I think one could argue derivation for BSD given what we know of the AT&T settlement. I won't argue on the Linux point, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that BSD is not a Unix.
How do your require every student to own the necessary hardware and software for engineering classes (which need more than just a copy of Word and Excel)?
My laptop is dual core, has 2GB of ram, and can be had new for under $500 these days. MATLAB ($99 student version, which includes SIMULINK) is pretty snappy on it, at least for everything I did in my 2 semesters of numerical analysis. My student memberships to ACM and IEEE-CS both give me free access to pretty much every piece of MS software I might be interested in except the standard Office stuff (Off the top of my head Access, Visio, Visual Studio, XP Pro, and Vista are on the list).
Most professional software has a student version that's priced similarly to MATLAB's, and many of them have some expensive add-ons bundled in as well. The various AutoCAD bundles available at the student store are all $159, for example.
In short, a computer science/applied math double major can get all the hardware and software they need for under $700. I've had semesters where my books alone cost that much, and I always buy used.
Do you require all class labs to use Vista, or allow professors some leeway?
This would obviously vary by institution and professor, but the strictest requirements I've run into were "your code most compile in Visual Studio 2006." No requirement that I actually use VS, just a warning that if I don't I might want to be careful. While pretty much all "normal" activity is done with MS Office, I seem to have gotten by just fine with OpenOffice. Nobody cares as long as it doesn't cause them any problems.
What about getting cheaper licensing of expensive software on a few shared computers instead of requiring every student in the class to buy one?
I suspect individual departments will continue to do this where it's appropriate (the computer engineering department is likely to maintain a VLSI lab, for example). I think what's actually going on here is the general purpose computer labs are disappearing. And really, if they aren't being utilized, there's not much of an argument for keeping them around.
What if a student's computer breaks down halfway through the course?
What if their books get stolen? What if they have a nervous breakdown after their girlfriend dumps them? What if someone slips LSD in their Pepsi? What if some nutcase goes on a killing spree? A broken computer is quickly and easily fixed.
What if a student can't afford a computer, or afford one powerful enough for the lab requirements?
See my comments above regarding actual prices at an actual university. if they can't afford the computer, I very much doubt they can afford school at all.
Your amazement is the result of a fundamental error. You see, in general, unions don't care about making a difference in the world. All too often they don't even care much about their own members. They are for the most part political structures that mainly exist to sustain and promote themselves.
I never said any such thing. You said they couldn't use it, as if the open source community would immediately start filing class action lawsuits if they even expressed an interest in doing so, which is simply not true.
The simple fact is that Microsoft has the same access to GPLed code as anyone else does, and there is absolutely no reason why it should be otherwise. If their ideology prevents them from taking advantage of that fact, then that is nobody's problem but their own, and they are free to write their own code.
If you meant that they would get smacked if they were caught using GPLed code in violation of the license then, again, that's the same as anyone else would be treated in that scenario.
There's no special treatment for MS going on here. The code is offered under certain terms, and they are free to accept those terms or not use the code, just as you are free to accept the terms of the Windows EULA or not use Windows.
So Microsoft can't use GPL code, and you're totally cool with that.
What an asinine assertion! Of course MS can use GPLed code, just like anyone else can. They just have to abide by the terms of the license... you know, just like anyone else.
Have you ever heard any bootleg recordings? Most of the ones I've heard were very poor quality. Besides, there's a lot more to a live performance than just hearing the songs. I can buy a CD and do that all day long. The availability of bootleg recordings is not going to affect people's desire to attend live performances any more than the availability of legitimate recordings do.
I spent a few years out in the real world before heading back to school, and I can't completely disagree with what you say. You should read what I actually said, though. I never said they don't have the same natural abilities we do, just that their educational systems actively discourage creative thinking. Obviously some are able to overcome that, Einstein being an excellent example from the western world.
I've worked with great engineers who were Chinese, Indian, and a variety of other nationalities. I now have professors from around the world who are brilliant as well. However, that doesn't change what I'm seeing in my classmates, or what many of them have to say about the educational system in their native countries.
I'm the first to agree that if either of those countries get their social issues worked out, they're absolutely going to eat our lunch. That's one of the reasons why, in addition to taking some extra math classes (I was considering a double major), I'm also learning Chinese.
