My mistake. I should have stated formal education. Education is important and successful people are always educating themselves, every single day of their lives. If you are not a successful person already, college isn't going to help you.
TFA and common sense say that those who are smart and highly motivated are more likely to be financially successful, and will be more likely to seek challenge in higher education. There is no evidence that the education itself leads to financial success. Those same people will have the same chance of success no matter what life throws at them.
Someone whose only concern is money won't care about engineering, but there are tons of well paying and stable engineering jobs that do not require formal education. There are many high profile companies that will state they do not hire applicants based on education. I will grant that specific subsets of engineering jobs do require one to be a professional engineer, but in the absence of those credentials, your friends would find the other high paying and stable jobs.
As I said, there are millions of reasons to go to school. If you are there for the right reasons, you're not even going to care if you end up working at McDonalds in the end. You are pursuing your passions and that is what matters.
Wealthier than average people are driven to succeed. They're driven to finish college and they are driven to find a good job. There is certainly correlation between education and income, but I see no reason to believe the formal education itself has any bearing on ones chances at financial success. It seems that the attributes one has drives them to finish college, then make lots of money. However, if you removed the option of college, they would still be driven to make lots of money.
There is nothing wrong with going to school, but your friends would have good paying stable jobs with or without their education. The criticism of the education system is that they are selling a dream that doesn't exist. You cannot buy your way into a good job. There are still a million others reasons why you should go to college, but if your only concern is future profitability, you are wasting your time.
The problem is the idea of schooling. I was a student for enough years to know that the only information that retained value was the information I learned on my own. There is no benefit to having a teacher in the equation, especially when all of the worlds knowledge is everywhere you look, including your pocket.
I will concede that not all students learn my way, but not all students can learn from teachers. If we aren't going to respect the differences in people anyway, why do we select the one that requires massive infrastructure for the benefit of the few?
Replying to myself, but I guess you probably meant that the students would still go to class. That could still reduce the staff to a couple to a small handful of supervisors, which is still good from a taxpayer perspective.
I strongly believe that the traditional teacher lesson is poor way to provide learning to students, but with that aside, you do bring up an excellent idea to improve the current system without changing the learning status quo. Once the videos are recorded, that teacher's services will no longer be needed. The answering of questions can be outsourced, mechanical turk style, to older students and the world at large.
With that said, the real value of school is the everyday social interaction. That becomes more challenging to provide if everyone is at home behind their computer screen.
As an adult, if you want to keep your kids learning, keep them out of school entirely. School is fun, but the learning has to happen after hours because the teacher -> student model is simply a babysitting service. If you gave children the entire day to learn, they would be much better off for it.
I have experienced ABS activation on completely dry pavement on a nice, warm, sunny day. While it was no threat in my situation, it does change the stopping dynamics enough that it could lead to an accident in certain cases. I do agree the benefits outweigh the risks, though.
The market really should decide. Some people want to feel safe, so if people are willing to pay to board a flight that has been screened, then the service should be available. But if people want to board a plane with no screening, that should also be available to them.
Because it is sometimes fun to do different things? I, myself, love programming, but I wouldn't want it to be my only job. Life is too short to not have fun doing all sorts of different jobs.
And they would be right. Milk must be processed before it may be sold, at least in my jurisdiction. You don't say a car comes from the mine.
Interestingly, as a software developer and farmer, I actually had a similar idea a while back. I just hadn't fully fleshed out the business model. I wonder if there is still room for competition?
I admit the message passing interface is a little different, but I think the notation makes sense for highlighting messages given the practical constraints of the language. What else don't you like?
I like Objective-C. It is very Ruby-like. I think a lot of people come in thinking it is C++, or something, and entirely miss what makes the language so cool.
In networking, the cloud has always represented an abstract network whose implementation details are unknown – it just magically works, thanks to the hard efforts of third parties. It is only lately that some marketing types want to exploit the term to make it mean something else.
Cloud applications hosted on Amazon survived this incident without issue, as expected. Only the regular old hosted applications had problems with the outage. They were never "the cloud" to begin with, so I'm not sure why the term even comes up in this discussion.
