removing state governments would be the WORST thing in the world to happen to america.
Hyperbole.
I dont want some paper pushers in washington telling me how to live my life. I want the people I live with and me agreeing on how to live our lives.
Why do you make the distinction between "paper pushers" in washing or in your own states capital? Perhaps you are under the illusion that they are more interested in your personal needs and desires - only naïveté will lead down that path. California contains 38 million people. How responsive do you think the California state government is and/or can be to the individual needs of their residents? I would prefer nobody tell me how to live my life, but that's not the way the world works.
When the US was founded, the population is estimated to have been 2.5 million people total. This is less than the current population of Chicago. We are now over 300 million. There is no longer any personal representation anywhere, except perhaps in small municipal or county government situations.
Thats what this country was founded on. Im sorry but if you REALLY feel this way, you are unamerican, and not unamerican in the way politicians use it but unamerican as in you dont believe in the ideals what what make america great
I do not believe in separatism, xenophobia, nepotism, bureaucracy or corruption. If you REALLY feel that these are the ideals that make America great, I'd prefer that you move somewhere else, and leave America to myself and others who love it.
For one, do you NOT see whats going on with the NSA? I for one do not want the government spying on americans. it should not be done. If we didnt have state governemnts to fight the federal government on this issue, they would simply tell us too bad.
I assume that is a rhetorical question, so I will answer it with one of my own: what has yours, mine, or ANY state government done to "fight the federal government" on the NSA surveillance issue? The answer is absolutely nothing.
I understand why states were originally somewhat autonomous, and I certainly understand the ideals behind limiting centralized government, but I am not an idealist, I am a realist and a pragmatist. At this point in our civilization the idea of the states limiting the centralization of our government is a sham. The state governments provide, in most cases, very little value at astronomical cost.
Different people believe differently as such there SHOULD be a choice for americans on how they want to live. People who live in washington and never leave washington have no idea what people in the dakotas or texas or NY need or want. I dont want them deciding for me how to live
But you are okay with the politicians that make up your state legislature and executive branch deciding for you how to live? If you think the people who work in your state government have your best interest at heart, you are being rather shockingly naïve.
All Americans should have the same freedom to choose how they live their lives, regardless of which state they happen to live in. The dramatic variance in state law on a plethora of topics is burdensome to say the least, and in many cases abusive. Eradicating state governments would merely cause all of the philosophical groups who currently maintain a regional majority to live under laws that are decided (in theory, because democracy) by the national majority. This is how all philosophical (usually cultural) minority groups live right now.
federally yes that is what I want and what everyone should want. the federal government should not be doing anything but the bare minimum as intended. Leave the power in the hands of the states and local governments
State governments are largely redundant at this point. They are also largely inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt (yes, even in comparison to the federal government, cue the jokes). If it was feasible to do, I would strongly advocate complete removal of state governments.
What advantage does a fragmented government have over a centralized national government? It does not, in practice, seem to reduce corruption, efficiency, or tyranny. The primary thing that this structure effectively maintains is cultural homogeneity in particular areas, which, to me, is not a positive thing.
In a way, it's just like Arthur - who also had a bunch of followers and who's legend was similarly embellished, although not quite to the same level.
So, yes, Jesus is quite mythical.
The existence of a historical Arthur is somewhat contentious. The existence of a historical Jesus is significantly less so, but otherwise the comparison is workable.
Neither person can be aptly characterized as "mythical", however, unless you determine (or believe) that they did not actually exist. Many of their attributed deeds and characteristics are likely mythical, but this is not grounds to categorize the person themselves as mythical.
You should read what "speciation" is, and then maybe you'd grasp why a single comment such as the one you replied to really does close the debate on this subject.
I agree with globaljustin that in many cases those who seek to defend the elegant, transcendent concept of evolution against the slavering masses of religious extremists all too often stoop to the level of their opponents, using anecdote, exaggeration and condescension, which is a problem.
Its easy enough to prove that the universe was around for way longer than 6,000 to 10,000 years, just look at other galaxies that are millions of light years away.
