I'd explain to them the wide variety of things people tend to do with a CS degree. From continuing on to advanced degrees and entering academia to doing corporate R&D to the myriad of shades of programming. When I was that age I really had no concept of all the things "computer scientists" and/or "computer programmers" actually do.
Most likely an in depth discussion of "game programming" won't be beneficial for most students.
1. Don't try to fit him in. He's such an outlier that the ROI on accommodating him in the public school system doesn't justify the cost. Let his (or interested private educators) fund his education and call it a day.
2. State-funded academies for the extremely gifted. Public education in the U.S. is primarily funded at the state and local level, but most localities lack a sufficient threshold of "extremely gifted" kids. That's less true when you're talking about an entire state. Problem: these would be boarding schools, which some parents will balk at. That means an extremely high expense per student, which might be hard to justify politically. Also some states lack a large enough cohort of students to make such an academy worthwhile.
3. Same idea as #2 but funded federally and situated "regionally" around the country. Given how rare these kids are you would probably only need a handful of schools.
Personally I tend towards option #1. Kids like Gabriel are so uncommonly rare I'm not sure how much sense it makes to plan around them.
I'm not sure it's accurate to say we could "easily" replace all non-nuclear electricity generation with nuclear. The cost to deprecate coal and gas burning plants and replace them with new nuclear plants would be huge. There's also the fact that AFAIK most fossil-fuel-based plants burn coal or natural gas and not oil. So these electricity generators aren't (to a large degree) cannibalizing oil that could be used for transportation uses.
The big question with nuclear is who pays for the insurance. If the government caps the liability of nuclear power providers then that is in effect a big subsidy, since it reduces the cost of their insurance against disaster. Then there's the question of whether private insurers can even properly estimate the "cost" and likelihood of major disasters. If they can't, then consumers of that power might be paying an artificially low or artificially high price, to the extent the consumer's price is influenced by the cost of insuring against disaster.
Unless there is a quantum leap in the efficiency with which electricity can be produced from non-fossil sources, we are eventually going to exhaust all the retrievable coal, oil and gas in the earth's crust. What is considered "retrievable" is a moving target determined by current extraction technology. Even if the U.S. were to institute subsidies that evened the playing field between fossil sources and green sources in the U.S., it is unlikely those subsidies would be duplicated across the entire globe. Ergo it would remain profitable to extract U.S. oil. It seems unlikely there will ever be the political will to forbid oil exploration and extraction altogether in the United States.
It's also worth noting that extracting and refining this particular cache of oil does not significantly alter the global price, and therefore does not significantly alter global consumption. It is not the case that more oil will be used because this particular batch was extracted. More U.S. oil will be used, on the other hand, which means more jobs, etc. for U.S. citizens.
Given the economy is in the dumps, the only reasons I can see not to extract it are:
* Strategic. When oil becomes scarce (and thereby prohibitively expensive) we want to have national reserves on tap for military consumption.
* Environmental, but in a local sense. You could argue that the environmental costs at the point of extraction are just too high.
"Global warming" doesn't seem like a compelling reason at the moment given the small percentage of global production these new fields represent. "Drill here, drill now, pay less" is a ginormous fallacy. To the extent "pay less" is fallacious, though, so is the notion that domestic drilling will lead to more consumption and consequently more atmospheric CO2.
Change your definition of "computer science" to "what one is typically taught in the course of obtaining a computer science degree" and the question makes sense. Which you well realize, I'm sure. But please, go ahead and make your point about theory vs. programming.
Define "IT". For many folks "IT" is setting up networks, provisioning machines, tech support, etc. For some folks "IT" is writing code for a living instead of doing theoretical research.
If I were looking at someone with a master's degree for a coding position and his only experience was "tech support" I might wonder why he couldn't get something more in keeping with his qualifications. But I wouldn't reject him just because of that. I'd probably ask him about it in the interview though.
No, I don't. That was the point of my post. The experiment took place in a "tunnel" at the LHC. She's saying that Italy contributed financially, along with CERN, to the construction of that tunnel.
Italy has contributed to the construction of the tunnel between CERN and Gran Sasso Laboratories, through which the experiment took place, with a sum now estimated at around 45 million euros.
It sounds like she's saying that Italy contributed to the tunnel, through which the experiment took place, by way of contributions from Gran Sasso Labs totalling 45 million euros. Bad translation into English, and possibly bad sentence structure in Italian. (I don't speak Italian so I can't judge.)
I agree. Computers add little to classrooms not dedicated to teaching a subject that requires computers. Programming, design, physics/engineering, film/music production, etc. Even if they do add something, one has to ask whether that money might be more beneficially spent in other ways. Such as, for example, offering higher teacher salaries and thereby attracting a higher caliber of teacher.
But it's a reality in tech that if you're 45 years of age and still writing C code or Cobol code and making $150,000 a year, the likelihood is that you won't be employed very long...
Not sure I buy this. Who are the folks earning $150k to write C code? If they're writing, say, a trading platform designed to do microsecond-level financial transactions for a big trading house...then I don't see them getting canned.
