the chapter on permutation groups. I even found mistakes as a result of his imprecision in this chapter.
If you learn by example then this is certainly a book to check out. As stated before, there are lots of examples.
But, if you like the standard, theorem/proof style of book (and if you're in math, you should prefer this style of book), then you should run screaming from this book. There is a lot of material that is relegated to the examples. So, if you read it as you would normally read a text (read: skipping examples unless absolutely necessary) then some of the questions at the end of the chapter will be rather confounding as you'll have missed a good chunk of material that was in the examples. I find this frustrating to no end.
In fact, at least one (I know of) of the definitions doesn't actually have a "definition is on page x". It's the definition of a cyclic group. It is defined in a example (see frustration remark above). Then in the chapter on cyclic groups, the example is referred to in a paragraph and restated. But, there is no Def:... like the other definitions.
What this does is makes it effectively useless for later reference.
This book is what I refer to a throw away book. Once the course is over, it enters the circular filing cabinet.
It is also very expensive. Especially considering that its useful lifetime is approx. one year. That is, one year if you follow the standard pace of the class.
Rest assured that even if you like this book, you'll spend a fair amount of time unwinding his proofs because of the ambiguity.
Then again, this is only one mans opinion.
So, as a long winded answer to your question, check it out in the library first. If it speaks to you, then think about shelling out the money. But, if you are really interested in learning this stuff, I'd recommend looking up who teaches Mod Alg at your local University and speaking to him/her/them. Get them to give you a list of books to check out. Don't worry, this won't be too out of there way. They should have a number of them sitting on there book shelf in there office.
One of my profs at my home university gave me a list as I complained to him about this book over a beer. I've yet to receive one, but knowing him, these are all gold:
Topics In Algebra - Herstein Group Theory - Lederman Algebra - Burton Rings - McCoy
And for those looking for a linear algebra book (the more you know the easier life is, don't c'yah know:)), there is:
You're going to have to explain the nonsense thing to me. Especially given that all stories here on/. that are people fighting against the big evil powers that be are women, typically stay at home moms.
As for your points.
Regarding 1: Have you never taken care of kids. They do require constant attention you know. So, where is all that free time that you speak of? Certainly not with a kid aged 21 months at home.
Regarding 2: See my regarding 1.
Regarding 3: This one I'll give you.
A lot of people are out there fighting for our rights. While I do applaud moms, they're certainly not the only ones doing so.
Perhaps I should explain what I was getting at (I find it sad that I have to do this).
What I was getting at, was that here on/., there has been numerous stories in the past couple weeks/months that are women doing there part to better society and none about men.
That was my point that has seemed to be lost on the people here as my observation is apparently "troll" which I find absolutely ridiculous.
This is a point of fact, period.
So, what ever mental midget moderated my original post to 0 "troll", you might want to think that one over. Read: There was no sarcasm in my post, I was being entirely serious.
It has seemed to me, that over the past little while, that women are the only ones that seem to have enough backbones to stand up to the big corps. And typically its even the stay at home moms that are sterotypically not supposed to have such big Kahunas.
It also seems to me that the men are playing the part of the big a**hole. You can read that as the ones who do the sueing in the first place.
So, I just have to say, GO MOMS!!! Fight for our rights! We especially thank you since you are the only ones that seem to be doing it.
Maybe you'll shame some others to do the same thing as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have missed my point entirely.
/not/ say was that Windows was not as good for /playing/ games /today/ as any other platform. As you say, there are tonnes of games out there for Windows. The other platforms (sticking to the PC), not so much.
/did/ say, is that the /platform/ Windows is not inherently a better platform for gaming. It is arguably on par with MacOSX and Linux and... /as/ /a/ /platform/.
/very/ separate things. The former says something about the current state of the market, while the latter says something about the what could/should be.
/as/ /a/ /platform/, one would talk about specs, api's, etc. /NOT/ the games available.
/platform/ for gaming. It just has more games available for it. Again, two very different things.
What I did
What I
These are two
Similarly, if one would talk about which is better, the GameCube or the PS2
So, in summary, Windows isn't necessarily a better
You used poor wording which resulted in a mis-communication of your opinion. That is a problem from you, not me. So, you don't have the right to be condescending to me your arrogant prat.
