What are good minors (or second majors) for compsci majors?
Anything you want. If you like it and you're interested in it and you want to do it, do it. The point has been made several times, and if your school hasn't made it abundantly clear to you it should have, that your major doesn't tie you down to anything forever and ever. If you're interested in it, do it. Yeah, depending on what aspects of a subject you're looking at, there are some fields that mesh together better than others. CS and math, or economics and political science, probably go together better than CS and comparative literature or chemistry and poli sci. So what? If you like it, do it.
(says the cognitive science major / peace and justice studies minor...)
Sadly, as a low-level politico, I'd have to agree with you on this. I've met the Gores a few times and respect them, but think Bradley would probably be better for tech in the long run.
From my experience of Bradley (written a few letters, got a few replies from him/his office, met the man once, spend time in NJ) he is at least willing to hold back on making a statement if he feels that he really doesn't have a handle on a situation. This isn't a sense that I get from Gore (on a lot of issues beyond tech) and it certainly isn't one that I get from the Republican candidates.
Think about how courts are administered over districts with physical/geographical boundaries. It's not always easy to map something critical happening on a nationwide network to a specific jurisdiction. So imagine solving that by creating the District of Cyberspace.
D.C., eh?
And that's pretty much the same difficulty with taxing internet commerce. And I haven't heard anyone with a coherent plan for dealing with that, either. Square pegs, round holes. Everyone's just really good at slamming everyone else's dumb ideas... the creativity to come up with something so crazy that it just might work doesn't seem to be anywhere.
I think that we could take information warfare to some fairly startling levels. And the issue of responsibility on the part of the companies who leave these security holes that one could drive a proverbial Mack truck through is a starting place in dealing with the potential problem, and the basic kernel of the idea of "let's give people an incentive to come help us figure this out" is another. The problem with it is, unsurprisingly, the implementation. Which to some extent stems from the fact that there is not a wholehearted commitment to it. Which to some extent stems from the fact that there haven't really been many clearly defined objectives/goals/problems. There are scenarios, and there are known security flaws, but as far as I can tell no one actually knows what they want to do, and there's some apprehension about throwing money into a void.
Y2K readiness got pushed the way it did because there was a definite goal, there was a definite deadline, and there were some pretty convincing projections about what might happen if this goal wasn't reached. If we knew that on, say, May 23rd, 2002 there would be a major "cyberattack" on the U.S. government, things might be different. The commitment might be there. But there really isn't a powerful incentive for most people to care right now.
Random thing I just heard: "Horse with No Name" is about heroin?
Computer science, like spelling and grammar, makes a much greater impression when learned while young. Neglecting it can result in adults who apparently have no clue what they are or should be doing and as a result give the impression of being ignorant and uneducated.
This is a major contributing factor to the decline of American society in whatever century this is.
Madeline Kahn was also in an early SNL sketch that drew attention to the cause of sex and reproduction education, which involved her, Gilda Radner, and (I believe) Laraine Newman as pre-teen girls at a slumber party. Madeline Kahn's character was "explaining" sex to the others. talking about sex. "And then you both go to sleep, which is why they call it sleeping together." The sketch was later used to demonstrate why explaining the so-called 'facts of life' to kids is important and the sorts of misinformation that gets out.
Actually, while tattooing is still illegal in MA, body piercing is legal. I know of at least two places in the Boston area, Tribal Ways and the Garage (in Cambridge) that do body piercing. Not that I've ever actually availed myself of those services. Not that that's a bad thing.
For tattoos, however, you have to leave the state.
A friend of mine came back from an event at the MIT media lab with a light-up device on her wrist that would apparently get brighter or dimmer depending on her emotional intensity. She mentioned that a potential use for this would be getting the microsoft office assistant to be more responsive to the needs and moods of the user.
Oh, joy... just what America needs, a paperclip that tries to comfort you when you're cranky.
Still, they do some fascinating stuff over there. Ye gods.
