Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Submission + - Civil Engineer + Coding = ???

Ricyteach writes: As a civil engineer (emphasis in geotechnical, or soils, engineering, but also skilled in structural and environmental as well), I have a lot of technical knowledge, but very little coding knowledge. Civil engineers are only required to take an introductory computer science course. This is unfortunate because I have run into problem after problem that would be solved much more easily using a software engineering approach rather than a traditional civil engineering approach. The reverse is true for software engineers, who do not have the technical knowledge required to produce effective solutions to small, one-off civil engineering problems like these, without a lot of coaching, and it is not cost-effective to take the time to teach a professional coder the things they need to know to produce a solution.

To fill this gap, I have been learning more and more about software engineering. Some day I think that I would like find a way to combine these two skill sets in a professional setting. I would like to ask the /. community: are there established companies or consultants are out there who specialize in solving engineering problems (not necessarily focused on one specific software product)? And as a person with lots of professional civil engineering knowledge and experience, but only self-taught software knowledge, what steps should I take over, say, the next 5 years, to make myself of interest to the kinds of people who design software to solve civil engineering problems?

Comment Re:"Something from Nothing" is not science (Score 1) 612

"Theology as an intellectual pursuit is barren..." And the arrogance- and foolishness- of that position is no better than that of a fundamentalist who ignores data which proves the Earth is more than 10,000 years old. There is little to no difference between the two. I'm certain you're right that original papers don't use that word, but it seems that anytime they actually say or write something they think might be heard and digested by people outside of academia, many otherwise respectable scientists (Hawking, Krauss) fall into the trap of saying things that discredit the dispassionate approach they claim to have (by virtue of calling themselves a scientist). It is audacious, bumptious shortsightedness of the worst kind.

Comment Re:"Something from Nothing" is not science (Score 1) 612

I'm getting stitched up because I value science (and scientists) as much as I value theology and religion, and don't want them (physicists) saying ridiculous things that enable people in my religious community to say "See? Scientists have an agenda! Why should I listen to them?" It drives me crazy. Both theology AND science (and philosophy as well) are fields that have valuable things to say to me and to everyone. Anyone who totally excludes one or the other is an idiot. There is only ONE truth. There isn't scientific truth over here, and theological truth over there. There is just Truth, and to exclude any avenue for attaining knowledge- whether an atheist rejecting theology or a fundamentalist rejecting science- is hubristic and simple minded.

Comment Re:"Something from Nothing" is not science (Score 1) 612

Drop by your local university's philosophy department or seminary. The box is the same size it's always been. Maybe physicists have box envy? Well the ones fixated on something-from-nothing nonsense, anyway. Yes, I realize they don't actually mean Nothing; yet they insist on using the word (Lawrence Krauss even wrote a book about it). Sandbox envy.

Comment Re:"Something from Nothing" is not science (Score 1) 612

Turns out, the cause of disease can be seen under a microscope. We found a way to observe the previously unobservable. Awesome. But when physicists start talking about "something from nothing", they have jettisoned scientific inquiry. At least you can try to observe evil spirits and deamons (which is how the real cause of disease was discovered). After all, that's all science is: observing, and applying those observations. But you can't observe nothing. Ergo, you are in the wrong sandbox, kiddo.

Comment "Something from Nothing" is not science (Score 3, Interesting) 612

In "God and the Astronomers", agnostic Robert Jastrow chronicles the development of the Big Bang theory, and how for decades many physicists resisted it; not because of data, but because it meant the universe had a beginning, which was at odds with their worldview (“The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." --Karl Sagan). They recognized that if there was ever truly NOTHING, that science would never be able to explain why there is SOMETHING. The question of origins is outside the reach of scientific inquiry. I wish the physicists would stop playing in the philosophical and theological sandbox.

Submission + - Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret (wsj.com)

Ricyteach writes: A WSJ opinion piece explains why "green" cars aren't so green. The manufacturing process for EVs emits more than two times the amount of carbon as for conventional vehicle production. Although they are indirectly emitting only half as much carbon per mile, this means the EV would have to be driven over 93,000 miles before the carbon savings even begin; that's a tall order for cars which have short ranges, and require battery replacements (more carbon emitted) at high mileages. The current iteration of "green" cars may represent fantastic technology, but that technology needs to stand or fall on its own merits in the marketplace- through features, value, and consumer appeal- without perpetuating the fantasy that the energy they use is emission free.

Submission + - SPAM: Samsung Galaxy S IV pictures and specs leaked on Chinese forum

Cosimple writes: "Everybody, is waiting for the upcoming Samsung event, where the company will launch its new flagship smartphone the Galaxy S IV. As expected, pictures for the new smartphone has leaked online claims to show what Samsung’s new device will look like.

The pictures for the smartphone has revealed on a Chinese forum and has shows the Chinese version of the Galaxy S IV. If the leaked images are true, then Samsung has not changed much design in its next flagship phone as compared to the last flagship handset, the Galaxy S III. The difference in the new phone is that it supposed to have a 5-inch full HD screen.

In the pictures, instead of new and old design, we also gets some specs for the new handset from Samsung Electronics. The phone features a 5-inch HD display with 1920×1080, it boasts a 2 GB RAM and a “Universal 5410 CPU. As expected, Samsung has included a new 8-core Exynos 5410 processor which is supposed to be launched with the new Galaxy S IV. The device will run full flavored Android 4.2.1 and also supports TouchWiz.

The leaks are unconfirmed from the Chinese forum. Also come back later this year Samsung has used fake ideas to give users the glimpse of their design trail. So, we need to wait some days to confirm the new smartphone, which would launch in the Samsung’s 14th March launch event, just few days more.

Recently, the Samsung Galaxy S IV model number has revealed that the new smartphone will come as GT-I9500. The handset appears to be the Galaxy S4,. The Samsung current flagship device Galaxy S III has model number GT-I9300 and the model number for the next device is looking unlucky in South Korean. The GT-I9500 will be the Galaxy S4 and GT-I9505 is looking to be the next LTE equipped device from Samsung."

Link to Original Source

Slashdot Top Deals

The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland"; but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.