See, this is why I skipped college: When the 20 leetest students at your school are so stupid that only one of them thinks to start a porn site, 5 others get as far as some half-assed book-cooking scheme, and the other 14 come up with nothing at all, then it's time to give higher ed. the finger and take your skills on the road.
See, that just sounds weird. I respect your experience, and I'm well aware of the problems of arguing against anecdotal evidence, but there seems to be something funny about what you're implying:
A typical "driven" student is uninterested in the curriculum offered by the college of his or her choice.
A typical "driven" student is incapable of performing well in the classes he or she enrolls in, or else is so unwilling to perform well that it amounts to the same thing.
A typical "driven" student is only actually "driven" to perform well outside of the classroom.
Clearly these three things can't actually be true, can they? What seems much more likely is that the truly "driven" students are the ones who get the 3.0 GPAs Note that these are not necessarily the smartest or best-educated students--they're simply the ones who care enough about either the material or their grade to perform well through consistent effort.
The "driven" students you seem to be talking about sound much more like me: above-average intelligence, but no real interest in conventional education(I never attended college), and no habit of self-discipline. My high school GPA was certainly abysmal, and I'd probably not benefit too much from the university program mentioned here. I've got few of the habits conducive to productivity in such a setting, and I think the University would be quite sensible to make me ineligible based on my GPA. Certainly I was sensible enough to take my skills, interests, and curiosity directly into the workforce, rather than paying thousands of dollars to some University, simply for the privilege of discovering (yet again) that I don't have the temperament for it.
Nevertheless, the distinction between "published" and "publicized" is an important one.
Companies like Intentia seem to think there is no distinction: that as long as the content is not publicized, it's not published. The fact that the content is on a publicly-accessible webserver, with no access controls in place, won't deter any company as long as "publicized" and "published" are perceived to be the same thing.
Yes, we know what you meant. All the same, please refrain from posting stuff to the Internet, and then complaining that it was being accessed even though it wasn't "published".
Who is more cowardly, the Anonymous Coward or the anonymous coward who mods him down?
The Anonymous Coward, of course. At least he has the option to post otherwise. The moderation system cannot work without moderation, and moderation is currently anonymous-only. So if you believe that the mod system is a Good Thing, you're forced to contribute anonymously. Cowardice doesn't even come into it.
Actually, while Navy culture seems to focus heavily on maintaining the paint jobs on their vessels, the Army has no congruent urge to paint things. The closest match you'd get in the Army would be "if it moves, salute it, if it doesn't, don't", which isn't nearly as interesting.
It doesn't sound like they care about "true AI" at all. I get the impression that they're focused on breaking simple tasks down so that simple electronic devices can make useful decisions about them. Manufacture millions of these cheap, problem-specific devices, and hand over an increasing amount of the "busywork" of living to them. Not true AI, but also already do-able.
Valid, but totally irrelevant. These guys are talking about breaking simple tasks down into steps that simple machines can perform, and even make useful decisions about. Leave creative thinking to the humans, if you like, but by all means shove off all the busywork on cheap, specialized eproms!
For the life of me, I can't figure out why everybody's so obsessed with the idea of human-like AI when we could be focussing on optimizing the behaviors that computers already excel at.
And yet the Nazis weren't the first to implement ghettos, ghettos aren't exclusively--or even primarily--related to Nazi concentration camps, and finally, ghettos have long been associated with exactly the kind of neighborhood the parent was referring to.
Thus your argment, "stevejsmith has never been in a ghetto, because ghettos were a Nazi tool for exterminating Jews, and that was all before stevejsmith's time", seems quite senseless.
It's the middle clause that does it, really. Nazi use of "ghettos" to concentrate undesireables is really a minor footnote on the history of these neighborhoods (which probably goes back over 400 years).
The word "ghetto" has been in use as a valid term for a particular kind of neighborhood since long before the Third Reich. The word is still in use today as a valid term for a particular kind of neighborhood. Does your knowledge of the world really begin and end with the Second World War?
According to the dictionary, "ghetto" has nothing to do with concentration camps, and quite a lot to do what the parent poster was talking about. Perhaps you meant to say you've never been inside a school.
The amazing part is how pedantic you are, for someone so ignorant.
Also, that "Class M" planets will be more likely to sustain human life, making their discovery not just of interest to the scientific community in a "we hope to find alien life here" kind of way, but also intensely personal to the human race in a "we hope to someday live here" kind of way.