We haven't all gotten used to ignoring the international line. Some of us, maybe. And again, this is probably linked to class, education, etc... The US has a strong isolationist streak. Unlike most nations in Europe, etc. the United States a) shares borders with only two countries and b) has most of its population living at quite some distance from its borders. In regards to a), neither Canada nor Mexico gives the impression that the US needs to beware of any potential threat of attack, and thus should try to keep on its 'good side.' This is in fact a big deal.
The sentiment, well-expressed by Dennis Leary as "we got the bomb," that we can take on the rest of the world and win, or at least destroy our opponent, is still alive and well. US adventures in military intervention haven't made people think "Hmm, maybe we're not invincible" so much as they've made people want to abandon what they perceive as helping out some foreign group and take care of themselves. There is NOT a particularly significant amount of international involvement for most Americans on a personal level. Most people don't meet significant numbers of foreigners, or even immigrants, as children or teenagers; international travel still carries a bit of a price tag; and by adulthood, maybe those of us who work white-collar-style jobs or with MNCs will be in fairly frequent contact with non-Americans, in a working if not a personal relationship. But Joe Q. Smith, who manages the McDonalds franchise downtown, probably won't in any significant way. And isn't that what our politicians are trying to represent?
The impression that I get from this article is that the Pentagon was all set to go ahead with it... a crack squad at the keyboards, plans in place, when they realized that (surprise, surprise) they didn't know what was going to be the end result, what else this could impact, the political/social/etc. ramifications. Kind of like when the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kind of like the defoliation in Viet Nam and Cambodia. Kind of like the use of depleted-uranium shells in Iraq.
But they didn't do it. I think I might be proud of that. Granted, their bombing campaign has caused environmental damages that it'll take easily 100 years to try to correct... and granted, I have issues with a lot of other things in US foreign policy and US actions. But still...
If anything happens in terms of an international document on this, odds are it won't be an add-on to the Geneva convention. It'll be an independent document, more like the CWC or the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. And I wouldn't be surprised if it gets held back in committee until shortly after it was originally scheduled to go into effect. Thank you, Mr. Helms.
I just couldn't seem to leave this one alone anymore, even if I'm saying nothing useful...
Yes, we *do* meet, don't we? And start talking to that person who was just a nick/character, and who you never actually communicated with in any way. And then you realize that your life has unexpectedly turned upside down, and you didn't expect this, or think you wanted it, and you realize you've never been happier.
And I'm one of those busy-crazy types. And it's probably a good thing that I'm doing LDR, 'cause I can catch him on the phone or IRC far more often than I'd be able to go on a "real" date... then our "real" dates tend to last days at a stretch. And it just keeps getting more important and more wonderful and harder to imagine living without.
I just keep smiling as I read this... but then, I'm in love. I guess it's not surprising.
>I think the part that makes it offending, is that in the aura of society today, everyone says we're open, and yet we always think conspiracy.
There are times when I'd really like to become a sociologist. People amaze me... from watching panic at a forward claiming that shampoo or deodorant will cause cancer, to the way that intelligent people tend to bolt from the slightest suggestion of a THEM who might know what they're doing. And yeah, I don't want anyone knowing the details of my life, down to my folk music, without my knowing... but I'm less disturbed about being "stalked" by a corporation than I am about an individual having the same information. (If they're doing it to everyone, I'm not being singled out... they probably aren't obsessed with me for some bizarre reason... real-life stalking is scary, yes.)
Yeah, I'd like to know what they're doing with this information. I'd like to at least have something like the standard ethical disclaimer in a psych experiment ("Your data will be identified by a code number. You may leave at any time.") And I'd like to be able to turn it off. But I don't understand why so many people seem to be reacting with "No! Evil! Diabolical! Out to exploit the innocents!"
There's no need to tell me what I already know, but why this extreme of fear in so many?
Interestingly enough, the people they interviewed as being online were a lawyer, a lobbyist, a communications consultant, a federal office-worker... but the only person not online they talked to worked in a 7-11. Did they look for someone in a office job who wasn't online and not find anyone, or did they just assume that it'd be easier to find someone to fit that bill in a convenience store?
