Even the most arch-capitalist of pre-welfare-state Western thinkers a century ago would have laughed at the idea that you could sell radio frequencies to private groups. "I get exclusive right to send waves of THIS length."
They'd also laugh at the idea of intellectual property as opposed to temporary copy right.
Not sure about your country, but in mine you can get an "accredited engineering qualification" (BEng/MEng/IEng/CEng/Eur.Ing./whatever) which involves mostly computer science/engineering/programming. (And you could then become a trash collector for 20 years.)
Your definition of "engineer" is really not a very good one. It doesn't cover practicing engineers who haven't gone through specific hoops, but it does cover people who haven't actually ever done any engineering - and would be completely unsuitable through lack of recent experience.
(1) You are clearly not an engineer. An engineer is determined by how he uses the tools available to him, not by the tools given to him to work with. I've seen brilliantly engineered Visual BASIC and lego. Check your prejudices;
(2) Some of the best engineers have little or no formal education. Some of the worst have been to the schools with the best reputation. Check your prejudices.
His "Computing studies" is what is specified in his degree transcript and summarised in the prospectus, assessed at a level judged by reputation and audits. Perhaps you could do some research rather than see two words and shit out an opinion?
applying the 'engineer' label to sanitation workers, building janitors, boiler operators, FaceSpace coders, MSCEs and DeVry graduates.
OK, who is an engineer? By "sanitation worker" I guess you mean the guy who picks up the trash, right? Boiler operator not an engineer - what sort of boiler? "FaceSpace coder"? Hoho, so amusing. I hate Facebook and Myspace as much as anyone who's been on the Internet more than 10 minutes, but are you suggesting that someone who codes something clever and effective for either is not an engineer? MSCE... irrelevant. I read the In A Nutshell guides for the MSCE exams about 11 years ago but never took them. Would I have un-become an engineer if I'd taken and (almost certainly) passed?
But the DeVry insult really takes the biscuit - especially when following the argument of someone who was obviously an engineer yet whose undergraduate studies were in Canberra (oh wow!) and whose next qualification was an MBA (sure aren't enough of them!). Hey, McGruber, maybe the problem is that you don't know what an engineer is?
that's not a citizen expressing their right to speech
It's a citizen expressing their right to be heard, which is what's being discussed here.
Not to mention that just because you might not choose to listen to what the laws are, that doesn't mean you aren't bound by them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Exactly. Because citizens have a right to be heard via processes of voting and petition. And you must listen to this in the sense that you must, at the very least, hear the law which results. In your most lazy, pathological form of participation in democratic government you can ignore everything which happens before or after the law, but don't whine if your non-participation results in a country you don't like.
You can't directly check whether people have heard and processed something about the opinions of their fellow countrymen. You can give everyone an exam - I hear many countries have citizenship classes for childen and immigrants - but that gives merely the right to be heard and potentially ignored. The suffrage, petition and legislative processes give the right to be heard and have your words taken into account.
Bad luck, dude. As long as people are willing to express themselves via official methods, even in the US you have to listen to what people around you think. The libertarian dream of everyone thinking the same inconsistent way is, fortunately, just that. The country is much better than you wish it were:-).
Yeah, you don't have to listen to the legislative process. And you can ignore the laws which result from it. And close your eyes and ears to the official instructions which result from those laws. They don't apply to you. You don't have to listen.
The question is whether the right to free speech should supercede the right to private property. In your tedious ramble you've assumed a "no" without even bringing up the point.
But in most jurisdictions, the answer is "yes, sometimes". For example, in Britain political parties satisfying certain criterion are granted equal airtime on certain television channels - so a mainstream political party and the racist BNP will both get their evening slots on the main channels (quite rightly - even though I disagree with the BNP I think only harm can come out of its opinion being pushed underground while the usual corrupt but well-funded parties are able to carry on their meaningless droning). They have a right to be heard. In the Californian state constitution, the right to free speech is considered a positive one, so canvassers can walk around Walmart giving out leaflets and Walmart has no right to eject these people. They have a right to be heard.
Finally, there is the right which every vaguely democratic government supplies: the right to vote/petition. This is a very important form of the right to be heard and means that your speech influences government behaviour which in turn determines the laws of the land. Good luck ignoring the voice of the people when they give their opinion at the ballot box or form lobby groups. The US certainly grants these rights to be heard.
