http://www.physorg.com/news10957.html
If you will allow me to over-extend an analogy, I think there"s a good reason for the paradox.
Whenever you have a tidal wave of innovation, it will be the surfers that dive into it, while the picnickers run for cover.
I"m actually quite thankful that all the greedy MBA types stopped polluting the classrooms when the bubble burst. Hopefully Web2.0 will make clear that it"s a game for smarties only.
One problem I see is that we have a President who believes the Earth is 10,000 years old, we should be teaching "intelligent design" in schools and discourages stem cell research. Our leaders are not leading us into the future. On the contrary, they are holding us back.
Quote: "The big paradox is that the computer science revolution is just unfolding," Chazelle said. "Why, then, are students are running away from it; why is there this decline when the field has never been more exciting?"
A paradox is only a paradox as long as you don't have a new model that incorporates both of the seemingly opposite phenomena.
The reason is freedom, or lack of it.
There are different classes of "programmers". There are the guys that find computer science challenging and fun to do but follow the dogma of CS of the time. Then there are the people who see what others can't. The people who think to themselves: "Why are they doing things this way? Isn't it obvious to them it's better to do it THIS way?". The renegades, the future "Einsteins" of CS in a way.
Well these kinds of people will be the last to try to make a living out of CS in the U.S.A or Japan. Why?
SOFTWARE PATENTS.
Even if they don't realize it conciously. The smart ones will feel, correctly, that the way the system is set up at the moment will punish exploring the undiscovered country of computer science. It will punish the brilliant minds with anxiety and fear because anything they discover will either be taken away from them or sued out of existence by the big players with their huge patent portfolios.
Let me ask you a question.
Do you think the explorers that first colonized America would have gone forth into the wild west if they had a rubber band attached to their wagon that would yank them back as soon as they found some prime piece of land to colonize? A rubber band held onto by the old money of Europe that they were running away from.
Or would Einstein have gone into physics if anything he came up with would be attributed to his idiot colleagues. Colleagues who would then block any newer discoveries if they even remotely resembled what Einstein came up with? Einstein would realize that he would be working against discovering even newer revelations by coming up with the intervening steps of discovery. A catch 22. A dictatorship of knowledge.
Something similar exists today in the US and Japan today. Early programmers learn that there is a bad pattern of programming called "spaghetti code". It's a pattern of programming that creates seemingly invisible connections in your computer code that will create unforseen consequences that will crash your program. It's almost impossible to debug using the human mind so the early programmers correctly said: "*** this, this system is obviously flawed. Instead of trying to figure this out it's better to completely scrap the system and create a new one, a new programming language that prevents spaghetti code in the first place".
Well guess what, people who see the invisible, people who have the potential to become the new "Einstein of CS" see that ANY program he/she creates is automatically spaghetti coded, automatically hooked, automatically rubber-banded to the big corporations by law. By SOFTWARE patent law. ANY program anyone writes will always have a couple of algorithms that are patented. That's just the nature of programming. Anything the programmer creates can be taken away by a corporation that gets greedy or an attorney who wants to climb the corporate ladder. Why would a genius, who subconciously gets this automatically, ever risk his livelyhood and maybe even risk the greater future discoveries of other "explorers" by going along with this system?
He or she will rightly say "*** this, this system is obviously flawed. Instead of trying to figure a way out of this problem it's better to completely forget about programming and either go into law-school... OR GO TO A COUNTRY WHICH DOESN'T HAVE SOFTWARE PATENTS! Yeah, that's IT!"
A personal story, the day I heard that the European Union was planning to introduce software patents, I felts physical terror. I KNEW it would destroy any future success a lone programmer, a rogue explorer would be able to have in a world where US corporations would say: "Yeah, it's a revolutionary program all right, but eh, you used a scrollbar so you either sell your company to us or sue your program out of existence". I almost became religious after the programmers of Europe and abroad united to defeat software patent law in a front of logic and rationality.
The U.S.A and Japan better realize that they will either stunt the potential of their own future "Einsteins" or suffer a brain drain of brilliant programmers into Europe where there's still the freedom to explore and reap the benefits of their discoveries.
The more they try to keep their control over ideas into their hands and squeeze, the more the good programmers will squeeze through their fingers. Wasn't it mainly out of principle against total control that Einstein fled to the US? The world is run by greedy idiots, swear to god.
Hopes that solves the "paradox"
A paradox is only a paradox as long as you don't have a new model that incorporates both of the seemingly opposite phenomena.
The reason is freedom, or lack of it.
There are different classes of "programmers". There are the guys that find computer science challenging and fun to do but follow the dogma of CS of the time. Then there are the people who see what others can't. The people who think to themselves: "Why are they doing things this way? Isn't it obvious to them it's better to do it THIS way?". The renegades, the future "Einsteins" of CS in a way.
