If you love to program, take CS or maybe even Software Engineering(if you don't mind a little hardware) in college.
Personally, I took EE in college because I wanted to get a *real* degree. 4 years later (and 2 quarters from a degree) I dropped out (to work for a company I interned with) because it wasn't what I wanted to be doing.
Pick something you love, do it well. Don't worry about how it will affect your future.
Programming in high school is a great head start. If you want to make the most of what you're learning, you might get involved with an OSS project. Even if it's just as a tester, you'll learn a lot from reading other people's code.
The best scenerio would be talking this whole thing out openly with your employer. In fact, it's the only really ethical solution. However, not everyone is ballsy(foolish?) enough to do what's right.
If you can't trust your employer enough to talk to them about it, you have to decide between your job, and selling your software to the 2 clients you have lined up.
If you pick your job, you might as well talk to them about it. If they are unreasonable, burn the code and make them pay you to rewrite it all. In the meantime, be looking for another job.
If you can't trust your employer, and value your code above your job, talk to a lawyer before you do anything else. Good luck affording it.
PS - I get the feeling you're expecting quite a lot from your employer? They're not going to pay you to write the code and give you the rights to it.
Sheesh.... how many people grow up with the same misconceptions...
Scientific Naturalism, that which you subscribe to, the idea that everything "meaningful" in the universe can be explained by naturalistic (ie predictable) processes is NOT the same thing as Science.
Empiricism doesn't need it's hands bound by Naturalism.
The so called theory of evolution attempts to mis-educate with the notion that tautology is explanation and that Scientific Naturalism is Science!!
As far as I'm concerned any dissertation on evolution that doesn't recognize it's roots in Scientific Naturalism (ie what gets those pesky creationists off their backs) is just as much rabid drivelling as the worst offenses by "Bible thumpers".
your dissertation on proof and disproof are wonderful
Now, if only you could take the logic and apply it to the so called "theories" of evolution you speak of.
Conversely, if you could properly apply those criteria when someone attempts to come up with a "creationist" theory of origins, rather than refusing to speak to them at the get go, I'd be much more impressed.
One thing I didn't hear you talk much about was scientific naturalism. You seem to be using that idea to throw out these "Scientific Creationists" that don't exist, but you're not very forthcoming about your reasons.
If I come up with a generalization that makes strong predictions, where I got that generalization should not be an issue.
For example: I am a software engineer by trade. I look at the human genome and I see something that looks very like what might be a large "software" project. I see design elements re-used for many purposes. This could certainly be an arguement for intelligent design of some sort. Of course on this matter, Darwin's "Random Design" is theorized to behave in much the same way, So perhaps this observation isn't particularly useful to differentiate between the two.
The only thing this article says to me is "Many mainstream scientists don't know crap about philosophy!"
Go read some Karl Popper if you don't believe me, and no I'm not going to supply a link, look it up yourself!!
If Evolution has been "proved" that means it can't be disproved. Therefore, it's bad science because it's not falsifiable.
Heck, I'll even admit it, I'm a creationist. I think there's just as much reason to believe in an intelligent creator as there is to believe that adaptation is an explanatation for life.
Of course, I don't believe in a God that knows EVERYTHING, I believe in a God that knows everything that is knowable. ie: some things cannot be known, like for instance the outcome of the next decision I will make. I won't bore you with the details.
As a Creationist I'm not here to debunk Evolution. Show me a room with an Evolutionist and a Creationist rationally discussing their ideas and I'll show you a big grin.
If we live in a world where copyright never ends any sought after work becomes so "valuable" that only the rich and powerful can afford it. Then the creators of those works will have less control than if copyright didn't exist at all.
They'll be busy trying to make money to become educated, and at the same time put food on the table so they won't have time to create new and amazing works.
Why do you think Ben Franklin was so big on libraries? In his day you couldn't just go out and read what you wanted. You had to pay for each and every work. That's why he cajoled and scrimped and saved to get a little cash to buy books as an apprentice newsman.
Powerful intellectual monopolies mean many people going without valuable knowledge that can help them in nearly every aspect of their lives.
In an ideal world it might be that everyone would contribute a little to create what he or she is interested in/good at. But perhaps in the real world not enough material will be created without some form of compensation.
Of course, I've never seen this particular ideal attempted. The closest I've seen is the information on the web. How easy is it to keep people from using the content in your web pages? But yet, there is great diversity and amazing creativity going on in this realm. If anything commercialization seems to have stifled the creativity, though not necessarily the volume.
I've heard complaints about the many "leeches" in this free realm. But even 0.1% of 7 billion is a lot. And creative exposure begets creativity.
Not to barge in on your argument here.... but I'd like to make a point about your last statement...
For to be socially responsible, you have to be able to judge what views are dangerous and take steps to prevent those views from propogating
My point is the impact of your statement greatly depends on what the 'steps' are that are to be taken. If you mean that I should attempt to prevent the view from propogating by censoring that view from society, I would have to strongly disagree.
On the other hand if by 'steps' you meant that I should attempt to squash the idea by meeting it head on and pointing out the flaws of it's reasoning, as well as the damaging effects it caused, then I would whole-heartedly agree with you.
Once 'squashed' the idea could then be safely hung on the wall to be disected and searched for possible future pitfalls, as well as reasons why it caused such harm in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right it is a conspiracy.
If you love to program, take CS or maybe even Software Engineering(if you don't mind a little hardware) in college.
Personally, I took EE in college because I wanted to get a *real* degree. 4 years later (and 2 quarters from a degree) I dropped out (to work for a company I interned with) because it wasn't what I wanted to be doing.
