Have you ever seen a car dealership on a college campus?
Sounds like a great idea though. College kids are notorious for irresponsible use of credit. (Really, my friend bought a car on his American Express while in college...).
I'd like to think I have the right to pick my nose on an empty street corner without the picture making it online.
I'd like to think that you don't. However, I might be inclined to agree that you have the right to pick your nose on an empty street corner without the government taking a picture and it making it online.
If this is where we are heading, we may as well drop the whole State charade as it's just one more layer of bureaucracy when all the real power is being consolidated in the Federal government.
My thoughts exactly. It seems at this point, most people think of the states as simply provinces of the federal behemoth. If we're not interested in state's rights, let's stop pretending like we are.
This is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is Paul having exacted an unfair deal from Peter as a price of being able to form the country, and Peter's descendants 50 generations later wanting out of the deal.
Part of the agreement to join the union required that larger, more populous states not dominate the smaller, less populated ones. If this deal was "unfair", then why did the more populated states agree to it? It seems to me that they decided that having the smaller states in the union was important enough that it was worth it. That, to me at least, is the definition of "fair". If we would like to change the terms on which we are unionized, why not go back, and let each state decide again whether or not those terms are fair?
All good points. I would add that you don't really need to filter your input for injection attempts. Filter your data for valid input. And don't ever use user-submitted content to create code to run. That means don't do it in your php code, and don't do it in stored procedures. If you absolutely MUST, be extra sure that it's validated, and then if it's a string where it's potentially legal to have something resembling sql code, escape it.
Obviously don't rely on client scripts to validate the data before submission.
This is, in my mind, one of the most important things. To go a bit further, don't rely on the client to do anything. Just because you restrict a certain field on a form doesn't mean that's all a client can submit. I would suggest learning the http protocol (the basic concepts are really not that complicated) and keeping that in mind every time you accept input from a user. (Along with everything else others have said - sanitize/validate input, use parameterized/prepared queries, and properly escape any user submitted data that you are returning to the user.
You either neglected to read the GP's post, or completely failed to comprehend it.
At no point did he say that information was the only thing worth anything. He is, specifically, talking about the economics surrounding information. And he clearly makes the point that it costs money to produce, and so it must provide profit at some point. He also makes the point that direct charges for information break the process that has made the "information age" possible.
Whats more of a concern is that there are a lot of people who take everything the teacher says as the gospel. Years later, you run into these people, and they have an incorrect assumption about how something works. You try to correct it, but they have a hard time believing you because that teacher supposedly has far more credentials.
This seems to be a small part of the problem of taking education as gospel. I am still working a fair bit of what I take for granted out of my brain. It's probably on close to a weekly basis that I realize that I'm not sure how I "just know" something, and on further reflection realize that it's because a teacher told it to me, and it turns out to be completely inaccurate. It wasn't until college that I realized that nothing they were teaching was "absolute" but it took even longer to realize that I had "learned" so much before that I still retained as "the way things were".
Because, when the signal gets fuzzy or goes out, that's what people do. I can only assume we're still talking about people who aren't aware of the switch...
It would mean getting by with less. I am sure you could do it, by you might have to give up some conveniences, make some tradeoffs. But seriously, why should you? It's your money, shouldn't you be trying to get the best value for your labor?
Well, I read it a different way, and to be honest, I have no idea which way he meant it. I was thinking that if society was run by his kind, we would realize that jobs lost often leads to increased opportunity for innovation, increased productivity which leads to an increase in wealth across society, and a higher standard of living.
As technology advances, jobs requiring lower skill become less valuable. If this causes you to attempt to stay competitive, you will succeed. If this causes you to whine about your entitlements, you will, in the long run, fail.
On the other hand I think making hiring decisions based almost solely on data that can be stuck into Excel is a bad thing.
Bad for who? Is it bad for the employee? Well, it would seem that depends on whether you look better or worse in Excel than you actually are. Bad for the company? I would be inclined to agree with you there, but only because of my personal experiences in hiring. But...if it's bad for the company, and the company is the one doing the hiring...won't that come out in the wash? The company that hires by actually seeking out the best talent - knowing that in some fields, that decision is much more subjective than objective - is going to do better. If the company does better when hiring solely based on spreadsheets, then perhaps, contrary to all anecdotal evidence, we would need to accept that at least in that particular situation, hiring based almost solely on data that can be stuck into Excel is a good thing.
I couldn't agree more. The H1-B program seems not that much different from indentured servitude. We got you over here - either you work for us, at the wages we dictate, or you leave.
The problem is that the people here don't want the dream. They want prosperity, and they feel entitled to prosperity. Immigrants present competition, which threatens that entitlement. The American dream, America itself, was never about entitlement. It was never about deserving something. It was about being free to use what you had to achieve what you could without being oppressed. We've lost that.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, I have to say that I have never purchased a car that cost 1 year's earnings. Sounds way out of my price range.
I thought we were talking about a Microsoft store here, not Best Buy...
I'm pretty sure the media handles that as well.
Have you ever seen a car dealership on a college campus?
Sounds like a great idea though. College kids are notorious for irresponsible use of credit. (Really, my friend bought a car on his American Express while in college...).
so now they have nuclear laptops. WOW and mine still runs solar power.
From the sound of things, they have a whole Beowulf cluster of them!
Or used to anyway...
From what I can tell, the media defines pretty much everything.