Well these kinds of people will be the last to try to make a living out of CS in the U.S.A or Japan. Why?
SOFTWARE PATENTS.
Even if they don't realize it conciously. The smart ones will feel, correctly, that the way the system is set up at the moment will punish exploring the undiscovered country of computer science. It will punish the brilliant minds with anxiety and fear because anything they discover will either be taken away from them or sued out of existence by the big players with their huge patent portfolios.
Let me ask you a question.
Do you think the explorers that first colonized America would have gone forth into the wild west if they had a rubber band attached to their wagon that would yank them back as soon as they found some prime piece of land to colonize? A rubber band held onto by the old money of Europe that they were running away from.
Or would Einstein have gone into physics if anything he came up with would be attributed to his idiot colleagues. Colleagues who would then block any newer discoveries if they even remotely resembled what Einstein came up with? Einstein would realize that he would be working against discovering even newer revelations by coming up with the intervening steps of discovery. A catch 22. A dictatorship of knowledge.
Something similar exists today in the US and Japan today. Early programmers learn that there is a bad pattern of programming called "spaghetti code". It's a pattern of programming that creates seemingly invisible connections in your computer code that will create unforseen consequences that will crash your program. It's almost impossible to debug using the human mind so the early programmers correctly said: "*** this, this system is obviously flawed. Instead of trying to figure this out it's better to completely scrap the system and create a new one, a new programming language that prevents spaghetti code in the first place".
Well guess what, people who see the invisible, people who have the potential to become the new "Einstein of CS" see that ANY program he/she creates is automatically spaghetti coded, automatically hooked, automatically rubber-banded to the big corporations by law. By SOFTWARE patent law. ANY program anyone writes will always have a couple of algorithms that are patented. That's just the nature of programming. Anything the programmer creates can be taken away by a corporation that gets greedy or an attorney who wants to climb the corporate ladder. Why would a genius, who subconciously gets this automatically, ever risk his livelyhood and maybe even risk the greater future discoveries of other "explorers" by going along with this system?
He or she will rightly say "*** this, this system is obviously flawed. Instead of trying to figure a way out of this problem it's better to completely forget about programming and either go into law-school... OR GO TO A COUNTRY WHICH DOESN'T HAVE SOFTWARE PATENTS! Yeah, that's IT!"
A personal story, the day I heard that the European Union was planning to introduce software patents, I felts physical terror. I KNEW it would destroy any future success a lone programmer, a rogue explorer would be able to have in a world where US corporations would say: "Yeah, it's a revolutionary program all right, but eh, you used a scrollbar so you either sell your company to us or sue your program out of existence". I almost became religious after the programmers of Europe and abroad united to defeat software patent law in a front of logic and rationality.
The U.S.A and Japan better realize that they will either stunt the potential of their own future "Einsteins" or suffer a brain drain of brilliant programmers into Europe where there's still the freedom to explore and reap the benefits of their discoveries.
The more they try to keep their control over ideas into their hands and squeeze, the more the good programmers will squeeze through their fingers. Wasn't it mainly out of principle against total control that Einstein fled to the US? The world is run by greedy idiots, swear to god.
Hopes that solves the "paradox"
And I want to add that only idiots would need software patents to protect their livelihood. If you take a broader view and if you'd like to generally promote good hackers into computer science and gently dissuade lesser programmers to go into the field then, as a country, you should do away with software patents. The smarter ones will be able to stay ahead of the rest anyway and if you look at the reality of today's software industry, does Google need SOFTWARE patents, does Microsoft even need SOFTWARE patents? The only ones that are using software patents at the moment are the leeches of society.
If you really think algorithms are an expanded form of mathematics, and that they are the future of science, then you should lure the smart people in instead of punishing the "Einsteins" with anxiety and stress for their insights of this "spaghetti code of law".
If you really think algorithms are an expanded form of mathematics, and that they are the future of science, then you should lure the smart people in instead of punishing the "Einsteins" with anxiety and stress for their insights of this "spaghetti code of law".
The Next Wave of CS
The next wave of CS is already in motion. Algorithms can be defined and constructed to help facilitate diagnosis and treatment of chronic perplexing and confusing physical and mental disorders. Some examples are: MEN (Multiple Neuroendocrine Neoplasias), Autism, Schizophrenia, Congential Heart Diseases, Sleep and Memory Disorders.
Maths and Computer Science are deeply intertwined and an exciting branch of this 'marriage' is Datamining in Life Sciences. I have successfully published the theoretical basis for datamining in life sciences at the 10th Annual Research Seminar of the Fordham University in February 2004. Titled "Knowledge Management in Telemedicine: Opportunities for Datamining in Life Sciences" it provides a clear roadmap for practical datamining.
