I will pay/. $10 a year to have the banners blocked for me. Sure, I could just run junkbuster, but honestly the entertainment value of/. is worth $10 a year for me.
>There's no way you'll get this knowledge when
>just doing programming on the job 5 days a week,
>without formal studying of the subjects.
Not true. I did it, and so have a great many people. Some people learn better outside of a classroom, and that includes difficult subjects like Calculus and Computer Science.
The person who asked the initial question knows themselves best. If they are a person like me, they will learn computer science as well as anyone in a classroom. If they are the kind of person who does well in a classroom, then the suggestion others in this thread gave is a good one: do a dual major, or minor in comp.sci.
Everyone seems to think I am diminishing the importance of comp.sci. fundamentals. Not true! I am proclaiming the strength that a good liberal arts education can provide.
You really can be a physicist anytime? Really? I don't have a physics degree. Do you suppose they will let me run my experiments on the cyclotron at the university? Do you suppose that someone will pay me to learn field equations?
If you read what the guy wrote, you'll see that he is 1) just entering college and 2) asking about careers in industry. I wrote my answer specifically for him. If he were to follow your advice, he'd waste 10 years of his life getting a PhD in Comp. Sci. then he'd find that his specialization hindered his ability to get a job as easily as someone with a Bachelor's or Master's degree.
If the person was asking what courses to take to get into the right graduate schools in order to land a job as a professor of Computer Science, then your criticism might have merits.
I used to pay $5 a month for online Encyclopedia Britannica. I signed up happily and thought I was getting an outstanding deal: Access to expensive and high quality encyclopedia articles, in my home or at work, for way less than buying them outright. And, they would never go out of date. Ironically, Britannica lost me as a subscriber when they opened their free site with the same article database.
So, count this as a "me too" post. When the content is top quality, I'll pay real money for it, flat rate.
A masochist is someone who starts the download and sits there watching it, without realizing that Linux can run more than one program at once.
I regularly do apt-get upgrade over my modem. If the download is going to take a while, I fire up my compiler and get something done.
It's really not a problem for me. Even with regular downloads, I use wget -c so I don't even need to get a huge file all at once. I've done this with full CD-ROM images, over a period of days.
There are two things you can do if you're lazy and somewhat allergic to new and delete, like I am.
1) Use the Standard Template Library. This isn't empasized enough in C++ courses. If you learn it and use it properly, you will drastically cut down on the news and deletes that you need to use in your programs. The STL containers own their objects, so you can stick an object (not a pointer or reference to an object) into a container and forget about it. When the container disappears, the object will be destroyed. This doesn't negate the necessity for a programmer to think about memory management, but it eases the burden greatly. Be careful though, stupid implementations can result in a lot of time wasted in the copy constructor.
2) Use the truly excellent Boehm garbage collection library. This page has all the good information about it.
Scott played Bryan. He's the one who had his faith shaken and he died in the courtroom. I know that in the real trial, Darrow (the lawyer) ripped Bryan's testimony up, and the Judge had to stop the line of questioning. I don't know if Bryan actually collapsed in the courtroom though.
You and the other person who replied to me are completely misunderstanding me.
Evolution is a fact. Species change from one form to another over time. Speciation has been observed at least twice, both in the laboratory and in the wild. No one disputes that evolution occurs.
There is a theory about how evolution occurs: It is called "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". That theory has a great deal of support. There is another theory out there. It is called "The Theory of Evolution through Acquired Characteristics." Otherwise known as Lamarkian Evolution. Lamarkian evolution does NOT have any support at all, and the theory is not favored by anybody now.
Get it?
1) Evolution is an observed fact.
2) Scientists have come up with theories to explain the fact of evolution.
3) The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is the currently supported theory.
4) The Theory of Evolution through Acquired Characterists is not favored anymore.
5) Both theories described evolution. Both theories were about the fact that species change over time. One theory proved useful, one did not.
I hope that was more clear this time. As you can see, I am right.:-)
1) Your position is dangerously close to Solipcism.
