Obviously the ads are exploiting a problem in the system (mainly that you can taylor your kid to be what the universities want to see if you have money), but I think the Universities have the right idea.
A junior level engineer might be a fine engineer even if he/she doesn't nothing but engineering, but sooner or later, he/she become more important and has to manage people and big projects and make these big, broad decisions, and at that point, you really want him to be open-minded and to have a breadth of experiences and knowledge. Extracurriculars is one of the main ways growing kids become more "worldly."
Having that diversity where we CAN fund the arts is really important to my enjoyment of life, although I am employed in a math/science field. A lot of cool things happen because artists think of and create new and wonderful things, and part of developing more artists is funding a formal education for them.
Also, I think in a lot of cases, any college education at all is really helpful to people and to society, even if they don't end up making interpretive dance as their career. In any case, it's not like there are all that many interpretive dance majors to fund. How much money are you saving by selectively lowering tuitions, at the cost of further discouraging those few who do go into the major?
If you think being poor and getting help is better than being middle-class and having loans, then you have never been poor before.
You also seem to have very little idea about how the financial aid system works. The poorer you are, the more help you get. There's no "magic number" of income below which you get a bunch of grants and above which you get none.
Eh? I don't think I'm following. If KISSmetrics didn't admit guilt, then why are they paying at all? And if they continue to do it, can they get fined again?
Because you reported this crime to the police . . . right? I mean I hope you did more than boycott their business. This is a serious crime and you're probably not the only victim.
The thing is, people have already done this many times in the wild. People aren't sniffing the traffic to steal PINs; they're hacking the end devices to steal PINs, and it's been extremely effective. I don't think proper encryption can help when you have that much access to the hardware.
Also, it sounds like the NAND2Tetris style course can be found in many "traditional degree," so I don't see those two as being mutually exclusive, which it seems like you're implying. Even CS61C at Berkeley is structured pretty much the same way, although you don't end up at Tetris. Abstraction is a core concept of computer science, and understanding the process at the gate level is probably going to be part of any solid CS program.
. . . which is why I feel like you'd get a lot out of a good University Computer Science program. It seems like the technical school you are attending right now is just teaching you a single language, while a Computer Science degree will actually teach you how to program and think in a must more comprehensive way. With how far you were able to go teaching yourself, you could gain a lot.
Are you living in a place like California? If you can make it to a good program, like Berkeley, through community college or something like that, you really should go for it. If in doubt though, watch a webcast or two of their classes:
I never regretted going there, and they way they taught me to program was so much more advanced than anything I had been teaching myself at that point; it was really eye-opening. A lot of other schools with big undergraduate computer science programs (MIT and Stanford) have similar material available for free online, and it's all worth checking out.
I really hope I've convinced you that a degree in a good program is still worth quite a lot. It's also definitely helped me land a job much more easily.
You don't need to give him zero privacy. But this is the equivalent of having him hold hands whenever they're out. When he grows up, you can stop tracking him, or only track him for more crowded/busy locations where he's likely to get lost (malls theme parks). You can't treat kids like grown-ups simply because they NEED that extra attention to develop safely. You CAN teach them to value their privacy as a separate lesson though..
I guarantee you that governments are capable of spending loads of money even if they couldn't put it into defense. And it would stimulate the economy just as much no matter where it goes.
If that same money was earmarked for popsicles, entrepreneurs in this country would be making the most kick-ass, delicious popscicles in the world.
Seriously though, I appreciate the amount of paranoia the makers of Cyanogen exhibit as far as potential security holes go. Even if patterns are not super secure, it's nice that take additional security holes seriously enough to fix it quickly and and make a public announcement.
I disagree. It's quickly getting to the point of becoming essential. Yes, we're used to using 3G for now, the internet is already starting to evolve with the expectation that mobile users will have access to 4G type speeds, just like we survived a long time on dial-up connections for the PC, but these days, the vast majority of sites most people visit (gmail, twitter, google, facebook, pinterest, youtube, hulu) rely heavily on images, videos, and AJAX calls that just don't work very well without a solid, high-bandwidth connection.
Government regulations need to be ahead of the curve if they want to keep telecoms from exploiting consumers. Well, exploiting more than they already are.
