So, you're driving along, and all of a sudden, a wall appears around you, then vanishes, then appears again.
Hope you brought your sun glasses, and removed them, and put them on again, with your psychic powers.
Also hope you didn't plan on changing lanes, and weren't in the middle of doing so.
It's not the same as 40 busses. 40 busses come 40 times as often. Now you get to wait for the big-ass bus 40 times as long. Perfect.
How about just admitting that you can't fit more stuff into less space, and still have it usable. Archive-storage doesn't work for civilized humans -- intiguingly, it works far better for rural/country humans.
Trusting that a network has been built securely is totally different than trusting that no one is [currently] hacking your public wifi. That's just trusting the people around you.
Once again, this whole focus on digital-needs-to-be-secure-otherwise-it-fails is remarkably inconsistent with the windows in my house being made of glass, my car doors being accessible to any locksmith, and the yellow painted line on the highway that keeps high-speed traffic from colliding with other high-speed traffic -- and pedestrians.
Choosing to trust that the persons around you aren't criminals is a good thing for society. My doors are often unlocked. Sometimes I leave my garage door wide open. I drive a convertible, and leave it parked, top-down. And there ain't nothin' stopping anyone from throwing a handful of dandylion seeds into my lawn.
Most of my neighbours have keys to my house -- so they can quickly help me if I need them. I trust that they won't steal my family jewels.
Digital doesn't need to be perfectly secure. It merely needs to be as secure as we choose to need it to be. Judging by everything else in life, that just ain't very secure at all.
Your local jewelry store, for example. Smash the display case, grab the real diamonds (not the fake ones) and run. The front door has a cage to stop you. But there's literally a back door to almost every one of those "secure" stores that has nothing at all to stop you.
It's never been about stopping the criminal. It's always been about making the line very obvious. I don't worry about my car being stolen because it isn't something that anyone's going to do by accident -- grant theft auto is a very big deal. That's all digital needs -- a proper legal system to make illegal things easily prosecutable.
In other words, it's all about the deterrent. Works in the animal kingdom too: no armour is thick enough, no claw sharp enough, to make the fight recreational.
Seems like a good investment to me. Operational for fifty years, and never been hacked. Seems like your government did everything right -- oh how I wish that had continued to be true.
If you believe that your comments have any validity, put your name to them. Otherwise, they are completely invalid.
I said nothing of mechanisms. I spoke of lessons and results.
This research comes out of the use of cold water -- as an ecological compromise -- which winds up destroying the very purpose of washing in the first place. It's actually a failure of knowing.
I want to take our 2016 advanced scientific knowledge, build a time-travel device, and tell someone who lived a thousand years ago that hot water cleans better than cold water.
There are no self-driving cars today. A self driving car is a car that can follow any standard road, anywhere. They can't. They are plagued by weird things of all sorts. Maybe we're five years away from ones that can handle the city roads. And another five years from ones that can handle effectively all roads. Then adoption can begin.
Video phones have existed since the '70s. I wouldn't say that they became popular until last year. And they still aren't anywhere near the majority.
I don't want to sit in a car, bored to tears, when I could be spending my time driving; driving's fun, and it's certainly more fun than sitting and waiting.
So, at the end of the day, when the girl you love removes her coloured contact lenses, her hear extensions, her make-up, eye-shadow, concealer, cover-up, foundation, false lashes, and ear-rings, she'll then peel off her skin.
That there once, a billion years ago, was a civilization, a few million light-years from here, is totally meaningless. Like so many mathematical conclusions, it misses the point. What we care about is an advanced civilization here and now, where here is somehow reachable either physically or communicably or visibly. And we don't care about plants and worms and single-celled organism either.
The math falls apart quickly when you then divide by time.
Additionally, the spark of life is still somewhat of a mystery. There's no guarantee that a habital world will eventually develop life just because it is habitable.
Keep dividing folks. A Trillion Billion isn't difficult to reach. Anyone who's written a poorly-considered sql join statement knows that all too well.
When he leaves, the door locks behind him -- because he disconnects. Unless his router has a range of a mile, like many around here. Oh, and so when his phone disconnects from the network, his front door deadbolts -- even if it's wide open, in the middle of a party, when he turns off his phone, or has a connectivity blip.
If this then that. "this". In real life, "this" is a multi-faceted, intelligence-driven scenario. A recipe uses ingredients to create a product. "this" is a scenario during which to take action. A "scenario" is as complicated as, oh I don't know, every legal agreement that's ever been used to define anything.
