Actually, I don't think it is a big loss. Don't get me wrong. I think it is great that high schools prepare students by learning them some computer skills.
However, things I see is that freshmen, in a computer science course, lack the basic skills. They seem to have almost no skills when it comes to math, physics or even general problem solving skills. Heck most freshman can't even spell. (And when they spell something wrong it's not even done in a consistent way).
Something else. It seems that students are taught things either wrong, out of context, or in the wrong context. That is really an obstacle, for the student AND a teacher in college. You won't believe how often the phrase "Well, than your computer science teacher in HS had it wrong" sentence is used in the first year in college.
So if I would be asked, and actually that question was asked at the ACM SIGCSE meetings this spring, what it is students should be taught the answer would be: Math, geometry, how the solve 'logic' problems etc etc.
I do think it is a good idea to teach HS students computer skills, focusing on that would help quite a bit. I don't mind that students are shown some simple programming 'things'. However you won't believe how many students do know how to wrongly create all kinds of code but are not able to copy a zip file from one drive to another and extract it in such a way that it results in an organized way of storing their lab and project work.
The wrong 'programming' techniques we can usually fix but the lack of math, logic, geometry, science/physics etc is something that keeps haunting them all the way through college.
Well, typically when you start wondering and come up with questions like these there probably are already things that make you wonder.
Maybe you can't exactly pin point the issues yet (although you had one or two already) but basically you already started the process already by wondering if you should ditch it..
You know that something is wrong. It has been around for a while. Not too many people are smiling anymore, problems finding people that can work on it etc etc.
What you are saying is that anonymity might be a good thing so that you can 'hide' your unethical behavior.
What I meant to say is, it is also used to hide from other's unethical behavior... while you yourself are not behaving unethical at all.
(Although one might think something is unethical.. while someone else thinks it is not)
I don't think anonymity has much to do with ethics really. I think it is more a tool to protect yourself. You can protect yourself from getting caught because you did something bad or on the other hand you can protect yourself from getting caught by someone bad. (for example people in the resistance in WWII fighting against the Germans)
Anonymity is more the result of unethical behavior, whatever the source of that behavior is, than anything else.
Well isn't anonymous a good thing to prevent 'crime' or at least not so desired behavior too ?
If I post in a newsgroup, my e-mail address will be used for spam. (Resulting in hundreds of unsolicited messages.
Drive around in an expensive car, you probably have expensive stuff at home which makes you prone to some individuals breaking in. etc etc etc.
Besides that, not being anonymous and people following you around is always used in a negative manner.
I yet have to hear something like: "Well, dear John Doe... We have been watching your online activities for a year now and we must say we are impressed and want to give you a raise/promotion."
People have always been obsessed with wanting to know what it is that others do. 'Office gossip' with all it's nasty consequences has been around for as long as there are offices. The only difference now is that the political status quo and public perception is that it is ok to do even if there is no 'probable cause' to do such thing.
I think that's right. 'security' seems to be a hype. I see measures being taken and wonder. Security is something subjective and relative. Throw some money at it buy some stuff that you don't know if you need it, how to use it or if it would even be effective. But it sure makes you and others feel good and that's what counts.
After the money is spent you can show in a report (by attaching receipts) that you did everything possible. Make sure you hire the 25K sysadmin instead of the guy that knows what he is doing but you can't afford, that way you can additionally prove you're efficient too.
Of course that doesn't work, we know all that, but hey that's why you need to hire some acronym (a CIO or so), with a good solid mba or history degree or something like that, who says he knows what he is doing.
Of course that doesn't work either.. *S* but you're 3 years down that track now and need that new generation of software and hardware to really make it work. right ?
what about that that CIO you hired ? heck just swap it with some peer organization.. they probably have one that would love to work at your place.
Am I disgruntled ? Heck no.. I am not even part of that circus, but I see it happen all the time.
Let's face it, no one is really interested in security, it is annoying and restrictive. Buying stuff that doesn't really do anything (but also doesn't harm anything) is the best way to CYA. It is relatively easy to come up with something that is more effective and efficient. The problem with that is though, nothing is 100% foolproof and/or safe, so what if something goes wrong and you don't have these k's (or m's) of $$$ receipts to show what you did everything to prevent disaster from happening ?
> "The more mails you ignore, the less people expect you to read them."
I actually agree on that one. I used to get A LOT of e-mail, and I mean A LOT (sorry shift key only works one level up).
Anyway I decided to tell people I only read my e-mail when: - After I entered my office at start of the day - before lunch - after lunch - an hour before I leave
At first it comes across as annoying/irritating, but hey.. come on.. it is e-mail.
The resulting effect: I get A LOT LESS e-mail. People know that the chances of me finding and reading that one important e-mail amongst their 30 e-crap msgs is unlikely. Of course I accidentally deleted 'important' e-mail because it was stuck inbetween 30 not so important ones. Also.. I am knowing to doze off, loose track/interest in e-mail that is WAY TOO LONG or enhanced with html, pictures sound etc.
When asked why I behave that way I answer: Receiving e-mail at this rate is like someone knocking on my door every 30 seconds (or even more frequent) that is annoying. I have a job to do and it isn't reading all that e-mail. Therefor I switched it off and check it bearly more often than snail mail.
