Yes, but it's interesting it's even being talked about. Normally, when a crime is committed, you don't also immediately consider indicting the owner of the facility it happened in...unless there's specific evidence they're involved that isn't being made public.
If this is the garden variety case where there's no reason to think the data center operators are involved, then of course this is massive overreach.
I don't know how we're supposed to draw inferences about popularity based on giving things away for free. You want to compare an artist that gave an album for free to 500 million people (prompting an outcry from people who didn't want it) to one where people actually had to deliberately buy her music. Shockingly, people listen to things that are free. I listen to free music on the radio and on Pandora, but that doesn't mean I necessarily like it that much. Sometimes the criteria for leaving it on is just it being acceptable enough that changing it isn't more important than whatever else I'm doing.
For guitar, it's called Rocksmith. Fun game. For voice, there are a number of games that do that already. I'm a lousy singer, so couldn't list off the names of those games as I've never bought them, but I see them any time I go into a game store.
I actually disagree. Writing things down or recording them is great, because we forget. I always thought it was a little nuts to go to events and spend them taking pictures, videos, etc. BE there, don't be the videographer. As time has gone by, though, I've come to realize if I had all those artifacts to refresh my memory over the years, I'd remember them a lot better.
An uncle died when I was 7. Great guy, I remember that. I remember what he looked like, but in my mind, he looks a exactly like the picture on my grandmother's wall, so I think I've lost any real memory of his face. I replaced it with the version I see a few times a year. I have no idea what his voice sounded like even though I used to see him all the time.
So yes, go do wonderful things, but also take pictures and make videos. If you were my dad, I'd appreciate that gift, especially later in life, and not just for the wisdom, just for the memories.
Nothing about preparing videos for his daughter implies that he's NOT spending time with her now.
For those who don't have kids, you can't spend every waking minute with them. They don't even WANT that. I have a very young child who sometimes just wants time with mommy. Sometimes she wants me and not mommy. As they get older, kids spend time with friends and their own interests (note that the OP's child is in 6th grade). I suspect there's plenty of time to record videos when the daughter is doing other things, not home, etc.
I'm engaging in some deliberate hyperbole. I think a lot of people, when they think of the 10xers, think "oh, like me". No, not like you. Most likely not like anyone you've ever met. Your Tiger Woods analogy is spot on.
A LOT of people play a pretty good guitar. A LOT of people sing well. There are darned few actual rock stars.
so for anyone thinking rockstars pornstars or coked up overweight perl jockeys with poor attendance and a penchant for lashing out at coworkers in a 10 am alcohol fueled rage are in need of some kind of dedicated legion of cocksuckers to treat them like a special snowflake, get bent.
Those are, by definition, not the 10x-ers. They're problems or prima donnas, and best shown the door quickly. It's the ones who are pleasant, or at least reasonable, to work with and still have productivity that are way beyond the norm. THOSE are the rock stars. Personally, I think they're like R.O.U.S.es. I don't think they exist. I've met some great coders who are probably 2x as good as the average "good" coder, and some bad ones who just really shouldn't have been doing the job, but 10x? I've never seen one.
Or is researching something a family member, friend, acquantance, etc has.
I'm fortunate to be healthy as the proverbial horse, but people I know have come down with some nasties lately, and I've done some research to try to understand their conditions.
Assuming people only read about ailments they have is rather stupid.
Gotta agree with sribe. The best way to build apps is to have a magic box you can just feed a description of what you want to do into the app.
The problem is, the magic box will ask you lots of questions you didn't think about. You'll have to answer "What should the app do when (unexpected thing) happens?" "What about (error case)?" Et cetera. Source code ends up being a precise and concise way to describe what you want a program to do. Sometimes you can accelerate it using libraries, CASE tools, 4GLs, etc, but only if they actually support the thing you want to do. For a while, it was promised that programming would be as simple as linking a bunch of boxes in a GUI. I did that, and it was great as long as there were boxes that did what you want. If there weren't, there was an API and a manual for creating your own boxes...in C.
No, we shouldn't teach everybody to code. We don't teach everybody to balance their own checkbook, or why credit cards with a 29% interest rate are a bad thing. Let's start there. We need basic financial literacy. We need basic scientific literacy. Let's get there, and maybe then teach everybody to code.