For what it's worth, autism isn't the only negative outcome anti-vax folks attribute to vaccination. There may not be much evidence to support most of the claims, but some of them have some meat. For instance, this study found a weak but significant risk of childhood asthma stemming from the Hep B vaccination.
They also specifically called out the lack of a credible plan to address the main drivers of projected spending growth: SS and Medicare.
My opinion is that if the U.S. had passed $4T in projected deficit reduction (instead of the $2.3T it did) and had made up some small portion of that (say, $800B) in the form of additional revenue, then the downgrade wouldn't have happened. S&P did announce ahead of time that it wanted to see $4T in projected deficit reduction or else a downgrade would probably be forthcoming.
Worth noting that Obama called for something similar, albeit with a 3:1 ratio of spending to revenue, on April 12.
My experience consisted of qualifying, wanting to go, then not being able to go because it was so damned expensive and my parents couldn't afford it. This was Duke TIP. C'est la vie.
If you're a U.S. particle physicist and you want not to drive from the back seat....then become a European particle physicist. Nothing says you have to do your research in the U.S. Suck it up.
Good point. Though, I think in general MAC filtering and non-broadcast SSID will deter many amateurs. I mean, look at the guy in this article. It took him 2 weeks to crack WEP. If they had not been broadcasting the SSID, are we certain he'd have even figured out they have a network? Neither of those methods (MAC filtering and non-broadcast SSID) are going to defeat someone who knows what he's doing. The corollary is that many people don't know what they're doing.
MAC filtering + "something better than WEP" (e.g. WPA2) + don't broadcast your network's SSID. Of course that makes it sort of annoying when you have guests over to your house who want to connect to your network.
60 to 110 hours a week for seven years? Yeah. I'd be gone after a month of that. It's hard to have too much sympathy for a guy who declines to make use of his option to simply quit.
The difference between brains and beauty is that you're more or less born into good looks — entitled, if you will. Intelligence? That takes work. If the hallmark of real geekiness — of America — is determination, then we seem too determined to have an entitlement problem.
This cuts both ways. For instance most folks can, through diet and exercise, make themselves drastically more attractive than they would be otherwise. Likewise someone can be born with such extensive inherent intelligence that he or she manages to be brilliant without even trying.
I.e., at home, you have 0 chance of being above average (if you aren't already).
Suppose I have a twin brother and we're both home schooled. Twin brother is dumb as a rock. I'm a genius. I am therefore in the top half of my two-person home-school environment. So much for "zero chance".
This doesn't follow. Even if I'm an arrogant socially-retarded home-school freak, why should I expect to be more likely to end up in the top half of my traditional school class than to end up in the top half of my two-person home school class?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd explain to them the wide variety of things people tend to do with a CS degree. From continuing on to advanced degrees and entering academia to doing corporate R&D to the myriad of shades of programming. When I was that age I really had no concept of all the things "computer scientists" and/or "computer programmers" actually do.
Most likely an in depth discussion of "game programming" won't be beneficial for most students.
And nothing of value was lost. I've always been underwhelmed by OO anyway.
1. Don't try to fit him in. He's such an outlier that the ROI on accommodating him in the public school system doesn't justify the cost. Let his (or interested private educators) fund his education and call it a day.
2. State-funded academies for the extremely gifted. Public education in the U.S. is primarily funded at the state and local level, but most localities lack a sufficient threshold of "extremely gifted" kids. That's less true when you're talking about an entire state. Problem: these would be boarding schools, which some parents will balk at. That means an extremely high expense per student, which might be hard to justify politically. Also some states lack a large enough cohort of students to make such an academy worthwhile.
3. Same idea as #2 but funded federally and situated "regionally" around the country. Given how rare these kids are you would probably only need a handful of schools.
Personally I tend towards option #1. Kids like Gabriel are so uncommonly rare I'm not sure how much sense it makes to plan around them.
I'm not sure it's accurate to say we could "easily" replace all non-nuclear electricity generation with nuclear. The cost to deprecate coal and gas burning plants and replace them with new nuclear plants would be huge. There's also the fact that AFAIK most fossil-fuel-based plants burn coal or natural gas and not oil. So these electricity generators aren't (to a large degree) cannibalizing oil that could be used for transportation uses.
The big question with nuclear is who pays for the insurance. If the government caps the liability of nuclear power providers then that is in effect a big subsidy, since it reduces the cost of their insurance against disaster. Then there's the question of whether private insurers can even properly estimate the "cost" and likelihood of major disasters. If they can't, then consumers of that power might be paying an artificially low or artificially high price, to the extent the consumer's price is influenced by the cost of insuring against disaster.
Unless there is a quantum leap in the efficiency with which electricity can be produced from non-fossil sources, we are eventually going to exhaust all the retrievable coal, oil and gas in the earth's crust. What is considered "retrievable" is a moving target determined by current extraction technology. Even if the U.S. were to institute subsidies that evened the playing field between fossil sources and green sources in the U.S., it is unlikely those subsidies would be duplicated across the entire globe. Ergo it would remain profitable to extract U.S. oil. It seems unlikely there will ever be the political will to forbid oil exploration and extraction altogether in the United States.