Pick something you love, do it well. Don't worry about how it will affect your future.
Programming in high school is a great head start. If you want to make the most of what you're learning, you might get involved with an OSS project. Even if it's just as a tester, you'll learn a lot from reading other people's code.
Naa... they aren't biased. Their reporting merely exhibits the same skill and knowledge M$ uses when crafting their $oftware.
The $oftware doesn't care. It'll crash anyways.
The best scenerio would be talking this whole thing out openly with your employer. In fact, it's the only really ethical solution. However, not everyone is ballsy(foolish?) enough to do what's right.
If you can't trust your employer enough to talk to them about it, you have to decide between your job, and selling your software to the 2 clients you have lined up.
If you pick your job, you might as well talk to them about it. If they are unreasonable, burn the code and make them pay you to rewrite it all. In the meantime, be looking for another job.
If you can't trust your employer, and value your code above your job, talk to a lawyer before you do anything else. Good luck affording it.
PS - I get the feeling you're expecting quite a lot from your employer? They're not going to pay you to write the code and give you the rights to it.
Nice thoughts. Miller or Bud?
Sheesh.... how many people grow up with the same misconceptions...
Scientific Naturalism, that which you subscribe to, the idea that everything "meaningful" in the universe can be explained by naturalistic (ie predictable) processes is NOT the same thing as Science.
Empiricism doesn't need it's hands bound by Naturalism.
The so called theory of evolution attempts to mis-educate with the notion that tautology is explanation and that Scientific Naturalism is Science!!
As far as I'm concerned any dissertation on evolution that doesn't recognize it's roots in Scientific Naturalism (ie what gets those pesky creationists off their backs) is just as much rabid drivelling as the worst offenses by "Bible thumpers".
your dissertation on proof and disproof are wonderful
Now, if only you could take the logic and apply it to the so called "theories" of evolution you speak of.
Conversely, if you could properly apply those criteria when someone attempts to come up with a "creationist" theory of origins, rather than refusing to speak to them at the get go, I'd be much more impressed.
One thing I didn't hear you talk much about was scientific naturalism. You seem to be using that idea to throw out these "Scientific Creationists" that don't exist, but you're not very forthcoming about your reasons.
If I come up with a generalization that makes strong predictions, where I got that generalization should not be an issue.
For example: I am a software engineer by trade. I look at the human genome and I see something that looks very like what might be a large "software" project. I see design elements re-used for many purposes. This could certainly be an arguement for intelligent design of some sort. Of course on this matter, Darwin's "Random Design" is theorized to behave in much the same way, So perhaps this observation isn't particularly useful to differentiate between the two.
The only thing this article says to me is "Many mainstream scientists don't know crap about philosophy!"
Go read some Karl Popper if you don't believe me, and no I'm not going to supply a link, look it up yourself!!
If Evolution has been "proved" that means it can't be disproved. Therefore, it's bad science because it's not falsifiable.
Heck, I'll even admit it, I'm a creationist. I think there's just as much reason to believe in an intelligent creator as there is to believe that adaptation is an explanatation for life.
Of course, I don't believe in a God that knows EVERYTHING, I believe in a God that knows everything that is knowable. ie: some things cannot be known, like for instance the outcome of the next decision I will make. I won't bore you with the details.
As a Creationist I'm not here to debunk Evolution. Show me a room with an Evolutionist and a Creationist rationally discussing their ideas and I'll show you a big grin.
"Mel" is recommended reading for any new programmer contemplating a large rewrite.
Would be copyright gone wild.
If we live in a world where copyright never ends any sought after work becomes so "valuable" that only the rich and powerful can afford it. Then the creators of those works will have less control than if copyright didn't exist at all.
They'll be busy trying to make money to become educated, and at the same time put food on the table so they won't have time to create new and amazing works.
Why do you think Ben Franklin was so big on libraries? In his day you couldn't just go out and read what you wanted. You had to pay for each and every work. That's why he cajoled and scrimped and saved to get a little cash to buy books as an apprentice newsman.
Powerful intellectual monopolies mean many people going without valuable knowledge that can help them in nearly every aspect of their lives.
In an ideal world it might be that everyone would contribute a little to create what he or she is interested in/good at. But perhaps in the real world not enough material will be created without some form of compensation.
Of course, I've never seen this particular ideal attempted. The closest I've seen is the information on the web. How easy is it to keep people from using the content in your web pages? But yet, there is great diversity and amazing creativity going on in this realm. If anything commercialization seems to have stifled the creativity, though not necessarily the volume.
I've heard complaints about the many "leeches" in this free realm. But even 0.1% of 7 billion is a lot. And creative exposure begets creativity.
Perhaps the "Ideal" is not so far fetched?
As for wildness, the DMCA has me running scared.
What a wonderful piece of irony. Too bad it seems your joke is over the head of the average slashdotter.
Se la vie
Not to barge in on your argument here.... but I'd like to make a point about your last statement...
For to be socially responsible, you have to be able to judge what views are dangerous and take steps to prevent those views from propogating
My point is the impact of your statement greatly depends on what the 'steps' are that are to be taken. If you mean that I should attempt to prevent the view from propogating by censoring that view from society, I would have to strongly disagree.
On the other hand if by 'steps' you meant that I should attempt to squash the idea by meeting it head on and pointing out the flaws of it's reasoning, as well as the damaging effects it caused, then I would whole-heartedly agree with you.
Once 'squashed' the idea could then be safely hung on the wall to be disected and searched for possible future pitfalls, as well as reasons why it caused such harm in the first place.