2) Are you really arguing that everything out there is fluid? Can I really make a scientific case that the planets float around on the backs of angels, if I am flexible enough with my definition of "angels"? You're taking just a little bit of knowlege, mixing it with some whacked out philosophy, and claiming that science is a faith because of it!
3) Science is not axiomatic. Mathematics, which you are confusing with a science, is axiomatic.
4) If you insist that something like physics are based on an assumption, then where is it? Reliance on your senses is not an assumption. There is evidence that I really can receive information from the world from my 5 senses. If you think the 5 senses are all imaginary, I wonder about the quality of your education.
5) The preceeding message was not meant as a flame!
It won't get you out of the work you are already assigned, but you can volunteer for new projects. You can invent something cool and ask your boss permission to do it.
Nobody's going to challenge you but yourself. Nobody said to Edison, "I need something that I can talk into and play my voice back to me." Edison dreamed it up and had his lackeys build it for him.
You don't have the lackeys to do stuff for you (yet) but you can still dream up things for yourself. Personal challenges are always internal.
Evolution is a fact. All life is evolved from other life forms. That much was obvious even in the 1800's.
The debate in scientific circles is how this evolution happened. Did animals evolve through process A, or process B? Those theories are confirmed or falsified all the time.
Faith is belief *without* any evidence at all. This is nearly the same meaning as the word "irrational".
Science demands evidence before stating something. Unless you're using a different dictionary than the rest of humanity, accepting something *with* evidence cannot by any stretch of the language be called faith.
It's very simple. If I am not being clear, please consult your nearest dictionary.
Comments before this I can't really disagree with.
>Much of the violence in TPB was gratuitous, and
>I think it dampened the 'message' and the effect
>of the themes the author tried to convey.
I disagree here that the violence was gratuitous. I studied the book in college, with a Lithuanian Eastern European history prof. It should scare the crap out of you to know that the Painted Bird was a dead-on accurate portrayal of the region. Most people consider the book to be based on the real life experiences of Roman Polanski during the war.
The Painted Bird was an excellent book, and I half agree/half disagree with you. I think there's plenty of early high schoolers who can handle the book. I think in an advanced class it is entirely appropriate. They study Huckleberry Finn after all, which depicts some pretty awful things about race in the 1800's. For a less advanced class I think it would be inappropriate, because the main themes would be overwhelmed by the tremendous violence in the book.
I would hope that most would read The Painted Bird, especially Americans. We have no real concept of nationalism here in this country. Heck, even Canadians are more familiar with nationalism because of the problems with relations between French and English speaking provinces.
Kozinski's book is probably worst-case. Nationalism gone as wrong as it can possibly go.
I hope/. didn't munge that link. Trust me, there weren't any extra spaces in it when I pasted it in there. Apparently the first people to surrender their bases were people who play Unreal Tournament.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for your support. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Exhibit A: /. moderator.
I rest my case, no further explanation is necessary.
Presumably the phone network would also die in this computer cataclism.
I'd rebuild that thing as a packet network, not a switched network. That would be a big improvement.
I will pay /. $10 a year to have the banners blocked for me. Sure, I could just run junkbuster, but honestly the entertainment value of /. is worth $10 a year for me.
My article which you have thoughtfully labelled a troll was NOT.
Is every dissenting opinion a troll? If you think that, then why not just censor the internet for every idea that you disagree with?
The article that I posted which started this thread should either be left alone, or marked +1 insightful.
You can moderate this article either +1 insightful, -1 flamebait, or -1 offtopic, take your pick.
Damn! That's funny. But George, don't you have a country to run?
Hard to get a job with a liberal arts degree???? Consider the following (not so serious!) resume:
Employment History
1988-1990 *Professor Smith's Lab* College programming job. Did what Dr. Smith wanted. Blah blah blah.
1990-1992 *Bob's Software Emporium* Entry level job at a 3 person programming shop. Built lots of blah blah blah.