That's what legal agreements are -- A pays B N dollars is the easy part, but when? Ten pages of scenario descriptions and exceptions and how to observe said scenarios.
If Bob's phone disconnects from the network, when the front door is closed, and no one else is connected, and the lights aren't on, and Bob's phone first connected to the tiny network at the end of the driveway, and Bob isn't gardening today -- I guess his garden spade isn't connected to the network, or is connected to the network in the shed...
FIguring out if Bob is still home, when "being home" includes the garden, and the garage, but not the neighbour's house, and not the road hockey game, ain't as simple as a network connection. And it's certainly not as simple as a spotty network connection.
I sure home Bob's party doesn't run out of ice, forcing him to run out to the store to buy a bag, and wind up locking his party guests in his house. Sounds like false imprisonment to me.
Am I the only one who's ever done a presentation off of a computer? Everyone still using overhead projectors with transparencies?
It's been twenty years of presentations. You never use the primary monitor for a presentation. For all sorts of reasons. Windows 10 upgrade? Pfff. How about action notifications, java updates, low-battery warnings, and myriad other bubble alerts -- and clippy, never forget clippy. Not to mention the taskbar itself and general background off-camera control.
Always always always connect your presentation device -- or live television broadcast -- as a secondary monitor, extending your desktop.
It's funny. This research spent a great deal of effort to identify the artist's "typical" approaches to individual and compound features; it then averages them to produce a work that feels like a Rembrandt.
But the only reason that it feels like a Rembrandt at all is because it is the centroid of all of his stylistic approaches -- a perfect average.
As in most cases, an "average" of many details is precisely not what an artist does. An artist's real work is in the details that defy their own averages and typical approaches. Listen to any artist analysis, and you'll hear words like "unlike in his other works...", "for the first time at that point..", "never before...", "...and yet in this painting...".
This work is very impressive, a perfect way to fool viewers and a perfect way to pay respect to Rembrandt's approach. That said, however, it is precisely the definition of not a Rembrandt. It is not the work of an artists. It is the work of a business -- which has always been the ability to reproduce copies of something (product or service) in a replicatable and bulk manner.
My car is a toy. It's a sportscar, and it's fun. It also gets me places, and it also keeps me warm, but what it brings to my transportation over a normal car is unnecessary for transportation. In other words, the more that it offers doesn't make the transportation any better (not faster, not more comfortable, not easier).
Each of those items, and the mouse is an easy example to discuss, was a toy when it came out. At the time, computers were used for typing. What the mouse offered wasn't necessary for computer use. It didn't improve any task being done at the time. That's what made it a toy.
Obviously any toy, once it becomes ubiquitous, becomes flexible as a tool. If everyone had a sportscar like mine, we could redesign the roads to function like the track, and all drive at twice the speed; we could redesign parking lots to fit more cars too.
I'll use your example against you, if you don't mind.
If the information were in a physical safe, the FBI would have gotten into the safe within hours. Let's say within three hours. Then, when they want my phone, that's another three hours. Then, when they want your phone, that's another three hours. That's three hours for each and every phone. That's a few million hours for all iphones.
But it's not in a physical safe. It's in the iphone. Now, eventually, the FBI will get into the iphone, and get everything they want. It's been a few months. Let's say it takes six months. Then, how long does the second iphone take? Right, one second. And it can be done remotely. Suddenly, every phone everywhere is instantly accessible to the FBI.
Oh wait, like the whole surveillance state that already exists. Couldn't have existed with physical safes, and message couriers. Was totally and directly illegal with snail mail too.
Electronic keys are better than security keys, I agree, entirely -- until the electronic keys can be used from a distance. Then it's all over. The entire parking lot is at risk. Every car within three miles of a computer is at risk.
That's why, right now, when you use the remote to unlock your car doors, they re-lock on their own after thirty seconds. So if they get an errant signal, or somone hacks it from fifty feet away, they won't get there in-time. They also need to find the car, which ain't easy in a big parking lot. But turn on the car, or roll down the windows, or turn on the lights such that they stay on, and then just walk up and down the parking lot aisles and look for open cars with a glance.
Security isn't about making something difficult. It's easy to break a window to bypass a locked door. It's very easy to print money. Stupid easy to print money. The mint does it all the time. Buy the equipment, buy the supplies, hit print. What makes printing money difficult is that those supplies are easily tracked -- it's that plastic and that colour ink that's only available from three places in the world. So you'll be caught instantly.
That's security: being able to catch the culprit easier than they could pull off the heist. When police have the upper-hand over the criminal, that's security.