Thus \begin{ignore}
With the autotools, libsdl, opengl and many other cross-platform tools/libs, it doesn't take much to create cross-platform games or any other application for that matter. One would just have to start with that mind set from the beginning.
I think (as a developer) that cross-platform games aren't there because people start thinking of developing for one platform and then try to thunk it into another one. Which is clearly a bad idea in which problems will abound.
Arguably, no you are wrong.
The only points that you have brought up, basically state that the reason why Windows is a better platform is because the developers develop for it. Please note that this is *very* different from Windows actually being the better platform.
If the developers have actually developed cross-platform in mind, the world would be a different place. http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/ is a good example of this. It supports OSX, Win and Linux no problem.
So, it isn't a platform problem, it a *developer* problem.
This sounds notoriously similar to drug dealing to me.
You buy the happy meal and get the device and a small for free.
Then to get the whole thing (or more) you have to pay.
*in evil sounding voice* The first one's for free! *evil laugh*
So, how is this a comfort?
And this just plain disturbs me. Right now, I'm happy (very happy) I'm not a US citizen.
I worked in a small (~10 programmers). And when things got bad (.com bubble burst) I was one of the ones to get laid off. Since it was a small company and everyone knew me they gave me the option of not staying the 2 weeks notice they gave. But they did hint that they wanted me gone.
No harm, no foul. I left on good terms and got paid to look for another job for 2 weeks.
In a larger place that I worked prior (tech support), when someone left b/c of another job at a competitor, they got walked off the floor by security. This pretty much happened as soon as HR was made aware.
Quite frankly, given the number of crazies out there (not saying you're one), I'm surprised given your access you weren't walked out immediately, never mind let in the next day.
Sad how it is, it is the way of things now adays. Nobody trusts anyone else anymore.
LOL
Now when has a corp interest ever been (after a little time) trumpted by the common good?I'll read this as, we have friends over there and we don't want them to lose such a prestigious position and ...
Because the US is oh so known for doing that. You know, taking in comments from other countries and using them to make an informed decisions *coughiraqcough*. I'll finish the statement.So, that we can ignore them if we don't like what is being said like we always do.
Let me see, how many viruses have been released that take advantage of still unpatched security flaws. Wait to go private sector leadership! Hmmm. I'll read this as, shut up and we might let you have a cookie.My exams start next week, so I doubt that I'll have time to continue this for very much longer. So, this is just a quick reply.
Both. Or (probably) part thereof.I'm using somewhat your "someone who is oriented inwards towards their own thoughts rather than outwards towards people." Perhaps we just interprit it differently, or see it from different angles, or ...
I think you're describing one of my math profs right now (except for the introvert part).I never said that you can't have a arrogant academic, just that it isn't very likely. But, at this point, I should probably point out that I think that I thought that you were reading my mind while I was writing that. I'm only refering to math and/or physics people as that I what I have the most experience with. As for other feilds... let's just say that I've met some very arrogant people, but haven't reached a critical number of them that I will generalize with.
No disagreement here. My personal belief is that extrovertion creates an personality that is more likely to develope arrogance than introvertion. I could be wrong in general, but in my experience, this is true. The key word here being excessive. Pride, in general, does not equal arrogance.But, at the same time, I know this to be far from reality. What will happen now, is that some piss poor programmer will read the book, assume they know what they are doing, and do very, very stupid things that make the encryption essentially useless.
Case in point, look at all the misconfigured systems out there. How easy is it to read a man page and look on the net for something that says "Don't do X, or you'll get owned." There are tonnes of sites that do this for various applications/systems. Yet we still have a wildly insecure world.
And this isn't as nearly as complicated as crytpo!
Books like this will help a select few, but in the end will probably make things worse.
In the above quote, you stated "can." What I'm getting at is that this is the exception (or at least not the norm).
For that matter, being proud of ones accomplishments and even telling others about them is a lot different than being arrogant. It is not arrogant to have a different opinion, nor is it an indication of arrogance if one has a (even heated) discussion with someone about something.
I think you are mixing up definitions of words here.