Do you have a right to petition government for redress of grievances? Well, yes. Sorta. That was the idea, anyway. Still true, if you have the money to buy an ear. We call them `lobbyists'.
The ones that you hear about may be. It's just another case of the worst also being the loudest.
Most family members of most celebrities keep their head down and carry on as normal, occasionally annoyed when people poke them about their famous niece/uncle/brother.
You have gone from hacker/cracker to security consultant via quite a difficult route. If you just wanted the money, there would have been far easier ways.
Today, the most well-known kiddies tend to do something high profile but requiring little technical brilliance and move quickly to "legitimate" jobs. The majority of "security consultants" don't really have much technical knowledge at all, being more public relations/ass-covering types.
With this in mind, what advice do you have to people who like to study security for its own sake? Should they keep quiet about what they do, developing an academic career so they can research to their heart's content without commercial pressures?
Should a patient not be entitled to feel some fondness of (for example) the nerdy aspects of the disorder? I like taking things literally and diving into details about every hint of an ambiguity even in everyday conversation
Should someone with OCD be entitled to feel better when they have checked X enough times? Or should they feel bad that they've had to check X so many times before they feel satisfied? Or something else?
Should an alcoholic be entitled to feel good that he can drown his problems in drink?
etc.
Decoration and ambiguity are normal in natural language. Handling it (and interpreting it correctly) is completely routine for the "neuro-typical"; studying it is an appropriate part of linguistics. If you occasionally have trouble with and/or have a casual interest in the features of human communication then you're as any other intelligent human. Whether this stems from mild autism or not really doesn't matter.
But if you find it difficult to handle or you obsess over studying it to the extent that it affects your ability to function then you may want to find out how to overcome this. And you may want to accept the input of others in the question of whether it is affecting your ability to function: neither the autistic nor the alcoholic may be able to acknowledge how his condition affects him.
So you can write what you want in my paper/blog/site/notebook/whatever?
Freedom of speech will always belong to the owners of the presses. A man in a totally privatised country has by default no voice at all, because he has no right to stand anywhere to speak. And a man in a country with some public land has his right to "free" speech limited to that land and under the regulations in force on that land.
For some reason this is obvious to anyone outside the US, but very hard to explain to anyone inside the US. It's like the value of the First Amendment is some religious thing indoctrinated in youth.
Asperger's (mild autism) is a disorder. I can "envision a specific project and exhaustively accomplish that goal" yet I do not have Asperger's.
It's like saying that someone agoraphobic is "merely different" because, by not finding it easy to leave the house, they are less likely to become distracted so are better able to "exhaustively accomplish" some mind project. While the confines of a disability might make it more likely for the disabled person not to become sidetracked, it is foolish to describe it as something neutral. Moreover it is harmful to the developing child on the autism spectrum - he has a real chance in his early years of being helped to overcome the disorder, but Internet autism heroes (suspiciously often self-diagnosed) want to deny that the problem even exists, reducing public understanding.
And when the public lack understanding for something, funding and research always dries up.
Seriously, though, the First Amendment is the biggest con in modern politics. In America, everyone thinks they're free because they believe that the right to speak is more important than the right to be heard.
Straight from today to communism? That's an unlikely sequence.
As long as you have a capitalist welfare state supporting by a local labour aristocracy, you won't have a local exploited proletariat in which to raise united consciousness. The anarchists a century ago were already arguing this and it's come true. You would be better campaigning for better conditions abroad or for the sort of trade protectionism against abusive states which caused South Africa to be shunned in the '80s.
If you're not an idiot then you acknowledge that Google is an information arm of the US government. Count the number of Muslim countries the US military has been contracted out to plunder and you have your answer.
Why would OP need to "fess up"? If it was an error, it's trivial - the sort only the class clown corrects when the lecturer makes. If it was a way of representing the complexity of the problem, then the OP's only mistake was speaking to a simple audience.
(1) They don't have the resources to mark 100,000 students' assignments and provide progress reports for them. You could accuse Slashdot of occasionally formulating misleading summaries;
(2) Signing up on a web site does not imply continued interest in a web site - marketroids everywhere fail to understand this. Filling in a form provided on a university web site is not like starting to attend that university;
(3) In all top tier unis at undergraduate level, the challenge is getting in. Getting in requires you to be well prepared. Well-preparedness is usually achieved through (i) attending an expensive school which is aware of the particular hurdles and prepares you specifically for them and/or (ii) knowing the right people.
