On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:44:09 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> And RedHat is currently selling more Linux than Novell.  Turns out
>>>> customers *want* service contracts for things their business depends
>>>> on.
>>> OK. So why have I not heard anything about RedHat for several years?
>> 
>> Very likely a product of your choice of reading material.  Have you
>> looked at a copy of Linux Format lately?  There recently was a huge
>> article there on training, specifically about RedHat training.  With a
>> big ad in the middle of the article, at that.
> 
> Woah - there's a "Linux Format" now? o_O

It's been around for a few years, current issue is (looking around desk) 
112.  13 issues per year.  You do the math. ;-)

You might also be surprised to learn that there is also one called "Linux 
Journal".  And yes, it's older.

> Mind you, there's enough people using Linux, I guess it makes sense...

There you go.

>>> Have they gone into some kind of specialised market or something? Once
>>> upon a time you used to hear of them quite a bit, and now they seem
>>> awful quiet...
>> 
>> Nope, they haven't gone into a specialized market.  They're losing
>> market share to Novell (which owns SUSE Linux) and to Canonical, but
>> absolutely still around.
>> 
>> If you spend all your time around Windows advertising and gaming
>> magazines, you probably won't hear much about Linux.  Though with the
>> MS/ Novell deal, Microsoft is selling SUSE Linux Enterprise Server to
>> their customers as well - surely you've heard of *that* deal?  It's
>> been ongoing for about 2 years now....
> 
> Actually, come to think of it, I *do* vaguely remember that
> announcement...

So, you want to keep up with the tech industry?  Subscribe to a slashdot 
RSS feed.  Don't read the comments, read the stories.  That'll give you a 
good starting point to see what's going on in the world.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:29:22 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> Yeah, it does - just not particularly often. ;-)
>> 
>> Tell that to all of those employees here or at RedHat who get paid.
>> 
>> But there is an added advantage to working on OSS projects - helps
>> build a resume and people can see your work.
> 
> I'm not disputing that getting paid for OSS is a good idea - I'm just
> saying it's highly nontrivial to achieve this.

If it's non-trivial to fill out an application, then I guess you're 
right.  But you won't know UNTIL YOU TRY.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Gail wrote:
> Agreed. It's the perserverance that I'm struggling with right now (even 
> though I'm just doing an M.Sc)

IIRC, the final year of my BSc was pretty insane...

But then, I'm not good with time management. I tend to burn hours 
working on "interesting" but irrelevant problems, and no time at all 
working on the stuff that I don't know how to do.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
> 
>> I highly recommend either of the books if you are really interested in 
>> learning some about electronics.  Unless you have $100 in TTL chips, I 
>> recommend that you go the CMOS route as it is more likely what you 
>> would encounter when dealing with more specialized chips (think CPU).
> 
> Just keep in mind CMOS is very easy to cook.
> 

yes, they are easier than TTL to *damage*

TTL can withstand a bit more abuse before they peter out.

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm not disputing that getting paid for OSS is a good idea - I'm just
>> saying it's highly nontrivial to achieve this.
> 
> If it's non-trivial to fill out an application, then I guess you're 
> right.  But you won't know UNTIL YOU TRY.

Gotta find somebody to apply to first. :-P Same as everything else...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:

> yes, they are easier than TTL to *damage*
> 
> TTL can withstand a bit more abuse before they peter out.

...and you think I'm using TTL because...? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:491c77d7$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail wrote:
>> Agreed. It's the perserverance that I'm struggling with right now (even 
>> though I'm just doing an M.Sc)
>
> IIRC, the final year of my BSc was pretty insane...

Now try doing that, working full time and still keeping up with the tech 
community (and contributing to it frequently)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But then, I'm not good with time management. I tend to burn hours
> working on "interesting" but irrelevant problems, and no time at all
> working on the stuff that I don't know how to do.

Heh, you just described me.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> [.. snip interview ...]

LOL!!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I'm not disputing that getting paid for OSS is a good idea - I'm just
> saying it's highly nontrivial to achieve this.

Before getting paid for OSS, you have to contribute to OSS on your own, and
get used to how things work...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Anyway, when I reached the age of 9, I still couldn't read or write.