They are still called phones because that is the primary reason most people carry them around. It may not be what they use it for the most, but it is still the core reason a person owns it.
I don't think it is. I had a dumbphone and upgraded to a smartphone because I wanted a mobile web platform in my pocket. It happened to make my dumbphone unnecessary, so I no longer carry one. I, at least, did not buy a smartphone because I needed a cell phone. I *had* a cell phone already.
A $700 smart phone is, too. Here in.us, a lot of the price is buried in your 2-year contract, so people see it as a $200 smart phone.
Calling it a phone is also a misnomer. It's a small computer that also makes phone calls. If all you want to do is make phone calls, buy a dumbphone. Having a moderately powerful, always connected computer in my pocket is nice--but admittedly, it's still a luxury.
This issue is at the core of a lot of misunderstandings about security in general I see. People expect to be able to solve security problems by creating a framework of rules. Sometimes they're societal rules (aka laws), sometimes they're software like writing a client that can only access a server in a particular way, and assuming no one can access your server in a way not supported by your client (hint: other people can write code, too).
Writing rules won't keep people intent on harm from flying drones at things they want to damage. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to figure out how to keep those drones from doing damage EVEN WHEN they aren't following the rules.
A Phalanx-style interceptor with beanbags would probably work, and be comically appropriate for a threat posed by glorified toy helicopters.
The correct answer is "No, you have no authority to demand I give that to you." The first implies I'm only refusing because I don't know. Abuse of authority should be called out for what it is.
It says nothing about giving passwords. It says schools have to create and follow a policy, and that they have to investigate claims of bullying. Nowhere in that law does it say that students have to actually cooperate with the investigation. Investigating could be as simple as questioning the involved students. Perhaps reviewing their public profile. Perhaps having the alleged victim show the evidence using the victim's login WITHOUT giving that to anyone.
School districts who claim this law gives them the right to demand account credentials are...well, I'll be polite. They're wrong.
Fair enough. My experience of CC teachers was variable. My calculus teacher was atrocious. I had an English lit prof who thought it was reasonable to have students read aloud. I dropped that course in a heartbeat. I had a good biology teacher, and my Anthropology course was excellent. I seriously consider teaching CC myself now and again, mostly because I think I'd like it and, as you say, have some experience I want to share. Sadly, they require a masters in the field you want to teach. I have one, but not in math or comp sci, the areas I'd most enjoy teaching.
The real problem with the whole "Let's teach everyone to code" idea? Not enough coding jobs, even if you did train this many people. How about we train everyone how to fix cars? Then we can all make money fixing everyone else's car! Oh, wait...
Exactly. Thanks. It's even a little worse, because code is infinitely copyable. 1 mechanic can only work on so many cars. Some number of developers wrote iTunes, which I happen to be using now. How many devices can their work be used on? All of them. Given the sorry state of a lot of software today, what we need is not more developers. It's better developers (or managers, or processes, or audits, etc. I get that it's a lot more complicated than just blaming the developer.)
Quite likely, but I don't get your point. You illustrate that formal education isn't required to excel. I never said it was. Some amount of learning happens in 2 years of community college (been there, done that). I've never met Carmack, but I suspect what he's learned about software vastly exceeds that. Unless I'm wrong, and he's some sort of idiot savant, you aren't actually disagreeing with me.
Those who end up on the far end of the bell curve won't be those who stop at a 2 year degree in "coding" at a local community college. The very best developer I know has a masters degree, 25+ years of experience, and STILL spends more time learning.
My objection to things like this are the false belief it instills that all you need to do to learn to be good at this is go to community college for a while, where you'll be taught by other people who aren't good at coding. If they were good, they'd be doing it, not making peanuts teaching community college. The second false belief is that it's a ticket to a high paying job. High pay comes with scarce skills. If you send everyone to community college and they actually do become good at coding, it won't be a high paying job.
We should send everyone to a 4 year school and teach them basic economics so they'd understand things like this. Doctors don't make a lot of money because their jobs are important or it costs a lot to train one. They make a lot of money because when you need one, you'll pay whatever you have to, and because there are a limited number of them. In the ideal world, we'd call that 4 year degree high school. It's terrible that people entering the real world don't understand this stuff, and it's why the US electorate falls for nonsense like this time and again.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but it's interesting it's even being talked about. Normally, when a crime is committed, you don't also immediately consider indicting the owner of the facility it happened in...unless there's specific evidence they're involved that isn't being made public.