(Worked for me, anyway. And, judging by the background of first year students at the best universities in the UK and the US, it's a winning formula.)
This is an automated warning that the parent post contains a higher than healthy proportion of marketing and/or enthusiastic investor speak and/or doomsayer speak. The following phrases were identified to make this decision.
Vague, bold claims:
will be the worlds largest economy
they will be terribly short
will do very well indeed
serve you well the rest of this century
will improve dramatically
will become critically important
will result in massive failures
in the not too distant future
outrageously high
possibly grow a great deal
most of the jobs that human being do will be
the vast majority of people everywhere in every walk of life will suffer
milking the planet dry
Head-in-the-clouds buzzwords:
the curve
swarm technology
adaptive intelligent systems
self optimizing technologies
IT metastructures
removed from the data stream
human level AI
To appeal this decision, please rewrite your post, making sure to include argument, evidence, an understanding of historical context and appropriate language. This will trigger a re-evaluation when the system gets round to it. Have a nice day!
With all respect, a drunk driver is not necessarily any safer to be around than a rapist or a murderer. Indeed, an otherwise law-abiding man who murders once out of passion could be much safer than any number of people convicted of more minor offences.
Anyway, there are different prison security categories, but not based on the criteria you're implying.
I agree that those sentences are absurd and were probably set as politically motivated examples (chilling effect) to spark debate[tm], debate[tm] in UK politics being where you promote one predetermined side of an argument by occupatio over your opposition, then declare consensus among common sense[tm] folk.
The sentences do not negate my suggestion that, especially in the UK, life in prison over the next decade will be preferable to life as someone on the margin's of society left to fend for himself. It has the added political protest bonus that jailtime is extremely expensive for the "taxpayer" (newspeak for "citizen", newspeak for "subject"), especially if you are sent to a privatised jail. If you're not worried about never being able to integrate in a society which hasn't welcomed you so far anyway, what do you have to lose by imprisonment?
Slashdot Mirror
Even the most arch-capitalist of pre-welfare-state Western thinkers a century ago would have laughed at the idea that you could sell radio frequencies to private groups. "I get exclusive right to send waves of THIS length."
They'd also laugh at the idea of intellectual property as opposed to temporary copy right.
What exactly is our current regime, anyway?
Who cares what the market needs? The market skews the value of individuals by personal wealth.
I care about what people need.
Not sure about your country, but in mine you can get an "accredited engineering qualification" (BEng/MEng/IEng/CEng/Eur.Ing./whatever) which involves mostly computer science/engineering/programming. (And you could then become a trash collector for 20 years.)
Your definition of "engineer" is really not a very good one. It doesn't cover practicing engineers who haven't gone through specific hoops, but it does cover people who haven't actually ever done any engineering - and would be completely unsuitable through lack of recent experience.
(1) You are clearly not an engineer. An engineer is determined by how he uses the tools available to him, not by the tools given to him to work with. I've seen brilliantly engineered Visual BASIC and lego. Check your prejudices;
(2) Some of the best engineers have little or no formal education. Some of the worst have been to the schools with the best reputation. Check your prejudices.
His "Computing studies" is what is specified in his degree transcript and summarised in the prospectus, assessed at a level judged by reputation and audits. Perhaps you could do some research rather than see two words and shit out an opinion?
applying the 'engineer' label to sanitation workers, building janitors, boiler operators, FaceSpace coders, MSCEs and DeVry graduates.
OK, who is an engineer? By "sanitation worker" I guess you mean the guy who picks up the trash, right? Boiler operator not an engineer - what sort of boiler? "FaceSpace coder"? Hoho, so amusing. I hate Facebook and Myspace as much as anyone who's been on the Internet more than 10 minutes, but are you suggesting that someone who codes something clever and effective for either is not an engineer? MSCE... irrelevant. I read the In A Nutshell guides for the MSCE exams about 11 years ago but never took them. Would I have un-become an engineer if I'd taken and (almost certainly) passed?
But the DeVry insult really takes the biscuit - especially when following the argument of someone who was obviously an engineer yet whose undergraduate studies were in Canberra (oh wow!) and whose next qualification was an MBA (sure aren't enough of them!). Hey, McGruber, maybe the problem is that you don't know what an engineer is?
that's not a citizen expressing their right to speech
It's a citizen expressing their right to be heard, which is what's being discussed here.