Want some *weird* facts?

I'm currently 17. I could read at the age of 2 (!).

But I finally learned to tie my shoe laces a few weeks ago. From a
website... :/

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> One think to keep in mind, you are best off not trying to drive the LED
> directly from the chip.  Some chips can do it, but most cannot.  Lots of
> times you need to put a *switch* that the gate switches.

I have an electronics kit, with CMOS ICs, LEDs, and AA batteries adding up
to 9v. I have always connected LEDs directly at the output of gates. With a
resistor, of course (3.3k ohm), I mean without any kind of switch.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> But I finally learned to tie my shoe laces a few weeks ago. From a
> website... :/

And I'm in my 40's, and only learned I was tying my shoes wrong last 
year.  I've been using a granny knot instead of a square knot for 40 years.
-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Just keep in mind CMOS is very easy to cook.
>> 
> 
> yes, they are easier than TTL to *damage*
> 
> TTL can withstand a bit more abuse before they peter out.

Heh. I once built a circuit following exact instructions from a breadboard
diagram. It didn't work. I touched the IC and it was hot. (uh oh) I noticed
I was using the *wrong IC*! I was giving it power into an OUTPUT PIN!!

After that abuse, it still worked fine :)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> [ lots of stuff ]
> 
> I'll second everything she said, including helping you find and get 
> involved in the right place if you want.
 >
> [lots more stuff]

I'll add my voice to this and third it. I don't know if anyone has 
already said this, but the UK *is* the same - most PhDs in the sciences 
and engineering (including CS) are fully funded, and I highly recommend 
following this path if you're interested.

I have a PhD in materials science. I did it because I wasn't sure what I 
wanted to do beyond not moving to London for some faceless graduate 
program. I also wanted to stay in programming (I'd just finished a CS 
MSc). Ha, materials doesn't sound like programming, I hear you say. 
Well, speculative emails brought me to the attention of my prof-to-be, 
who was looking for someone to do some numerical modelling. The rest is 
history; a postdoc project followed and in total I spent 7 years in 
flexible, fun and stimulating work with interesting people.

And of course many of them are geeks, in the best possible sense!

Although I no longer work in that field, or even academia (I was 
drifting away from the programming - experimental research is 
interesting but not my first love!), I made sufficient contacts that I 
could easily have found something had I wished it.

And despite what you say, you *can* write technical documents. You keep 
posting them here, and they are well-written. Style and structure is 
something you pick up whilst reading around the subject, and most 
institutions will offer formal training for students and staff.

The holiday allowance isn't too shabby either ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>> One think to keep in mind, you are best off not trying to drive the LED
>> directly from the chip.  Some chips can do it, but most cannot.  Lots of
>> times you need to put a *switch* that the gate switches.
> 
> I have an electronics kit, with CMOS ICs, LEDs, and AA batteries adding up
> to 9v. I have always connected LEDs directly at the output of gates. With a
> resistor, of course (3.3k ohm), I mean without any kind of switch.
> 


With TTL you should be able to drive a LED from the outputs.
With CMOS you better check to be sure.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> Just keep in mind CMOS is very easy to cook.
>>>
>> yes, they are easier than TTL to *damage*
>>
>> TTL can withstand a bit more abuse before they peter out.
> 
> Heh. I once built a circuit following exact instructions from a breadboard
> diagram. It didn't work. I touched the IC and it was hot. (uh oh) I noticed
> I was using the *wrong IC*! I was giving it power into an OUTPUT PIN!!
> 
> After that abuse, it still worked fine :)
> 

You would be amazed what you could do to a chip and have it survive.
Just because you exceeded the maximum ratings, or hooked up something 
backwards doesn't mean that it is killed tho you probably brought down 
the reliability of the chip.


Then you would be surprised how easy it is to make one fail.  Sneeze 
wrong and it's over.


It's all in the magic blue smoke.  All chips run on it - if you let it 
out then it doesn't work any more.
I just wonder how they get the blue smoke in there in the first place.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> But then, I'm not good with time management. I tend to burn hours
>> working on "interesting" but irrelevant problems, and no time at all
>> working on the stuff that I don't know how to do.
> 
> Heh, you just described me.

