Yes but how do you learn about the hardware if you can't touch the hardware? Sure, don't touch the expensive computers, but I would have hoped there were classes where you programmed on a bare board connected to a DC supply, worked with digital logic, had to deal with interrupts, etc.
When I was in school the computers were very expensive. At the start you just used the terminals, but later we had workstations and if you broke one that was 50K+. BUT the people who were fixing them were students anyway who happened to work for the departments or computer centers. If you did get a workstation for a project then you could open it up certainly.
(no PCs for the most part, though we had them in a lab course, IBM PC ATs. After than there was one in grad school because one person kept lobbying to get one, and finally got a 386 that no one ever touched because it was so amazingly underpowered as a workstation.The whole world was using tcp/ip and here was this windows 3.11 monstrosity that couldn't talk to anything that wasn't a PC. It would have been useful though to actually open it up, put in custom built expansion cards, do some hardware hacking, etc.)
Well clearly, he should have called his mom to ask what to do. If his mom wasn't standing nearby anyway. While I say this as a joke, this sort of thing is actually happening in college, the parents want to stay in helicopter mode and be involved in all of the decisions. This is causing problems for new grads who don't have a lot of basic common sense and decision making skills.
No degree in anything makes one competent. The tools are there and it is up to the student to use them. College should not be treated like high school where one only has to bide the time to get the degree
But if it is used well, college will make you better at whatever it is you do. I have a lot of ranchers and farmers in my family. They all got college degrees which made them better at it. They have to balance their books, do business planning, inventory management, long term forecasting, surveying, have basic veterinary skills, and so forth. If they had treated the job like they only needed sweat and manual labor they would not succeed.
I'm excusing nothing. I'm saying that if you want to get rid of Trump you have to vote him out. The constitution does not allow an "impeachment" for the reason of "we don't like him."
But the constitution gives reasons for impeachment. This gives opportunity to complain and say you were impeached for reasons not in the constitution. If the supreme court is asked, then they will be required to decide and what they decide will be precedent there.
Most legal discussions on this issue indicate that the founders did not want to have a way to remove a president that was merely unpopular, but they listed reasons for having an impeachment. If congress just hated the president and wanted to impeach for political retaliation reasons and presented zero evidence of any high crimes or misdemeanors, it would leave the door wide open to challenge a successful impeachment.
For instance, Andrew Johnson was extremely unpopular after the civil war because he was a southerner and favored reconciliation with the south. Congress did not just vote him out of office with a trumped up impeachment, they first arranged a bogus law and waited for the president to ignore it. They seemingly had more than 2/3rds who would have preferred he leave, but they did not get 2/3rds to impeach.
Yes, the constitution does not say the supreme court gets to decide here, but they are the only arbitors left if there is a dispute if the president refuses to leave office.
I suspect you're thinking of what to do if the president is impaired, which allows the vice president to assume the roles of office. That's the 25th amendment. It's not impeachment as impeachment is a trial.
"Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session." (and so forth)
So yes, I presume there could be a coup of sorts here if the president is not actually incapacitated.
I hope the court never decides this on a political basis. They sometimes are political but almost always they give sound legal reasons in the decisions (whether or not someone agrees with the reasonings). Thus even those on the court who hate Trump would be extremely unlikely that they would uphold an impeachment that was not based upon an actual crime. Otherwise this opens a nasty can of worms that would allow any popular vote in the house to remove a president at any time in the future, and no one on the court is so stupid as to allow that.
I suspect the court gets to step in and decide if the crime really rises to the level necessary for impeachement. The constitution does not say "for any reason" and so any legal dispute here goes to the supreme court. This is not at all the same thing as a recall election.
One would hope of course that any honest and sane representatives would refuse to vote to have the impeachment proceedings in the first place, and then vote against impeachment during the hearings, if there was no actual crime. Assuming that there are honest and sane representatives to be found.
CNN I don't really see as strictly partisan, I see it as declining and failing and orienting towards what is going to bring in the views rather than focusing on news. I used to like it because you could flip on Headline News any hour of the day and get an up to date reasonable view of events in 5 to 10 minutes. Now when you turn it on no matter what hour it is you're going to see talking heads, entertainment news, adverts for drugs and steel sheds, etc. Even Obama made a joke when a press pool reporter was moving to CNN that he was leaving journalism altogether.
All the cable news is going downhill though. MSNBC I don't know because I've never seen it, but I can only assume it's in the same situation. It's all about turning news into profit centers now and this drives the operations of Fox and CNN alike. We are no longer in the Walter Cronkite days when the news was there because it was important and a public service and not because it made money.
Back then when you learned something in college it was about concepts, not petty details that change every few years. Thus learning the prinicples behind networking are still viable today. Queueing theory is still a vital tool, congestion is still a problem. But sheesh, 35 years ago IPv4 was already old, and it's still the dominant network today.
