Sure, some boomers were involved or complicit, but there were a lot more of the "greatest" generation, who had a lot more power in the late 1970s-eary 1980s.
Most of the problems we see -- starting with inequality, can be documented as being a direct result of supply-side economics. The UK is in the same boat, due to Margaret Thatcher.
I hope that the Millennials learn the lesson we hippies did not -- that the struggle is endless.
Most real world problems have multiple correct answers, depending on context. Even in mathematics, there is often no single 'correct' answer -- unless you restrict mathematics to that which computers can already do better than we can.
Being able to deal with insufficient data is a major real life skill. Even being able to recognize that there *is* insufficient information is a major accomplishment, as is the case where a question can be answered with knowledge rather than dogma.
The first computer I used was a DEC PDP-5 with a timesharing OS. It had 128 Kbytes of RAM, but you had too come in at 3 am if you wanted to use more than about 5 K of it. It had a CalComp plotter, so I ended up doing graphics rather early. It was at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, so I was often the only user on the system. I looked into getting a remoter terminal so I could code at home, but the cost (and connect time fees) was prohibitive.
The first computer I owned was an Apple ][+, with 48K RAM initially, expanded to 64 K later. I had an 80 column card to do decent word processing. It was the last computer on which I did much assembly code.
My next computer was a 128K Macintosh, and I've used Macs ever since.
I got this comment from the MUMPS programmers at my former company. This might have been true in the 1970s or even the 1980s. However, it is simply no longer true. In addition, MUMPS is horrible for doing computations using data, the code is all but impossible to maintain, and has no modern tools.
The company I used to work for uses MUMPS. The result is endless queues because nothing can get done (or properly tested), an bloated programming department, and a serious drain on profitability.
Yes, it was designed in the 1970s, when every byte counted, but it is an abomination of a language. Try doing any mathematical computations, for example.
Fortunately, the days of the large clinical labs are numbered. For many tests, transporting the sample costs more than performing the test, so at the least, using smartphones (or equivalent) to do point-of-care testing is much better, in terms of both cost and quality.
The company I used to work for (a large clinical lab) uses MUMPS. It is a horrible language. They need to dump it and move on to something more modern. They could get rid of 90% of their programmers, and have a system that did not need to be rebooted daily. However, the IT power structure gets its power by managing the (endless) queue, and they refuse to hire competent coders.
My project (started in the 1990s) was c-based, and it is still in use, despite the fact that I no longer work for them. Needless to say, I did not work for IT.
Fortunately, the business model for large clinical labs is obsolete, so it is just a matter of time before some agile competitor, using modern tools and paradigms cleans their clock.
A lot of the fine article can be boiled down to "If you are so smart, why aren't you rich?"
I know a lot of musicians (classically trained flute players) who are happy to spend hours a day at practice even though they day job has little to do with music. To simply say that their life is wasted because they are not a super star is dopey.
I knew programmers at the large corporation I worked at who made good money but were as dumb as a stump. I suspect that they hated their jobs. Yes, these people were successful and had decent jobs -- unless you only define success as being a multi-millionaire.
Being smart gets you further than grit alone, in the same way that a kind word and a loaded gun gets you further than a kind word alone -- at least is some areas.;-)
My experience is that dedicated pair of glasses (not progressive) is essential for computer work. I can get away with my progressive lenses for my laptop, but not for my desktop monitor.
The Cornell lectures, which were made available by Bill Gates using Silverlight, are the basis for Feynman's book "The Character of Physical Law". They are referred to as the Messenger Lectures, and are intended for a general audience -- basically anyone at college level (or college level in 1964). I think that they should be required reading by everyone.
These lectures are currently available in various formats on YouTube, as wells the site sponsored by Bill Gates.
These are *not* the Feynman Lectures in Physics, which were based on the freshman Physics class Feynman taught at Cal Tech in 1962-64. This is the famous three volume work, which has usually been published in red covers.
It is the Cal Tech lectures that are available free on-line. There is also an iPad app that has multimedia for some of the lectures -- the 6 Easy Pieces part.
