It's all about educaton!

[KittenKoder]

KK, you were one of the lucky ones who entered an industry before it matured...there are now far more high-school dropouts than there are IT positions in this country.

Your questions are naive as well. Many people in the tech industry are high school dropouts.

There is a distinct difference between IT support and microprocessor engineering. You cannot learn microprocessor engineering in your garage.


You have no idea of the pains medical students endure to get that "piece of paper."

Also, vaccines come from many third world countries, Madam Currie was not "educated" at all by your standards.

Incorrect. Madam Currie obtained degrees in both Mathematics and Physics from EPSCI in 1893, and then her Doctorate in 1903. She was a full professor in Paris by 1906.

Our most durable buildings (talking thousands of years old) were not built by people with your "education" standards. Seriously, do you think the world was always like this? All of our advances we owe to people who were not educated by your standard actually.

Indeed.

"You cannot learn microprocessor engineering in your garage."



I know how to make them using cathode ray tubes, that's how I learned how the machines worked ... transistors (don't need any ICs but it's huge) ... or even using magnets and coils (would never actually build one like that because well ... I'd need a warehouse to do it) ... and all from reading books in the public library and learning from an old Navy tech (he taught me about the cathode ray tubes). You underestimate humanity as a whole. The first processor was built in a garage, the micro part needs a sterile environment but if I bought all the equipment I could easily craft one.

Want to know what my school science project was in Junior high? A computer built entirely of transistors ... the only classes I ever got anything higher than a "D" was science, got perfect scores in all my science classes, but failed all my math classes with big fat "F"s because I was using advanced mathematics that other students (even the teachers) had no idea existed, it's why I dropped out ultimately.

Want to know why I was able to learn? Wasn't because of money, wasn't to "prove" myself, it wasn't because I wanted some lame piece of paper. I learned because I wanted to. Want to know why most people get "higher" education? Because they are too lazy to earn a living without it.

 

[alan1]

Some Jobs Hard To Fill Amid Massive Layoffs

Yet even with 15 million people hunting for work, even with the unemployment rate nearing 10 percent, some employers can't find enough qualified people for good-paying career jobs.

--------------

This is what I've been saying for a while. It's all about education. Can someone explain to me why I'm wrong?

General Motors Recalls 1,000 Workers In Ohio

AP: Some U.S. Areas Show Signs Of Recovery

OK, I ignored it as long as I can, but since nobody else pointed it out, I must.
Read the title of your thread and tell us why we should take you seriously.

 

[rdean]

Currently, computer makers are having a difficult time getting the same type of precisions from 64 bit and 128 bit floating point calculations that they do from 32 bit. It seems that non-physical artifacts may be introduced into physical simulations which could result in, oh, well, you know. Perhaps you could give them a call and explain how you learned all this on your own?
Perhaps you could record the conversation? I would love to hear the educated schooled by the home schooled.

Wow are you a case!

If you knew what the term precision meant, you'd know that 32-bit, 64-bit and 128-bit refers to the precision. Of course you don't get the same precision - you get much better precision - by definition.

As for your failing simulations - sounds like another college educated bullshit artist not wanted to admit that they just screwed up the programming.

Or are your non-physical artifacts some sort of spiritual entities?

ROFLMAO!

Nailed it!

Oh man, I have got to thank you two. Seriously. Every so often, I like to throw a little bait out there just to see who swallows it, and you two took it Hook, Line and Sinker.

32, 64 and 128 DO NOT refer to precision.

Computers are binary in nature. Computer programming, once compiled is converted to binary based math (as opposed to decimal, which we use).