I'm pretty sure I just described half the people on this server... ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gail wrote:
> 
> "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
> news:491c77d7$1@news.povray.org...
>> Gail wrote:
>>> Agreed. It's the perserverance that I'm struggling with right now 
>>> (even though I'm just doing an M.Sc)
>>
>> IIRC, the final year of my BSc was pretty insane...
> 
> Now try doing that, working full time and still keeping up with the tech 
> community (and contributing to it frequently)

Well, the other stuff you mention would be new to me anyway. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:

> It's all in the magic blue smoke.  All chips run on it - if you let it 
> out then it doesn't work any more.
> I just wonder how they get the blue smoke in there in the first place.

Dried frog pills, anyone?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>>> One think to keep in mind, you are best off not trying to drive the LED
>>> directly from the chip.  Some chips can do it, but most cannot.  Lots of
>>> times you need to put a *switch* that the gate switches.
>>
>> I have an electronics kit, with CMOS ICs, LEDs, and AA batteries 
>> adding up
>> to 9v. I have always connected LEDs directly at the output of gates. 
>> With a
>> resistor, of course (3.3k ohm), I mean without any kind of switch.
>>
> 
> 
> With TTL you should be able to drive a LED from the outputs.
> With CMOS you better check to be sure.

I have an electronics kit with TTL in it. (A 7400LS, no less.) All the 
diagrams drive the LEDs directly from it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>>>> One think to keep in mind, you are best off not trying to drive the LED
>>>> directly from the chip.  Some chips can do it, but most cannot.  
>>>> Lots of
>>>> times you need to put a *switch* that the gate switches.
>>>
>>> I have an electronics kit, with CMOS ICs, LEDs, and AA batteries 
>>> adding up
>>> to 9v. I have always connected LEDs directly at the output of gates. 
>>> With a
>>> resistor, of course (3.3k ohm), I mean without any kind of switch.
>>>
>>
>>
>> With TTL you should be able to drive a LED from the outputs.
>> With CMOS you better check to be sure.
> 
> I have an electronics kit with TTL in it. (A 7400LS, no less.) All the 
> diagrams drive the LEDs directly from it.
> 

That's TTL - it can source current, i.e. drive a LED
CMOS usually cannot source as much current.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>>> One think to keep in mind, you are best off not trying to drive the LED
>>> directly from the chip.  Some chips can do it, but most cannot.  Lots of
>>> times you need to put a *switch* that the gate switches.
>> 
>> I have an electronics kit, with CMOS ICs, LEDs, and AA batteries adding
>> up to 9v. I have always connected LEDs directly at the output of gates.
>> With a resistor, of course (3.3k ohm), I mean without any kind of switch.
>> 
> 
> With TTL you should be able to drive a LED from the outputs.
> With CMOS you better check to be sure.

It's all CMOS. In very few places it actually uses an extra transistor or
switch to drive an output.

Post a reply to this message

On 13-Nov-08 10:26, Invisible wrote:
>>> Well, London isn't "remote", but no sane person would want to go there. 
>>
>> ?
> 
> Heh. You'll get me into trouble. :-P
> 
>>> The people who aren't in London are in places like Southampton, York, 
>>> etc.
>>>
>>
>> I happen to be in Amsterdam actually. Or don't I count as people? (or 
>> is that '... do I not...')
> 
> I meant the other companies I researched. A lot of them were in London, 
> and the rest were in far-flung parts of the UK.

ok that was s/people/companies then.

> 
> Korg UK is in Milton Keynes. But there office is about 10 square feet, 
> so I'm guessing it's just an admin office...
> 
>>> Um... the obvious problem here is that I'm obviously not intelligent 
>>> enough to do a PhD. :-P
>>
>> Intelligence is not a prerequisite for a PhD position. As long as you 
>> have a MSc or equivalent you could be hired.
> 
> Well, I don't have an MSc. I only have a BSc.

Didn't know that, that changes a lot, I guess.

