His wording is chosen carefully ... "rule" instead of "pattern", etc. but still the way that he poses the initial setup and his sample sequence are very leading. Not at all surprised at the initial attempts he gets.

I would have said "16 32 64" first, and "3 9 27" next. Those both would be leading me further down the trap of thinking in terms of a sequence/pattern rather than just a 'rule'. In computer science it is actually important to test how an algorithm reacts to being fed just bizarre, off the wall inputs -- but you're going to test "sane" stuff first. Human nature.

*promote

Happy birthday Grace Murray, the mother of computer science. Another great lady of science!

I might get lost in the storm here but this is a bit too evangelical.

I appreciate they're trying to drum up support but when you go from this, to the mundanity of bugs, testing etc, the allure will wear off very quickly for those not actually interested in the field.

The step from those plug and play applications to introduce programming is vastly different in "fun" if you will, than actual programming. While it helps to reduce the dog moving to "moveLeft()" as a conceptualisation, the insides of the moveLeft() are deeply involved.

This may seem like a necessary skill for all people but it really isn't. This is the wrong way of looking at, the right way is for programmers now to better understand the needs of the public and provide software that reflects those needs in an approachable way.

There is divide between programmer logic and human logic and I feel resources are better spent teaching people not how to code but to have a level of understanding in the subject simply to communicate their ideas better to programmers.

That to me seems more productive than a slew of amateur work ducted tape together. What we need is abstract software that lets people do whatever they want, easily, simply and without repetition of 10million people solving the same problem for themselves simply to learn programming.

Time is better spent solving the issue of females entering Computer Science type degrees, it is still ridiculously out of a whack and if you solve that, there's your new work force.

That's just the point! There's too many programmers that don't know diddly about computer science, wouldn't know how to analyze an algorithm. So, instead of coming up with a useful algorithm that works on real world inputs, too often they'll devise something way more complicated to handle worst case scenarios or give only marginally improved performance (or none at all in the real world). Pre-optimization is a horribly Bad Thing. But so is not knowing how to use the algorithms that have already been written and optimized.

The quote is from a presentation by Sedgewick titled "Algorithms for the Masses." The whole point of it is to start teaching the fundamentals of computer science to everyone (that needs to do programming). I'd love to find a video of it somewhere, but all I've been able to come up with is the presentation slides (which themselves are worth a read through).

When they say programming isn't being taught in 90% of US schools, are they counting all the elementaries and giving them the same weight as high schools with 10X the number of students? I just can't imagine most high schools don't offer optional programming classes.

http://thejournal.com/Articles/2009/08/04/Computer-Science-Courses-on-the-Decline.aspx?Page=1

This video really speaks to me. I'm just finishing up my computer science degree, and as part of it, I end up doing a lot of tutoring and actual teaching the classes for those who are just starting out (I want to teach it when I get out).

I always tell the freshmen, computer science is not about any particular language, or coding, its really about problem solving. Its the ability to take a large or complex problem, break it down into smaller tasks, then solve those small tasks. We just happen to do it using a computer. Those I notice that succeed and do well seem to really get this.

Of course I also always tell the freshman to indent when they see a curly brace...but that never happens.....

I think it's more accurate to say that anyone who has any interest in creating things (or has a god complex) should learn to code. And of those people, those who love doing it should become masters of it.

As I was surprised to learn from my fellow computer science majors while in college, the vast majority of people who are pursuing a career developing software aren't even very interested in it. If you lack passion for it, stay out of the kitchen or you'll be miserable.

Efficient algorithms and data structures matter.

"There is more to computer science than programming." - Robert Sedgewick

they don't make as many facebook posts, or run for political office, or publish books, or run television networks, or foster a frothy mania among tens if not hundreds of thousands of naive-and/or-ignorant-but-certainly-needy people who are sadly and unfortunately easily manipulated by virtue of the fact that life is hard and they need something to believe in.

Isn't it time to drop the charade and own up to the bullshit belief systems and just be kind to people?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@Trancecoach No doubt true of some, I was studying computer science and love philosophy, physical sciences, law and politics, ect while a christian, so it isn't a universal rule. I was lucky that I didn't ever know any of these "fundamentalists" while I was in the church. I met good and decent people, who focused on doing good instead of imposing fear and hate on people. Those people people exist, they just don't make as many facebook posts.

@Trancecoach No doubt true of some, I was studying computer science and love philosophy, physical sciences, law and politics, ect while a christian, so it isn't a universal rule. I was lucky that I didn't ever know any of these "fundamentalists" while I was in the church. I met good and decent people, who focused on doing good instead of imposing fear and hate on people. Those people people exist, they just don't make as many facebook posts.

I like you and your opinions (in general) so lets get that out of the way. This isn't personal. My wife is studying computer science and puts up with the kind of latent sexism that I believe your statements represent (so maybe it is a bit personal, but it isn't meant to be a personal attack against you.)

I just enjoy a good debate. <== bold font of peace
Again, I don't necessarily think you're a sexist or a misogynist. I think you may be suffering from the same "boys club" attitude that many of the engineers I've worked with operate under. I just want you to introspect a little and consider the possibility.