Not to mention that just because you might not choose to listen to what the laws are, that doesn't mean you aren't bound by them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Exactly. Because citizens have a right to be heard via processes of voting and petition. And you must listen to this in the sense that you must, at the very least, hear the law which results. In your most lazy, pathological form of participation in democratic government you can ignore everything which happens before or after the law, but don't whine if your non-participation results in a country you don't like.
You can't directly check whether people have heard and processed something about the opinions of their fellow countrymen. You can give everyone an exam - I hear many countries have citizenship classes for childen and immigrants - but that gives merely the right to be heard and potentially ignored. The suffrage, petition and legislative processes give the right to be heard and have your words taken into account.
Bad luck, dude. As long as people are willing to express themselves via official methods, even in the US you have to listen to what people around you think. The libertarian dream of everyone thinking the same inconsistent way is, fortunately, just that. The country is much better than you wish it were :-).
Yeah, you don't have to listen to the legislative process. And you can ignore the laws which result from it. And close your eyes and ears to the official instructions which result from those laws. They don't apply to you. You don't have to listen.
Good luck!
The question is whether the right to free speech should supercede the right to private property. In your tedious ramble you've assumed a "no" without even bringing up the point.
But in most jurisdictions, the answer is "yes, sometimes". For example, in Britain political parties satisfying certain criterion are granted equal airtime on certain television channels - so a mainstream political party and the racist BNP will both get their evening slots on the main channels (quite rightly - even though I disagree with the BNP I think only harm can come out of its opinion being pushed underground while the usual corrupt but well-funded parties are able to carry on their meaningless droning). They have a right to be heard. In the Californian state constitution, the right to free speech is considered a positive one, so canvassers can walk around Walmart giving out leaflets and Walmart has no right to eject these people. They have a right to be heard.
Finally, there is the right which every vaguely democratic government supplies: the right to vote/petition. This is a very important form of the right to be heard and means that your speech influences government behaviour which in turn determines the laws of the land. Good luck ignoring the voice of the people when they give their opinion at the ballot box or form lobby groups. The US certainly grants these rights to be heard.
Do you have a right to petition government for redress of grievances? Well, yes. Sorta. That was the idea, anyway. Still true, if you have the money to buy an ear. We call them `lobbyists'.
So, yeah. Some people have the right to be heard.
The ones that you hear about may be. It's just another case of the worst also being the loudest.
Most family members of most celebrities keep their head down and carry on as normal, occasionally annoyed when people poke them about their famous niece/uncle/brother.
You have gone from hacker/cracker to security consultant via quite a difficult route. If you just wanted the money, there would have been far easier ways.
Today, the most well-known kiddies tend to do something high profile but requiring little technical brilliance and move quickly to "legitimate" jobs. The majority of "security consultants" don't really have much technical knowledge at all, being more public relations/ass-covering types.
With this in mind, what advice do you have to people who like to study security for its own sake? Should they keep quiet about what they do, developing an academic career so they can research to their heart's content without commercial pressures?
Or does everyone clever sell out in the end?
Should a patient not be entitled to feel some fondness of (for example) the nerdy aspects of the disorder?
I like taking things literally and diving into details about every hint of an ambiguity even in everyday conversation
Should someone with OCD be entitled to feel better when they have checked X enough times? Or should they feel bad that they've had to check X so many times before they feel satisfied? Or something else?
Should an alcoholic be entitled to feel good that he can drown his problems in drink?
etc.
Decoration and ambiguity are normal in natural language. Handling it (and interpreting it correctly) is completely routine for the "neuro-typical"; studying it is an appropriate part of linguistics. If you occasionally have trouble with and/or have a casual interest in the features of human communication then you're as any other intelligent human. Whether this stems from mild autism or not really doesn't matter.
But if you find it difficult to handle or you obsess over studying it to the extent that it affects your ability to function then you may want to find out how to overcome this. And you may want to accept the input of others in the question of whether it is affecting your ability to function: neither the autistic nor the alcoholic may be able to acknowledge how his condition affects him.
you can't force me to shut up.
So you can write what you want in my paper/blog/site/notebook/whatever?