And again, I'm not saying that introverts cannot be arrogant. Just that it is unlikely or rare. Especially in the academic circles that you mention. Research is quite humbling after all.
I'd also like to know how I'm using an odd definition of introvert. I did get it from dictionary.reference.com after all. So, calling it odd is rather an act of hubris on you part now isn't it.
I'm starting to think that you are one of those extraverts that don't understand us introverts. After all, proud being arrogant?!? Seriously.
Point of fact, you don't implement crypto yourself. That is the most horrid mis take that anyone can make. Let the security professionals implement it, and just use it. They are far more paranoid that you are and are far better to do this specialised way of coding.
Security is a feild in which you must have a good level of mastery of many different areas otherwise you are a liability. If you don't got that, then don't implement a system. Use one that someone else has written.
IMO, this book will make too many people think that they are good enough to do what they can't do. I can only imagine how many insecure system will be developed because of it.
So, then we are talking about public situations.
Then your example is the exception to the rule and quite opposite to the rule itself, by definition of introvert. ie You cannot prove a rule by one example or person, we must consider the whole, the generality.
Yes, introverts, when "poked," can act like an extrovert and we all have different buttons that cause it. But, that isn't the rule.
overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors
Toward inferiors. So, there would have to be someone to be toward to, directed to someone. Your "toe to toe" if you will.
Nope, still introverts won't exhibit this type of behaviour by definition. Or at least rarely.
You can call this one a closed minded retort as well. That is, if you consider using dictionary definitions closed minded.
I'd like to know how you are defining "inform others" before continuing.
Taking this comment as a serious post for purposes of discussion.
...
Unlikely.
Speaking as an introvert (INTP), I don't assume that people think that I'm smart. I don't even necessarily think that I'm that smart.
What I do, and just about everyone that I know that is like me, is let my work speak for itself.
If people think I'm smart, super. If not, ok. I'll get the feedback and try to improve.
But, then again, define smart. What criteria are we using? Are we talking book smarts, street smarts,
There is a difference between whining and complaining. I did the latter and had ever right to under the circumstances.
You can read that as, something happened that was provably unjust, which I proved (and anyone with half a brain wouldn've seen in the first place). This is not whining, it is attempting to fix something that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
This is what adults do. We don't adhere to some elementary school notion of not speaking up when someone in a presumed roll of authority does something. Point of fact, some other user was most likely the culprit. So, now we have some sort of notion of elementary school tattling going on here.
In any case, the mentality of not saying something is rather immature and I would have hoped that we all would've grown past it. Seems that not all of us have.
Algrebra and geometry are quite ambiguous terms.
:)
:)
But, to answer you're question, we'd have to have a somewhat involved conversation to figure out what you know and what you don't so as to recommend books (or give you stuff to look up).
The set theory recommendation is good as it has no pre-requisites beyond mathematical maturity. Number theory is another example of this (and fun!). I have Underwood Dudley's Elementary Number Theory. But that is a book that is difficult to learn just on your own.
You should probably go to your local university and have a sit down with the math chair. Definitely make an appointment as they are notoriously difficult to find.
But, for now I'll assume that you're ready to enter first year.
Calculus - Stewart seems to be the standard text at most universities. Finish that and you'll have more that two years of calc. It's expensive, so look for the universities used book store or the library. Or find another one as there are tonnes of beginning calc books out there. I like Calculus a Complete Course by Robert Adams. Most don't.
Discrete math should have its own little $20 department made book (you should ask about those, they probably have them for a few classes).
Graph theory is something that is accessable to most as well.
That should get you going though
Have fun
A group is a set of elements under a binary operation (that is associative) such that:
1) there is an element call the identity such that:
- it is commutative with all elements of the group
- under the binary operation, the identity with a non-identity element results in that same non-identity element
2) for every non-identity element there is another non-identity element that under the binary operation results in the identity that commutes with said non-identity element.
3) for any two elements in the group, under the binary operation of the group, the result is in the group.
I think that given this word definition of a group, no-one will argue that the equation form is not superior.
I'm currently using Gallian for my Mod Alg course and I find it a raging peice of crap. I must mention that most of the books that I like are from the 60's or earlier, so take that into consideration when accessing my opinion.
... like the other definitions.