> (You know the random Asian guys asking me to fix their Java? *They* were 
> the MSc students!)
> 
>> Please, leave the job of finding reasons why you are not qualified to 
>> the selection committee. BTW if it ever comes to this I will probably 
>> not take part is the job interview. I might know too much about you to 
>> be objective.
> 
> Why would you want me anyway? Surely somebody who already lives in 
> Amsterdam would be a more sensible choice? :-P

See, you are doing it again; leave the job of finding reasons why you 
are not qualified to the selection committee. Where someone lives now is 
totally unimportant.

The reason why I might like you to be in the team is a simply sum: one 
analyses what is needed and what we do have. We will have 2 PhD 
positions available knowing what I and a fellow postdoc can, we subtract 
that from the things we need and what is left is the minimum set of 
skills the other team members combined need to have. Which is still a 
very diverse set of skills and knowledge. My estimate is that with an 
added Andrew, what is left may be possible to fill with one person. Or 
if you start at the other end: for some likely kind of applicant to fill 
one position we will have an almost Andy shaped hole left.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> But I finally learned to tie my shoe laces a few weeks ago. From a
>> website... :/
> 
> And I'm in my 40's, and only learned I was tying my shoes wrong last 
> year.  I've been using a granny knot instead of a square knot for 40 years.

Well, I just checked, and I'm using a granny knot, too. I'm not going to 
change it, it works after all.

Manuel

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Odd. Never heard of that. I can see your point, but I would think the
> number of people who go thru the MS saying they'll get a PhD and knowing
> they're going to bail before then must be fairly low. Maybe where that
> has happened too often they instituted this policy.

	It's probably more the exception rather than the rule. And usually only
at a few of the top places. Where I went, it was the case for CS and not
Elect Eng (or, AFAIK, any other engineering). John Hopkins is also that
way for CS. I know universities that have it that way for Electrical
(Caltech).

	As for the number of people who go into MS saying they'll do a PhD and
"bailing out" - probably most of them in my department - which needs you
to take the MS. You typically don't get funding if you say you don't
plan on a PhD. So everyone says they do intend to do one.

-- 
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Manuel Kasten wrote:
> Well, I just checked, and I'm using a granny knot, too. I'm not going to 
> change it, it works after all.

I find I tie my shoes once or twice a day now, instead of every hour or so.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Manuel Kasten wrote:
>> And I'm in my 40's, and only learned I was tying my shoes wrong last
>> year.  I've been using a granny knot instead of a square knot for 40
>> years.
> 
> Well, I just checked, and I'm using a granny knot, too. I'm not going to
> change it, it works after all.

	I really don't want to check if I'm doing it right. It's right because
it works!

-- 
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Originally I assumed that I went to this school because I couldn't read
> or write. But now, looking back, it has gradually become clear to me
> that *I* am not normal either. I do things that normal people don't do.

	Yeah, but you're the right kind of abnormal - same as everyone in this
group.

	Normal people would never be interested in Haskell, mathematics or
POV-Ray. They wouldn't have a chance at enjoying graduate school - if
they somehow get in. You don't want to be normal.
	

-- 
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:47:16 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Manuel Kasten wrote:
>> Well, I just checked, and I'm using a granny knot, too. I'm not going  
>> to change it, it works after all.
>
> I find I tie my shoes once or twice a day now, instead of every hour or  
> so.

I felt compelled to check. Apparently I have been doing it the right way  
(i.e. a reef knot) all along. I have a pair of sneakers (very well worn by  
now) that I tie once every five years or so.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Manuel Kasten wrote:
>>> And I'm in my 40's, and only learned I was tying my shoes wrong last
>>> year.  I've been using a granny knot instead of a square knot for 40
>>> years.
>> Well, I just checked, and I'm using a granny knot, too. I'm not going to
>> change it, it works after all.
> 
> 	I really don't want to check if I'm doing it right. It's right because
> it works!

Yes!  I didn't even know knots had names! XP

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	I really don't want to check if I'm doing it right. It's right because
> it works!

BTW, this guy is great. There's someone else out there that has 
something like 35 videos of how to tie your shoes really fast, but I 
can't find it.

http://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/knots.htm


-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

I'm currently in a course that seems to be designed around the movie 
"Memento."

Seriously.