Interesting, and it makes sense from that perspective, although I take issue with your use of the word "should". The implication seems to be that they are worth that much to the company, and based on my experiences in the corporate world I must disagree. It is my considered opinion that companies survive despite upper management, not because of it.
My counterargument is that the structure of these arrangements encourages decisions that maximize short term personal gains to the detriment of the long term health of the company.
That all being said, in the case of AIG, the management failure is spectacular and very public. This situation is not anywhere close to the typical manager taking cost cutting measures that hamstring the company in ways that don't become apparent until a year or two after they've collected their bonus and moved on to another company. This move by AIG dispenses with even the pretense of executive compensation being based on performance or value to the company.
I have not, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. This summarizes my think on the subject better than I probably could.
There are a lot of things I like about those cultures, and in fact my current love interest is a fairly traditional Chinese woman. My conclusion, though, is that their education system does very well at preparing them for standardized tests, while ours does better at preparing us to solve real world problems.
I'm one semester away from a BS in computer science, and I've worked in groups with a lot of people from India and China, mostly graduate students, over the last year or so. I'm not concerned for my future.
I don't mean any disrespect to any of them, in fact in most cases I like working with them and hanging out with them. Their work ethic is fantastic, but in some ways that's part of the problem. Both cultures put a very high emphasis on working hard, but it seems their educational systems place little value on creative problem solving. The Chinese (PRC) education system in particular seems designed to squash any bit of creativity that its students may have had.
I've become convinced that the reason America has been on top is our peculiar form of laziness. We're always looking for a better, smarter, and most of all easier way to do things, and that is precisely where innovation comes from. From what I've seen of Chinese and Indians, they're so concerned with working hard and doing things the "proper" way, that if they ever even notice the places where their processes could be improved, they would immediately discount the thought because that's not how they were told to do things.
A note about Japan: They've always excelled at integrating foreign ideas. Most of what we think of as Japanese traditional things were in fact imported from China and/or Korea many centuries ago.
A better question is why are AIG executives getting bonuses at all? Aren't bonuses supposed to be performance based?
Executive compensation has been nonsensical for years. It's mildly surprising that they would have the audacity to do this under such public scrutiny, but not totally unexpected.
That is a violation of the GPL. If you distribute GPL software that you didn't write, then you are legally obligated to provide the source.
Wrong. The GPL requires you to provide source on request to those you distribute the binaries to. It need not be made available to anyone and everyone who may feel like taking a look, and it need not even be downloadable (for example, it could be provided on a CD).
Did you ask the guy for the source? If you did, and he refused, only then can you say he has violated the GPL. Otherwise, STFU and go read the actual text of the GPL.
That 2000+ year old book that you so easily discount teaches a few basic things very strongly: - Personal responsibility. - Treating others with love and respect. - Not being a greedy, selfish twit.
Does it? Because none of the christians I know seem to have learned those lessons yet.
I think Morrowind had a system where it translated your mouse movements into specific attacks (slash, jab, etc). I could be thinking of Daggerfall, it's predicessor, though. I always thought that was pretty cool, and it should be implementable with the Wii. I would really enjoy that, but my right arm would also get really tired.
Have you actually played around with one? There's a LOT more there than just a "glorified netbook". There are a lot of very cool apps that IMO are quite well designed to teach kids about the possibilities that computers make available (I'm not talking about a basic office suite and the internet; the one I have has something that seems equivalent to Kate and a WPA bug that has prevented me from connecting it to the internet). I'm talking about programming and multimedia production, presented in ways that are accessible to kids like my 7-year-old daughter with little to no intervention on my part.
The purpose of the OLPC is quite clear; to give kids in developing nations a leg up into the digital age, and for that purpose it is very well designed. What they were able to do within the limits they imposed on themselves is astounding, but to know that you have to actually sit down and play with one. Sadly, what information the project makes available really gives you no idea of what the thing does.
From this viewpoint, the most rational decision would be the one that makes the most optimal trade, i.e. the one that minimizes present discomfort regarding one's situation.
That's a pretty moronic definition of optimality, but sadly that seems to be what they're teaching in business schools these days. Frankly, I'm amazed our economy manages to function at all given the shortsightedness of the folks in charge.