I use algebra all the time as a professional programmer. Even more complex math*. Programming is hard and requires domain knowledge. But algebra? Why wouldn't they use it? You need algebra I to learn it to learn geometry, calculus, etc. You need geometry to do UI design. You need algebra to deal with circuits. Sure you don't need to remember the details of the quadratic equation, but you need to have learned this stuff so that you can learn other more complicate stuff. Even if someone wants to be an English major and write best selling novels for a living, the algebra helps you figure out how many dollars you're making for every page you wrote and how to invest your profits wisely.
*) seriously, people should learn how floating point works before attempting to use floating point, I have seen so many boneheaded errors as if the programmer assumed there was some sort of infinite precision engine behind them. But you won't understand floating point if you never took an algebra class.
This place appeared to not teach general coding, but was focused on web development. It's not the equivalent of even a trade school. I suspect it's most useful for people who are already able to program but who want a crash course in web development. But it was the current fashion to panic that we don't have enough coders, and that everyone from kindergarteners to grandmas should be learning to "code", which created a market opportunity.
I don't remember much complaint in the past for keeping support for old stuff. In fact, maintaining compatibility across a wide variety of ad-hoc hardware designs, incuding older hardware, was what brought Microsoft and the PC to the top of the heap.
There are people who consider time on a plane to be prime work hours. I think it's stupid. It's the one and only time you can tell your overbearing boss that you can't work and instead have yourself a nice nap or read a good book. It seems like sometime in the last couple of decades that the number of people doing last minute work on the plane has, er, taken off. We've turned into a country of self inflicted workaholics.
That's standard for Americans. There's the general security check for all passengers done first. Then for those flying to America there is a second check because we have added additional checks because they don't trust foreign airports to be as diligent as their minimum wage TSA agents.
It certainly affected the life of people who's family and friends were banned from visiting, or those residents who were delayed being allowed to come back to their homes, business trips to and from the US were canceled, and so forth. Yes, big changes to life in the US for some people.
Not true. I value freedom. People are vastly less likely to be injured or killed by a terrorist attack than by being killed in an auto accident. I did not support the dismantling of the constitution as a response to the 9/11 attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but how do you learn about the hardware if you can't touch the hardware? Sure, don't touch the expensive computers, but I would have hoped there were classes where you programmed on a bare board connected to a DC supply, worked with digital logic, had to deal with interrupts, etc.
When I was in school the computers were very expensive. At the start you just used the terminals, but later we had workstations and if you broke one that was 50K+. BUT the people who were fixing them were students anyway who happened to work for the departments or computer centers. If you did get a workstation for a project then you could open it up certainly.
(no PCs for the most part, though we had them in a lab course, IBM PC ATs. After than there was one in grad school because one person kept lobbying to get one, and finally got a 386 that no one ever touched because it was so amazingly underpowered as a workstation.The whole world was using tcp/ip and here was this windows 3.11 monstrosity that couldn't talk to anything that wasn't a PC. It would have been useful though to actually open it up, put in custom built expansion cards, do some hardware hacking, etc.)
Well clearly, he should have called his mom to ask what to do. If his mom wasn't standing nearby anyway. While I say this as a joke, this sort of thing is actually happening in college, the parents want to stay in helicopter mode and be involved in all of the decisions. This is causing problems for new grads who don't have a lot of basic common sense and decision making skills.
One of my professors from a math background complained that she felt like a fake computer scientist because she didn't know how to build a vax :-)
No degree in anything makes one competent. The tools are there and it is up to the student to use them. College should not be treated like high school where one only has to bide the time to get the degree
But if it is used well, college will make you better at whatever it is you do. I have a lot of ranchers and farmers in my family. They all got college degrees which made them better at it. They have to balance their books, do business planning, inventory management, long term forecasting, surveying, have basic veterinary skills, and so forth. If they had treated the job like they only needed sweat and manual labor they would not succeed.
I'm excusing nothing. I'm saying that if you want to get rid of Trump you have to vote him out. The constitution does not allow an "impeachment" for the reason of "we don't like him."
But the constitution gives reasons for impeachment. This gives opportunity to complain and say you were impeached for reasons not in the constitution. If the supreme court is asked, then they will be required to decide and what they decide will be precedent there.
Most legal discussions on this issue indicate that the founders did not want to have a way to remove a president that was merely unpopular, but they listed reasons for having an impeachment. If congress just hated the president and wanted to impeach for political retaliation reasons and presented zero evidence of any high crimes or misdemeanors, it would leave the door wide open to challenge a successful impeachment.
For instance, Andrew Johnson was extremely unpopular after the civil war because he was a southerner and favored reconciliation with the south. Congress did not just vote him out of office with a trumped up impeachment, they first arranged a bogus law and waited for the president to ignore it. They seemingly had more than 2/3rds who would have preferred he leave, but they did not get 2/3rds to impeach.