Week one: talk about the history of Film and Literature (the title of the 
course).
Week two: read the short story "Memento Mori", which "Memento" is based 
on.
Week three: Watch "Memento".
Week four: More talking about "Memento".
Week five: ...

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> I really don't want to check if I'm doing it right. It's right because
> it works!

Yeh me neither, I looked on Wikipedia at granny knot but couldn't work out 
how that related to tying a shoe lace! I know I do it differently to most 
others :-S

Post a reply to this message

> Originally I assumed that I went to this school because I couldn't read or 
> write. But now, looking back, it has gradually become clear to me that *I* 
> am not normal either. I do things that normal people don't do. There 
> clearly *is* something wrong with me. And I know it's incurable. I find 
> this extremely upsetting.

Nobody is normal, if they are they are probably pretty boring and nobody 
would be interested in them apart from equally normal and boring people :-)

Seriously, forget the bad parts from growing up, you certainly seem way more 
intelligent and willing to learn than your qualifications suggest.  You 
don't mention the fact that you have 3 GCSEs and no A-levels on your CV do 
you?  Because understandably most employers would just throw it in the bin. 
At your age it is perfectly acceptable not to mention that on your CV and 
just put your University course under "Education" with a few details of the 
subjects covered.

> Girls? In a computing course...?
>
> Which part of the world do *you* live in?? o_O

It seemed to be 20-25% female for Engineering and also Computer Science at 
my place.  But then apparently it had been going up like 5% every year...

> (Actually, in fairness, the full class was 80 people, and IIRC about 6 of 
> them were female. And 2 of them were my age. The other 4 were married with 
> children.

Oh, on my course nearly everyone was my age, or maybe a year older if they 
had done that "year in industry" thing before starting University.

Post a reply to this message

>> Also, are *human eyes* linear? Would you notice when brightness is 
>> changing
>> perfectly linearly? :)

Hehe no probably not, anyway I highly doubt a filament lamp is linear 
brightness wrt voltage either - for starters the temperature of the filament 
probably has something to do with the power (which is proportional to V^2), 
then the brightness of a black-body is probably not very linear wrt 
temperature...

> Probably not. But when the light stays off, and then suddenly turns full 
> on, with nothing in between, I'm fairly sure that's non-linear. ;-)

That's how LED works (they're diodes!), at a certain voltage suddenly they 
start conducting very well.  It's like they are a very low resistance 
resistor, but you need to apply some "offset" voltage to get them conducting 
first.  Thus the difference between applying 2.0V and 2.5V could be the 
difference between no light and blowing the LED!

Post a reply to this message

> I thought you could just treat a 7400 as a black box. Apparently not...

You can, but you must read the spec sheet of the "black box" to see what it 
is expecting as its inputs and what it is going to give as the output.  The 
input spec will include the voltage range that it accepts as "low" and 
"high", and also what the input resistance is.

> The LEDs actually worked just fine. It's the gate driving them that didn't 
> do what it was ment to.

And the "output" spec will tell you within what range of voltages it will 
output as "low" and "high", and what the output resistance / maximum output 
current is.  If you try to connect something that is using more current than 
the IC can supply, there are going to be problems.  Usually a 7400 should be 
able to drive a single small LED directly, but anything bigger you need to 
start using a small buffer circuit (often just a discrete transistor, or you 
can get dedicated ICs to drive bigger loads).

> Presumably a debounce circuit is merely a low-pass filter?

Sometimes, but often you hook it up to a double throw switch, then you can 
only "switch" the circuit by hitting the respective side.  Simply bouncing 
on and off of one contact will only switch the circuit once.  As an 
exercise, work out the logic for that :-)

Post a reply to this message

Am Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:14:08 +0100 schrieb scott:

> That's how LED works (they're diodes!), at a certain voltage suddenly
> they start conducting very well.  It's like they are a very low
> resistance resistor, but you need to apply some "offset" voltage to get

Actually it's I=Is*(exp(-V*e/(k*T))-1) (for ideal diodes, that is.)

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> So, you want to keep up with the tech industry?

Not *especially*, but...

> Subscribe to a slashdot RSS feed.