The future lies in unravelling Einstein's Theory of Relativity with greater mathematical precision and apply it to understanding of human biological processes. Of paramount interest and significance would be in the fields of molecular nutrition, understanding brain structure and functions, determining accurate dosages of potentially lethal radioactive materials used in treatment of cancers,etc.
It is interesting to read what Einstein wrote in September 1905.
September 1905
Einstein reported a remarkable consequence of his special theory of
relativity: if a body emits a certain amount of energy, then the mass
of that body must decrease by a proportionate amount. Meanwhile he
wrote a friend, "The relativity principle in connection with the
Maxwell equations demands that the mass is a direct measure for the
energy contained in bodies; light transfers mass... This thought is
amusing and infectious, but I cannot possibly know whether the good
Lord does not laugh at it and has led me up the garden path." Einstein
and many others were soon convinced of its truth. The relationship is
expressed as an equation: E=mc².
Scientists can put on their thinking caps and endeavor to place Datamining in Life Sciences in its rightful position in contemporary science and technology community.
Dr Jayanth G Paraki
Access my CV at http://myprofile.cos.com/zurich
The next wave of CS is already in motion. Algorithms can be defined and constructed to help facilitate diagnosis and treatment of chronic perplexing and confusing physical and mental disorders. Some examples are: MEN (Multiple Neuroendocrine Neoplasias), Autism, Schizophrenia, Congential Heart Diseases, Sleep and Memory Disorders.
Maths and Computer Science are deeply intertwined and an exciting branch of this 'marriage' is Datamining in Life Sciences. I have successfully published the theoretical basis for datamining in life sciences at the 10th Annual Research Seminar of the Fordham University in February 2004. Titled "Knowledge Management in Telemedicine: Opportunities for Datamining in Life Sciences" it provides a clear roadmap for practical datamining.
The future lies in unravelling Einstein's Theory of Relativity with greater mathematical precision and apply it to understanding of human biological processes. Of paramount interest and significance would be in the fields of molecular nutrition, understanding brain structure and functions, determining accurate dosages of potentially lethal radioactive materials used in treatment of cancers,etc.
It is interesting to read what Einstein wrote in September 1905.
September 1905
Einstein reported a remarkable consequence of his special theory of
relativity: if a body emits a certain amount of energy, then the mass
of that body must decrease by a proportionate amount. Meanwhile he
wrote a friend, "The relativity principle in connection with the
Maxwell equations demands that the mass is a direct measure for the
energy contained in bodies; light transfers mass... This thought is
amusing and infectious, but I cannot possibly know whether the good
Lord does not laugh at it and has led me up the garden path." Einstein
and many others were soon convinced of its truth. The relationship is
expressed as an equation: E=mc².
Scientists can put on their thinking caps and endeavor to place Datamining in Life Sciences in its rightful position in contemporary science and technology community.
Dr Jayanth G Paraki
Access my CV at http://myprofile.cos.com/zurich
I.P. laws are stagnating the industry, IMO. We did fine before we let lawyers decide who owns what ideas. I'm personally boycotting engineering in general until they stop trying to claim they own your own thoughts. Trying to be too creative is a liability nowdays.
They continually extend patents and copyrights also. Technically in the U.S. the Constitution requires them to expire but instead ever 20 years they simply add another 20 years to the duration of these. At most they should only allow narrow patent and copyright claims though truly these aren't even necessary for creators to receive adequate compensation for their work. I won't go into detail but this is one of my personal gripes. It sounds like these ideas are suppose to help inventors until you realize that these people already have a de facto monopoly on their insights without needing lawyers to redefine ownership of ones thoughts. They could leave current claims, but reduce the time limits to what they were when the claims were initially accepted and then stop accepting any more or at least stick to narrow patent and copyright laws and drop the rest.
They continually extend patents and copyrights also. Technically in the U.S. the Constitution requires them to expire but instead ever 20 years they simply add another 20 years to the duration of these. At most they should only allow narrow patent and copyright claims though truly these aren't even necessary for creators to receive adequate compensation for their work. I won't go into detail but this is one of my personal gripes. It sounds like these ideas are suppose to help inventors until you realize that these people already have a de facto monopoly on their insights without needing lawyers to redefine ownership of ones thoughts. They could leave current claims, but reduce the time limits to what they were when the claims were initially accepted and then stop accepting any more or at least stick to narrow patent and copyright laws and drop the rest.
why smart people dont go in for computer science?
1) first, techology changes so fast that in 5 years your "skills" are almost useless unless you keep learning a years worth every year in addition to your job.
2) after 10 years new grads are prefered cuz they're cheaper and trained on the newest stuff. experience is not valued.
3) in the value chain... the programmer has almost no power. the company will just higher another if they feel like it. you sell your service to an employer that is typically much bigger and MORE knowledgable than you....contrast this with law or medicine.