The cloud represents a black box that hides the underlying network topology so that there are no single points of failure. Cloud applications are tolerant because they are spread through different datacenters across multiple points of in world. A catastrophe at one or more datacenters will have no noticeable effect on the availability of a cloud application because it continues to run in many more.
Amazon offers a few cloud applications: S3 comes to mind. But Amzon's EC2/EBS hosting service is a plain old hosting service like any other. The EC2 topology is not hidden away from you. You have to make active decisions about where you want your EC2 instance to live. That goes against the idea of the cloud. What Amazon does offer in EC2 is the tools necessary for you to build a cloud application, but not everything hosted on EC2 is a cloud application by default.
While you are correct that the statement is most commonly used in court, it holds meaning outside too. The parent has accused people of breaking the law, including those who have no intention of doing so. He is not legally required to presume them to be innocent, but it is customary to give people the benefit of the doubt.
I remember working with a travel agency early in my career. Their employees could type the craziest commands into the SABRE system that made me feel stupid. Yet, something as simple as, say, cancelling a print job in Windows left them stumped and getting in touch with the IT department.
So I agree with you. Users don't care about the operating system. They just want to get their work done. As long as the applications themselves do not differ in any significant way, nobody will notice.
The cloud represents a black box that abstracts the underlying network topology.
You might send your data to a server in Germany and retrieve it from a server in the USA. When you put something in the cloud you do not have to worry about problems like this because the cloud provider already has a hot backup ready to take the slack in another part of the world. You don't need to know or care how it happens, it just works. S3 is an Amazon example of a cloud service. You send your file to S3 and Amazon takes the responsibility of ensuring that it is available even if a datacenter is blown to smithereens.
EC2 and EBS are not the cloud. There is no abstraction of the datacenter. Amazon leaves it up to you to choose which datacenter you wish to work in. This can allow you to easily build a cloud application on top of their physical infrastructure, but it is up to you to make it "the cloud". We witnessed so many failures because the applications were not cloud applications, just standard hosted services.
Slashdot Mirror
My mistake. I should have stated formal education. Education is important and successful people are always educating themselves, every single day of their lives. If you are not a successful person already, college isn't going to help you.
TFA and common sense say that those who are smart and highly motivated are more likely to be financially successful, and will be more likely to seek challenge in higher education. There is no evidence that the education itself leads to financial success. Those same people will have the same chance of success no matter what life throws at them.
Someone whose only concern is money won't care about engineering, but there are tons of well paying and stable engineering jobs that do not require formal education. There are many high profile companies that will state they do not hire applicants based on education. I will grant that specific subsets of engineering jobs do require one to be a professional engineer, but in the absence of those credentials, your friends would find the other high paying and stable jobs.
As I said, there are millions of reasons to go to school. If you are there for the right reasons, you're not even going to care if you end up working at McDonalds in the end. You are pursuing your passions and that is what matters.
Wealthier than average people are driven to succeed. They're driven to finish college and they are driven to find a good job. There is certainly correlation between education and income, but I see no reason to believe the formal education itself has any bearing on ones chances at financial success. It seems that the attributes one has drives them to finish college, then make lots of money. However, if you removed the option of college, they would still be driven to make lots of money.
There is nothing wrong with going to school, but your friends would have good paying stable jobs with or without their education. The criticism of the education system is that they are selling a dream that doesn't exist. You cannot buy your way into a good job. There are still a million others reasons why you should go to college, but if your only concern is future profitability, you are wasting your time.
The problem is the idea of schooling. I was a student for enough years to know that the only information that retained value was the information I learned on my own. There is no benefit to having a teacher in the equation, especially when all of the worlds knowledge is everywhere you look, including your pocket.
I will concede that not all students learn my way, but not all students can learn from teachers. If we aren't going to respect the differences in people anyway, why do we select the one that requires massive infrastructure for the benefit of the few?
Replying to myself, but I guess you probably meant that the students would still go to class. That could still reduce the staff to a couple to a small handful of supervisors, which is still good from a taxpayer perspective.
I strongly believe that the traditional teacher lesson is poor way to provide learning to students, but with that aside, you do bring up an excellent idea to improve the current system without changing the learning status quo. Once the videos are recorded, that teacher's services will no longer be needed. The answering of questions can be outsourced, mechanical turk style, to older students and the world at large.