Two questions:

1. What's RSS?

2. What actually *is* Slashdot? I keep hearing about it, but I'm still 
unclear on what it's supposed to "be".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>> Well, I don't have an MSc. I only have a BSc.
> 
> Didn't know that, that changes a lot, I guess.

Maybe. I'm not really sure what the difference is. (I don't really 
comprehend the distinctions between the myriad of different 
qualifications a person can hold.)

> Or 
> if you start at the other end: for some likely kind of applicant to fill 
> one position we will have an almost Andy shaped hole left.

If this doesn't make it into Invisible Me, I'll be amazed. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Nobody is normal, if they are they are probably pretty boring and nobody 
> would be interested in them apart from equally normal and boring people :-)

Normal people have friends. I am seemingly incapable of achieving this 
basic human need. I fail at life.

> You don't mention the fact that you have 3 GCSEs and no A-levels on your 
> CV do you?

Yes. It's at the end of the CV if you look that far. Why?

> Because understandably most employers would just throw it in 
> the bin.

Oh. OK...

>> (Actually, in fairness, the full class was 80 people, and IIRC about 6 
>> of them were female. And 2 of them were my age. The other 4 were 
>> married with children.
> 
> Oh, on my course nearly everyone was my age, or maybe a year older if 
> they had done that "year in industry" thing before starting University.

Most of the people in my class were teenagers too. But a small minority 
were "mature students". As in, people old enough to be our parents. The 
majority of the females fitted into that category. (Although not all of 
them.)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> I was using the *wrong IC*! I was giving it power into an OUTPUT PIN!!
> 
> After that abuse, it still worked fine :)

What, you've never plugged an IC in backwards? :-P

Post a reply to this message

>> I have an electronics kit with TTL in it. (A 7400LS, no less.) All the 
>> diagrams drive the LEDs directly from it.
>>
> 
> That's TTL - it can source current, i.e. drive a LED
> CMOS usually cannot source as much current.

Well, since TTL is what I'm using, TTL is what I'll worry about.

Post a reply to this message

> Normal people have friends. I am seemingly incapable of achieving this 
> basic human need. I fail at life.

You seem to have posted several times on here and on your blog about how you 
went out with other people (to pubs, karting events, parties etc), I suspect 
that's more than a lot of people have done.  I know certainly I haven't been 
out with any friends for a long time.  Anyway, how many of those people you 
went out with would you consider "normal"? From some of the things you 
posted they seemed anything but normal to me ;-)

>> Because understandably most employers would just throw it in the bin.
>
> Oh. OK...

You seem to have just been unfortunate in what happened during your 
childhood. No employer is going to spend the effort to investigate your life 
story on the off-chance that you are very intelligent but just didn't get 
any A-levels (which you are), there aren't many people like you so it's not 
worth looking hard for them.  I don't think many people who have been 
working for more than a year or two put the details of their pre-university 
education on a CV, so it's totally fine to just skip that bit and I bet 
you'll see better responses.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Normal people have friends. I am seemingly incapable of achieving this 
>> basic human need. I fail at life.
> 
> You seem to have posted several times on here and on your blog about how 
> you went out with other people (to pubs, karting events, parties etc), I 
> suspect that's more than a lot of people have done.  I know certainly I 
> haven't been out with any friends for a long time.  Anyway, how many of 
> those people you went out with would you consider "normal"? From some of 
> the things you posted they seemed anything but normal to me ;-)

I don't know - going to parties and pubs sounds pretty typical to me. :-P

Unfortunately for me, these things happen, like, once every few months. 
The rest of my life I heardly *speak* to another living human being. 
(Posting stuff on the Internet isn't the same.)

>>> Because understandably most employers would just throw it in the bin.
>>
>> Oh. OK...
> 
> You seem to have just been unfortunate in what happened during your 
> childhood. No employer is going to spend the effort to investigate your 
> life story on the off-chance that you are very intelligent but just 
> didn't get any A-levels (which you are), there aren't many people like 
> you so it's not worth looking hard for them.  I don't think many people 
> who have been working for more than a year or two put the details of 
> their pre-university education on a CV, so it's totally fine to just 
> skip that bit and I bet you'll see better responses.

At the moment, just finding somebody to give my CV to is the problem.