The first computers 8088 were 8 bit. Think of it this way. 2 times 2 is 4 times 2 is 8 times 2 is 16 times 2 is 32 times 2 is 64 times 2 is 128. See a pattern? 32, 64, 128? All powers of 2. What else comes in two's? ON and OFF. Transistors turn on and off. Now, think of 8 lines carrying a signal on or off. One or two. Every clock pulse sends 8 signals at one time. Parallel processing. Now, times by 2 and you have 16. Every clock pulse sends 16 on or off signals. Times two, and you have 32 lines per clock pulse. That is what the Pentiums are, 32 bit. Every clock pulse sends 32 on or off. Duel core doubles that to 64. Now, why duel core? Why not 64 bit packed into one core? Everyone point's to "Moore's law". It's not really a law, it's a business practice. Moore's law says that every two years, transistors are double in number and halved in size (or something like that, I'm not going to look it up). The problem is the limit is being reached so instead of making transistors smaller and packing more into a smaller space, they are increasing through put, hence Duel core.

Now, why can't they pack more transistors into a smaller space. I'll let you figure that one out. Will be looking for a report.

Now, back to precision. If you increase clock speed, and increase parallel processing, everything is naturally sped up, BUT, by rounding off numbers, you begin to introduce error.
So, how do computer scientists check for errors? They computer 64 bit, which is much faster, and then compute again at 32 bit and compare the output. They make random comparisons to keep error creep to a minimum. The question becomes, when is a little error too much. And that is the entire debate.

Now, I admit I'm merely a mechanical engineer from a tier three university. But still, I understand basic binary.

Once I was in a bar and I heard two people talking. I tried not to eavesdrop, but they kept using all the right works, "hard drive, rom, ram, binary, cd rom" and then I realized, they weren't using the words in the right places. They knew the words, but didn't know what they mean.

'scuz me. I laughed so hard I barfed a little. Euooo.

 

[rdean]

Some Jobs Hard To Fill Amid Massive Layoffs

Yet even with 15 million people hunting for work, even with the unemployment rate nearing 10 percent, some employers can't find enough qualified people for good-paying career jobs.

--------------

This is what I've been saying for a while. It's all about education. Can someone explain to me why I'm wrong?

General Motors Recalls 1,000 Workers In Ohio

AP: Some U.S. Areas Show Signs Of Recovery

OK, I ignored it as long as I can, but since nobody else pointed it out, I must.
Read the title of your thread and tell us why we should take you seriously.

I don't take you seriously, I don't expect you to take me seriously.

 

[alan1]

Wow are you a case!

If you knew what the term precision meant, you'd know that 32-bit, 64-bit and 128-bit refers to the precision. Of course you don't get the same precision - you get much better precision - by definition.

As for your failing simulations - sounds like another college educated bullshit artist not wanted to admit that they just screwed up the programming.

Or are your non-physical artifacts some sort of spiritual entities?

ROFLMAO!

Nailed it!

Oh man, I have got to thank you two. Seriously. Every so often, I like to throw a little bait out there just to see who swallows it, and you two took it Hook, Line and Sinker.

32, 64 and 128 DO NOT refer to precision.

Computers are binary in nature. Computer programming, once compiled is converted to binary based math (as opposed to decimal, which we use).

The first computers 8088 were 8 bit. Think of it this way. 2 times 2 is 4 times 2 is 8 times 2 is 16 times 2 is 32 times 2 is 64 times 2 is 128. See a pattern? 32, 64, 128? All powers of 2. What else comes in two's? ON and OFF. Transistors turn on and off. Now, think of 8 lines carrying a signal on or off. One or two. Every clock pulse sends 8 signals at one time. Parallel processing. Now, times by 2 and you have 16. Every clock pulse sends 16 on or off signals. Times two, and you have 32 lines per clock pulse. That is what the Pentiums are, 32 bit. Every clock pulse sends 32 on or off. Duel core doubles that to 64. Now, why duel core? Why not 64 bit packed into one core? Everyone point's to "Moore's law". It's not really a law, it's a business practice. Moore's law says that every two years, transistors are double in number and halved in size (or something like that, I'm not going to look it up). The problem is the limit is being reached so instead of making transistors smaller and packing more into a smaller space, they are increasing through put, hence Duel core.

Now, why can't they pack more transistors into a smaller space. I'll let you figure that one out. Will be looking for a report.