For useful definitions of "prove", this is accurate, but YEC's often prefer non-useful definitions. One popular reality-bending theory is that God created the 'light streams' emanating from the galaxies that you mention in transit, which gives us the illusion that the universe is old.
When your priorities lean heavily towards preparing for an afterlife, the observable reality of this life takes a back seat. This seems to be a strong psychological driver of religious belief, allowing humans to escape from the terrors and hardship of the world.
a belief is confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. the scientific theory of evolution is grounded upon a mountain of scientific research so overwhelmingly exhaustive as to render it a fact of life, no different than gravity.
For the layman, the concept of evolution is certainly not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof - this is the source of the "controversy". A layman who believes in the overarching theory of evolution, as presented by relative consensus among the scientific community, places his faith in this consensus.
The theory of gravity, on the other hand, is immediately and easily observable as "stuff falls down". The layman has no need to believe in any of the details of the theory, because the manner of it's workings are of little importance, and do not conflict with his religious beliefs.
As Biosci777 stated, selection itself is not controversial for the layman, because he can observe it happening first-hand in dogs, cows, horses, or whatever. The mechanism of selection, and the process and timeline of it might be controversial, if he believes that his god has told him that life began shortly before the pyramids were built, and that humans (and other life forms) were created instantly in their current form.
Like it or not, most people trust anecdotes from their own lives far more than they trust science.
Oh yeah, you're the chap who seems to come here to randomly hate on Europe for no discernable reasons. By the way: simply hating on another country or region you have nothing to do with doesn't actually have any bearing on your own problems. If Europe is bad as you claim, then that neither excuses the US nor does it make it more acceptable.
Also, you're flat out wrong: much of Europe comes above the US.
Well, not to invalidate your point that Euro-bashing is not a useful endeavor, but the US as a whole shouldn't be compared to the best performing areas of Europe, just as Europe as a whole shouldn't be compared to the best-performing areas of the US. European education systems are not centralized, just as the education systems in the US are not. Each state is essentially responsible for the education of their own population, with some (seemingly token, in some cases) federal guidance and oversight.
This is why this particular study is interesting, because it compares the individual US states to the individual European (and worldwide) countries. These comparisons are useful.
However, the headline and summary are rather sensational. The "deep south" states referred to are the usual suspects: Louisiana, West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi. These particular states have pervasive problems impacting educational performance. They are somewhat economically depressed in general, and put very little emphasis on education. They also suffer from dramatic residential and educational economic segregation. The very poor in these states essentially all have their own schools, with minimal funding, that are little more than K-12 daycare centers, while the rich (and/or middle class) have their own schools which perform significantly better. If you look at specific school districts in metropolitan areas, you will notice peculiar boundaries in some cases, akin to gerrymandering. Also, rural areas in these states often have terrible educational performance, correlating with the abject poverty common in large swaths of these states.
Sorry, but there is ABSOLUTELY no way to connect even a small fraction of this country with "reasonable public transportation". The distances are just too large. It works in major urban centers and that's it.
If the US had not become so vested in automobiles and the infrastructure to support them, the country would likely be more urbanized, with public transportation a must. As it is, 82% of the US population lives in cities or suburbs. Without cars and interstates, that number would likely be higher, and the suburban sprawl that developed over the last 75 years or so would have been dramatically reduced.
As I said, it's a pipe dream at this point, but if certain decisions had been made differently in the mid-20th century, the transportation landscape of the US would be dramatically different.
I would have considered him a hero if he hadn't offed himself, which is certainly a cowardly act. That aside, the rampage itself was as American as you get.
Suicide is generally caused by mental illness. Whether you characterize it as cowardice or not is a philosophical distinction, but portraying the "cowardly act" of a mentally ill person as a correctable character flaw vs. an illness that needs medical attention is unproductive.
The issue could be framed equally usefully as "Public transportation could cripple law enforcement budgets". How silly.
The EV movement makes me somewhat sad, because we already have a solution for the "encourage people to use less gas" problem - public transportation. I would wager a significant portion of people would never drive if they had access to a functional public transportation system.