That's like saying, "with all these fancy new technologies in hybrid cars with GPS and everything, why are we still using wheels?"
Wires are cheap and reliable, and even if they get eclipse in bandwidth at some point by wireless technologies, they will have a place for a long, long time for those reasons.
There is no reason to believe that no government regulation is better than mildly corrupt government (yes mildly. Check out other governments for actual, super-corrupt governments) when you have clearly corrupt corporations at play willing to do whatever it takes to stay on top. However, what you are describing is not in any way "free." It just a "fair" market, where there will have to be someone in charge of determining what is fair competition, and that someone has to be incorruptable.
It's a pipe dream because it's such a vague, half-baked notion. You want a government that won't manipulate, but will keep things fair for free competition. It has to be one that also has the long-term vision to keep things stable, and strong enough to re-stabilize things when unforeseen stupidity takes down the market (see the most recent recession), since there is never going to be a bullet-proof policy that catches and prevents all stupidity.
People are hung up on "evil free marketeers" because most people that scream "free market" also scream "deregulation" in the same breath. You can hardly blame the people.
Why on earth is this modded up? Everything about this post is wrong. I don't even need to go into hypothetical situations to prove you wrong--there are tons of historic examples proving these statements wrong.
You can't have a monopoly or a monopolistic cartel without government intervention. "Free market monopolies" are a misnomer, as the company that has provided such a high quality, low cost product that no-one can compete with them must continue to provide such quality, or risk new competition arising.
So wrong. All you have to be is first, and big, and you can stay a monopoly without any government intervention. You can easily strong-arm competition out of the market.
Let's say you are Microsoft, and you own 95% of the PC OS market. You sell Windows OS to Dell, HP, and Compaq who need to preload it on their PC that they sell or they will lose 95% of the market. If any of Dell, HP, or Compaq suddenly want to sell computers preloaded with MySuperFantasticOS, which is a higher quality OS than yours, you can threaten to not sell Windows OS's to them at bulk rate any more, so none of the major PC makers are willing to sell MySuperFantasticOS preloaded. The upstart OS can never gain much traction, and the company quietly folds a few years later, unable to recoup costs of production.
The inertia of the market keeps the lesser product at bay long enough to kill it.
However, the OP is right that it should be like a utility, but utilities need not be regulated, nor be given exclusive rights to some geographical area (which is what you would get with the imposition of a utility model). No, the PROVIDERS need to realize that they are utilities, and price data according to market prices, close to the marginal cost, which is very VERY low. It should be like electricity--no-one really cares about using electricity, nor is there any demand for "unlimited monthly" electricity, but by paying for it by the amount of usage, you limit its consumption while giving proper incentive for construction of additional capacity.
Also completely wrong. There is a reason providers don't "realize that they are utilities." It's no benefit to the company to be classified as a utility. It's just a set of restrictions that declare that their services are essential and cannot be denied to people who reasonably try to pay for it. For instance, utilities aren't allowed to cut heat and electricity to people who are a little behind in bill payments in the winter.
Companies that are not utilities are for the most part happy to cut out the customers that are the least profitable, unless the gov't forces them to do otherwise. As part of a deal to buy up more of the wireless spectrum, AT&T had to agree to build more infrastructure in rural areas (which would normally not be profitable). Car insurance companies have to sell a certain percentage of their insurance to high-risk customers.
The problem with your thinking is that you think ISPs are the ones struggling to find a solution to the coming internet video crash. This is false. They are the ones creating the problem, and if Hulu and Netflix die off, the ISPs will only be happier for it. The telecoms are making big bucks off this information age boom we're having, and they're squeezing to get more money out of customers because they can, not because they need to.
Just do what gamers have learned to do with DRM software: buy it, stick it in your closet, pirate the hassle-free DRM free copy.
In your case, you have a legal copy already. Why go through the trouble of trying to make the "defective" copy work when you can install a "working" copy?
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously the ads are exploiting a problem in the system (mainly that you can taylor your kid to be what the universities want to see if you have money), but I think the Universities have the right idea.
A junior level engineer might be a fine engineer even if he/she doesn't nothing but engineering, but sooner or later, he/she become more important and has to manage people and big projects and make these big, broad decisions, and at that point, you really want him to be open-minded and to have a breadth of experiences and knowledge. Extracurriculars is one of the main ways growing kids become more "worldly."