If this is the garden variety case where there's no reason to think the data center operators are involved, then of course this is massive overreach.
I don't know how we're supposed to draw inferences about popularity based on giving things away for free. You want to compare an artist that gave an album for free to 500 million people (prompting an outcry from people who didn't want it) to one where people actually had to deliberately buy her music. Shockingly, people listen to things that are free. I listen to free music on the radio and on Pandora, but that doesn't mean I necessarily like it that much. Sometimes the criteria for leaving it on is just it being acceptable enough that changing it isn't more important than whatever else I'm doing.
For guitar, it's called Rocksmith. Fun game. For voice, there are a number of games that do that already. I'm a lousy singer, so couldn't list off the names of those games as I've never bought them, but I see them any time I go into a game store.
I actually disagree. Writing things down or recording them is great, because we forget. I always thought it was a little nuts to go to events and spend them taking pictures, videos, etc. BE there, don't be the videographer. As time has gone by, though, I've come to realize if I had all those artifacts to refresh my memory over the years, I'd remember them a lot better.
An uncle died when I was 7. Great guy, I remember that. I remember what he looked like, but in my mind, he looks a exactly like the picture on my grandmother's wall, so I think I've lost any real memory of his face. I replaced it with the version I see a few times a year. I have no idea what his voice sounded like even though I used to see him all the time.
So yes, go do wonderful things, but also take pictures and make videos. If you were my dad, I'd appreciate that gift, especially later in life, and not just for the wisdom, just for the memories.
Nothing about preparing videos for his daughter implies that he's NOT spending time with her now.
For those who don't have kids, you can't spend every waking minute with them. They don't even WANT that. I have a very young child who sometimes just wants time with mommy. Sometimes she wants me and not mommy. As they get older, kids spend time with friends and their own interests (note that the OP's child is in 6th grade). I suspect there's plenty of time to record videos when the daughter is doing other things, not home, etc.
ATM machines have built in redundancy. At least when you call them ATM machines. (Automated Teller Machine machines?)
I'm engaging in some deliberate hyperbole. I think a lot of people, when they think of the 10xers, think "oh, like me". No, not like you. Most likely not like anyone you've ever met. Your Tiger Woods analogy is spot on.
A LOT of people play a pretty good guitar. A LOT of people sing well. There are darned few actual rock stars.
Those are, by definition, not the 10x-ers. They're problems or prima donnas, and best shown the door quickly. It's the ones who are pleasant, or at least reasonable, to work with and still have productivity that are way beyond the norm. THOSE are the rock stars. Personally, I think they're like R.O.U.S.es. I don't think they exist. I've met some great coders who are probably 2x as good as the average "good" coder, and some bad ones who just really shouldn't have been doing the job, but 10x? I've never seen one.
If you don't know that it's HIPAA, not "HIPPA", you are probably not qualified to say when it applies.
Or is researching something a family member, friend, acquantance, etc has.
I'm fortunate to be healthy as the proverbial horse, but people I know have come down with some nasties lately, and I've done some research to try to understand their conditions.
Assuming people only read about ailments they have is rather stupid.
Rolling in his grave would be a pretty damn weird thing to do, him still being alive and all...
Gotta agree with sribe. The best way to build apps is to have a magic box you can just feed a description of what you want to do into the app.
The problem is, the magic box will ask you lots of questions you didn't think about. You'll have to answer "What should the app do when (unexpected thing) happens?" "What about (error case)?" Et cetera. Source code ends up being a precise and concise way to describe what you want a program to do. Sometimes you can accelerate it using libraries, CASE tools, 4GLs, etc, but only if they actually support the thing you want to do. For a while, it was promised that programming would be as simple as linking a bunch of boxes in a GUI. I did that, and it was great as long as there were boxes that did what you want. If there weren't, there was an API and a manual for creating your own boxes...in C.
Didn't we have this very debate not long ago?
No, we shouldn't teach everybody to code. We don't teach everybody to balance their own checkbook, or why credit cards with a 29% interest rate are a bad thing. Let's start there. We need basic financial literacy. We need basic scientific literacy. Let's get there, and maybe then teach everybody to code.