The problem in the US is that everything is so spread out public transportation is difficult and expensive to implement, and the infrastructure that we do have is geared around a massive fleet of personal vehicles. I almost wish the interstate highway system had never been implemented, because by now we would have reasonable public transportation instead.
A company cannot help that there are problems, but it can help by trying to do the right thing afterwards, and trying not to be evil.
It's too easy to be cynical while living in the 1 percent of the worlds wealth.
Not sure if troll....
A company can most certainly adhere to basic safety standards instead of sacrificing a bunch of lives for profit in places where the safety standards are not legally mandated.
In this particular case, an organization owned and operated by a bunch of 1%ers wrecked the lives of numerous poverty-stricken workers and their families through gross negligence. And they are unlikely to suffer impactful financial consequences as a result.
I'm less interested in actually learning about them than I am in understanding where people think that it's necessarily something that there are a plethora of ways that anyone could reasonably be able to accomplish.
Some of the available techniques are trivial, others less so, but there are a number of methods that I would consider reasonable to accomplish. I would consider TRS abuse, VOIP spoofing, and utilizing a spoofing service to be trivial.
What I have heard of so far in terms of likely submerged human settlements is the Black Sea before the Mediterranean spilled into it (possibly the origin of the Noah story), and land to the east of England.
Partial list of submerged human activity:
Doggerland was a rather large land area containing a not-insignificant amount of human activity, which now lies under the north sea.
Sundaland is another large landmass that is now submerged, with an unknown but suspected to be significant quantity of past human activity.
Coquer Cave off the coast of France is an interesting site, containing paleolithic cave paintings that can only be reached by diving.
The Black Sea is hypothesized to have expanded in the past, covering an unknown quantity of human archaeological material. The extent and suddenness of the expansion are currently subject to debate.
Most of those may obfuscate the caller, but not the source of the call. Calls from a pay phone for instance, will trace to that pay phone, which may or may not be helpful in finding who used the phone to commit the hoax but that phone is still the source of the call. The person to whom I had responded alleged there are "numerous" ways to obfuscate the source of a call.
Well, Wikipedia lists exactly three methods of spoofing caller ID specifically.
If you are interested in actually learning more about such techniques I would suggest typing "call spoofing" into your favorite search engine.
There are other technical and non-technical methods that, as you pedantically noted, do not actually hide the source of the call, but render that information unhelpful. Pre-paid "burner" cell phones are an obvious and popular choice for many circumstances where anonymous calling is desired, and in many cases payphones can also be used with relative anonymity.
That's like asking if a mechanical engineer can do plumbing.
Short answer - I'm sure he could, though it would take him a while to become an expert at plumbing. The mechanical engineer could, in theory, design a plumbing system.
In the same way, system administrators and network engineers and other IT personnel are experts at the particular system that they work with. Those systems were designed by "theory CS people"...
I agree that many IT disciplines are more analogous to a skilled trade than a scientific or academic discipline. These career paths would benefit from a structured apprenticeship program, and in some cases unionization.
However, the group of institutions consisting of ITT, DeVry, and "others" (UofPhoenix, Virginia College, Strayer, etc.) are not even a part of the answer.
This category of institutions are private, for-profit "vocational" schools. They are predatory companies that have extremely high tuition for very poor educational value. Their admissions requirements are dubious, essentially consisting of "can you pay your tuition".
Their business model is built around sucking as much money from their students as possible. In some cases they encourage their students to take out private, high-interest loans to pay tuition. A large portion of their students are also GI-bill students, whose education is paid for by the military.
This group of institutions as a whole has a 3-year federal student loan default rate of 21.8% - about 60% higher than public institutions at 13%. This does not reflect the default rate on private loans, which in the case of ITT tech might be as high as 60%. The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is currently suing ITT tech for predatory lending practices.
Also, these institutions are not accredited in the same way that legitimate universities and colleges are, and their credits will NOT be accepted by most legitimate institutions, or even among each other.