True. I've always said that we aren't going to be able to stop Ethan Hunt.
However, along the way, we've shifted from "honest persons" to "honest publics". I think that's the new problem. One honest person standing in-front of me won't stab me in my pace-maker (if I were to have one). But in a stadium of 75'000 screaming fans, will one 14 year-old hack into my pace-maker from 100 yards away and turn it off?
Imagine being able to assassinate the president by turning off his pace maker. Without a trace. Without physical access. Without physical proximity! Trump would be dead a hundred times over already. Lincoln would have been dead for just suggesting freedom.
Bullet-proof cars aren't so bullet-proof when the sniper can roll down the windows from a mile away. That's what this technology is.
The convenience to lock my doors from the office, in-case I forgot, is very assuring. The ability to unlock those same doors is very stupid.
Bluetooth and NFC have infinite distances of operation. Like with any radio transmission, it's only about power and size. Your phone might only have a short range, but the $300 device that I buy at the radio store has a three mile range.
When your wife's purse was stolen, she had to call five credit card companies, two banks, four government agencies, and at least three lock-smiths. She can also call her husband to bring her the spare car-key.
Physical keys require the thief to be right there picking the lock. That means anyone watching can see that it's a thief. It also means that in order to steal my car, you need to find my car, specifically. It's a surface-area-of-attack thing. With this new device, a thief can sit in the coffee shop, and spend hours hacking into any car in the parking lot, completely and totally undetected. Infinite time, infinite cars, infinite opportunity, zero chance to get caught.
See, that's a feature that we never had -- the actualy EJECT. I always wanted the tape to eject across the room -- propelling the tape at least 15 feet. That would have been awesome!
Especially in the DVD days, (or CD even) where it could have frisbee'd the disc across the room to the couch, and where we could have horse-shoe'd it from the couch into the tray!
Actually, I think not being capable of lending my car to someone without meeting them is a great and wonderful thing. I also think not being able to open my car from more than three feet away is a wonderful thing. I'm also certain that, like with most new technologies, marketing will make people want something that they never wanted before.
Right now, I don't have a problem, and I don't have a complaint. That means there's nothing to solve and nothing to address. We're not talking about a core-feature of a car, where you could say that it's missing. We're talking about an accessorial feature.
Now, perhaps if we were to add access control to this thing, such that I can authorize my child to access the car only during certain hours, or my neighbour access only when I'm not home (and the car is), then you could argue that granting access around security is a core-feature of secure-access.
But then I'm going to say that if my neighbour can't follow my rules, then I don't want them to have access to my car at all. And if my child can't follow my rules, then being able to break them is a vital part of maturing.
This is like opening my garage door from the office so the courier can deliver a package to a securable area. Instead of trusting my neighbours to not steal a package from my front door, I'm trusting the courier to not steal anything from my garage.
We had keys specifically so that a physical device is required. That's a security feature. Otherwise, a combination lock would let anyone with knowledge of the combination to enter -- which could easily be sent by text message.
I don't lend my car to random people, on a whim, without them having a key already. Sorry, that's not a thing.
And, again, I don't need remote access to my car, any more than I needed remote access to my VCR's eject button.
So, everything. Oh wait, that's what everything is. So coding would be the non-art part of steam. Dumb statement.
That said, no, coding should not be a part of school curriculum. It's a job today. That's why I started learning 30 years ago. It won't be anything special twenty years from now -- just another blue-collar job, like brick-laying.
Also, coding is one of those all-application kind of things. There's nothing academic to learn, it's al practicum. Teach logic, sure. Teach technical writing. Teach instructing, directing, leadership, proceduralization obviously. But you can skip anything with a syntax in school. Math in school isn't about how to use the latest calculator. English isn't about how to construct a podium. It's about what needs saying.
How come they never control for the number of hours actually worked? So many studies have published that male programmers work longer hours, you'd think wage studies would control for hours actually worked.
I hear you. And thanks for one of the first good reason for anonymity. I understand the other half of the story today (I didn't at 6), but I'm considering irrelevant to the lesson. That there were other mistakes made in-advance is bad on its own, but the final mistake is no less a mistake as a result.
I'm sure I could draw a lesson from the other side too, but I'd have a more difficult time explaining it to friends!
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're driving along, and all of a sudden, a wall appears around you, then vanishes, then appears again.
Hope you brought your sun glasses, and removed them, and put them on again, with your psychic powers.