Also, I really hate the way you apply to half a dozen people... and then 
never hear anything about it. It's like "gee, did I *really* apply to 
all these companies? Or did I just imagine it?" It's massively, 
massively demotivating. Why spend hours of your life doing something 
that produces no results of any kind?

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> 	Second, you've been doing research all these years. Being curious and
> learning stuff - especially technical stuff - is virtually research. All
> that's left is to do some new interesting stuff in it. And generally
> your adviser will guide you through that.

And most of the things I post here are of the form "who do I find out 
about X?"

> 	And when you've spent time working on something, then trust me, you'll
> probably have more difficulty trimming it down than trying to fill
> space. Just look at your own Haskell evangelism!

Yeah. Just look at my own Haskell writings. The short ones are OK. The 
longer ones tend to end up getting muddled, no matter how carefully I 
try to write them.

> 	Seriously. I think it's the best advice you've been given. You get paid
> to do all the fun geeky stuff your adviser wants you to do. And it's not
> that rare that you'll also want to do it too! You'll be around smart
> people (which *may* make you feel stupid for a while, but that'll go
> away). And not sure about the UK and Europe, but (many) campuses in the
> US have a good social environment. Lots of great speakers visit campus
> and give talks - spanning the whole spectrum from science to politics.

Sounds positively utopian.

You'll excuse me if I'm a little skeptical... I was promised that 
college would be like this, and it wasn't. I was promised that 
university would be like this, and it wasn't.

You'll recall that I currently earn very little money. Am I likely to 
end up earning even less doing a PhD?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> It's also an excellent way to meet (a) friends and (b) business 
> contacts. You'll be in a mile-square place with thousands of people your 
> own age, most pretty smart, most rather more tolerant of differences 
> than places with less explicit mixing of cultures going on, etc. You'll 
> also be around people whose job it is to travel around the world meeting 
> with and talking to people with interesting problems, and whose other 
> job it is to talk people into giving them money to solve interesting 
> problems they didn't know they had.
> 
> It's not about the computers. It's about the people.

People told me uni would be like this. It wasn't even remotely like 
this. :-(

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:

> I'll add my voice to this and third it. I don't know if anyone has 
> already said this, but the UK *is* the same - most PhDs in the sciences 
> and engineering (including CS) are fully funded, and I highly recommend 
> following this path if you're interested.

I'm always interested in geeking out over obscure algorithms and such. 
But I rather doubt that's what a PhD is actually about. And you say you 
get paid, but how much? Not a lot, I'd expect. I'm always on very low 
money - that's why I'm trying to get hold of a job that pays real money.

> And despite what you say, you *can* write technical documents. You keep 
> posting them here, and they are well-written.

Well, at least somebody has something nice to say about me. :-}

> Style and structure is 
> something you pick up whilst reading around the subject, and most 
> institutions will offer formal training for students and staff.

My college and my uni *did* offer (indeed, require) formal training. I 
still suck at it!

> The holiday allowance isn't too shabby either ;-)

I'll bet... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> I have an electronics kit with TTL in it. (A 7400LS, no less.) All 
>>> the diagrams drive the LEDs directly from it.
>>>
>>
>> That's TTL - it can source current, i.e. drive a LED
>> CMOS usually cannot source as much current.
> 
> Well, since TTL is what I'm using, TTL is what I'll worry about.


In the logic sense, CMOS and TTL are basically the same.  They even have 
the same 7400 series part numbers that are pin-pin compatible - just 
take note that hooking CMOS chips to TTL chips can be a bit tricky.

Otherwise, the TTL Cookbook is the cheaper one ;-)



Tom

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> So, you want to keep up with the tech industry?
> 
> Not *especially*, but...
> 
>> Subscribe to a slashdot RSS feed.
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1. What's RSS?

... GIYF

> 2. What actually *is* Slashdot? I keep hearing about it, but I'm still 
> unclear on what it's supposed to "be".

That tears it! Your geek license is officially revoked. :P

It's a tech news site. The comments section is famous for "First Post" 
type posts and disguised links to disgusting pictures. You think 
rickrolling is bad? Try a goatse. It was born on slashdot.

Shame, shame. You don't know what slashdot is...
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message