4) oh yeah... you'll have to compete with wages and millions of hungry graduates in china and india.... nice.
5) software is (usally) a winner take all industry.... check out bill gates vs...all the other coders of his generation. do you feel lucky?
6) the career of the average coder is shorter than that of the average pro footall player.
comp sci ... like engineering is a great education but a lousy career.... just like engineering.... why is it that when they talk about prospective husbands its doctors, lawyers, accountants and.....stockbrokers?
looks like the (missing) students are a lot smartet than the prof..... in this case
1) first, techology changes so fast that in 5 years your "skills" are almost useless unless you keep learning a years worth every year in addition to your job.
2) after 10 years new grads are prefered cuz they're cheaper and trained on the newest stuff. experience is not valued.
3) in the value chain... the programmer has almost no power. the company will just higher another if they feel like it. you sell your service to an employer that is typically much bigger and MORE knowledgable than you....contrast this with law or medicine.
4) oh yeah... you'll have to compete with wages and millions of hungry graduates in china and india.... nice.
5) software is (usally) a winner take all industry.... check out bill gates vs...all the other coders of his generation. do you feel lucky?
6) the career of the average coder is shorter than that of the average pro footall player.
comp sci ... like engineering is a great education but a lousy career.... just like engineering.... why is it that when they talk about prospective husbands its doctors, lawyers, accountants and.....stockbrokers?
looks like the (missing) students are a lot smartet than the prof..... in this case
A typical professor who has never worked five minutes outside of his Ivory Tower. All you have to do is look at how CS grads are treated in the marketplace to realize why nobody in their right mind wants to enter the field anymore. It is a soulless business where you have to prostitute yourself to pimps and egomaniacs in order to earn a rapidly deflating wage. Constant stress, unrealistic schedules, massive complexity, CUBICLES, and on and on...
The vast majority of new programmers are not going to do cutting edge research into CS. They're going to be modifying web pages and formatting IT reports for companies who will warily treat them as a necessary evil. Companies who will talk about loyalty and commitment and then lay them off en-mass when the economy goes flat. Work them till they drop and then spit them out. It's a boom-and-bust industry. The money is great half the time.
A large percentage of them will end up 'consulting' - a glorified term for 'temp'. Due to an act of Congress in the eighties - aimed specifically at reducing their independence, they'll actually work for sleazy middle-men (consulting companies) who will lie to them about their security, and lie to their potential customer about their skills - and take a big chunk of the pay off the top for bird-dogging and doing taxes.
Every decade or so there will be a purge that will eliminate a huge percentage of the available positions and put that same portion of the workforce out of business for years at a time. The other years, the industry and the government will bend over backwards to try to find competition to take their jobs. They'll graduate them from 10 week 'instant-programmer' courses. They'll import them from other countries. They'll ship the work overseas.
Who can blame college kids for seeing the writing on the wall? If they have a choice, why would they choose to do this?
A large percentage of them will end up 'consulting' - a glorified term for 'temp'. Due to an act of Congress in the eighties - aimed specifically at reducing their independence, they'll actually work for sleazy middle-men (consulting companies) who will lie to them about their security, and lie to their potential customer about their skills - and take a big chunk of the pay off the top for bird-dogging and doing taxes.
Every decade or so there will be a purge that will eliminate a huge percentage of the available positions and put that same portion of the workforce out of business for years at a time. The other years, the industry and the government will bend over backwards to try to find competition to take their jobs. They'll graduate them from 10 week 'instant-programmer' courses. They'll import them from other countries. They'll ship the work overseas.
Who can blame college kids for seeing the writing on the wall? If they have a choice, why would they choose to do this?
Sir, What are reasons for studying computer science as a course
[B][SIZE=7][COLOR=blue] I wish to earn an MS degree in Computer Science. I intend to follow this up with a Ph.D,and later, a career in research and teaching. I have spoken to my professor, seniors and colleagues about my choice of University, and reputable for its research facilities and computing resources. The department web site revealed a very strong faculty involved in extensive research in the area of Computer Networks. This has strengthened my resolved to study at Princeton University.
QUOTE (doc modulo+Feb 22 2006, 01:40 AM)
The smarter ones will be able to stay ahead of the rest anyway and if you look at the reality of today's software industry, does Google need SOFTWARE patents, does Microsoft even need SOFTWARE patents? The only ones that are using software patents at the moment are the leeches of society.
I read that SCO has filed for bankruptcy. Thank you for your comments, and Bravo!
QUOTE
The smarter ones will be able to stay ahead of the rest anyway and if you look at the reality of today's software industry, does Google need SOFTWARE patents, does Microsoft even need SOFTWARE patents? The only ones that are using software patents at the moment are the leeches of society.
I read that SCO has filed for bankruptcy. Thank you for your comments, and Bravo!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.