There really are two worlds in DC: one works for or with the government, and the other gets a shake of the head and a sigh from the first.
Well, I'm not actually a Mac user, but I work for an Information Services department in a place that's full of 'em. In the past four months, we've been replacing a lot of computers -- replacing PC users' three-year-old boxes with new Gateways (and then doing lots o' service on them -- but Gateway's at least really good about sending replacement parts) and replacing old Mac 6100s and 7200s with G3's. The department stopped ordering the G3's in mid-September and started telling people "Well, if you want your Mac upgraded, if you can wait about a month longer, we can give you one of the new G4s."
Then the delays started. Right now, it's reaching a point of telling people "If you want a new Mac, you'll probably have to wait until sometime in January or February, and we don't have any more of the G3s in stock. But we can give you a new PC now, if you'd like." It's not all that easy to explain the apparent reasons in terms that these people will understand... "Well, Apple's having some delays. Part of it is because Motorola, who supplies some important parts to them, isn't coming through as expected... yes, they do other things than the phones..." (and on, and on, and on... discussing, trying to explain, trying not to get sucked into a lecture on the structure of the global economy, which can happen with some of these people...). It's easier to say "Something went wrong at Apple so we won't have anything for you for a while."
We have a lot of devoted Mac users here now discovering that their mouse has one button too many. And that's another headache entirely.
"I can't find my apple menu!" "Do you have a button that says "start" in the lower left of your screen?"
Maybe most of you already knew that women are good at math and science, but there are still plenty of people, including plenty of women, who haven't quite caught on to that. I'm writing this from the a women's college, and I've met a startling number of women here who struggle through their math and laboratory requirements, and while they will never say that math and science aren't a "girl thing" still don't believe that the statement can hold true for them. Most women I see majoring in sciences tend to be drawn toward softer sciences, like biology and psychology, as well; there's still a relatively prevalent feeling that areas like engineering are pretty much the boys' domain. Being a "geek" as a girl (in junior high and high school, especially) is very strongly discouraged; there was a lot more pressure for me as a teenager to "get away from that computer and get a life" than I saw in any of the guys I knew.
I freely grant that we've come a long way from my mother's adventures as a chemistry major in the late 60's and early 70's; most women don't get asked "You mean you want to be a chemistry teacher?" or told by their guidance counselors that they have no chance and should maybe look into something that they can handle. This doesn't mean that girls are quite convinced that this can be their realm, too. So to speak.
I'd be really, really happy if a group of female undergraduates designing a satellite wasn't a really big deal, or at least wasn't a big deal primarily because they were women... because things like that happened everywhere. But they don't. The fact that the final team was not, in fact, completely female (replacing the woman who left, I suppose) and the way that this was ignored by the news article does certainly say something. Basically, it's reflecting a desire to get a story about "girls and science" out, because "girls and science" is still news. That's why it's good to hear about things like this... not everyone quite gets it yet.
Sure, lots and lots of people 'dis' the space program as a waste of money. I mean, what possible practical purpose could it serve to send a couple of white guys to the moon? If NASA made commercials promoting their research, the way that plastic does, people might be aware that the space program has given us more than Tang and the "one small step..." quote. But instead, NASA has an image, for the most part, about being somewhat unconcerned with "real world" issues -- when they get paid attention to, it's for the large objects that they put into the sky or, more often, the malfunctioning of those large objects.
"Gee, Lois, seems to me that if they're spending billions in taxpayer money to put this thing in space, they oughta make sure the damn thing works."
So NASA gets perceived as being this giant sucking sound in the national budget, sales of freeze-dried "Astronaut ice cream" at the Air and Space Museum remain fairly constant, and most people don't see the long-term benefits of their research, or don't notice it when they do see them.
Slashdot Mirror
What are good minors (or second majors) for compsci majors?
Anything you want. If you like it and you're interested in it and you want to do it, do it. The point has been made several times, and if your school hasn't made it abundantly clear to you it should have, that your major doesn't tie you down to anything forever and ever. If you're interested in it, do it. Yeah, depending on what aspects of a subject you're looking at, there are some fields that mesh together better than others. CS and math, or economics and political science, probably go together better than CS and comparative literature or chemistry and poli sci. So what? If you like it, do it.