:)), there is:
:)
My instructor says all (knowing him, take 'all' with a grain of salt) his students love this book. Most of the students in the class seem to like it, but again, I'd take that with a grain of salt. Most of them are not exactly mathematically literate. You can read that as most of them don't even recognize when induction is appropriate. How most of them made it to 3rd year, I have no idea. Thankfully, I'm a visiting student and this is the only year I have to spend here.
But, I digress. My thoughts on his book.
His proofs go into far to much detail when things are obvious and not enough detail when things are not trivial. Which brings me to his "liberal" usage of, proof let to the reader, exercise x. I expect this to a degree, but his usage is a bit much.
There is also his lack of precision. Which is interesting as this is a math book and precision is expected. This is especially apparent in the chapter on permutation groups. I even found mistakes as a result of his imprecision in this chapter.
If you learn by example then this is certainly a book to check out. As stated before, there are lots of examples.
But, if you like the standard, theorem/proof style of book (and if you're in math, you should prefer this style of book), then you should run screaming from this book. There is a lot of material that is relegated to the examples. So, if you read it as you would normally read a text (read: skipping examples unless absolutely necessary) then some of the questions at the end of the chapter will be rather confounding as you'll have missed a good chunk of material that was in the examples. I find this frustrating to no end.
In fact, at least one (I know of) of the definitions doesn't actually have a "definition is on page x". It's the definition of a cyclic group. It is defined in a example (see frustration remark above). Then in the chapter on cyclic groups, the example is referred to in a paragraph and restated. But, there is no Def:
What this does is makes it effectively useless for later reference.
This book is what I refer to a throw away book. Once the course is over, it enters the circular filing cabinet.
It is also very expensive. Especially considering that its useful lifetime is approx. one year. That is, one year if you follow the standard pace of the class.
Rest assured that even if you like this book, you'll spend a fair amount of time unwinding his proofs because of the ambiguity.
Then again, this is only one mans opinion.
So, as a long winded answer to your question, check it out in the library first. If it speaks to you, then think about shelling out the money. But, if you are really interested in learning this stuff, I'd recommend looking up who teaches Mod Alg at your local University and speaking to him/her/them. Get them to give you a list of books to check out. Don't worry, this won't be too out of there way. They should have a number of them sitting on there book shelf in there office.
One of my profs at my home university gave me a list as I complained to him about this book over a beer. I've yet to receive one, but knowing him, these are all gold:
Topics In Algebra - Herstein
Group Theory - Lederman
Algebra - Burton
Rings - McCoy
And for those looking for a linear algebra book (the more you know the easier life is, don't c'yah know
Linear Algebra and Matrix Theory - Nering
Hope that was somewhat helpful.
Cheers
\begin{sarcasm}
How witty.
\end{sarcasm}
And how didn't that reply get sent down to troll?
You're going to have to explain the nonsense thing to me. Especially given that all stories here on /. that are people fighting against the big evil powers that be are women, typically stay at home moms.
As for your points.
Regarding 1: Have you never taken care of kids. They do require constant attention you know. So, where is all that free time that you speak of? Certainly not with a kid aged 21 months at home.
Regarding 2: See my regarding 1.
Regarding 3: This one I'll give you.
You might want to look up the word hyperbole.Perhaps I should explain what I was getting at (I find it sad that I have to do this).
What I was getting at, was that here on /., there has been numerous stories in the past couple weeks/months that are women doing there part to better society and none about men.
That was my point that has seemed to be lost on the people here as my observation is apparently "troll" which I find absolutely ridiculous.
This is a point of fact, period.
So, what ever mental midget moderated my original post to 0 "troll", you might want to think that one over. Read: There was no sarcasm in my post, I was being entirely serious.
It has seemed to me, that over the past little while, that women are the only ones that seem to have enough backbones to stand up to the big corps. And typically its even the stay at home moms that are sterotypically not supposed to have such big Kahunas.
It also seems to me that the men are playing the part of the big a**hole. You can read that as the ones who do the sueing in the first place.
So, I just have to say, GO MOMS!!! Fight for our rights! We especially thank you since you are the only ones that seem to be doing it.
Maybe you'll shame some others to do the same thing as well.