Also hope you didn't plan on changing lanes, and weren't in the middle of doing so.
It's not the same as 40 busses. 40 busses come 40 times as often. Now you get to wait for the big-ass bus 40 times as long. Perfect.
How about just admitting that you can't fit more stuff into less space, and still have it usable. Archive-storage doesn't work for civilized humans -- intiguingly, it works far better for rural/country humans.
Trusting that a network has been built securely is totally different than trusting that no one is [currently] hacking your public wifi. That's just trusting the people around you.
Once again, this whole focus on digital-needs-to-be-secure-otherwise-it-fails is remarkably inconsistent with the windows in my house being made of glass, my car doors being accessible to any locksmith, and the yellow painted line on the highway that keeps high-speed traffic from colliding with other high-speed traffic -- and pedestrians.
Choosing to trust that the persons around you aren't criminals is a good thing for society. My doors are often unlocked. Sometimes I leave my garage door wide open. I drive a convertible, and leave it parked, top-down. And there ain't nothin' stopping anyone from throwing a handful of dandylion seeds into my lawn.
Most of my neighbours have keys to my house -- so they can quickly help me if I need them. I trust that they won't steal my family jewels.
Digital doesn't need to be perfectly secure. It merely needs to be as secure as we choose to need it to be. Judging by everything else in life, that just ain't very secure at all.
Your local jewelry store, for example. Smash the display case, grab the real diamonds (not the fake ones) and run. The front door has a cage to stop you. But there's literally a back door to almost every one of those "secure" stores that has nothing at all to stop you.
It's never been about stopping the criminal. It's always been about making the line very obvious. I don't worry about my car being stolen because it isn't something that anyone's going to do by accident -- grant theft auto is a very big deal. That's all digital needs -- a proper legal system to make illegal things easily prosecutable.
In other words, it's all about the deterrent. Works in the animal kingdom too: no armour is thick enough, no claw sharp enough, to make the fight recreational.
Seems like a good investment to me. Operational for fifty years, and never been hacked. Seems like your government did everything right -- oh how I wish that had continued to be true.
If you believe that your comments have any validity, put your name to them. Otherwise, they are completely invalid.
I said nothing of mechanisms. I spoke of lessons and results.
This research comes out of the use of cold water -- as an ecological compromise -- which winds up destroying the very purpose of washing in the first place. It's actually a failure of knowing.
I want to take our 2016 advanced scientific knowledge, build a time-travel device, and tell someone who lived a thousand years ago that hot water cleans better than cold water.
There are no self-driving cars today. A self driving car is a car that can follow any standard road, anywhere. They can't. They are plagued by weird things of all sorts. Maybe we're five years away from ones that can handle the city roads. And another five years from ones that can handle effectively all roads. Then adoption can begin.
Video phones have existed since the '70s. I wouldn't say that they became popular until last year. And they still aren't anywhere near the majority.
I don't want to sit in a car, bored to tears, when I could be spending my time driving; driving's fun, and it's certainly more fun than sitting and waiting.
So, at the end of the day, when the girl you love removes her coloured contact lenses, her hear extensions, her make-up, eye-shadow, concealer, cover-up, foundation, false lashes, and ear-rings, she'll then peel off her skin.
Ewww.
That there once, a billion years ago, was a civilization, a few million light-years from here, is totally meaningless. Like so many mathematical conclusions, it misses the point. What we care about is an advanced civilization here and now, where here is somehow reachable either physically or communicably or visibly. And we don't care about plants and worms and single-celled organism either.
The math falls apart quickly when you then divide by time.
Additionally, the spark of life is still somewhat of a mystery. There's no guarantee that a habital world will eventually develop life just because it is habitable.
Keep dividing folks. A Trillion Billion isn't difficult to reach. Anyone who's written a poorly-considered sql join statement knows that all too well.
When he leaves, the door locks behind him -- because he disconnects. Unless his router has a range of a mile, like many around here. Oh, and so when his phone disconnects from the network, his front door deadbolts -- even if it's wide open, in the middle of a party, when he turns off his phone, or has a connectivity blip.
If this then that. "this". In real life, "this" is a multi-faceted, intelligence-driven scenario. A recipe uses ingredients to create a product. "this" is a scenario during which to take action. A "scenario" is as complicated as, oh I don't know, every legal agreement that's ever been used to define anything.
That's what legal agreements are -- A pays B N dollars is the easy part, but when? Ten pages of scenario descriptions and exceptions and how to observe said scenarios.