I'd just buy a spare cable.
I don't think it is. I had a dumbphone and upgraded to a smartphone because I wanted a mobile web platform in my pocket. It happened to make my dumbphone unnecessary, so I no longer carry one. I, at least, did not buy a smartphone because I needed a cell phone. I *had* a cell phone already.
A $700 smart phone is, too. Here in .us, a lot of the price is buried in your 2-year contract, so people see it as a $200 smart phone.
Calling it a phone is also a misnomer. It's a small computer that also makes phone calls. If all you want to do is make phone calls, buy a dumbphone. Having a moderately powerful, always connected computer in my pocket is nice--but admittedly, it's still a luxury.
This issue is at the core of a lot of misunderstandings about security in general I see. People expect to be able to solve security problems by creating a framework of rules. Sometimes they're societal rules (aka laws), sometimes they're software like writing a client that can only access a server in a particular way, and assuming no one can access your server in a way not supported by your client (hint: other people can write code, too).
Writing rules won't keep people intent on harm from flying drones at things they want to damage. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to figure out how to keep those drones from doing damage EVEN WHEN they aren't following the rules.
A Phalanx-style interceptor with beanbags would probably work, and be comically appropriate for a threat posed by glorified toy helicopters.
The correct answer is "No, you have no authority to demand I give that to you." The first implies I'm only refusing because I don't know. Abuse of authority should be called out for what it is.
It says nothing about giving passwords. It says schools have to create and follow a policy, and that they have to investigate claims of bullying. Nowhere in that law does it say that students have to actually cooperate with the investigation. Investigating could be as simple as questioning the involved students. Perhaps reviewing their public profile. Perhaps having the alleged victim show the evidence using the victim's login WITHOUT giving that to anyone.
School districts who claim this law gives them the right to demand account credentials are...well, I'll be polite. They're wrong.
Fair enough. My experience of CC teachers was variable. My calculus teacher was atrocious. I had an English lit prof who thought it was reasonable to have students read aloud. I dropped that course in a heartbeat. I had a good biology teacher, and my Anthropology course was excellent. I seriously consider teaching CC myself now and again, mostly because I think I'd like it and, as you say, have some experience I want to share. Sadly, they require a masters in the field you want to teach. I have one, but not in math or comp sci, the areas I'd most enjoy teaching.
Exactly. Thanks. It's even a little worse, because code is infinitely copyable. 1 mechanic can only work on so many cars. Some number of developers wrote iTunes, which I happen to be using now. How many devices can their work be used on? All of them. Given the sorry state of a lot of software today, what we need is not more developers. It's better developers (or managers, or processes, or audits, etc. I get that it's a lot more complicated than just blaming the developer.)
Quite likely, but I don't get your point. You illustrate that formal education isn't required to excel. I never said it was. Some amount of learning happens in 2 years of community college (been there, done that). I've never met Carmack, but I suspect what he's learned about software vastly exceeds that. Unless I'm wrong, and he's some sort of idiot savant, you aren't actually disagreeing with me.
Those who end up on the far end of the bell curve won't be those who stop at a 2 year degree in "coding" at a local community college. The very best developer I know has a masters degree, 25+ years of experience, and STILL spends more time learning.
My objection to things like this are the false belief it instills that all you need to do to learn to be good at this is go to community college for a while, where you'll be taught by other people who aren't good at coding. If they were good, they'd be doing it, not making peanuts teaching community college. The second false belief is that it's a ticket to a high paying job. High pay comes with scarce skills. If you send everyone to community college and they actually do become good at coding, it won't be a high paying job.
We should send everyone to a 4 year school and teach them basic economics so they'd understand things like this. Doctors don't make a lot of money because their jobs are important or it costs a lot to train one. They make a lot of money because when you need one, you'll pay whatever you have to, and because there are a limited number of them. In the ideal world, we'd call that 4 year degree high school. It's terrible that people entering the real world don't understand this stuff, and it's why the US electorate falls for nonsense like this time and again.
You're bluffing.
I've played lots of poker. You should read Mathematics of Poker. Bluffing is basic, and would certainly be included in any poker bot's strategy.
Why would you do that, though? Sounds like you're just setting your students up to fail once they transfer.