(says the cognitive science major / peace and justice studies minor...)
Sadly, as a low-level politico, I'd have to agree with you on this. I've met the Gores a few times and respect them, but think Bradley would probably be better for tech in the long run.
From my experience of Bradley (written a few letters, got a few replies from him/his office, met the man once, spend time in NJ) he is at least willing to hold back on making a statement if he feels that he really doesn't have a handle on a situation. This isn't a sense that I get from Gore (on a lot of issues beyond tech) and it certainly isn't one that I get from the Republican candidates.
Think about how courts are administered over districts with physical/geographical boundaries. It's not always easy to map something critical happening on a nationwide network to a specific jurisdiction. So imagine solving that by creating the District of Cyberspace.
D.C., eh?
And that's pretty much the same difficulty with taxing internet commerce. And I haven't heard anyone with a coherent plan for dealing with that, either. Square pegs, round holes. Everyone's just really good at slamming everyone else's dumb ideas... the creativity to come up with something so crazy that it just might work doesn't seem to be anywhere.
I think that we could take information warfare to some fairly startling levels. And the issue of responsibility on the part of the companies who leave these security holes that one could drive a proverbial Mack truck through is a starting place in dealing with the potential problem, and the basic kernel of the idea of "let's give people an incentive to come help us figure this out" is another. The problem with it is, unsurprisingly, the implementation. Which to some extent stems from the fact that there is not a wholehearted commitment to it. Which to some extent stems from the fact that there haven't really been many clearly defined objectives/goals/problems. There are scenarios, and there are known security flaws, but as far as I can tell no one actually knows what they want to do, and there's some apprehension about throwing money into a void.
Y2K readiness got pushed the way it did because there was a definite goal, there was a definite deadline, and there were some pretty convincing projections about what might happen if this goal wasn't reached. If we knew that on, say, May 23rd, 2002 there would be a major "cyberattack" on the U.S. government, things might be different. The commitment might be there. But there really isn't a powerful incentive for most people to care right now.
Random thing I just heard: "Horse with No Name" is about heroin?
I don't think I've ever seen a "neener" density that high.
I'd tip my hat, but I don't own one.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Computer science, like spelling and grammar, makes a much greater impression when learned while young. Neglecting it can result in adults who apparently have no clue what they are or should be doing and as a result give the impression of being ignorant and uneducated.
This is a major contributing factor to the decline of American society in whatever century this is.
Maybe I'm just warped (always a possibility, I suppose) but this comment strongly reminded me of "Tron."
Defend and fight in cyberspace? You can't tell me that that doesn't sound nauseatingly Hollywood. Work it into ninety minutes and shop it around.
Who knows? It might be better than "The Net"...
Nah.
Just wait a few more years, then get loud and "reclaim" it.
Hey, it worked for "queer."
Madeline Kahn was also in an early SNL sketch that drew attention to the cause of sex and reproduction education, which involved her, Gilda Radner, and (I believe) Laraine Newman as pre-teen girls at a slumber party. Madeline Kahn's character was "explaining" sex to the others. talking about sex. "And then you both go to sleep, which is why they call it sleeping together." The sketch was later used to demonstrate why explaining the so-called 'facts of life' to kids is important and the sorts of misinformation that gets out.
Actually, while tattooing is still illegal in MA, body piercing is legal. I know of at least two places in the Boston area, Tribal Ways and the Garage (in Cambridge) that do body piercing. Not that I've ever actually availed myself of those services. Not that that's a bad thing.
For tattoos, however, you have to leave the state.
A friend of mine came back from an event at the MIT media lab with a light-up device on her wrist that would apparently get brighter or dimmer depending on her emotional intensity. She mentioned that a potential use for this would be getting the microsoft office assistant to be more responsive to the needs and moods of the user.
Oh, joy... just what America needs, a paperclip that tries to comfort you when you're cranky.