Now, back to precision. If you increase clock speed, and increase parallel processing, everything is naturally sped up, BUT, by rounding off numbers, you begin to introduce error.
So, how do computer scientists check for errors? They computer 64 bit, which is much faster, and then compute again at 32 bit and compare the output. They make random comparisons to keep error creep to a minimum. The question becomes, when is a little error too much. And that is the entire debate.

Now, I admit I'm merely a mechanical engineer from a tier three university. But still, I understand basic binary.

Once I was in a bar and I heard two people talking. I tried not to eavesdrop, but they kept using all the right works, "hard drive, rom, ram, binary, cd rom" and then I realized, they weren't using the words in the right places. They knew the words, but didn't know what they mean.

'scuz me. I laughed so hard I barfed a little. Euooo.

It's all about educaton!

^^^
Thread title.

 

[eagleseven]

"You cannot learn microprocessor engineering in your garage."



I know how to make them using cathode ray tubes, that's how I learned how the machines worked ... transistors (don't need any ICs but it's huge) ... or even using magnets and coils (would never actually build one like that because well ... I'd need a warehouse to do it) ... and all from reading books in the public library and learning from an old Navy tech (he taught me about the cathode ray tubes). You underestimate humanity as a whole. The first processor was built in a garage, the micro part needs a sterile environment but if I bought all the equipment I could easily craft one.

Want to know what my school science project was in Junior high? A computer built entirely of transistors ... the only classes I ever got anything higher than a "D" was science, got perfect scores in all my science classes, but failed all my math classes with big fat "F"s because I was using advanced mathematics that other students (even the teachers) had no idea existed, it's why I dropped out ultimately.

You still don't get it. The era of inexpensive garage science is over. All major scientific disciplines have matured beyond beyond the capabilities of a individual in his basement.

You'd have a hard time selling that home-made processor for a profit...let alone a living.

Want to know why I was able to learn? Wasn't because of money, wasn't to "prove" myself, it wasn't because I wanted some lame piece of paper. I learned because I wanted to. Want to know why most people get "higher" education? Because they are too lazy to earn a living without it.

You harbor a pathological hatred of higher education, it would seem.

 

[editec]

Some Jobs Hard To Fill Amid Massive Layoffs

Yet even with 15 million people hunting for work, even with the unemployment rate nearing 10 percent, some employers can't find enough qualified people for good-paying career jobs.

--------------

This is what I've been saying for a while. It's all about education. Can someone explain to me why I'm wrong?

General Motors Recalls 1,000 Workers In Ohio

AP: Some U.S. Areas Show Signs Of Recovery

For an individual, you are generally right.

I say generally because getting additional education gets harder to do as one gets older.

You're generally already too encumbered with the details and committments of your own life to just totally change it by going back to school and starting your career over, too.

But as to education being the overall solution for this nation employment problems?

Well, take all those jobs that go wanting for lack of educated people to fill them, and compare those small numbers to the HUGE number of people who are looking for work.

You see the problem?

There are, i this fibilating economy, far more people than billets in good jobs to fill.

There are TONS of people with fine educations who cannot find decent jobs because their education is in fields which are NOW overpopulated with skilled workers.

Those people might have gotten their educations when those fields needed more people.

But conditions Things change and skills that we acquired might become less needed than they once were. When I went to school there were no PCs. Computer science was something done by very few people and almost nobody had ever even seen a real live computer.

Why I can remember (back in the 60s) when getting a degree in NURSING also meant practically taking a vow of poverty. (what's it like now?)

I can also remember, (BACK IN THE 70S) when engineers (civil and mechanical) were a dime a dozen. (what's it like now?)

Things change and often employment needs change faster than we the people can change to accomodate them.

I ca remember when TEACHERS were a dime a dozen too, although I am informed that that is now changing again.

THAT is the problem with your theory.

Not that you're entirely wrong, (as far as your theory goes, you are entirely right!)

Merely that you are only partially correct if you are talking about the society as a whole.