For the sake of argument, what if we replaced the masculine/feminine terms in your question with racial ones:

"why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single [race] dominated to the other [race], e.g. [some profession] to [blacks], [some other profession] to [whites]?"

I'm drawing no conclusions about the importance or the value of one profession over the other, merely putting it into racial terms instead of sexual ones. To me, it feels just as icky.

I believe that sexism is still widely accepted in our society, to a much higher degree than racial intolerance, or even tolerance of "alternate lifestyles". It's insidious, and it crosses the entirety of our society (sexism in every racial community.) Women still get paid less for the same work, they still have a harder time getting promotions (and then still make less money.) Women are even very sexist against each-other (you should see the looks my wife gets when she tells other mothers at school functions that she's finishing a compsci degree.)

Maybe I'm overly touchy about it, and for that I apologize.
In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
In reply to this comment by KnivesOut:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ChaosEngine" title="member since November 9th, 2009" class="profilelink">ChaosEngine you said "why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single gender dominated to the other gender, e.g. nursing to males, engineering to females?"

Was that your question that I was supposed to answer? My answer is: that's a sexist question.

I know you fucking love bold type, so I thought that might help to get through.


I resisted for a few days but I eventually gave in and read your reply. I could escalate this little feud with a few more petty insults, but fuck it, it's late, I'm tired and having read some of your other posts, I don't think you're actually a bad guy.

That said, I believe you're wrong here. It's not a sexist question. One could imply a sexist answer from it, but that was not the spirit in which it was intended. Hell, it wasn't even rhetorical. It was genuinely meant to provoke a discussion around what careers and vocations appeal to genders and what are the ramifications of that. The fact that there are less women in science does not mean that women are less intelligent than men, as much as the fact that there are less men in nursing does not mean that mean are less caring.

My question was (and still is) about whether we need a "programme" to change this. What are the benefits of this versus an "organic" approach of just letting people do what they want or are good at?

If you really feel the need to establish my sexist/non sexist credentials, maybe you should read some of my earlier posts on the subject. Hell, ask bareboards, I've had a lot of interesting discussions on this.

Anyway, consider this a virtual olive branch. I truly have better things to do with my time than fight you over this, but I don't appreciate being labelled something I'm not.

Oh, and bold type is fucking awesome :

Seems like some conservatives think he's cool, not cold.

Looks more to me like they're making fun of the fact that other people THINK he's cool. It's a good ad though. I really do think a lot of people out there - particularly in the left-coast media - literally get twitterpated when they think about Obama. You can see it in how they talk to him and act around him. It's pathetic. The same guys who rightfully and eagerly went after Bush2 like Pit Bulls just bend over and sigh, "Am I clenching too hard for you, Mr. Preezy?" like Chris "Tingles" Matthews.

There's no shortage of stuff to hammer Obama about. The problem is that any time Mr. Preezy gets any sort of challenge of any kind to his rigid worldview you can just SEE him tighten up and become angry, bitter, and resentful. Then his standard modus operandi is to say, "The experts all agree with me..." (even though they don't) and stonewall with a bunch of jibber-jabber. Then when it is over good luck on that guy ever getting any sort of interview again. Obama's admin is notorious for dictating to the media what questions they're allowed to ask, how they ask them, and what to talk about. Obama isn't cool. He's a narcacisst and arrogant to a level rarely seen.

It would really amuse me if from now on every single person in the media, government, and everyone else stopped calling him "Mr. President" and just called him "The Preezy". To be honest, that's about what he deserves.

"Value of a 4 year degree"

To be blunt, there is very little an undergrad degree offers anyone nowadays except if they do a Science degree. I know a lot of liberals say, "Well - you get LIFE experience of being 'exposed' to new ideas and concepts and people..!" I'll just go ahead and say it. Bullcrap. Unless you're in engineering, computer science, math, pre-med, or some other technical degree there is nothing in college worth $50,000 in debt. The standard 4-year college 'experience' today is very little more than an adult play-pen where you fritter away a few years bridging between high school and adulthood. Increasingly, more people are ending up with nothing to show for it except a hammered liver and $50,000 in debt.

scienstits? Not in my lab, sadly... We need more women in computer science

>> ^bcglorf:


My background is computer science but that requires a strong math background as well.

Which is essentially my background too, although I will admit my math skills have lapsed over the years. Either way, that definitely puts you in the "layman" category. Not that that invalidates your argument, simply that it is important to recognise that no-one here has actually seriously studied the science and those that have disagree with you. Appeal to authority? Yes, but I wouldn't ask a climate scientist to write software.


>> ^bcglorf:

What we DO know is that currently, it contributes to 60-90% of the overall greenhouse effect. That tells me it's role in forcing is a much more worthy area of focus and study than CO2 and it's a crying shame so many more dollars are spent on CO2 than H2O when what we really need is to understand the whole system in order know what is really going on.


Emphasis mine. Do you have a source for that figure? I don't know if you read the link I posted but it would seem to contradict that figure. Besides, even if CO2 is a small contribution, sometimes a small sway can dramatically affect a system.

I'm glad to hear that you believe in reducing our dependence on coal and oil. Frankly, I think it will run out before we stop using it (and it will run out in my lifetime).