TL;DR - stay away from the private, for-profit vocational schools. You will, without a doubt, receive a better education for dramatically less cost at your local community college - also, many credits that you earn at a community college can be applied towards a bachelor's degree at a legitimate university in the future.
Uh, I live in the USA, and I've worked in IT or other fields in three different major metro areas, and a dozen or so smaller areas. I've never - NEVER - seen this happen. I'm not saying it never happens, just that I've never seen it. Major, crippling IT outages happen all the time.
I have held my current job (I am also in the US) for about 2.5 years, and in that time we've seen 3 non-disaster caused blackouts. I work in an office park in a small city.
We have seen around 10 service-provider outages impacting WAN, internet, or both. At least 1 of these outages was caused by a major disaster.
We have had 1 internal issue that could be characterized as a "major, crippling IT outage."
Keep in mind these comments are all anecdotal, as are yours. I do agree with your premise that IT systems seem to experience significant outages somewhat more frequently than utilities do. I would explain this by noting that IT infrastructure is generally a little more complex than utility infrastructure (though usually on a dramatically smaller scale), with less reliable hardware and significantly more frequent changes.
Why aren't you Americans, with all your 2nd amendment guns, taking down your tyrannical government with force?! This is exactly what the 2nd amendment was for.
Because even pervasive corruption is, in all but the most extreme cases, not worth turning your homeland into a bloodbath.
Slashdot Mirror
removing state governments would be the WORST thing in the world to happen to america.
Hyperbole.
I dont want some paper pushers in washington telling me how to live my life. I want the people I live with and me agreeing on how to live our lives.
Why do you make the distinction between "paper pushers" in washing or in your own states capital? Perhaps you are under the illusion that they are more interested in your personal needs and desires - only naïveté will lead down that path. California contains 38 million people. How responsive do you think the California state government is and/or can be to the individual needs of their residents? I would prefer nobody tell me how to live my life, but that's not the way the world works.
When the US was founded, the population is estimated to have been 2.5 million people total. This is less than the current population of Chicago. We are now over 300 million. There is no longer any personal representation anywhere, except perhaps in small municipal or county government situations.
Thats what this country was founded on. Im sorry but if you REALLY feel this way, you are unamerican, and not unamerican in the way politicians use it but unamerican as in you dont believe in the ideals what what make america great
I do not believe in separatism, xenophobia, nepotism, bureaucracy or corruption. If you REALLY feel that these are the ideals that make America great, I'd prefer that you move somewhere else, and leave America to myself and others who love it.
For one, do you NOT see whats going on with the NSA? I for one do not want the government spying on americans. it should not be done. If we didnt have state governemnts to fight the federal government on this issue, they would simply tell us too bad.
I assume that is a rhetorical question, so I will answer it with one of my own: what has yours, mine, or ANY state government done to "fight the federal government" on the NSA surveillance issue? The answer is absolutely nothing.
I understand why states were originally somewhat autonomous, and I certainly understand the ideals behind limiting centralized government, but I am not an idealist, I am a realist and a pragmatist. At this point in our civilization the idea of the states limiting the centralization of our government is a sham. The state governments provide, in most cases, very little value at astronomical cost.
Different people believe differently as such there SHOULD be a choice for americans on how they want to live. People who live in washington and never leave washington have no idea what people in the dakotas or texas or NY need or want. I dont want them deciding for me how to live
But you are okay with the politicians that make up your state legislature and executive branch deciding for you how to live? If you think the people who work in your state government have your best interest at heart, you are being rather shockingly naïve.
All Americans should have the same freedom to choose how they live their lives, regardless of which state they happen to live in. The dramatic variance in state law on a plethora of topics is burdensome to say the least, and in many cases abusive. Eradicating state governments would merely cause all of the philosophical groups who currently maintain a regional majority to live under laws that are decided (in theory, because democracy) by the national majority. This is how all philosophical (usually cultural) minority groups live right now.
federally yes that is what I want and what everyone should want. the federal government should not be doing anything but the bare minimum as intended. Leave the power in the hands of the states and local governments
State governments are largely redundant at this point. They are also largely inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt (yes, even in comparison to the federal government, cue the jokes). If it was feasible to do, I would strongly advocate complete removal of state governments.