If Bob's phone disconnects from the network, when the front door is closed, and no one else is connected, and the lights aren't on, and Bob's phone first connected to the tiny network at the end of the driveway, and Bob isn't gardening today -- I guess his garden spade isn't connected to the network, or is connected to the network in the shed...
FIguring out if Bob is still home, when "being home" includes the garden, and the garage, but not the neighbour's house, and not the road hockey game, ain't as simple as a network connection. And it's certainly not as simple as a spotty network connection.
I sure home Bob's party doesn't run out of ice, forcing him to run out to the store to buy a bag, and wind up locking his party guests in his house. Sounds like false imprisonment to me.
Am I the only one who's ever done a presentation off of a computer? Everyone still using overhead projectors with transparencies?
It's been twenty years of presentations. You never use the primary monitor for a presentation. For all sorts of reasons. Windows 10 upgrade? Pfff. How about action notifications, java updates, low-battery warnings, and myriad other bubble alerts -- and clippy, never forget clippy. Not to mention the taskbar itself and general background off-camera control.
Always always always connect your presentation device -- or live television broadcast -- as a secondary monitor, extending your desktop.
This isn't new.
It's funny. This research spent a great deal of effort to identify the artist's "typical" approaches to individual and compound features; it then averages them to produce a work that feels like a Rembrandt.
But the only reason that it feels like a Rembrandt at all is because it is the centroid of all of his stylistic approaches -- a perfect average.
As in most cases, an "average" of many details is precisely not what an artist does. An artist's real work is in the details that defy their own averages and typical approaches. Listen to any artist analysis, and you'll hear words like "unlike in his other works...", "for the first time at that point..", "never before...", "...and yet in this painting...".
This work is very impressive, a perfect way to fool viewers and a perfect way to pay respect to Rembrandt's approach. That said, however, it is precisely the definition of not a Rembrandt. It is not the work of an artists. It is the work of a business -- which has always been the ability to reproduce copies of something (product or service) in a replicatable and bulk manner.
An app designed to expose a person to nearby persons isn't private? Who'd have thunk it?
Isn't that the definition of not private to begin with?
My car is a toy. It's a sportscar, and it's fun. It also gets me places, and it also keeps me warm, but what it brings to my transportation over a normal car is unnecessary for transportation. In other words, the more that it offers doesn't make the transportation any better (not faster, not more comfortable, not easier).
Each of those items, and the mouse is an easy example to discuss, was a toy when it came out. At the time, computers were used for typing. What the mouse offered wasn't necessary for computer use. It didn't improve any task being done at the time. That's what made it a toy.
Obviously any toy, once it becomes ubiquitous, becomes flexible as a tool. If everyone had a sportscar like mine, we could redesign the roads to function like the track, and all drive at twice the speed; we could redesign parking lots to fit more cars too.
I'll use your example against you, if you don't mind.
If the information were in a physical safe, the FBI would have gotten into the safe within hours. Let's say within three hours. Then, when they want my phone, that's another three hours. Then, when they want your phone, that's another three hours. That's three hours for each and every phone. That's a few million hours for all iphones.
But it's not in a physical safe. It's in the iphone. Now, eventually, the FBI will get into the iphone, and get everything they want. It's been a few months. Let's say it takes six months. Then, how long does the second iphone take? Right, one second. And it can be done remotely. Suddenly, every phone everywhere is instantly accessible to the FBI.
Oh wait, like the whole surveillance state that already exists. Couldn't have existed with physical safes, and message couriers. Was totally and directly illegal with snail mail too.
Electronic keys are better than security keys, I agree, entirely -- until the electronic keys can be used from a distance. Then it's all over. The entire parking lot is at risk. Every car within three miles of a computer is at risk.
That's why, right now, when you use the remote to unlock your car doors, they re-lock on their own after thirty seconds. So if they get an errant signal, or somone hacks it from fifty feet away, they won't get there in-time. They also need to find the car, which ain't easy in a big parking lot. But turn on the car, or roll down the windows, or turn on the lights such that they stay on, and then just walk up and down the parking lot aisles and look for open cars with a glance.
Security isn't about making something difficult. It's easy to break a window to bypass a locked door. It's very easy to print money. Stupid easy to print money. The mint does it all the time. Buy the equipment, buy the supplies, hit print. What makes printing money difficult is that those supplies are easily tracked -- it's that plastic and that colour ink that's only available from three places in the world. So you'll be caught instantly.
That's security: being able to catch the culprit easier than they could pull off the heist. When police have the upper-hand over the criminal, that's security.