Given that value is subjective, the only person capable of deliberately making rational choices with regard to one's own well-being is oneself.
This is true, but what you say next is utter hogwash:
No one else has the necessary information to make rational choices for another.
Also, as a general rule, each individual tends to collect that information which is most relevant with regard to the decisions he or she must make.
Each individual collects that information which is more interesting to them or which satisfies their particular biases, and more often than not has little or nothing to do with what information is most relevant to making an optimal decision even for themselves.
The fundamental problem with both libertarianism and modern economic theory is that both belief systems are based on people making rational decisions. I've got news for you though, what the economists call a "rational man" is called a sociopath by psychology (and most sane members of our society).
Well, it's been almost 20 years since I read it, but I'm quite sure I remember him saying that a dictatorship of some sort would be necessary to get things operating properly, after which it should dissolve. That sounds a lot like anarchy to me. The bit about expecting those in power to just walk away was the stupid part of the whole thing, in my opinion, but then again it seems a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature is at the heart of anarchic theory.
Except for the whole replacing the concealed dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (any non communist state) with an open dictatorship of the proletariat (any communist state) thing. Doing that pretty much implies censorship of non communist opinions and shipping people off to reeducation camps.
I think you're confusing communism as in 'sharing is good' with a bunch of Stalinists taking over the state and killing millions of people whilst claiming to be socialist/communist.
I'm quite clear on the differences; that was the entire point of my post. The one I was responding to seems to have bought wholesale the line that socialism == authoritarianism, which as we both pointed out is observably false.
The "sharing is good" anarcho-communism described by Marx can only function on a very small scale (but it can function, I've witnessed it personally). The problem with any anarchic political theory, though, is that eventually your society gets big enough that it includes an asshole who just has to be in charge (Stalin, Mao, etc) and enough idiots/lesser assholes willing to take their orders that they're able to consolidate power (the respective communist parties). They call themselves communists because if you read the Manifesto it sounds really good, and then they conveniently forget that part where the central government is supposed to fade away once the distribution mechanisms are in place (which makes perfect sense really, since distribution mechanisms don't run themselves).
Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling now. My main point was that socialism != authoritarianism. My secondary point was that communism != authoritarianism either, even though it generally plays out that way in the real world.
The problem really went back to WWII. We armed the Viet Minh to fight the Japanese, and we should have supported their independence after the war as we had promised. We had already been spitting in Minh's face for a decade before Diem even came to power.
While the Japanese didn't formally take control of Vietnam until 45, they were basically handed control when the Vichy government took over in France. The Viet Minh existed before WWII, and were armed by the US in order to keep the Japanese busy.
Ho Chi Minh was involved in laying the groundwork for the communist revolution in China, but his real ties were Soviet. The PRC and USSR didn't get along too well, which ultimately led to the conflict between Vietnam (USSR backed) and Cambodia (PRC backed).
Also, roughly 90% of Vietnamese are Buddhist, hardly a minority. The rest are Catholic, pretty much. (FWIW, the nobility prior to French colonization was mostly Confucian.)
IMO, we were not right to go into Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh would have been a much better choice than Diem, and in fact he approached the US for help after trying to petition the French directly. He ended up becoming a communist because they were the only ones willing to help him, but I have serious doubts that he ever fully bought into their ideals. Diem was a monster, and the ones after him were not significantly better.
No I don't think I'm confusing anything, although I apologize for being vague. Socialism and communism require an authoritarian government. Oops, tautology.
No, you are quite confused, and utterly wrong. There are plenty of socialist countries that are not authoritarian (like most of northern Europe). There are also numerous examples of small scale communism functioning just fine with little or no central control.
It is true that every country that has gone communist has also gone authoritarian, but it is certainly not a requirement.
Vietnam is small and weak, huh? I'll be sure to mention that to my Vietnamese friends when I get back home (and hope I don't get my ass beat). While we're at it, you might want to mention that to China, who tried to come in and take over after they gave us Americans the boot. Oh, and tell Cambodia and Laos how weak Vietnam is, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that burning civilians are not a source of illumination and/or smoke?