What advantage does a fragmented government have over a centralized national government? It does not, in practice, seem to reduce corruption, efficiency, or tyranny. The primary thing that this structure effectively maintains is cultural homogeneity in particular areas, which, to me, is not a positive thing.
Nope, not her fault, but the "idiot" on the team. She was probably the idiot a few times, but was unable to recognize her own odor.
It's like the poker adage - if you can't spot this fish at the table...
We're a species too.
And some scientists believe that we have been drawn much closer to extinction that one might think. Our close relatives the Neanderthal and Denisovan were not so lucky.
In a way, it's just like Arthur - who also had a bunch of followers and who's legend was similarly embellished, although not quite to the same level.
So, yes, Jesus is quite mythical.
The existence of a historical Arthur is somewhat contentious. The existence of a historical Jesus is significantly less so, but otherwise the comparison is workable.
Neither person can be aptly characterized as "mythical", however, unless you determine (or believe) that they did not actually exist. Many of their attributed deeds and characteristics are likely mythical, but this is not grounds to categorize the person themselves as mythical.
You should read what "speciation" is, and then maybe you'd grasp why a single comment such as the one you replied to really does close the debate on this subject.
Unfortunately, speciation is not as simple as you make it out to be. The fact that two animals cannot breed does not necessarily mean they are different species, and the fact that two animals CAN breed does not necessarily mean they are the same species.
I agree with globaljustin that in many cases those who seek to defend the elegant, transcendent concept of evolution against the slavering masses of religious extremists all too often stoop to the level of their opponents, using anecdote, exaggeration and condescension, which is a problem.
Its easy enough to prove that the universe was around for way longer than 6,000 to 10,000 years, just look at other galaxies that are millions of light years away.
For useful definitions of "prove", this is accurate, but YEC's often prefer non-useful definitions. One popular reality-bending theory is that God created the 'light streams' emanating from the galaxies that you mention in transit, which gives us the illusion that the universe is old.
When your priorities lean heavily towards preparing for an afterlife, the observable reality of this life takes a back seat. This seems to be a strong psychological driver of religious belief, allowing humans to escape from the terrors and hardship of the world.
a belief is confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. the scientific theory of evolution is grounded upon a mountain of scientific research so overwhelmingly exhaustive as to render it a fact of life, no different than gravity.
For the layman, the concept of evolution is certainly not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof - this is the source of the "controversy". A layman who believes in the overarching theory of evolution, as presented by relative consensus among the scientific community, places his faith in this consensus.
The theory of gravity, on the other hand, is immediately and easily observable as "stuff falls down". The layman has no need to believe in any of the details of the theory, because the manner of it's workings are of little importance, and do not conflict with his religious beliefs.
As Biosci777 stated, selection itself is not controversial for the layman, because he can observe it happening first-hand in dogs, cows, horses, or whatever. The mechanism of selection, and the process and timeline of it might be controversial, if he believes that his god has told him that life began shortly before the pyramids were built, and that humans (and other life forms) were created instantly in their current form.
Like it or not, most people trust anecdotes from their own lives far more than they trust science.
We have a European-style public education system for K-12, and it delivers European-style mediocre results.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Oh yeah, you're the chap who seems to come here to randomly hate on Europe for no discernable reasons. By the way: simply hating on another country or region you have nothing to do with doesn't actually have any bearing on your own problems. If Europe is bad as you claim, then that neither excuses the US nor does it make it more acceptable.
Also, you're flat out wrong: much of Europe comes above the US.
Well, not to invalidate your point that Euro-bashing is not a useful endeavor, but the US as a whole shouldn't be compared to the best performing areas of Europe, just as Europe as a whole shouldn't be compared to the best-performing areas of the US. European education systems are not centralized, just as the education systems in the US are not. Each state is essentially responsible for the education of their own population, with some (seemingly token, in some cases) federal guidance and oversight.
This is why this particular study is interesting, because it compares the individual US states to the individual European (and worldwide) countries. These comparisons are useful.
