Ethics was a required undergrad course in my BSCS program. I thought it was stupid at first, but I really enjoyed the course, and I still think about it all the time, and even re-read the textbook now and then. In addition, my software engineering instructor lead class discussions about failed large scale projects, whether software development should be certified and regulated as an engineering discipline, whether formal verification should be used &c., and my assembly language instructor quite insisted that we read about Therac-25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac_25) when we discussed parallelism and and race conditions. I was told to think of the human cost of failure at every turn...
It is appalling to see so many people blaming users for the results of a policy Americans keep voting for. This is a public health outcome of the "War on Drugs", which, like any other war on a thing, is really just a war on people.
Blaming addicts is a craven political tactic used by powerful incumbents to protect their incomes: Local and federal law enforcement agencies who's funding depends on drug prohibition, privatized prisons and their lobbies, grandstanding politicians who campaign on "getting tough" on things, and gangsters and smugglers all have a vested interest in the status quo. The outcome cannot improve until we refuse to be duped, demand reform.
Desperate users who are already opioid addicts are exploited by sellers of krokodil, they are not normal healthy people who "choose to try it". It is unreasonable to assume that users of this substance have given informed consent to be poisoned; they do not enjoy the same autonomy that you and I do, they are desperate, and they are not easily able to evaluate the quality or authenticity of black market drugs.
Drug prohibition is economically nonsensical. It is an explicitly stated aim of law enforcement to increase the street price of narcotics. Therefore, prohibition incentivizes the black market and makes users less safe and more desperate. Black market opioids are expensive and contaminated _because_ they are criminalized, and the desperation of addicts is exacerbated by our policy. We have deliberately created a situation where heroine costs $250 per gram and addicts must choose between getting DT's and robbing houses.
Drug prohibition is predicated on the ideas that narcotics diminish our autonomy, and that we are all susceptible to addiction to some degree. It is incoherent to support prohibition and blame addicts at the same time. It's also hypocritical. How many of you have consumed a pharmaceutical opioid or other narcotic, and thereby chosen to risk addiction?
We are not morally or intellectually superior to addicts. Moreover, blame is no solace to the millions of people who are imprisoned, killed by gangsters, or poisoned, and it is cruel, pedantic, and beneath us... oh wait, this is slashdot.... but seriously:
it is unfortunate that it is perceived to be impossible to find programmers or admin/security personnel that do not have vile personal habits. i am currently enrolled in a computer science baccalaureate program that includes an NSA approved security certification curriculum, and i have some work experience in programming and system administration. i ALSO enjoy jogging, large backpacks, lifting weights, and shooting rifles.
General William Lord says. 'So if they can't run three miles (...) we need to have a culture where they fit in.'
this comment is a cheap shot. general lord implies that the military can't recruit intelligent people because nerds are afraid of gym class. there are _many_ reasons that i have not enlisted, but this is not one of them. in my experience, people with technical aptitude come in the same variety of shapes, sizes, and dispositions as people in any other job that requires one to spend the work day in an office.
while i agree (with previous posters) that workers should be judged by their productive output rather than by their appearance, i believe that the "geek culture" has unnecessarily perpetuated a slob stereotype. the notion that professionalism and good personal presentation (or even hygiene) are beneath the notice of intelligent people appeals to our hubris. "if people don't like my shit attitude or personal appearance," we say to one another "then i wish them the best of luck in finding another genius." this is ok when interacting with machines, but even self-employed persons must communicate with other human beings from time to time. i am all for casual clothes and forthrightness, but it is usually to our advantage to take care of our health and to be courteous.
sadly, the slob stereotype encourages the obese, sarcastic, mountain dew swilling, sweatpants wearing minority to hold up their attitude as a point of style. i work with a few individuals that might be leading happier lives today, if only their peers did not encourage this view.
we should end the slovenly-geek stereotype. it hurts a small but impressionable minority, and it makes the rest of us look bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Ethics was a required undergrad course in my BSCS program. I thought it was stupid at first, but I really enjoyed the course, and I still think about it all the time, and even re-read the textbook now and then. In addition, my software engineering instructor lead class discussions about failed large scale projects, whether software development should be certified and regulated as an engineering discipline, whether formal verification should be used &c., and my assembly language instructor quite insisted that we read about Therac-25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac_25) when we discussed parallelism and and race conditions. I was told to think of the human cost of failure at every turn...
