I really find it hard to believe that the best argument against National ID cards that Slashdotters can come up with is that it will provide an easy-access single data-source for the government to search. As we already have SSN's and state Driver's License information, most of this information is already available. Certainly someone would have to write some code to integrate multiple data sources, but that is certainly something that could be accomplished with the resources of the federal government. Certainly there is a valid discussion around what information should be collected and what should not be allowed to be collected, but this is really a separate discussion from the National ID card.
Secondly, I have a seen a lot of discussion of federalism and state's rights. I truly understand and support this concept, but we have to understand the way the concept needs to change with modern times. When the founders originally developed this idea, it took several days to travel between New York and Boston. Now we can make it from New York to LA in a couple of hours. While there is still a great reason to leave much responsibility and decision-making in the hands of the local state governments, it is unreasonable to suggest that the ability to verify someone's identity from outside the state is not an important issue from a national security perspective, a commerce perspective, or even a local security perspective as people move between states an into our communities.
It surprises me that for a group so in touch with the capabilities of technology, Slashdot users have missed the boat on the ease with which the collection of data could already be accomplished; and why they have no faith in the potential of well-implemented technology to allow for a National ID card that takes into account and protects the privacy at stake.
A lot of good points have been made about not really being able to be a good programmer until you understand assembly and registers and such. And I certainly agree. As a CS student who has just recently been learning about microprocessor design, I have found the information extremely useful, and it has helped to make me a better coder.
However, starting to teach someone CS that way would be a nightmare. How do you start with registers, ALU ops, and cache structures when you're trying to tech someone how to code? People are coming to CS more and more now to get a general idea of how computer programs work, and starting out by teaching them on a high level (a la Java) makes perfect sense. The simplicity of Java takes away the little headaches (memory management) which make learning algorithm design so difficult. Also, Swing allows people to easily create GUI based programs, which helps instill a sense of acheivement and keep students motivated.
Of course, it only makes sense to move on down the line to lower level ideas as one progresses, but starting there would only confuse and frustrate the student. The key to effective teaching is to start with concepts that people can understand and then as they become comfortable with those, expand on them and allow things to grow more complex. You need not start from the very beginning, just work your way back there. From that point of view of education, starting beginning CS people with Java makes perfect sense. And as the progress, you can move into C/C++ and assembly and other more advanced topics.
At the school I attend, we simply site-license Norton Corporate Edition for all the students, and let them take care of themselves. The University tries to keep students abreast of what viruses are currently going around, but in general, we have to fend for ourselves.
I think the best policy is to set up some system for University-owned machines, probably with Norton or some other virus protection software, and then site-license Norton for the students. If they dont' want to download it, it's their problem. But the protection is there if they want it.
That way the University is certainly helping the students protect themselves, but also isn't taking on the headache of trying to actually protect the students.
This argument seems to me to be somewhat self-defeating. I mean, if we really had God-given limitations, would we be able to extend them at all. If God didn't intend for us to be able to create life in the laboratory, then he would not have made it possible for us to do so. The entire nature of the limits God places on man is that man can not break them, even if he tries. I agree that mankind is not always as intelligent as we could be, and that we should be more forward-looking. However, I do not think that any of that necessitates putting bounds on what we think science can teach us and where we should let it lead us. It just requires caution and good ethical judgement about how we should use the knowledge we develop. Man may not be the be-all end-all species, but there is no reason not arbitrarliy set limits on what man can and can not do. If man was not meant to be able to do something, he simply won't be able to do it. Let God set those limits, and man discover them.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly, I have a seen a lot of discussion of federalism and state's rights. I truly understand and support this concept, but we have to understand the way the concept needs to change with modern times. When the founders originally developed this idea, it took several days to travel between New York and Boston. Now we can make it from New York to LA in a couple of hours. While there is still a great reason to leave much responsibility and decision-making in the hands of the local state governments, it is unreasonable to suggest that the ability to verify someone's identity from outside the state is not an important issue from a national security perspective, a commerce perspective, or even a local security perspective as people move between states an into our communities.
It surprises me that for a group so in touch with the capabilities of technology, Slashdot users have missed the boat on the ease with which the collection of data could already be accomplished; and why they have no faith in the potential of well-implemented technology to allow for a National ID card that takes into account and protects the privacy at stake.
A lot of good points have been made about not really being able to be a good programmer until you understand assembly and registers and such. And I certainly agree. As a CS student who has just recently been learning about microprocessor design, I have found the information extremely useful, and it has helped to make me a better coder. However, starting to teach someone CS that way would be a nightmare. How do you start with registers, ALU ops, and cache structures when you're trying to tech someone how to code? People are coming to CS more and more now to get a general idea of how computer programs work, and starting out by teaching them on a high level (a la Java) makes perfect sense. The simplicity of Java takes away the little headaches (memory management) which make learning algorithm design so difficult. Also, Swing allows people to easily create GUI based programs, which helps instill a sense of acheivement and keep students motivated. Of course, it only makes sense to move on down the line to lower level ideas as one progresses, but starting there would only confuse and frustrate the student. The key to effective teaching is to start with concepts that people can understand and then as they become comfortable with those, expand on them and allow things to grow more complex. You need not start from the very beginning, just work your way back there. From that point of view of education, starting beginning CS people with Java makes perfect sense. And as the progress, you can move into C/C++ and assembly and other more advanced topics.
At the school I attend, we simply site-license Norton Corporate Edition for all the students, and let them take care of themselves. The University tries to keep students abreast of what viruses are currently going around, but in general, we have to fend for ourselves. I think the best policy is to set up some system for University-owned machines, probably with Norton or some other virus protection software, and then site-license Norton for the students. If they dont' want to download it, it's their problem. But the protection is there if they want it. That way the University is certainly helping the students protect themselves, but also isn't taking on the headache of trying to actually protect the students.
This argument seems to me to be somewhat self-defeating. I mean, if we really had God-given limitations, would we be able to extend them at all. If God didn't intend for us to be able to create life in the laboratory, then he would not have made it possible for us to do so. The entire nature of the limits God places on man is that man can not break them, even if he tries. I agree that mankind is not always as intelligent as we could be, and that we should be more forward-looking. However, I do not think that any of that necessitates putting bounds on what we think science can teach us and where we should let it lead us. It just requires caution and good ethical judgement about how we should use the knowledge we develop. Man may not be the be-all end-all species, but there is no reason not arbitrarliy set limits on what man can and can not do. If man was not meant to be able to do something, he simply won't be able to do it. Let God set those limits, and man discover them.