This technology turns that backwards.
True. I've always said that we aren't going to be able to stop Ethan Hunt.
However, along the way, we've shifted from "honest persons" to "honest publics". I think that's the new problem. One honest person standing in-front of me won't stab me in my pace-maker (if I were to have one). But in a stadium of 75'000 screaming fans, will one 14 year-old hack into my pace-maker from 100 yards away and turn it off?
Imagine being able to assassinate the president by turning off his pace maker. Without a trace. Without physical access. Without physical proximity! Trump would be dead a hundred times over already. Lincoln would have been dead for just suggesting freedom.
Bullet-proof cars aren't so bullet-proof when the sniper can roll down the windows from a mile away. That's what this technology is.
The convenience to lock my doors from the office, in-case I forgot, is very assuring. The ability to unlock those same doors is very stupid.
Bluetooth and NFC have infinite distances of operation. Like with any radio transmission, it's only about power and size. Your phone might only have a short range, but the $300 device that I buy at the radio store has a three mile range.
When your wife's purse was stolen, she had to call five credit card companies, two banks, four government agencies, and at least three lock-smiths. She can also call her husband to bring her the spare car-key.
Physical keys require the thief to be right there picking the lock. That means anyone watching can see that it's a thief. It also means that in order to steal my car, you need to find my car, specifically. It's a surface-area-of-attack thing. With this new device, a thief can sit in the coffee shop, and spend hours hacking into any car in the parking lot, completely and totally undetected. Infinite time, infinite cars, infinite opportunity, zero chance to get caught.
See, that's a feature that we never had -- the actualy EJECT. I always wanted the tape to eject across the room -- propelling the tape at least 15 feet. That would have been awesome!
Especially in the DVD days, (or CD even) where it could have frisbee'd the disc across the room to the couch, and where we could have horse-shoe'd it from the couch into the tray!
Actually, I think not being capable of lending my car to someone without meeting them is a great and wonderful thing. I also think not being able to open my car from more than three feet away is a wonderful thing. I'm also certain that, like with most new technologies, marketing will make people want something that they never wanted before.
Right now, I don't have a problem, and I don't have a complaint. That means there's nothing to solve and nothing to address. We're not talking about a core-feature of a car, where you could say that it's missing. We're talking about an accessorial feature.
Now, perhaps if we were to add access control to this thing, such that I can authorize my child to access the car only during certain hours, or my neighbour access only when I'm not home (and the car is), then you could argue that granting access around security is a core-feature of secure-access.
But then I'm going to say that if my neighbour can't follow my rules, then I don't want them to have access to my car at all. And if my child can't follow my rules, then being able to break them is a vital part of maturing.
This is like opening my garage door from the office so the courier can deliver a package to a securable area. Instead of trusting my neighbours to not steal a package from my front door, I'm trusting the courier to not steal anything from my garage.
We had keys specifically so that a physical device is required. That's a security feature. Otherwise, a combination lock would let anyone with knowledge of the combination to enter -- which could easily be sent by text message.
I don't lend my car to random people, on a whim, without them having a key already. Sorry, that's not a thing.
And, again, I don't need remote access to my car, any more than I needed remote access to my VCR's eject button.
So, everything. Oh wait, that's what everything is. So coding would be the non-art part of steam. Dumb statement.
That said, no, coding should not be a part of school curriculum. It's a job today. That's why I started learning 30 years ago. It won't be anything special twenty years from now -- just another blue-collar job, like brick-laying.
Also, coding is one of those all-application kind of things. There's nothing academic to learn, it's al practicum. Teach logic, sure. Teach technical writing. Teach instructing, directing, leadership, proceduralization obviously. But you can skip anything with a syntax in school. Math in school isn't about how to use the latest calculator. English isn't about how to construct a podium. It's about what needs saying.
How come they never control for the number of hours actually worked? So many studies have published that male programmers work longer hours, you'd think wage studies would control for hours actually worked.
Actually, the height of selfishness is killing things just to survive. I do that too. I kill things to eat. I kill things to shelter myself too.
Neither of those are life/safety consequences. Like I said, I won't let anyone cross that line. Loss of life is not the same as loss of freedom.
I hear you. And thanks for one of the first good reason for anonymity. I understand the other half of the story today (I didn't at 6), but I'm considering irrelevant to the lesson. That there were other mistakes made in-advance is bad on its own, but the final mistake is no less a mistake as a result.
I'm sure I could draw a lesson from the other side too, but I'd have a more difficult time explaining it to friends!