It works really well for me now, it is known that if e-mail is sent to me.. it better be worth my time.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I don't think it is a big loss. Don't get me wrong. I think it is great that high schools prepare students by learning them some computer skills. However, things I see is that freshmen, in a computer science course, lack the basic skills. They seem to have almost no skills when it comes to math, physics or even general problem solving skills. Heck most freshman can't even spell. (And when they spell something wrong it's not even done in a consistent way). Something else. It seems that students are taught things either wrong, out of context, or in the wrong context. That is really an obstacle, for the student AND a teacher in college. You won't believe how often the phrase "Well, than your computer science teacher in HS had it wrong" sentence is used in the first year in college. So if I would be asked, and actually that question was asked at the ACM SIGCSE meetings this spring, what it is students should be taught the answer would be: Math, geometry, how the solve 'logic' problems etc etc. I do think it is a good idea to teach HS students computer skills, focusing on that would help quite a bit. I don't mind that students are shown some simple programming 'things'. However you won't believe how many students do know how to wrongly create all kinds of code but are not able to copy a zip file from one drive to another and extract it in such a way that it results in an organized way of storing their lab and project work. The wrong 'programming' techniques we can usually fix but the lack of math, logic, geometry, science/physics etc is something that keeps haunting them all the way through college.
Well, typically when you start wondering and come up with questions like these there probably are already things that make you wonder. Maybe you can't exactly pin point the issues yet (although you had one or two already) but basically you already started the process already by wondering if you should ditch it.. You know that something is wrong. It has been around for a while. Not too many people are smiling anymore, problems finding people that can work on it etc etc.
What you are saying is that anonymity might be a good thing so that you can 'hide' your unethical behavior. What I meant to say is, it is also used to hide from other's unethical behavior... while you yourself are not behaving unethical at all. (Although one might think something is unethical.. while someone else thinks it is not) I don't think anonymity has much to do with ethics really. I think it is more a tool to protect yourself. You can protect yourself from getting caught because you did something bad or on the other hand you can protect yourself from getting caught by someone bad. (for example people in the resistance in WWII fighting against the Germans) Anonymity is more the result of unethical behavior, whatever the source of that behavior is, than anything else.
Well isn't anonymous a good thing to prevent 'crime' or at least not so desired behavior too ? If I post in a newsgroup, my e-mail address will be used for spam. (Resulting in hundreds of unsolicited messages. Drive around in an expensive car, you probably have expensive stuff at home which makes you prone to some individuals breaking in. etc etc etc. Besides that, not being anonymous and people following you around is always used in a negative manner. I yet have to hear something like: "Well, dear John Doe... We have been watching your online activities for a year now and we must say we are impressed and want to give you a raise/promotion." People have always been obsessed with wanting to know what it is that others do. 'Office gossip' with all it's nasty consequences has been around for as long as there are offices. The only difference now is that the political status quo and public perception is that it is ok to do even if there is no 'probable cause' to do such thing.
I think that's right. 'security' seems to be a hype. I see measures being taken and wonder. Security is something subjective and relative. Throw some money at it buy some stuff that you don't know if you need it, how to use it or if it would even be effective. But it sure makes you and others feel good and that's what counts. After the money is spent you can show in a report (by attaching receipts) that you did everything possible. Make sure you hire the 25K sysadmin instead of the guy that knows what he is doing but you can't afford, that way you can additionally prove you're efficient too. Of course that doesn't work, we know all that, but hey that's why you need to hire some acronym (a CIO or so), with a good solid mba or history degree or something like that, who says he knows what he is doing. Of course that doesn't work either.. *S* but you're 3 years down that track now and need that new generation of software and hardware to really make it work. right ? what about that that CIO you hired ? heck just swap it with some peer organization.. they probably have one that would love to work at your place. Am I disgruntled ? Heck no.. I am not even part of that circus, but I see it happen all the time. Let's face it, no one is really interested in security, it is annoying and restrictive. Buying stuff that doesn't really do anything (but also doesn't harm anything) is the best way to CYA. It is relatively easy to come up with something that is more effective and efficient. The problem with that is though, nothing is 100% foolproof and/or safe, so what if something goes wrong and you don't have these k's (or m's) of $$$ receipts to show what you did everything to prevent disaster from happening ?
> "The more mails you ignore, the less people expect you to read them."
I actually agree on that one. I used to get A LOT of e-mail, and I mean A LOT (sorry shift key only works one level up).
Anyway I decided to tell people I only read my e-mail when:
- After I entered my office at start of the day
- before lunch
- after lunch
- an hour before I leave
At first it comes across as annoying/irritating, but hey.. come on.. it is e-mail.
The resulting effect: I get A LOT LESS e-mail. People know that the chances of me finding and reading that one important e-mail amongst their 30 e-crap msgs is unlikely. Of course I accidentally deleted 'important' e-mail because it was stuck inbetween 30 not so important ones.
Also.. I am knowing to doze off, loose track/interest in e-mail that is WAY TOO LONG or enhanced with html, pictures sound etc.
When asked why I behave that way I answer: Receiving e-mail at this rate is like someone knocking on my door every 30 seconds (or even more frequent) that is annoying. I have a job to do and it isn't reading all that e-mail. Therefor I switched it off and check it bearly more often than snail mail.
It works really well for me now, it is known that if e-mail is sent to me.. it better be worth my time.