Having that diversity where we CAN fund the arts is really important to my enjoyment of life, although I am employed in a math/science field. A lot of cool things happen because artists think of and create new and wonderful things, and part of developing more artists is funding a formal education for them.
Also, I think in a lot of cases, any college education at all is really helpful to people and to society, even if they don't end up making interpretive dance as their career. In any case, it's not like there are all that many interpretive dance majors to fund. How much money are you saving by selectively lowering tuitions, at the cost of further discouraging those few who do go into the major?
If you think being poor and getting help is better than being middle-class and having loans, then you have never been poor before.
You also seem to have very little idea about how the financial aid system works. The poorer you are, the more help you get. There's no "magic number" of income below which you get a bunch of grants and above which you get none.
Seems to me that extra votes are the same as erasing or not counting legitimate votes.
Small price to pay for freedom, you commie.
Eh? I don't think I'm following. If KISSmetrics didn't admit guilt, then why are they paying at all? And if they continue to do it, can they get fined again?
This is quite literally a feature, not a bug.
Because you reported this crime to the police . . . right? I mean I hope you did more than boycott their business. This is a serious crime and you're probably not the only victim.
The thing is, people have already done this many times in the wild. People aren't sniffing the traffic to steal PINs; they're hacking the end devices to steal PINs, and it's been extremely effective. I don't think proper encryption can help when you have that much access to the hardware.
Also, it sounds like the NAND2Tetris style course can be found in many "traditional degree," so I don't see those two as being mutually exclusive, which it seems like you're implying. Even CS61C at Berkeley is structured pretty much the same way, although you don't end up at Tetris. Abstraction is a core concept of computer science, and understanding the process at the gate level is probably going to be part of any solid CS program.
. . . which is why I feel like you'd get a lot out of a good University Computer Science program. It seems like the technical school you are attending right now is just teaching you a single language, while a Computer Science degree will actually teach you how to program and think in a must more comprehensive way. With how far you were able to go teaching yourself, you could gain a lot.
Are you living in a place like California? If you can make it to a good program, like Berkeley, through community college or something like that, you really should go for it. If in doubt though, watch a webcast or two of their classes:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/playlist#c,d,Computer_Science,87898FD0A141069E
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/playlist#c,d,Computer_Science,1A2EBAC4283FE3EA
I never regretted going there, and they way they taught me to program was so much more advanced than anything I had been teaching myself at that point; it was really eye-opening. A lot of other schools with big undergraduate computer science programs (MIT and Stanford) have similar material available for free online, and it's all worth checking out.
I really hope I've convinced you that a degree in a good program is still worth quite a lot. It's also definitely helped me land a job much more easily.
You don't need to give him zero privacy. But this is the equivalent of having him hold hands whenever they're out. When he grows up, you can stop tracking him, or only track him for more crowded/busy locations where he's likely to get lost (malls theme parks). You can't treat kids like grown-ups simply because they NEED that extra attention to develop safely. You CAN teach them to value their privacy as a separate lesson though..
How are you going to know it's reporting him somewhere he's not?
Well, unless you throw them pretty hard, white vans don't fly through the air.
I guarantee you that governments are capable of spending loads of money even if they couldn't put it into defense. And it would stimulate the economy just as much no matter where it goes.
If that same money was earmarked for popsicles, entrepreneurs in this country would be making the most kick-ass, delicious popscicles in the world.
What is your point exactly? That's not a problem with the technology. Aiming pretty much any weapon at a hospital is bad news bears.
That's what the microwaves are really for....
Unfortunately, if you don't get hit by the microwave, then you're just left with a laptop covered in lukewarm, raw bacon
Don't eat fries before you unlock your phone :P
Seriously though, I appreciate the amount of paranoia the makers of Cyanogen exhibit as far as potential security holes go. Even if patterns are not super secure, it's nice that take additional security holes seriously enough to fix it quickly and and make a public announcement.
Have you enabled single-key hotkeys in Opera? That's something that keeps me coming back to Opera despite its other flaws.