I think one could argue derivation for BSD given what we know of the AT&T settlement. I won't argue on the Linux point, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that BSD is not a Unix.
How do your require every student to own the necessary hardware and software for engineering classes (which need more than just a copy of Word and Excel)?
My laptop is dual core, has 2GB of ram, and can be had new for under $500 these days. MATLAB ($99 student version, which includes SIMULINK) is pretty snappy on it, at least for everything I did in my 2 semesters of numerical analysis. My student memberships to ACM and IEEE-CS both give me free access to pretty much every piece of MS software I might be interested in except the standard Office stuff (Off the top of my head Access, Visio, Visual Studio, XP Pro, and Vista are on the list).
Most professional software has a student version that's priced similarly to MATLAB's, and many of them have some expensive add-ons bundled in as well. The various AutoCAD bundles available at the student store are all $159, for example.
In short, a computer science/applied math double major can get all the hardware and software they need for under $700. I've had semesters where my books alone cost that much, and I always buy used.
Do you require all class labs to use Vista, or allow professors some leeway?
This would obviously vary by institution and professor, but the strictest requirements I've run into were "your code most compile in Visual Studio 2006." No requirement that I actually use VS, just a warning that if I don't I might want to be careful. While pretty much all "normal" activity is done with MS Office, I seem to have gotten by just fine with OpenOffice. Nobody cares as long as it doesn't cause them any problems.
What about getting cheaper licensing of expensive software on a few shared computers instead of requiring every student in the class to buy one?
I suspect individual departments will continue to do this where it's appropriate (the computer engineering department is likely to maintain a VLSI lab, for example). I think what's actually going on here is the general purpose computer labs are disappearing. And really, if they aren't being utilized, there's not much of an argument for keeping them around.
What if a student's computer breaks down halfway through the course?
What if their books get stolen? What if they have a nervous breakdown after their girlfriend dumps them? What if someone slips LSD in their Pepsi? What if some nutcase goes on a killing spree? A broken computer is quickly and easily fixed.
What if a student can't afford a computer, or afford one powerful enough for the lab requirements?
See my comments above regarding actual prices at an actual university. if they can't afford the computer, I very much doubt they can afford school at all.
Your amazement is the result of a fundamental error. You see, in general, unions don't care about making a difference in the world. All too often they don't even care much about their own members. They are for the most part political structures that mainly exist to sustain and promote themselves.
I never said any such thing. You said they couldn't use it, as if the open source community would immediately start filing class action lawsuits if they even expressed an interest in doing so, which is simply not true.
The simple fact is that Microsoft has the same access to GPLed code as anyone else does, and there is absolutely no reason why it should be otherwise. If their ideology prevents them from taking advantage of that fact, then that is nobody's problem but their own, and they are free to write their own code.
If you meant that they would get smacked if they were caught using GPLed code in violation of the license then, again, that's the same as anyone else would be treated in that scenario.
There's no special treatment for MS going on here. The code is offered under certain terms, and they are free to accept those terms or not use the code, just as you are free to accept the terms of the Windows EULA or not use Windows.
So Microsoft can't use GPL code, and you're totally cool with that.
What an asinine assertion! Of course MS can use GPLed code, just like anyone else can. They just have to abide by the terms of the license... you know, just like anyone else.
Have you ever heard any bootleg recordings? Most of the ones I've heard were very poor quality. Besides, there's a lot more to a live performance than just hearing the songs. I can buy a CD and do that all day long. The availability of bootleg recordings is not going to affect people's desire to attend live performances any more than the availability of legitimate recordings do.
I spent a few years out in the real world before heading back to school, and I can't completely disagree with what you say. You should read what I actually said, though. I never said they don't have the same natural abilities we do, just that their educational systems actively discourage creative thinking. Obviously some are able to overcome that, Einstein being an excellent example from the western world.
I've worked with great engineers who were Chinese, Indian, and a variety of other nationalities. I now have professors from around the world who are brilliant as well. However, that doesn't change what I'm seeing in my classmates, or what many of them have to say about the educational system in their native countries.
I'm the first to agree that if either of those countries get their social issues worked out, they're absolutely going to eat our lunch. That's one of the reasons why, in addition to taking some extra math classes (I was considering a double major), I'm also learning Chinese.