Still, they do some fascinating stuff over there. Ye gods.
Not to mention the reduction in repetitive-stress injuries, that scourge of the workplace.
You'd just have to worry about migraines.
We haven't all gotten used to ignoring the international line. Some of us, maybe. And again, this is probably linked to class, education, etc... The US has a strong isolationist streak. Unlike most nations in Europe, etc. the United States a) shares borders with only two countries and b) has most of its population living at quite some distance from its borders. In regards to a), neither Canada nor Mexico gives the impression that the US needs to beware of any potential threat of attack, and thus should try to keep on its 'good side.' This is in fact a big deal.
The sentiment, well-expressed by Dennis Leary as "we got the bomb," that we can take on the rest of the world and win, or at least destroy our opponent, is still alive and well. US adventures in military intervention haven't made people think "Hmm, maybe we're not invincible" so much as they've made people want to abandon what they perceive as helping out some foreign group and take care of themselves. There is NOT a particularly significant amount of international involvement for most Americans on a personal level. Most people don't meet significant numbers of foreigners, or even immigrants, as children or teenagers; international travel still carries a bit of a price tag; and by adulthood, maybe those of us who work white-collar-style jobs or with MNCs will be in fairly frequent contact with non-Americans, in a working if not a personal relationship. But Joe Q. Smith, who manages the McDonalds franchise downtown, probably won't in any significant way. And isn't that what our politicians are trying to represent?
The impression that I get from this article is that the Pentagon was all set to go ahead with it... a crack squad at the keyboards, plans in place, when they realized that (surprise, surprise) they didn't know what was going to be the end result, what else this could impact, the political/social/etc. ramifications. Kind of like when the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kind of like the defoliation in Viet Nam and Cambodia. Kind of like the use of depleted-uranium shells in Iraq.
But they didn't do it. I think I might be proud of that. Granted, their bombing campaign has caused environmental damages that it'll take easily 100 years to try to correct... and granted, I have issues with a lot of other things in US foreign policy and US actions. But still...
If anything happens in terms of an international document on this, odds are it won't be an add-on to the Geneva convention. It'll be an independent document, more like the CWC or the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. And I wouldn't be surprised if it gets held back in committee until shortly after it was originally scheduled to go into effect. Thank you, Mr. Helms.
I just couldn't seem to leave this one alone anymore, even if I'm saying nothing useful...
Yes, we *do* meet, don't we? And start talking to that person who was just a nick/character, and who you never actually communicated with in any way. And then you realize that your life has unexpectedly turned upside down, and you didn't expect this, or think you wanted it, and you realize you've never been happier.
And I'm one of those busy-crazy types. And it's probably a good thing that I'm doing LDR, 'cause I can catch him on the phone or IRC far more often than I'd be able to go on a "real" date... then our "real" dates tend to last days at a stretch. And it just keeps getting more important and more wonderful and harder to imagine living without.
I just keep smiling as I read this... but then, I'm in love. I guess it's not surprising.
>I think the part that makes it offending, is that in the aura of society today, everyone says we're open, and yet we always think conspiracy.
There are times when I'd really like to become a sociologist. People amaze me... from watching panic at a forward claiming that shampoo or deodorant will cause cancer, to the way that intelligent people tend to bolt from the slightest suggestion of a THEM who might know what they're doing. And yeah, I don't want anyone knowing the details of my life, down to my folk music, without my knowing... but I'm less disturbed about being "stalked" by a corporation than I am about an individual having the same information. (If they're doing it to everyone, I'm not being singled out... they probably aren't obsessed with me for some bizarre reason... real-life stalking is scary, yes.)
Yeah, I'd like to know what they're doing with this information. I'd like to at least have something like the standard ethical disclaimer in a psych experiment ("Your data will be identified by a code number. You may leave at any time.") And I'd like to be able to turn it off. But I don't understand why so many people seem to be reacting with "No! Evil! Diabolical! Out to exploit the innocents!"
There's no need to tell me what I already know, but why this extreme of fear in so many?