I disagree. It's quickly getting to the point of becoming essential. Yes, we're used to using 3G for now, the internet is already starting to evolve with the expectation that mobile users will have access to 4G type speeds, just like we survived a long time on dial-up connections for the PC, but these days, the vast majority of sites most people visit (gmail, twitter, google, facebook, pinterest, youtube, hulu) rely heavily on images, videos, and AJAX calls that just don't work very well without a solid, high-bandwidth connection.
Government regulations need to be ahead of the curve if they want to keep telecoms from exploiting consumers. Well, exploiting more than they already are.
That's like saying, "with all these fancy new technologies in hybrid cars with GPS and everything, why are we still using wheels?"
Wires are cheap and reliable, and even if they get eclipse in bandwidth at some point by wireless technologies, they will have a place for a long, long time for those reasons.
There is no reason to believe that no government regulation is better than mildly corrupt government (yes mildly. Check out other governments for actual, super-corrupt governments) when you have clearly corrupt corporations at play willing to do whatever it takes to stay on top. However, what you are describing is not in any way "free." It just a "fair" market, where there will have to be someone in charge of determining what is fair competition, and that someone has to be incorruptable.
It's a pipe dream because it's such a vague, half-baked notion. You want a government that won't manipulate, but will keep things fair for free competition. It has to be one that also has the long-term vision to keep things stable, and strong enough to re-stabilize things when unforeseen stupidity takes down the market (see the most recent recession), since there is never going to be a bullet-proof policy that catches and prevents all stupidity.
People are hung up on "evil free marketeers" because most people that scream "free market" also scream "deregulation" in the same breath. You can hardly blame the people.
Why on earth is this modded up? Everything about this post is wrong. I don't even need to go into hypothetical situations to prove you wrong--there are tons of historic examples proving these statements wrong.
You can't have a monopoly or a monopolistic cartel without government intervention. "Free market monopolies" are a misnomer, as the company that has provided such a high quality, low cost product that no-one can compete with them must continue to provide such quality, or risk new competition arising.
So wrong. All you have to be is first, and big, and you can stay a monopoly without any government intervention. You can easily strong-arm competition out of the market.
Let's say you are Microsoft, and you own 95% of the PC OS market. You sell Windows OS to Dell, HP, and Compaq who need to preload it on their PC that they sell or they will lose 95% of the market. If any of Dell, HP, or Compaq suddenly want to sell computers preloaded with MySuperFantasticOS, which is a higher quality OS than yours, you can threaten to not sell Windows OS's to them at bulk rate any more, so none of the major PC makers are willing to sell MySuperFantasticOS preloaded. The upstart OS can never gain much traction, and the company quietly folds a few years later, unable to recoup costs of production.
The inertia of the market keeps the lesser product at bay long enough to kill it.
However, the OP is right that it should be like a utility, but utilities need not be regulated, nor be given exclusive rights to some geographical area (which is what you would get with the imposition of a utility model). No, the PROVIDERS need to realize that they are utilities, and price data according to market prices, close to the marginal cost, which is very VERY low. It should be like electricity--no-one really cares about using electricity, nor is there any demand for "unlimited monthly" electricity, but by paying for it by the amount of usage, you limit its consumption while giving proper incentive for construction of additional capacity.
Also completely wrong. There is a reason providers don't "realize that they are utilities." It's no benefit to the company to be classified as a utility. It's just a set of restrictions that declare that their services are essential and cannot be denied to people who reasonably try to pay for it. For instance, utilities aren't allowed to cut heat and electricity to people who are a little behind in bill payments in the winter.
Companies that are not utilities are for the most part happy to cut out the customers that are the least profitable, unless the gov't forces them to do otherwise. As part of a deal to buy up more of the wireless spectrum, AT&T had to agree to build more infrastructure in rural areas (which would normally not be profitable). Car insurance companies have to sell a certain percentage of their insurance to high-risk customers.
The problem with your thinking is that you think ISPs are the ones struggling to find a solution to the coming internet video crash. This is false. They are the ones creating the problem, and if Hulu and Netflix die off, the ISPs will only be happier for it. The telecoms are making big bucks off this information age boom we're having, and they're squeezing to get more money out of customers because they can, not because they need to.
Just do what gamers have learned to do with DRM software: buy it, stick it in your closet, pirate the hassle-free DRM free copy.
In your case, you have a legal copy already. Why go through the trouble of trying to make the "defective" copy work when you can install a "working" copy?