The Feynman Lectures in Physics was the result of CalTech's reform of the teaching of Physics. The books are taken from audio tapes (and photos) of Feynman teaching the two year course from 1962-1964. Other than the parts extracted as the "Six Easy Pieces", they are intended for physics majors (and engineers, mathematicians, etc.). Although some parts are dated, the main reason for reading these books after 50+ years is the quality of Feynman's explanations. They are models of clarity.
I don't think you really understand the difference between plurals and possessives.
Navy's is the *possessive* of Navy.
Navies is the *plural* of Navy.
Similarly, the plural of surface is surfaces. The possessive of surface is surface's.
Check with any grammar book.
Of course, you could just mean this as an April Fool Joke. If so, you need to look up the meaning of 'joke'
You need to be very careful or you will soon be "out of sight, out of mind". I worked from home for more than 15 years (recently involuntarily retired), and except for the people who had to deal with me, it was as if I did not exist. This may be fine with you, but if you are at a place where you need to schmooze to get ahead, it's bad.
Also, you need to have the company finely delimit what is *their* IP and what is your own. My former company's attitude was that if I thought of it, it was their idea. Working from home blurs the lines.
On the bright side, I was *much* more productive as a programmer/ software designer at home than in the office.
I learned to program in c when I was 40. I thought of myself as mostly a scientist/mathematician, and had written programs to solve scientific stuff.
As a result of learning c, I was able to create and manage a major project, one that is still being used 25 years later.
However, I had a lot of trouble with c++.
I can use objective-c ok, but mostly because Apple's frameworks do a lot of the heavy lifting and number crunching code is all in c anyway.
The real question is what do *you* want to do? If you love writing code, then there are opportunities for anyone who is really good at it. They may not be in corporate america, but they are there.
As someone mentioned in this thread, save lots of money. It will give you freedom. There is nothing worse than being stuck in a job you hate with no way to escape.
For myself, I retire next year, and once I am free to do what I want, the sky's the limit.
geo3rge
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, some boomers were involved or complicit, but there were a lot more of the "greatest" generation, who had a lot more power in the late 1970s-eary 1980s.
Most of the problems we see -- starting with inequality, can be documented as being a direct result of supply-side economics. The UK is in the same boat, due to Margaret Thatcher.
I hope that the Millennials learn the lesson we hippies did not -- that the struggle is endless.
Most real world problems have multiple correct answers, depending on context. Even in mathematics, there is often no single 'correct' answer -- unless you restrict mathematics to that which computers can already do better than we can.
Being able to deal with insufficient data is a major real life skill. Even being able to recognize that there *is* insufficient information is a major accomplishment, as is the case where a question can be answered with knowledge rather than dogma.
The first computer I used was a DEC PDP-5 with a timesharing OS. It had 128 Kbytes of RAM, but you had too come in at 3 am if you wanted to use more than about 5 K of it. It had a CalComp plotter, so I ended up doing graphics rather early. It was at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, so I was often the only user on the system. I looked into getting a remoter terminal so I could code at home, but the cost (and connect time fees) was prohibitive.
The first computer I owned was an Apple ][+, with 48K RAM initially, expanded to 64 K later. I had an 80 column card to do decent word processing. It was the last computer on which I did much assembly code.
My next computer was a 128K Macintosh, and I've used Macs ever since.
I got this comment from the MUMPS programmers at my former company. This might have been true in the 1970s or even the 1980s. However, it is simply no longer true. In addition, MUMPS is horrible for doing computations using data, the code is all but impossible to maintain, and has no modern tools.
The company I used to work for uses MUMPS. The result is endless queues because nothing can get done (or properly tested), an bloated programming department, and a serious drain on profitability.
Yes, it was designed in the 1970s, when every byte counted, but it is an abomination of a language. Try doing any mathematical computations, for example.
Fortunately, the days of the large clinical labs are numbered. For many tests, transporting the sample costs more than performing the test, so at the least, using smartphones (or equivalent) to do point-of-care testing is much better, in terms of both cost and quality.