I'd like to think I have the right to pick my nose on an empty street corner without the picture making it online.
I'd like to think that you don't. However, I might be inclined to agree that you have the right to pick your nose on an empty street corner without the government taking a picture and it making it online.
Why? Iowa shouldn't have any say electing someone who holds power over them?
If this is where we are heading, we may as well drop the whole State charade as it's just one more layer of bureaucracy when all the real power is being consolidated in the Federal government.
My thoughts exactly. It seems at this point, most people think of the states as simply provinces of the federal behemoth. If we're not interested in state's rights, let's stop pretending like we are.
This is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is Paul having exacted an unfair deal from Peter as a price of being able to form the country, and Peter's descendants 50 generations later wanting out of the deal.
Part of the agreement to join the union required that larger, more populous states not dominate the smaller, less populated ones. If this deal was "unfair", then why did the more populated states agree to it? It seems to me that they decided that having the smaller states in the union was important enough that it was worth it. That, to me at least, is the definition of "fair". If we would like to change the terms on which we are unionized, why not go back, and let each state decide again whether or not those terms are fair?
Try this. Then you'll get it.
But when government X says that Company C is not allowed to compete with Company B and Company A, we have a monopolistic situation.
And if you happen to live in an area that isn't profitable to run service to I suppose you should just move then, right?
Yes. Just because you want the benefits of living further from other people, don't expect me to subsidize the costs that decision incurs.
All good points. I would add that you don't really need to filter your input for injection attempts. Filter your data for valid input. And don't ever use user-submitted content to create code to run. That means don't do it in your php code, and don't do it in stored procedures. If you absolutely MUST, be extra sure that it's validated, and then if it's a string where it's potentially legal to have something resembling sql code, escape it.
Obviously don't rely on client scripts to validate the data before submission.
This is, in my mind, one of the most important things. To go a bit further, don't rely on the client to do anything. Just because you restrict a certain field on a form doesn't mean that's all a client can submit. I would suggest learning the http protocol (the basic concepts are really not that complicated) and keeping that in mind every time you accept input from a user. (Along with everything else others have said - sanitize/validate input, use parameterized/prepared queries, and properly escape any user submitted data that you are returning to the user.
I'm just sayin', if I had to choose between self-respect and gadgets... "Honey, please?! I took out the trash last night and everything!"
Well that's your decision. Just please have the decency to not do your groveling in public - it embarrasses the rest of us.
You either neglected to read the GP's post, or completely failed to comprehend it.
At no point did he say that information was the only thing worth anything. He is, specifically, talking about the economics surrounding information. And he clearly makes the point that it costs money to produce, and so it must provide profit at some point. He also makes the point that direct charges for information break the process that has made the "information age" possible.
Whats more of a concern is that there are a lot of people who take everything the teacher says as the gospel. Years later, you run into these people, and they have an incorrect assumption about how something works. You try to correct it, but they have a hard time believing you because that teacher supposedly has far more credentials.
This seems to be a small part of the problem of taking education as gospel. I am still working a fair bit of what I take for granted out of my brain. It's probably on close to a weekly basis that I realize that I'm not sure how I "just know" something, and on further reflection realize that it's because a teacher told it to me, and it turns out to be completely inaccurate. It wasn't until college that I realized that nothing they were teaching was "absolute" but it took even longer to realize that I had "learned" so much before that I still retained as "the way things were".
No no. I think the concern is people on their roofs attempting to adjust their antennas in a tornado.
Because, when the signal gets fuzzy or goes out, that's what people do. I can only assume we're still talking about people who aren't aware of the switch...
And the fact that the owners of the machines don't think it would be more profitable to lower it?
It would mean getting by with less. I am sure you could do it, by you might have to give up some conveniences, make some tradeoffs. But seriously, why should you? It's your money, shouldn't you be trying to get the best value for your labor?
Well, I read it a different way, and to be honest, I have no idea which way he meant it. I was thinking that if society was run by his kind, we would realize that jobs lost often leads to increased opportunity for innovation, increased productivity which leads to an increase in wealth across society, and a higher standard of living.
As technology advances, jobs requiring lower skill become less valuable. If this causes you to attempt to stay competitive, you will succeed. If this causes you to whine about your entitlements, you will, in the long run, fail.
I tend to like free and open borders.
I like free and open borders too.
On the other hand I think making hiring decisions based almost solely on data that can be stuck into Excel is a bad thing.
Bad for who? Is it bad for the employee? Well, it would seem that depends on whether you look better or worse in Excel than you actually are. Bad for the company? I would be inclined to agree with you there, but only because of my personal experiences in hiring. But...if it's bad for the company, and the company is the one doing the hiring...won't that come out in the wash? The company that hires by actually seeking out the best talent - knowing that in some fields, that decision is much more subjective than objective - is going to do better. If the company does better when hiring solely based on spreadsheets, then perhaps, contrary to all anecdotal evidence, we would need to accept that at least in that particular situation, hiring based almost solely on data that can be stuck into Excel is a good thing.
I couldn't agree more. The H1-B program seems not that much different from indentured servitude. We got you over here - either you work for us, at the wages we dictate, or you leave.
The problem is that the people here don't want the dream. They want prosperity, and they feel entitled to prosperity. Immigrants present competition, which threatens that entitlement. The American dream, America itself, was never about entitlement. It was never about deserving something. It was about being free to use what you had to achieve what you could without being oppressed. We've lost that.