From your post, it sounds like Howard is still around, and still guiding the company. It's not like the board ousted him in favor of somebody else. He was smart enough to hire experienced professionals to make his vision a profitable reality. It's very different.
You're preaching to the choir, my friend. I happen to be totally unconcerned by the alleged health threat of a cell phone. You should consider brandishing your cluestick at the parent post.
Except, of course, that your brain has the ultimate trusted computing environment: nobody else can run the code or access the files stored there. In fact, current technology means that transferring the brain to a new chassis will result in catastrophic failure of the system. DRM, indeed.
Perhaps I misunderstand socialism, but why would a power elite use its extreme influence and wealth to bring about a society where extreme influence and wealth are abolished? Wouldn't it be in their best interests to maintain the status quo?
I do see the very real possibility that the government might use force to suppress dissension among voters. However, where both you and Oobleck seem to see this as an immediate and obvious result of the Free State Project, I see it as being a very remote possibility.
The humor came from contrasting those two views, and from assuming that my own viewpoint was both more reasonable and more widely held.
I still think the assumption is valid: the FSP appears to have many characteristics that are common to political activist groups of all kinds--and the government appears to happily tolerate these groups. At the same time, the FSP shows no similarities to the Branch Davidians. Thus, the humor inherent in a prediction of violent government reaction to the FSP based on its similarities to the Davidians. They're not similar, and thus have no serious reason to expect the same treatment.
Are you aware that the real socialists would laugh at your depiction of any U.S. administration as a "far left socialist elite"?
Ah, but the average cheater does know how to change the MAC address: visit their favorite warez/cheats site, download the application or instructions for changing the address, and change the address.
The smart cheater who writes the utility is central to the argument after all, since historically the smart cheaters have published tools for the ignorant ones not "eventually" but almost immediately. The smart cheaters have already published a workaround, and the rest of them already know where to find it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, sure, if that statement is "Look at me! I'm sending biohazardous material through the U.S. mail!" ;)
Actually, U.S. entities have multiple TLDs to choose from, ".com" being the most popular.
isn't ".va" the TLD for the state of Virginia? I thought the Vatican was at vatican.it, or vatican.org, or something...
Yes! Exactly!
See, this is why I skipped college: When the 20 leetest students at your school are so stupid that only one of them thinks to start a porn site, 5 others get as far as some half-assed book-cooking scheme, and the other 14 come up with nothing at all, then it's time to give higher ed. the finger and take your skills on the road.
See, that just sounds weird. I respect your experience, and I'm well aware of the problems of arguing against anecdotal evidence, but there seems to be something funny about what you're implying:
A typical "driven" student is uninterested in the curriculum offered by the college of his or her choice.
A typical "driven" student is incapable of performing well in the classes he or she enrolls in, or else is so unwilling to perform well that it amounts to the same thing.
A typical "driven" student is only actually "driven" to perform well outside of the classroom.
Clearly these three things can't actually be true, can they? What seems much more likely is that the truly "driven" students are the ones who get the 3.0 GPAs Note that these are not necessarily the smartest or best-educated students--they're simply the ones who care enough about either the material or their grade to perform well through consistent effort.
The "driven" students you seem to be talking about sound much more like me: above-average intelligence, but no real interest in conventional education(I never attended college), and no habit of self-discipline. My high school GPA was certainly abysmal, and I'd probably not benefit too much from the university program mentioned here. I've got few of the habits conducive to productivity in such a setting, and I think the University would be quite sensible to make me ineligible based on my GPA. Certainly I was sensible enough to take my skills, interests, and curiosity directly into the workforce, rather than paying thousands of dollars to some University, simply for the privilege of discovering (yet again) that I don't have the temperament for it.
Which reminds me, isn't it about time for a Backslashdot?
Well, they're still paying tuition, aren't they?
Nevertheless, the distinction between "published" and "publicized" is an important one.
Companies like Intentia seem to think there is no distinction: that as long as the content is not publicized, it's not published. The fact that the content is on a publicly-accessible webserver, with no access controls in place, won't deter any company as long as "publicized" and "published" are perceived to be the same thing.
Yes, we know what you meant. All the same, please refrain from posting stuff to the Internet, and then complaining that it was being accessed even though it wasn't "published".