It is appalling to see so many people blaming users for the results of a policy Americans keep voting for. This is a public health outcome of the "War on Drugs", which, like any other war on a thing, is really just a war on people.
Blaming addicts is a craven political tactic used by powerful incumbents to protect their incomes: Local and federal law enforcement agencies who's funding depends on drug prohibition, privatized prisons and their lobbies, grandstanding politicians who campaign on "getting tough" on things, and gangsters and smugglers all have a vested interest in the status quo. The outcome cannot improve until we refuse to be duped, demand reform.
Desperate users who are already opioid addicts are exploited by sellers of krokodil, they are not normal healthy people who "choose to try it". It is unreasonable to assume that users of this substance have given informed consent to be poisoned; they do not enjoy the same autonomy that you and I do, they are desperate, and they are not easily able to evaluate the quality or authenticity of black market drugs.
Drug prohibition is economically nonsensical. It is an explicitly stated aim of law enforcement to increase the street price of narcotics. Therefore, prohibition incentivizes the black market and makes users less safe and more desperate. Black market opioids are expensive and contaminated _because_ they are criminalized, and the desperation of addicts is exacerbated by our policy. We have deliberately created a situation where heroine costs $250 per gram and addicts must choose between getting DT's and robbing houses.
Drug prohibition is predicated on the ideas that narcotics diminish our autonomy, and that we are all susceptible to addiction to some degree. It is incoherent to support prohibition and blame addicts at the same time. It's also hypocritical. How many of you have consumed a pharmaceutical opioid or other narcotic, and thereby chosen to risk addiction?
We are not morally or intellectually superior to addicts. Moreover, blame is no solace to the millions of people who are imprisoned, killed by gangsters, or poisoned, and it is cruel, pedantic, and beneath us... oh wait, this is slashdot.... but seriously:
Even if we don't care an iota for the welfare of drug users, we ought to resent the fact that we are footing the bill for a colossal boondogle which is perverting our legal system, and destabilizing neighboring states.
Krokodil is a market outcome of drug prohibition. We should stop voting for it.
aero runs great on my gma950 (as for the rest of vista well... my employer made me use it *grumble*). compiz is also swell. what's the problem?
it is unfortunate that it is perceived to be impossible to find programmers or admin/security personnel that do not have vile personal habits. i am currently enrolled in a computer science baccalaureate program that includes an NSA approved security certification curriculum, and i have some work experience in programming and system administration. i ALSO enjoy jogging, large backpacks, lifting weights, and shooting rifles.
General William Lord says. 'So if they can't run three miles (...) we need to have a culture where they fit in.'this comment is a cheap shot. general lord implies that the military can't recruit intelligent people because nerds are afraid of gym class. there are _many_ reasons that i have not enlisted, but this is not one of them. in my experience, people with technical aptitude come in the same variety of shapes, sizes, and dispositions as people in any other job that requires one to spend the work day in an office.
while i agree (with previous posters) that workers should be judged by their productive output rather than by their appearance, i believe that the "geek culture" has unnecessarily perpetuated a slob stereotype. the notion that professionalism and good personal presentation (or even hygiene) are beneath the notice of intelligent people appeals to our hubris. "if people don't like my shit attitude or personal appearance," we say to one another "then i wish them the best of luck in finding another genius." this is ok when interacting with machines, but even self-employed persons must communicate with other human beings from time to time. i am all for casual clothes and forthrightness, but it is usually to our advantage to take care of our health and to be courteous.
sadly, the slob stereotype encourages the obese, sarcastic, mountain dew swilling, sweatpants wearing minority to hold up their attitude as a point of style. i work with a few individuals that might be leading happier lives today, if only their peers did not encourage this view.
we should end the slovenly-geek stereotype. it hurts a small but impressionable minority, and it makes the rest of us look bad.