 

[rdean]

Some Jobs Hard To Fill Amid Massive Layoffs

Yet even with 15 million people hunting for work, even with the unemployment rate nearing 10 percent, some employers can't find enough qualified people for good-paying career jobs.

--------------

This is what I've been saying for a while. It's all about education. Can someone explain to me why I'm wrong?

General Motors Recalls 1,000 Workers In Ohio

AP: Some U.S. Areas Show Signs Of Recovery

For an individual, you are generally right.

I say generally because getting additional education gets harder to do as one gets older.

You're generally already too encumbered with the details and committments of your own life to just totally change it by going back to school and starting your career over, too.

But as to education being the overall solution for this nation employment problems?

Well, take all those jobs that go wanting for lack of educated people to fill them, and compare those small numbers to the HUGE number of people who are looking for work.

You see the problem?

There are, i this fibilating economy, far more people than billets in good jobs to fill.

There are TONS of people with fine educations who cannot find decent jobs because their education is in fields which are NOW overpopulated with skilled workers.

Those people might have gotten their educations when those fields needed more people.

But conditions Things change and skills that we acquired might become less needed than they once were. When I went to school there were no PCs. Computer science was something done by very few people and almost nobody had ever even seen a real live computer.

Why I can remember (back in the 60s) when getting a degree in NURSING also meant practically taking a vow of poverty. (what's it like now?)

I can also remember, (BACK IN THE 70S) when engineers (civil and mechanical) were a dime a dozen. (what's it like now?)

Things change and often employment needs change faster than we the people can change to accomodate them.

I ca remember when TEACHERS were a dime a dozen too, although I am informed that that is now changing again.

THAT is the problem with your theory.

Not that you're entirely wrong, (as far as your theory goes, you are entirely right!)

Merely that you are only partially correct if you are talking about the society as a whole.

It's still pretty much the same with engineers. What's expected is that you understand how to operate in more than one field. My official job title is "CAD Manager" (Inventor, Inventor Pro, AutoCAD electrical and the Vault - data storage), but if that were all I did, I wouldn't have a job. I also support production, design "specials" (working on one now for Coca Cola in China) and create all the photorealistic renders and graphics for the Marketing Department. Every engineer in the Department works under similiar conditions. I'm doing NOTHING special.

Engineers spent their entire careers at Ford designing locks for trunks. Not anymore. It's almost like being a doctor. You are expected to constantly learn.

 

[KittenKoder]

"You cannot learn microprocessor engineering in your garage."



I know how to make them using cathode ray tubes, that's how I learned how the machines worked ... transistors (don't need any ICs but it's huge) ... or even using magnets and coils (would never actually build one like that because well ... I'd need a warehouse to do it) ... and all from reading books in the public library and learning from an old Navy tech (he taught me about the cathode ray tubes). You underestimate humanity as a whole. The first processor was built in a garage, the micro part needs a sterile environment but if I bought all the equipment I could easily craft one.

Want to know what my school science project was in Junior high? A computer built entirely of transistors ... the only classes I ever got anything higher than a "D" was science, got perfect scores in all my science classes, but failed all my math classes with big fat "F"s because I was using advanced mathematics that other students (even the teachers) had no idea existed, it's why I dropped out ultimately.

You still don't get it. The era of inexpensive garage science is over. All major scientific disciplines have matured beyond beyond the capabilities of a individual in his basement.

You'd have a hard time selling that home-made processor for a profit...let alone a living.

Want to know why I was able to learn? Wasn't because of money, wasn't to "prove" myself, it wasn't because I wanted some lame piece of paper. I learned because I wanted to. Want to know why most people get "higher" education? Because they are too lazy to earn a living without it.

You harbor a pathological hatred of higher education, it would seem.

Seems English is still beyond you. No, everything you learn in school you can learn without it. It's not hard to either. You assume that the university idiots have some special magical books that no one else can read.

 

[Toro]

Generally, the more education you have, the higher you are paid. The gap on wages between those with a college degree and those who do not have been widening for decades.