With that said, the real value of school is the everyday social interaction. That becomes more challenging to provide if everyone is at home behind their computer screen.
As an adult, if you want to keep your kids learning, keep them out of school entirely. School is fun, but the learning has to happen after hours because the teacher -> student model is simply a babysitting service. If you gave children the entire day to learn, they would be much better off for it.
I have experienced ABS activation on completely dry pavement on a nice, warm, sunny day. While it was no threat in my situation, it does change the stopping dynamics enough that it could lead to an accident in certain cases. I do agree the benefits outweigh the risks, though.
Not all development work is interface work.
The market really should decide. Some people want to feel safe, so if people are willing to pay to board a flight that has been screened, then the service should be available. But if people want to board a plane with no screening, that should also be available to them.
Bitcoin is designed to deflate when more currency is needed.
The face value on Monopoly money is also more than the paper it is printed on, and the set costs more than the paper as well. What's the difference?
I agree it is a strange choice, but the event took place in Canada, so there is at least some Canadian connection.
Because it is sometimes fun to do different things? I, myself, love programming, but I wouldn't want it to be my only job. Life is too short to not have fun doing all sorts of different jobs.
And they would be right. Milk must be processed before it may be sold, at least in my jurisdiction. You don't say a car comes from the mine.
Interestingly, as a software developer and farmer, I actually had a similar idea a while back. I just hadn't fully fleshed out the business model. I wonder if there is still room for competition?
I fail to see the problem. Sounds like he is perfect for the job.
I admit the message passing interface is a little different, but I think the notation makes sense for highlighting messages given the practical constraints of the language. What else don't you like?
I like Objective-C. It is very Ruby-like. I think a lot of people come in thinking it is C++, or something, and entirely miss what makes the language so cool.
In networking, the cloud has always represented an abstract network whose implementation details are unknown – it just magically works, thanks to the hard efforts of third parties. It is only lately that some marketing types want to exploit the term to make it mean something else.
Cloud applications hosted on Amazon survived this incident without issue, as expected. Only the regular old hosted applications had problems with the outage. They were never "the cloud" to begin with, so I'm not sure why the term even comes up in this discussion.
The cloud represents a black box that hides the underlying network topology so that there are no single points of failure. Cloud applications are tolerant because they are spread through different datacenters across multiple points of in world. A catastrophe at one or more datacenters will have no noticeable effect on the availability of a cloud application because it continues to run in many more.
Amazon offers a few cloud applications: S3 comes to mind. But Amzon's EC2/EBS hosting service is a plain old hosting service like any other. The EC2 topology is not hidden away from you. You have to make active decisions about where you want your EC2 instance to live. That goes against the idea of the cloud. What Amazon does offer in EC2 is the tools necessary for you to build a cloud application, but not everything hosted on EC2 is a cloud application by default.
While you are correct that the statement is most commonly used in court, it holds meaning outside too. The parent has accused people of breaking the law, including those who have no intention of doing so. He is not legally required to presume them to be innocent, but it is customary to give people the benefit of the doubt.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.
I remember working with a travel agency early in my career. Their employees could type the craziest commands into the SABRE system that made me feel stupid. Yet, something as simple as, say, cancelling a print job in Windows left them stumped and getting in touch with the IT department.
So I agree with you. Users don't care about the operating system. They just want to get their work done. As long as the applications themselves do not differ in any significant way, nobody will notice.
The cloud represents a black box that abstracts the underlying network topology.
You might send your data to a server in Germany and retrieve it from a server in the USA. When you put something in the cloud you do not have to worry about problems like this because the cloud provider already has a hot backup ready to take the slack in another part of the world. You don't need to know or care how it happens, it just works. S3 is an Amazon example of a cloud service. You send your file to S3 and Amazon takes the responsibility of ensuring that it is available even if a datacenter is blown to smithereens.
EC2 and EBS are not the cloud. There is no abstraction of the datacenter. Amazon leaves it up to you to choose which datacenter you wish to work in. This can allow you to easily build a cloud application on top of their physical infrastructure, but it is up to you to make it "the cloud". We witnessed so many failures because the applications were not cloud applications, just standard hosted services.