Freedom of speech will always belong to the owners of the presses. A man in a totally privatised country has by default no voice at all, because he has no right to stand anywhere to speak. And a man in a country with some public land has his right to "free" speech limited to that land and under the regulations in force on that land.
For some reason this is obvious to anyone outside the US, but very hard to explain to anyone inside the US. It's like the value of the First Amendment is some religious thing indoctrinated in youth.
Ah, the no true flourishing Scotsman fallacy, a camp version of the original.
Asperger's (mild autism) is a disorder. I can "envision a specific project and exhaustively accomplish that goal" yet I do not have Asperger's.
It's like saying that someone agoraphobic is "merely different" because, by not finding it easy to leave the house, they are less likely to become distracted so are better able to "exhaustively accomplish" some mind project. While the confines of a disability might make it more likely for the disabled person not to become sidetracked, it is foolish to describe it as something neutral. Moreover it is harmful to the developing child on the autism spectrum - he has a real chance in his early years of being helped to overcome the disorder, but Internet autism heroes (suspiciously often self-diagnosed) want to deny that the problem even exists, reducing public understanding.
And when the public lack understanding for something, funding and research always dries up.
constitution
Seriously, though, the First Amendment is the biggest con in modern politics. In America, everyone thinks they're free because they believe that the right to speak is more important than the right to be heard.
Straight from today to communism? That's an unlikely sequence.
As long as you have a capitalist welfare state supporting by a local labour aristocracy, you won't have a local exploited proletariat in which to raise united consciousness. The anarchists a century ago were already arguing this and it's come true. You would be better campaigning for better conditions abroad or for the sort of trade protectionism against abusive states which caused South Africa to be shunned in the '80s.
If you're not an idiot then you acknowledge that Google is an information arm of the US government. Count the number of Muslim countries the US military has been contracted out to plunder and you have your answer.
But it wouldn't be effective.
Why would OP need to "fess up"? If it was an error, it's trivial - the sort only the class clown corrects when the lecturer makes. If it was a way of representing the complexity of the problem, then the OP's only mistake was speaking to a simple audience.
There will be ten times as many unnavigable rivulets. So there may be only 30,000 miles to go, and 30,000 miles would still only be 10% done.
Why do geeks always try to over-simplify? Not everything is a My First Puzzle Book puzzle.
(1) They don't have the resources to mark 100,000 students' assignments and provide progress reports for them. You could accuse Slashdot of occasionally formulating misleading summaries;
(2) Signing up on a web site does not imply continued interest in a web site - marketroids everywhere fail to understand this. Filling in a form provided on a university web site is not like starting to attend that university;
(3) In all top tier unis at undergraduate level, the challenge is getting in. Getting in requires you to be well prepared. Well-preparedness is usually achieved through (i) attending an expensive school which is aware of the particular hurdles and prepares you specifically for them and/or (ii) knowing the right people.
(Worked for me, anyway. And, judging by the background of first year students at the best universities in the UK and the US, it's a winning formula.)
This is an automated warning that the parent post contains a higher than healthy proportion of marketing and/or enthusiastic investor speak and/or doomsayer speak. The following phrases were identified to make this decision.
Vague, bold claims:
Head-in-the-clouds buzzwords:
To appeal this decision, please rewrite your post, making sure to include argument, evidence, an understanding of historical context and appropriate language. This will trigger a re-evaluation when the system gets round to it. Have a nice day!
Insight?
With all respect, a drunk driver is not necessarily any safer to be around than a rapist or a murderer. Indeed, an otherwise law-abiding man who murders once out of passion could be much safer than any number of people convicted of more minor offences.
Anyway, there are different prison security categories, but not based on the criteria you're implying.
I agree that those sentences are absurd and were probably set as politically motivated examples (chilling effect) to spark debate[tm], debate[tm] in UK politics being where you promote one predetermined side of an argument by occupatio over your opposition, then declare consensus among common sense[tm] folk.
The sentences do not negate my suggestion that, especially in the UK, life in prison over the next decade will be preferable to life as someone on the margin's of society left to fend for himself. It has the added political protest bonus that jailtime is extremely expensive for the "taxpayer" (newspeak for "citizen", newspeak for "subject"), especially if you are sent to a privatised jail. If you're not worried about never being able to integrate in a society which hasn't welcomed you so far anyway, what do you have to lose by imprisonment?