1992-1994 *Millie's Mid Level Foo Works* Programmed with a team of 5 people, in a company of 35, blah blah blah
1994-1998 *Somewhat larger company* Built lots more crap for a bigger company
1998-2001 *Even bigger company* Movin' on up. Mega corp programming, blah blah blah
Education
B.S. University of Idaho, History, 1990
This isn't unrealistic at all. The employer looks at the resume and says "WOW! 13 years experience!" He doesn't give a shit about the history major.
>I'm not sure whether this was a troll or not.
It wasn't.
>There's no way you'll get this knowledge when
>just doing programming on the job 5 days a week,
>without formal studying of the subjects.
Not true. I did it, and so have a great many people. Some people learn better outside of a classroom, and that includes difficult subjects like Calculus and Computer Science.
The person who asked the initial question knows themselves best. If they are a person like me, they will learn computer science as well as anyone in a classroom. If they are the kind of person who does well in a classroom, then the suggestion others in this thread gave is a good one: do a dual major, or minor in comp.sci.
Everyone seems to think I am diminishing the importance of comp.sci. fundamentals. Not true! I am proclaiming the strength that a good liberal arts education can provide.
You really can be a physicist anytime? Really? I don't have a physics degree. Do you suppose they will let me run my experiments on the cyclotron at the university? Do you suppose that someone will pay me to learn field equations?
If you read what the guy wrote, you'll see that he is 1) just entering college and 2) asking about careers in industry. I wrote my answer specifically for him. If he were to follow your advice, he'd waste 10 years of his life getting a PhD in Comp. Sci. then he'd find that his specialization hindered his ability to get a job as easily as someone with a Bachelor's or Master's degree.
If the person was asking what courses to take to get into the right graduate schools in order to land a job as a professor of Computer Science, then your criticism might have merits.
Be a liberal arts major.
You can become a computer programmer anytime. It's like carpentry, you learn on the job.
An education on the other hand is something that you get in college. Why not learn something that will help you make sense of the world, like history?
I used to pay $5 a month for online Encyclopedia Britannica. I signed up happily and thought I was getting an outstanding deal: Access to expensive and high quality encyclopedia articles, in my home or at work, for way less than buying them outright. And, they would never go out of date. Ironically, Britannica lost me as a subscriber when they opened their free site with the same article database.
So, count this as a "me too" post. When the content is top quality, I'll pay real money for it, flat rate.
A masochist is someone who starts the download and sits there watching it, without realizing that Linux can run more than one program at once.
I regularly do apt-get upgrade over my modem. If the download is going to take a while, I fire up my compiler and get something done.
It's really not a problem for me. Even with regular downloads, I use wget -c so I don't even need to get a huge file all at once. I've done this with full CD-ROM images, over a period of days.
Singapore: WE BROUGHT THEM ORDER!
Kirk: We?
Memory management in C++
There are two things you can do if you're lazy and somewhat allergic to new and delete, like I am.
1) Use the Standard Template Library. This isn't empasized enough in C++ courses. If you learn it and use it properly, you will drastically cut down on the news and deletes that you need to use in your programs. The STL containers own their objects, so you can stick an object (not a pointer or reference to an object) into a container and forget about it. When the container disappears, the object will be destroyed. This doesn't negate the necessity for a programmer to think about memory management, but it eases the burden greatly. Be careful though, stupid implementations can result in a lot of time wasted in the copy constructor.
2) Use the truly excellent Boehm garbage collection library. This page has all the good information about it.
C++ isn't perfect, but what language is?
Open minded does NOT meant that you have to allow any foolish idea in without examination.
Open minded means that with evidence, you will change your mind.
Scott played Bryan. He's the one who had his faith shaken and he died in the courtroom. I know that in the real trial, Darrow (the lawyer) ripped Bryan's testimony up, and the Judge had to stop the line of questioning. I don't know if Bryan actually collapsed in the courtroom though.
You and the other person who replied to me are completely misunderstanding me.
:-)
Evolution is a fact. Species change from one form to another over time. Speciation has been observed at least twice, both in the laboratory and in the wild. No one disputes that evolution occurs.