Interesting, and it makes sense from that perspective, although I take issue with your use of the word "should". The implication seems to be that they are worth that much to the company, and based on my experiences in the corporate world I must disagree. It is my considered opinion that companies survive despite upper management, not because of it.
My counterargument is that the structure of these arrangements encourages decisions that maximize short term personal gains to the detriment of the long term health of the company.
That all being said, in the case of AIG, the management failure is spectacular and very public. This situation is not anywhere close to the typical manager taking cost cutting measures that hamstring the company in ways that don't become apparent until a year or two after they've collected their bonus and moved on to another company. This move by AIG dispenses with even the pretense of executive compensation being based on performance or value to the company.
I have not, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. This summarizes my think on the subject better than I probably could.
There are a lot of things I like about those cultures, and in fact my current love interest is a fairly traditional Chinese woman. My conclusion, though, is that their education system does very well at preparing them for standardized tests, while ours does better at preparing us to solve real world problems.
I'm one semester away from a BS in computer science, and I've worked in groups with a lot of people from India and China, mostly graduate students, over the last year or so. I'm not concerned for my future.
I don't mean any disrespect to any of them, in fact in most cases I like working with them and hanging out with them. Their work ethic is fantastic, but in some ways that's part of the problem. Both cultures put a very high emphasis on working hard, but it seems their educational systems place little value on creative problem solving. The Chinese (PRC) education system in particular seems designed to squash any bit of creativity that its students may have had.
I've become convinced that the reason America has been on top is our peculiar form of laziness. We're always looking for a better, smarter, and most of all easier way to do things, and that is precisely where innovation comes from. From what I've seen of Chinese and Indians, they're so concerned with working hard and doing things the "proper" way, that if they ever even notice the places where their processes could be improved, they would immediately discount the thought because that's not how they were told to do things.
A note about Japan: They've always excelled at integrating foreign ideas. Most of what we think of as Japanese traditional things were in fact imported from China and/or Korea many centuries ago.
A better question is why are AIG executives getting bonuses at all? Aren't bonuses supposed to be performance based?
Executive compensation has been nonsensical for years. It's mildly surprising that they would have the audacity to do this under such public scrutiny, but not totally unexpected.
That is a violation of the GPL. If you distribute GPL software that you didn't write, then you are legally obligated to provide the source.
Wrong. The GPL requires you to provide source on request to those you distribute the binaries to. It need not be made available to anyone and everyone who may feel like taking a look, and it need not even be downloadable (for example, it could be provided on a CD).
Did you ask the guy for the source? If you did, and he refused, only then can you say he has violated the GPL. Otherwise, STFU and go read the actual text of the GPL.
That 2000+ year old book that you so easily discount teaches a few basic things very strongly:
- Personal responsibility.
- Treating others with love and respect.
- Not being a greedy, selfish twit.
Does it? Because none of the christians I know seem to have learned those lessons yet.
Also, way to treat others with love and respect!
I think Morrowind had a system where it translated your mouse movements into specific attacks (slash, jab, etc). I could be thinking of Daggerfall, it's predicessor, though. I always thought that was pretty cool, and it should be implementable with the Wii. I would really enjoy that, but my right arm would also get really tired.
Have you actually played around with one? There's a LOT more there than just a "glorified netbook". There are a lot of very cool apps that IMO are quite well designed to teach kids about the possibilities that computers make available (I'm not talking about a basic office suite and the internet; the one I have has something that seems equivalent to Kate and a WPA bug that has prevented me from connecting it to the internet). I'm talking about programming and multimedia production, presented in ways that are accessible to kids like my 7-year-old daughter with little to no intervention on my part.
The purpose of the OLPC is quite clear; to give kids in developing nations a leg up into the digital age, and for that purpose it is very well designed. What they were able to do within the limits they imposed on themselves is astounding, but to know that you have to actually sit down and play with one. Sadly, what information the project makes available really gives you no idea of what the thing does.
Thank you. That was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn't seem to put into the right words.
From this viewpoint, the most rational decision would be the one that makes the most optimal trade, i.e. the one that minimizes present discomfort regarding one's situation.