Yes, the constitution does not say the supreme court gets to decide here, but they are the only arbitors left if there is a dispute if the president refuses to leave office.
I suspect you're thinking of what to do if the president is impaired, which allows the vice president to assume the roles of office. That's the 25th amendment. It's not impeachment as impeachment is a trial.
"Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session." (and so forth)
So yes, I presume there could be a coup of sorts here if the president is not actually incapacitated.
The constitutional requirement is to be more sane than Mad King George.
I hope the court never decides this on a political basis. They sometimes are political but almost always they give sound legal reasons in the decisions (whether or not someone agrees with the reasonings). Thus even those on the court who hate Trump would be extremely unlikely that they would uphold an impeachment that was not based upon an actual crime. Otherwise this opens a nasty can of worms that would allow any popular vote in the house to remove a president at any time in the future, and no one on the court is so stupid as to allow that.
I suspect the court gets to step in and decide if the crime really rises to the level necessary for impeachement. The constitution does not say "for any reason" and so any legal dispute here goes to the supreme court. This is not at all the same thing as a recall election.
One would hope of course that any honest and sane representatives would refuse to vote to have the impeachment proceedings in the first place, and then vote against impeachment during the hearings, if there was no actual crime. Assuming that there are honest and sane representatives to be found.
CNN I don't really see as strictly partisan, I see it as declining and failing and orienting towards what is going to bring in the views rather than focusing on news. I used to like it because you could flip on Headline News any hour of the day and get an up to date reasonable view of events in 5 to 10 minutes. Now when you turn it on no matter what hour it is you're going to see talking heads, entertainment news, adverts for drugs and steel sheds, etc. Even Obama made a joke when a press pool reporter was moving to CNN that he was leaving journalism altogether.
All the cable news is going downhill though. MSNBC I don't know because I've never seen it, but I can only assume it's in the same situation. It's all about turning news into profit centers now and this drives the operations of Fox and CNN alike. We are no longer in the Walter Cronkite days when the news was there because it was important and a public service and not because it made money.
But, you learn A so that you can learn B, and you learn B so that you can learn C. Maybe you forget details about A but at least you've learned C.
Think of education as exercise for the brain. So what if you forget what you learned if it made your brain stronger?
Back then when you learned something in college it was about concepts, not petty details that change every few years. Thus learning the prinicples behind networking are still viable today. Queueing theory is still a vital tool, congestion is still a problem. But sheesh, 35 years ago IPv4 was already old, and it's still the dominant network today.
I use algebra all the time as a professional programmer. Even more complex math*. Programming is hard and requires domain knowledge. But algebra? Why wouldn't they use it? You need algebra I to learn it to learn geometry, calculus, etc. You need geometry to do UI design. You need algebra to deal with circuits. Sure you don't need to remember the details of the quadratic equation, but you need to have learned this stuff so that you can learn other more complicate stuff. Even if someone wants to be an English major and write best selling novels for a living, the algebra helps you figure out how many dollars you're making for every page you wrote and how to invest your profits wisely.
*) seriously, people should learn how floating point works before attempting to use floating point, I have seen so many boneheaded errors as if the programmer assumed there was some sort of infinite precision engine behind them. But you won't understand floating point if you never took an algebra class.
This place appeared to not teach general coding, but was focused on web development. It's not the equivalent of even a trade school. I suspect it's most useful for people who are already able to program but who want a crash course in web development. But it was the current fashion to panic that we don't have enough coders, and that everyone from kindergarteners to grandmas should be learning to "code", which created a market opportunity.
The purpose to kill the apps may not be to save battery life, but to limit spying.
I don't remember much complaint in the past for keeping support for old stuff. In fact, maintaining compatibility across a wide variety of ad-hoc hardware designs, incuding older hardware, was what brought Microsoft and the PC to the top of the heap.
What likely happened is that someone rich and important complained.
There are people who consider time on a plane to be prime work hours. I think it's stupid. It's the one and only time you can tell your overbearing boss that you can't work and instead have yourself a nice nap or read a good book. It seems like sometime in the last couple of decades that the number of people doing last minute work on the plane has, er, taken off. We've turned into a country of self inflicted workaholics.
That's standard for Americans. There's the general security check for all passengers done first. Then for those flying to America there is a second check because we have added additional checks because they don't trust foreign airports to be as diligent as their minimum wage TSA agents.
It certainly affected the life of people who's family and friends were banned from visiting, or those residents who were delayed being allowed to come back to their homes, business trips to and from the US were canceled, and so forth. Yes, big changes to life in the US for some people.
Oh no, everyone back up, he's armed with a Galaxy Note 7!
Not true. I value freedom. People are vastly less likely to be injured or killed by a terrorist attack than by being killed in an auto accident. I did not support the dismantling of the constitution as a response to the 9/11 attacks.
Because it's related, here's on of my favorite pics of execs cutting the cheese over Intel wearables...
https://www.tagheuer.com/en-us...