Interestingly enough, the people they interviewed as being online were a lawyer, a lobbyist, a communications consultant, a federal office-worker... but the only person not online they talked to worked in a 7-11. Did they look for someone in a office job who wasn't online and not find anyone, or did they just assume that it'd be easier to find someone to fit that bill in a convenience store?
There really are two worlds in DC: one works for or with the government, and the other gets a shake of the head and a sigh from the first.
How do you spell "class divide"?
Well, I'm not actually a Mac user, but I work for an Information Services department in a place that's full of 'em. In the past four months, we've been replacing a lot of computers -- replacing PC users' three-year-old boxes with new Gateways (and then doing lots o' service on them -- but Gateway's at least really good about sending replacement parts) and replacing old Mac 6100s and 7200s with G3's. The department stopped ordering the G3's in mid-September and started telling people "Well, if you want your Mac upgraded, if you can wait about a month longer, we can give you one of the new G4s."
Then the delays started. Right now, it's reaching a point of telling people "If you want a new Mac, you'll probably have to wait until sometime in January or February, and we don't have any more of the G3s in stock. But we can give you a new PC now, if you'd like." It's not all that easy to explain the apparent reasons in terms that these people will understand... "Well, Apple's having some delays. Part of it is because Motorola, who supplies some important parts to them, isn't coming through as expected... yes, they do other things than the phones..." (and on, and on, and on... discussing, trying to explain, trying not to get sucked into a lecture on the structure of the global economy, which can happen with some of these people...). It's easier to say "Something went wrong at Apple so we won't have anything for you for a while."
We have a lot of devoted Mac users here now discovering that their mouse has one button too many. And that's another headache entirely.
"I can't find my apple menu!" "Do you have a button that says "start" in the lower left of your screen?"
Maybe most of you already knew that women are good at math and science, but there are still plenty of people, including plenty of women, who haven't quite caught on to that. I'm writing this from the a women's college, and I've met a startling number of women here who struggle through their math and laboratory requirements, and while they will never say that math and science aren't a "girl thing" still don't believe that the statement can hold true for them. Most women I see majoring in sciences tend to be drawn toward softer sciences, like biology and psychology, as well; there's still a relatively prevalent feeling that areas like engineering are pretty much the boys' domain. Being a "geek" as a girl (in junior high and high school, especially) is very strongly discouraged; there was a lot more pressure for me as a teenager to "get away from that computer and get a life" than I saw in any of the guys I knew.
I freely grant that we've come a long way from my mother's adventures as a chemistry major in the late 60's and early 70's; most women don't get asked "You mean you want to be a chemistry teacher?" or told by their guidance counselors that they have no chance and should maybe look into something that they can handle. This doesn't mean that girls are quite convinced that this can be their realm, too. So to speak.
I'd be really, really happy if a group of female undergraduates designing a satellite wasn't a really big deal, or at least wasn't a big deal primarily because they were women... because things like that happened everywhere. But they don't. The fact that the final team was not, in fact, completely female (replacing the woman who left, I suppose) and the way that this was ignored by the news article does certainly say something. Basically, it's reflecting a desire to get a story about "girls and science" out, because "girls and science" is still news. That's why it's good to hear about things like this... not everyone quite gets it yet.
Sure, lots and lots of people 'dis' the space program as a waste of money. I mean, what possible practical purpose could it serve to send a couple of white guys to the moon? If NASA made commercials promoting their research, the way that plastic does, people might be aware that the space program has given us more than Tang and the "one small step..." quote. But instead, NASA has an image, for the most part, about being somewhat unconcerned with "real world" issues -- when they get paid attention to, it's for the large objects that they put into the sky or, more often, the malfunctioning of those large objects.
"Gee, Lois, seems to me that if they're spending billions in taxpayer money to put this thing in space, they oughta make sure the damn thing works."
So NASA gets perceived as being this giant sucking sound in the national budget, sales of freeze-dried "Astronaut ice cream" at the Air and Space Museum remain fairly constant, and most people don't see the long-term benefits of their research, or don't notice it when they do see them.
Ahh, civilization...