The company I used to work for (a large clinical lab) uses MUMPS. It is a horrible language. They need to dump it and move on to something more modern. They could get rid of 90% of their programmers, and have a system that did not need to be rebooted daily. However, the IT power structure gets its power by managing the (endless) queue, and they refuse to hire competent coders.
My project (started in the 1990s) was c-based, and it is still in use, despite the fact that I no longer work for them. Needless to say, I did not work for IT.
Fortunately, the business model for large clinical labs is obsolete, so it is just a matter of time before some agile competitor, using modern tools and paradigms cleans their clock.
A lot of the fine article can be boiled down to "If you are so smart, why aren't you rich?"
I know a lot of musicians (classically trained flute players) who are happy to spend hours a day at practice even though they day job has little to do with music. To simply say that their life is wasted because they are not a super star is dopey.
I knew programmers at the large corporation I worked at who made good money but were as dumb as a stump. I suspect that they hated their jobs. Yes, these people were successful and had decent jobs -- unless you only define success as being a multi-millionaire.
Being smart gets you further than grit alone, in the same way that a kind word and a loaded gun gets you further than a kind word alone -- at least is some areas. ;-)
My experience is that dedicated pair of glasses (not progressive) is essential for computer work. I can get away with my progressive lenses for my laptop, but not for my desktop monitor.
The Cornell lectures, which were made available by Bill Gates using Silverlight, are the basis for Feynman's book "The Character of Physical Law". They are referred to as the Messenger Lectures, and are intended for a general audience -- basically anyone at college level (or college level in 1964). I think that they should be required reading by everyone.
These lectures are currently available in various formats on YouTube, as wells the site sponsored by Bill Gates.
These are *not* the Feynman Lectures in Physics, which were based on the freshman Physics class Feynman taught at Cal Tech in 1962-64. This is the famous three volume work, which has usually been published in red covers.
It is the Cal Tech lectures that are available free on-line. There is also an iPad app that has multimedia for some of the lectures -- the 6 Easy Pieces part.
The Feynman Lectures in Physics was the result of CalTech's reform of the teaching of Physics. The books are taken from audio tapes (and photos) of Feynman teaching the two year course from 1962-1964. Other than the parts extracted as the "Six Easy Pieces", they are intended for physics majors (and engineers, mathematicians, etc.). Although some parts are dated, the main reason for reading these books after 50+ years is the quality of Feynman's explanations. They are models of clarity.
I tested this on my Mac running Mountain Lion. I tested with Safari, BBEdit, and Mathematica. NO CRASH. something else is going on here.
I don't think you really understand the difference between plurals and possessives. Navy's is the *possessive* of Navy. Navies is the *plural* of Navy. Similarly, the plural of surface is surfaces. The possessive of surface is surface's. Check with any grammar book. Of course, you could just mean this as an April Fool Joke. If so, you need to look up the meaning of 'joke'
You need to be very careful or you will soon be "out of sight, out of mind". I worked from home for more than 15 years (recently involuntarily retired), and except for the people who had to deal with me, it was as if I did not exist. This may be fine with you, but if you are at a place where you need to schmooze to get ahead, it's bad. Also, you need to have the company finely delimit what is *their* IP and what is your own. My former company's attitude was that if I thought of it, it was their idea. Working from home blurs the lines. On the bright side, I was *much* more productive as a programmer/ software designer at home than in the office.
I learned to program in c when I was 40. I thought of myself as mostly a scientist/mathematician, and had written programs to solve scientific stuff. As a result of learning c, I was able to create and manage a major project, one that is still being used 25 years later. However, I had a lot of trouble with c++. I can use objective-c ok, but mostly because Apple's frameworks do a lot of the heavy lifting and number crunching code is all in c anyway. The real question is what do *you* want to do? If you love writing code, then there are opportunities for anyone who is really good at it. They may not be in corporate america, but they are there. As someone mentioned in this thread, save lots of money. It will give you freedom. There is nothing worse than being stuck in a job you hate with no way to escape. For myself, I retire next year, and once I am free to do what I want, the sky's the limit. geo3rge
The odd--numbered pattern was broken by Star Trek X, which sucked as badly as all the odd-numbered ones together