There is a theory about how evolution occurs: It is called "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection". That theory has a great deal of support. There is another theory out there. It is called "The Theory of Evolution through Acquired Characteristics." Otherwise known as Lamarkian Evolution. Lamarkian evolution does NOT have any support at all, and the theory is not favored by anybody now.
Get it?
1) Evolution is an observed fact.
2) Scientists have come up with theories to explain the fact of evolution.
3) The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is the currently supported theory.
4) The Theory of Evolution through Acquired Characterists is not favored anymore.
5) Both theories described evolution. Both theories were about the fact that species change over time. One theory proved useful, one did not.
I hope that was more clear this time. As you can see, I am right.
1) Your position is dangerously close to Solipcism.
2) Are you really arguing that everything out there is fluid? Can I really make a scientific case that the planets float around on the backs of angels, if I am flexible enough with my definition of "angels"? You're taking just a little bit of knowlege, mixing it with some whacked out philosophy, and claiming that science is a faith because of it!
3) Science is not axiomatic. Mathematics, which you are confusing with a science, is axiomatic.
4) If you insist that something like physics are based on an assumption, then where is it? Reliance on your senses is not an assumption. There is evidence that I really can receive information from the world from my 5 senses. If you think the 5 senses are all imaginary, I wonder about the quality of your education.
5) The preceeding message was not meant as a flame!
It won't get you out of the work you are already assigned, but you can volunteer for new projects. You can invent something cool and ask your boss permission to do it.
Nobody's going to challenge you but yourself. Nobody said to Edison, "I need something that I can talk into and play my voice back to me." Edison dreamed it up and had his lackeys build it for him.
You don't have the lackeys to do stuff for you (yet) but you can still dream up things for yourself. Personal challenges are always internal.
Evolution is NOT a theory.
Evolution is a fact. All life is evolved from other life forms. That much was obvious even in the 1800's.
The debate in scientific circles is how this evolution happened. Did animals evolve through process A, or process B? Those theories are confirmed or falsified all the time.
Hope this clears things up for you.
Your missing the point entirely.
Faith is belief *without* any evidence at all. This is nearly the same meaning as the word "irrational".
Science demands evidence before stating something. Unless you're using a different dictionary than the rest of humanity, accepting something *with* evidence cannot by any stretch of the language be called faith.
It's very simple. If I am not being clear, please consult your nearest dictionary.
Comments before this I can't really disagree with.
>Much of the violence in TPB was gratuitous, and
>I think it dampened the 'message' and the effect
>of the themes the author tried to convey.
I disagree here that the violence was gratuitous. I studied the book in college, with a Lithuanian Eastern European history prof. It should scare the crap out of you to know that the Painted Bird was a dead-on accurate portrayal of the region. Most people consider the book to be based on the real life experiences of Roman Polanski during the war.
The Painted Bird was an excellent book, and I half agree/half disagree with you. I think there's plenty of early high schoolers who can handle the book. I think in an advanced class it is entirely appropriate. They study Huckleberry Finn after all, which depicts some pretty awful things about race in the 1800's. For a less advanced class I think it would be inappropriate, because the main themes would be overwhelmed by the tremendous violence in the book.
I would hope that most would read The Painted Bird, especially Americans. We have no real concept of nationalism here in this country. Heck, even Canadians are more familiar with nationalism because of the problems with relations between French and English speaking provinces.
Kozinski's book is probably worst-case. Nationalism gone as wrong as it can possibly go.
All your crypto are belong to us!
Wait!!! There's more!
i nf orum.showMessage?topicID=1491.topic
/. didn't munge that link. Trust me, there weren't any extra spaces in it when I pasted it in there. Apparently the first people to surrender their bases were people who play Unreal Tournament.
http://pub2.ezboard.com/fsobserverssobserversma
I hope
It seems that it's a joke based on a bad Japanse to English translation. This should help you out a bit. It's damn funny.
http://rmitz.org/AYB3.swf