It's also worth noting that extracting and refining this particular cache of oil does not significantly alter the global price, and therefore does not significantly alter global consumption. It is not the case that more oil will be used because this particular batch was extracted. More U.S. oil will be used, on the other hand, which means more jobs, etc. for U.S. citizens.
Given the economy is in the dumps, the only reasons I can see not to extract it are:
* Strategic. When oil becomes scarce (and thereby prohibitively expensive) we want to have national reserves on tap for military consumption.
* Environmental, but in a local sense. You could argue that the environmental costs at the point of extraction are just too high.
"Global warming" doesn't seem like a compelling reason at the moment given the small percentage of global production these new fields represent. "Drill here, drill now, pay less" is a ginormous fallacy. To the extent "pay less" is fallacious, though, so is the notion that domestic drilling will lead to more consumption and consequently more atmospheric CO2.
Donky Kong style.
Change your definition of "computer science" to "what one is typically taught in the course of obtaining a computer science degree" and the question makes sense. Which you well realize, I'm sure. But please, go ahead and make your point about theory vs. programming.
Define "IT". For many folks "IT" is setting up networks, provisioning machines, tech support, etc. For some folks "IT" is writing code for a living instead of doing theoretical research.
If I were looking at someone with a master's degree for a coding position and his only experience was "tech support" I might wonder why he couldn't get something more in keeping with his qualifications. But I wouldn't reject him just because of that. I'd probably ask him about it in the interview though.
Or, at least, I was assuming it took place in a tunnel at the LHC. She might have assumed the same, regardless of whether that is in fact the case.
No, I don't. That was the point of my post. The experiment took place in a "tunnel" at the LHC. She's saying that Italy contributed financially, along with CERN, to the construction of that tunnel.
What a colossal waste of energy and computing resources.
It sounds like she's saying that Italy contributed to the tunnel, through which the experiment took place, by way of contributions from Gran Sasso Labs totalling 45 million euros. Bad translation into English, and possibly bad sentence structure in Italian. (I don't speak Italian so I can't judge.)
I agree. Computers add little to classrooms not dedicated to teaching a subject that requires computers. Programming, design, physics/engineering, film/music production, etc. Even if they do add something, one has to ask whether that money might be more beneficially spent in other ways. Such as, for example, offering higher teacher salaries and thereby attracting a higher caliber of teacher.
Not sure I buy this. Who are the folks earning $150k to write C code? If they're writing, say, a trading platform designed to do microsecond-level financial transactions for a big trading house...then I don't see them getting canned.
For what it's worth, autism isn't the only negative outcome anti-vax folks attribute to vaccination. There may not be much evidence to support most of the claims, but some of them have some meat. For instance, this study found a weak but significant risk of childhood asthma stemming from the Hep B vaccination.
They also specifically called out the lack of a credible plan to address the main drivers of projected spending growth: SS and Medicare.
My opinion is that if the U.S. had passed $4T in projected deficit reduction (instead of the $2.3T it did) and had made up some small portion of that (say, $800B) in the form of additional revenue, then the downgrade wouldn't have happened. S&P did announce ahead of time that it wanted to see $4T in projected deficit reduction or else a downgrade would probably be forthcoming.
Worth noting that Obama called for something similar, albeit with a 3:1 ratio of spending to revenue, on April 12.
My experience consisted of qualifying, wanting to go, then not being able to go because it was so damned expensive and my parents couldn't afford it. This was Duke TIP. C'est la vie.
If you're a U.S. particle physicist and you want not to drive from the back seat....then become a European particle physicist. Nothing says you have to do your research in the U.S. Suck it up.
Good point. Though, I think in general MAC filtering and non-broadcast SSID will deter many amateurs. I mean, look at the guy in this article. It took him 2 weeks to crack WEP. If they had not been broadcasting the SSID, are we certain he'd have even figured out they have a network? Neither of those methods (MAC filtering and non-broadcast SSID) are going to defeat someone who knows what he's doing. The corollary is that many people don't know what they're doing.
MAC filtering + "something better than WEP" (e.g. WPA2) + don't broadcast your network's SSID. Of course that makes it sort of annoying when you have guests over to your house who want to connect to your network.
60 to 110 hours a week for seven years? Yeah. I'd be gone after a month of that. It's hard to have too much sympathy for a guy who declines to make use of his option to simply quit.
This cuts both ways. For instance most folks can, through diet and exercise, make themselves drastically more attractive than they would be otherwise. Likewise someone can be born with such extensive inherent intelligence that he or she manages to be brilliant without even trying.
Will iOS run Photoshop? No. Okay then.
This doesn't follow. Even if I'm an arrogant socially-retarded home-school freak, why should I expect to be more likely to end up in the top half of my traditional school class than to end up in the top half of my two-person home school class?