However, the headline and summary are rather sensational. The "deep south" states referred to are the usual suspects: Louisiana, West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi. These particular states have pervasive problems impacting educational performance. They are somewhat economically depressed in general, and put very little emphasis on education. They also suffer from dramatic residential and educational economic segregation. The very poor in these states essentially all have their own schools, with minimal funding, that are little more than K-12 daycare centers, while the rich (and/or middle class) have their own schools which perform significantly better. If you look at specific school districts in metropolitan areas, you will notice peculiar boundaries in some cases, akin to gerrymandering. Also, rural areas in these states often have terrible educational performance, correlating with the abject poverty common in large swaths of these states.
Sorry, but there is ABSOLUTELY no way to connect even a small fraction of this country with "reasonable public transportation". The distances are just too large. It works in major urban centers and that's it.
If the US had not become so vested in automobiles and the infrastructure to support them, the country would likely be more urbanized, with public transportation a must. As it is, 82% of the US population lives in cities or suburbs. Without cars and interstates, that number would likely be higher, and the suburban sprawl that developed over the last 75 years or so would have been dramatically reduced.
As I said, it's a pipe dream at this point, but if certain decisions had been made differently in the mid-20th century, the transportation landscape of the US would be dramatically different.
Yes, I'm sure their arms were twisted.
I would have considered him a hero if he hadn't offed himself, which is certainly a cowardly act. That aside, the rampage itself was as American as you get.
Suicide is generally caused by mental illness. Whether you characterize it as cowardice or not is a philosophical distinction, but portraying the "cowardly act" of a mentally ill person as a correctable character flaw vs. an illness that needs medical attention is unproductive.
The issue could be framed equally usefully as "Public transportation could cripple law enforcement budgets". How silly.
The EV movement makes me somewhat sad, because we already have a solution for the "encourage people to use less gas" problem - public transportation. I would wager a significant portion of people would never drive if they had access to a functional public transportation system.
The problem in the US is that everything is so spread out public transportation is difficult and expensive to implement, and the infrastructure that we do have is geared around a massive fleet of personal vehicles. I almost wish the interstate highway system had never been implemented, because by now we would have reasonable public transportation instead.
At this point it's probably a pipe dream.
A company cannot help that there are problems, but it can help by trying to do the right thing afterwards, and trying not to be evil.
It's too easy to be cynical while living in the 1 percent of the worlds wealth.
Not sure if troll....
A company can most certainly adhere to basic safety standards instead of sacrificing a bunch of lives for profit in places where the safety standards are not legally mandated.
In this particular case, an organization owned and operated by a bunch of 1%ers wrecked the lives of numerous poverty-stricken workers and their families through gross negligence. And they are unlikely to suffer impactful financial consequences as a result.
I'm less interested in actually learning about them than I am in understanding where people think that it's necessarily something that there are a plethora of ways that anyone could reasonably be able to accomplish.
Some of the available techniques are trivial, others less so, but there are a number of methods that I would consider reasonable to accomplish. I would consider TRS abuse, VOIP spoofing, and utilizing a spoofing service to be trivial.
What I have heard of so far in terms of likely submerged human settlements is the Black Sea before the Mediterranean spilled into it (possibly the origin of the Noah story), and land to the east of England.
Partial list of submerged human activity:
Doggerland was a rather large land area containing a not-insignificant amount of human activity, which now lies under the north sea.
Sundaland is another large landmass that is now submerged, with an unknown but suspected to be significant quantity of past human activity.
Coquer Cave off the coast of France is an interesting site, containing paleolithic cave paintings that can only be reached by diving.
The Black Sea is hypothesized to have expanded in the past, covering an unknown quantity of human archaeological material. The extent and suddenness of the expansion are currently subject to debate.
The original peopling of the Americas has been hypothesized to have been impacted by a coastal migration route, but much of the archaeological evidence (if it exists) for this hypothesis is currently under water.
Beringia itself, suspected to be the cradle of the Native American peoples, is now partially submerged under the Bering strait.