The Anonymous Coward, of course. At least he has the option to post otherwise. The moderation system cannot work without moderation, and moderation is currently anonymous-only. So if you believe that the mod system is a Good Thing, you're forced to contribute anonymously. Cowardice doesn't even come into it.
Actually, while Navy culture seems to focus heavily on maintaining the paint jobs on their vessels, the Army has no congruent urge to paint things. The closest match you'd get in the Army would be "if it moves, salute it, if it doesn't, don't", which isn't nearly as interesting.
It doesn't sound like they care about "true AI" at all. I get the impression that they're focused on breaking simple tasks down so that simple electronic devices can make useful decisions about them. Manufacture millions of these cheap, problem-specific devices, and hand over an increasing amount of the "busywork" of living to them. Not true AI, but also already do-able.
Valid, but totally irrelevant. These guys are talking about breaking simple tasks down into steps that simple machines can perform, and even make useful decisions about. Leave creative thinking to the humans, if you like, but by all means shove off all the busywork on cheap, specialized eproms!
For the life of me, I can't figure out why everybody's so obsessed with the idea of human-like AI when we could be focussing on optimizing the behaviors that computers already excel at.
And yet the Nazis weren't the first to implement ghettos, ghettos aren't exclusively--or even primarily--related to Nazi concentration camps, and finally, ghettos have long been associated with exactly the kind of neighborhood the parent was referring to.
Thus your argment, "stevejsmith has never been in a ghetto, because ghettos were a Nazi tool for exterminating Jews, and that was all before stevejsmith's time", seems quite senseless.
It's the middle clause that does it, really. Nazi use of "ghettos" to concentrate undesireables is really a minor footnote on the history of these neighborhoods (which probably goes back over 400 years).
The word "ghetto" has been in use as a valid term for a particular kind of neighborhood since long before the Third Reich. The word is still in use today as a valid term for a particular kind of neighborhood. Does your knowledge of the world really begin and end with the Second World War?
The amazing part is how pedantic you are, for someone so ignorant.
Also, that "Class M" planets will be more likely to sustain human life, making their discovery not just of interest to the scientific community in a "we hope to find alien life here" kind of way, but also intensely personal to the human race in a "we hope to someday live here" kind of way.
From your post, it sounds like Howard is still around, and still guiding the company. It's not like the board ousted him in favor of somebody else. He was smart enough to hire experienced professionals to make his vision a profitable reality. It's very different.
You're preaching to the choir, my friend. I happen to be totally unconcerned by the alleged health threat of a cell phone. You should consider brandishing your cluestick at the parent post.
"Entering the chamber at the end of the long dark corridor, you find... yourself. Your alter ego is obviously surprised to see you here."
"Blink."
And yet how many hours each day do you spend staring at your monitor?
Except, of course, that your brain has the ultimate trusted computing environment: nobody else can run the code or access the files stored there. In fact, current technology means that transferring the brain to a new chassis will result in catastrophic failure of the system. DRM, indeed.
Perhaps I misunderstand socialism, but why would a power elite use its extreme influence and wealth to bring about a society where extreme influence and wealth are abolished? Wouldn't it be in their best interests to maintain the status quo?
If RMS doesn't understand the vocabulary issue, then why does he refer to "trusted computing" as "treacherous computing" throughout the article?
Actually, this clarifies quite a lot. Thanks!
I do see the very real possibility that the government might use force to suppress dissension among voters. However, where both you and Oobleck seem to see this as an immediate and obvious result of the Free State Project, I see it as being a very remote possibility.
The humor came from contrasting those two views, and from assuming that my own viewpoint was both more reasonable and more widely held.
I still think the assumption is valid: the FSP appears to have many characteristics that are common to political activist groups of all kinds--and the government appears to happily tolerate these groups. At the same time, the FSP shows no similarities to the Branch Davidians. Thus, the humor inherent in a prediction of violent government reaction to the FSP based on its similarities to the Davidians. They're not similar, and thus have no serious reason to expect the same treatment.
Are you aware that the real socialists would laugh at your depiction of any U.S. administration as a "far left socialist elite"?
Ah, but the average cheater does know how to change the MAC address: visit their favorite warez/cheats site, download the application or instructions for changing the address, and change the address.
The smart cheater who writes the utility is central to the argument after all, since historically the smart cheaters have published tools for the ignorant ones not "eventually" but almost immediately. The smart cheaters have already published a workaround, and the rest of them already know where to find it.