That's a pretty moronic definition of optimality, but sadly that seems to be what they're teaching in business schools these days. Frankly, I'm amazed our economy manages to function at all given the shortsightedness of the folks in charge.
Given that value is subjective, the only person capable of deliberately making rational choices with regard to one's own well-being is oneself.
This is true, but what you say next is utter hogwash:
No one else has the necessary information to make rational choices for another.
Also, as a general rule, each individual tends to collect that information which is most relevant with regard to the decisions he or she must make.
Each individual collects that information which is more interesting to them or which satisfies their particular biases, and more often than not has little or nothing to do with what information is most relevant to making an optimal decision even for themselves.
The fundamental problem with both libertarianism and modern economic theory is that both belief systems are based on people making rational decisions. I've got news for you though, what the economists call a "rational man" is called a sociopath by psychology (and most sane members of our society).
Well, it's been almost 20 years since I read it, but I'm quite sure I remember him saying that a dictatorship of some sort would be necessary to get things operating properly, after which it should dissolve. That sounds a lot like anarchy to me. The bit about expecting those in power to just walk away was the stupid part of the whole thing, in my opinion, but then again it seems a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature is at the heart of anarchic theory.
Except for the whole replacing the concealed dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (any non communist state) with an open dictatorship of the proletariat (any communist state) thing. Doing that pretty much implies censorship of non communist opinions and shipping people off to reeducation camps.
I think you're confusing communism as in 'sharing is good' with a bunch of Stalinists taking over the state and killing millions of people whilst claiming to be socialist/communist.
I'm quite clear on the differences; that was the entire point of my post. The one I was responding to seems to have bought wholesale the line that socialism == authoritarianism, which as we both pointed out is observably false.
The "sharing is good" anarcho-communism described by Marx can only function on a very small scale (but it can function, I've witnessed it personally). The problem with any anarchic political theory, though, is that eventually your society gets big enough that it includes an asshole who just has to be in charge (Stalin, Mao, etc) and enough idiots/lesser assholes willing to take their orders that they're able to consolidate power (the respective communist parties). They call themselves communists because if you read the Manifesto it sounds really good, and then they conveniently forget that part where the central government is supposed to fade away once the distribution mechanisms are in place (which makes perfect sense really, since distribution mechanisms don't run themselves).
Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling now. My main point was that socialism != authoritarianism. My secondary point was that communism != authoritarianism either, even though it generally plays out that way in the real world.
The problem really went back to WWII. We armed the Viet Minh to fight the Japanese, and we should have supported their independence after the war as we had promised. We had already been spitting in Minh's face for a decade before Diem even came to power.
Just a few minor points:
While the Japanese didn't formally take control of Vietnam until 45, they were basically handed control when the Vichy government took over in France. The Viet Minh existed before WWII, and were armed by the US in order to keep the Japanese busy.
Ho Chi Minh was involved in laying the groundwork for the communist revolution in China, but his real ties were Soviet. The PRC and USSR didn't get along too well, which ultimately led to the conflict between Vietnam (USSR backed) and Cambodia (PRC backed).
Also, roughly 90% of Vietnamese are Buddhist, hardly a minority. The rest are Catholic, pretty much. (FWIW, the nobility prior to French colonization was mostly Confucian.)
IMO, we were not right to go into Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh would have been a much better choice than Diem, and in fact he approached the US for help after trying to petition the French directly. He ended up becoming a communist because they were the only ones willing to help him, but I have serious doubts that he ever fully bought into their ideals. Diem was a monster, and the ones after him were not significantly better.
No I don't think I'm confusing anything, although I apologize for being vague. Socialism and communism require an authoritarian government. Oops, tautology.
No, you are quite confused, and utterly wrong. There are plenty of socialist countries that are not authoritarian (like most of northern Europe). There are also numerous examples of small scale communism functioning just fine with little or no central control.
It is true that every country that has gone communist has also gone authoritarian, but it is certainly not a requirement.
British? I think you mean Japanese.
Vietnam is small and weak, huh? I'll be sure to mention that to my Vietnamese friends when I get back home (and hope I don't get my ass beat). While we're at it, you might want to mention that to China, who tried to come in and take over after they gave us Americans the boot. Oh, and tell Cambodia and Laos how weak Vietnam is, too.