Someone elses cell phone will still work for 9-1-1 after the owner has deactivated service.
This is a good one. Stolen phones are quite useful for this kind of activity.
Most of those may obfuscate the caller, but not the source of the call. Calls from a pay phone for instance, will trace to that pay phone, which may or may not be helpful in finding who used the phone to commit the hoax but that phone is still the source of the call. The person to whom I had responded alleged there are "numerous" ways to obfuscate the source of a call.
Well, Wikipedia lists exactly three methods of spoofing caller ID specifically.
One interesting technique is to use (abuse) TRS.
If you are interested in actually learning more about such techniques I would suggest typing "call spoofing" into your favorite search engine.
There are other technical and non-technical methods that, as you pedantically noted, do not actually hide the source of the call, but render that information unhelpful. Pre-paid "burner" cell phones are an obvious and popular choice for many circumstances where anonymous calling is desired, and in many cases payphones can also be used with relative anonymity.
Short answer - no.
A longer, more speculative answer can be found here.
Where's the 911 location technology so they can authenticate where a call is coming from?
Generally people don't call in swattings from their home phones. There are numerous methods of spoofing or obfuscating the source of a phone call.
what about the pure theory CS people?
That's like asking if a mechanical engineer can do plumbing.
Short answer - I'm sure he could, though it would take him a while to become an expert at plumbing. The mechanical engineer could, in theory, design a plumbing system.
In the same way, system administrators and network engineers and other IT personnel are experts at the particular system that they work with. Those systems were designed by "theory CS people"...
I agree that many IT disciplines are more analogous to a skilled trade than a scientific or academic discipline. These career paths would benefit from a structured apprenticeship program, and in some cases unionization.
However, the group of institutions consisting of ITT, DeVry, and "others" (UofPhoenix, Virginia College, Strayer, etc.) are not even a part of the answer.
This category of institutions are private, for-profit "vocational" schools. They are predatory companies that have extremely high tuition for very poor educational value. Their admissions requirements are dubious, essentially consisting of "can you pay your tuition".
Their business model is built around sucking as much money from their students as possible. In some cases they encourage their students to take out private, high-interest loans to pay tuition. A large portion of their students are also GI-bill students, whose education is paid for by the military.
This group of institutions as a whole has a 3-year federal student loan default rate of 21.8% - about 60% higher than public institutions at 13%. This does not reflect the default rate on private loans, which in the case of ITT tech might be as high as 60%. The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is currently suing ITT tech for predatory lending practices.
You can check the official, per-school 2-year federal student loan default rates here.
Also, these institutions are not accredited in the same way that legitimate universities and colleges are, and their credits will NOT be accepted by most legitimate institutions, or even among each other.
TL;DR - stay away from the private, for-profit vocational schools. You will, without a doubt, receive a better education for dramatically less cost at your local community college - also, many credits that you earn at a community college can be applied towards a bachelor's degree at a legitimate university in the future.
Uh, I live in the USA, and I've worked in IT or other fields in three different major metro areas, and a dozen or so smaller areas. I've never - NEVER - seen this happen. I'm not saying it never happens, just that I've never seen it. Major, crippling IT outages happen all the time.
I have held my current job (I am also in the US) for about 2.5 years, and in that time we've seen 3 non-disaster caused blackouts. I work in an office park in a small city.
We have seen around 10 service-provider outages impacting WAN, internet, or both. At least 1 of these outages was caused by a major disaster.
We have had 1 internal issue that could be characterized as a "major, crippling IT outage."
Keep in mind these comments are all anecdotal, as are yours. I do agree with your premise that IT systems seem to experience significant outages somewhat more frequently than utilities do. I would explain this by noting that IT infrastructure is generally a little more complex than utility infrastructure (though usually on a dramatically smaller scale), with less reliable hardware and significantly more frequent changes.
Why aren't you Americans, with all your 2nd amendment guns, taking down your tyrannical government with force?! This is exactly what the 2nd amendment was for.
Because even pervasive corruption is, in all but the most extreme cases, not worth turning your homeland into a bloodbath.