I've got a PhD in CS, and I grew up with the U.S. education system of the 1970's and 80's. I had playground time, and little formalized national testing. I'll bet few of the Turing award winners or ACM Fellows were educated in the manner advocated by today's politicians and Plutocrats.
They're not going for more Turing award winners, they're going for more people being able to understand CS and possibly do CS. Their goal isn't more genius's, their goal is just... more.
Do you really think that not teaching a subject to kids will get more of them to learn it?
That would lead to chaos as society's fabric unwound and everything broke down. How could you suggest such a thing? Why don't you think of the children?
The reforms they were not asked to perform are interesting. Greece has been asked to reduce salaries and pensions, and even to sell some territory. But when did EU "partners" did push for a tax reform so that the wealthier pay their share? When did EU "partners" asked for military budget reduction?
Greece has a military? It's possible that they weren't asked to make these changes because they may not have done much good? If they would have done good, and Greece have done them, it would have gotten the other countries off of their back. Wouldn't Greeks have liked that better; balancing their budget, and doing it in a way that wasn't advised to them?
You assume that I think taxpayers should have to rebuild those houses.
I'm not assuming that. Regardless of what you think about the issue that's the reality on the ground. A location gets hit by a hurricane, news stories float around about people who have lost everything, there's a public swelling of support, and before we know it the government is in the insurance business. It's happened with coast lines, it happened with fire insurance in LA/Hollywood, it happens in many, many places. Most people can't be cold hearted basterds enough to realize that in certain situations, helping people rebuild their lives creates dependency problems. And since we're in a democracy, that's the reality on the ground.
I'm sorry, but if you want to build a house at the beach, why should it be the government's business to stop you?
Because when inevitable destruction occurs to the beach property, you'll get an interview on TV and sob and whine about how much you love your house which was just destroyed, and then my tax payer dollars have to be invested in reconstructing the house that's in a dangerous place to build. That's why the government should stop the building of houses in dangerous areas.
and instead of seeing how the slippery slope of power led to the corruption of the individuals they thought to themselves, "I want to get me some of that".
So to protect against silencing, you're going to silence?
Well, if one bully can silence 100 shrinking violets, by removing the bully, twitter will get less silence as the shrinking violets have conversations about how important everyones feelings are on whatever subject matter is worth tweeting about.
If your goal was to get as many eyeballs looking at ads on your platform, wouldn't you trade one bully for 100 shrinking violets?
Is handing out torches to angry villagers. Going to be interesting to see how they square this.
Shouldn't that be everybody's business model, supplying a need for the largest market? Do you think there are more angry villagers, or more victims being lynched?
your irrational fear is nothing but illiteracy and ignorance
I think I have an irrational fear of sentences with no capitol letters in them. It makes me feel that the person authoring them is illiterate and ignorant.
This is a little bit different than Internet Exploder, which MS was forcing people to keep installed when using the OS. But one could just as easily type www.yahoo.com into the URL, or even www.bing.com into the URL.
But could just as easily launch Netscape from their desktop as they could IE from their desktop.
You couldn't buy a computer (and still can't) without Windows.
But with a computer you could always buy the parts and build your own. Slashdot will regularly feature posts from companies selling non-Windows computers. Just because IE is installed doesn't force you to use it.
Manages to insert the government even more in the internet.
Given that we all first started receiving the internet over telephone lines which were subject to Title II, how does saying "Even though you're no longer connecting via a telephone line, you still have to follow Title II" insert even more government to the internet. It's keeping the same amount of government in our internet.
Why have innovation and free markets when we can have government regulations?
If you've ever read 'On the Wealth of Nations' (the book that kind of defined free markets), you'll notice how most of the book is laying out the required government regulations needed to create a free market. The two aren't mutually exclusive. A free market depends upon government regulations which prevent incumbent players from destroying the free market.
Of course there are government regulations which also cripple free markets, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the lack of government regulations are a free market. They're not.
IF You want to fix the "Comcast vs Netflix" problem, fix the last mile problem first. IF consumers actually had a choice in providers, beyond Cable vs others, you'd see better customer service.
That would be ideal, but given the reality on the ground, that's not going to happen. The FCC can fix Comcast vs Everyone via Title II, it can't fix every municipal ordinance all across the country.
Why did you have to rent your phone? Because government regulations and laws enforced a monopoly.
No, you had to rent your phone because there was only one telephone utility (AT&T), and that's what their business policy was. Do you think a bunch of telephone companies sprang up with interconnectable systems, and then the government decided to force the companies to only allow company approved hardware on the client side of their systems?
As what I'd consider a 'power user', one of the first things I do is turn that obnoxious thing off.
I remember during the Vista Beta time frame visiting a website that I'd never been to before and all of a sudden having the browser cause a UAC prompt. Now you can go off on what sort of insecure hole could exist that would allow a website to make admin level privileges on a computer, but that doesn't matter; what matters is that fact that it could. I clicked 'No' on the prompt and felt a sudden rush of power over my computer that I hadn't had before. Previously random crap from anywhere could make admin level changes to my computer, and before UAC I'd have no\little idea about it. But with UAC I was in control now.
It happened a few more times too. I was doing something that shouldn't have required admin privileges, got a prompt and denied the poorly written program the access it was trying to usurp.
As a power user, I'm sure you're aware that it's a really bad idea to do your day to day computing logged in as a user with administrative permissions. So with UAC turned off you must have some system setup where you download your installers, and then switch users to the admin to actually install them. Sounds like too much work to me.
Turning off UAC is like have a setting that will click 'yes' to every prompt. An idiot would click 'yes' to every prompt. A power user knows when to click 'no'.
From my experience dealing with Microsoft Exchange administrators, this comes as no surprise.
However, when people running high-performance, FOSS mailservers forget to get fresh certs before the old ones expire they are ridiculed and many even lose their jobs. There's a higher level of competence expected, I guess.
You're right, it totally sucks to have software that seems to be able to perform, without a crack team of competent professionals holding it together each day. All software should require massive amounts of 'competence' to manage it, instead of being able to just do what the user wanted it to do.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got a PhD in CS, and I grew up with the U.S. education system of the 1970's and 80's. I had playground time, and little formalized national testing. I'll bet few of the Turing award winners or ACM Fellows were educated in the manner advocated by today's politicians and Plutocrats.
They're not going for more Turing award winners, they're going for more people being able to understand CS and possibly do CS. Their goal isn't more genius's, their goal is just ... more.
Do you really think that not teaching a subject to kids will get more of them to learn it?
How about just don't drive at all?
That would lead to chaos as society's fabric unwound and everything broke down. How could you suggest such a thing? Why don't you think of the children?
If your license is revoked, don't drive with a pressure cooker.
The reforms they were not asked to perform are interesting. Greece has been asked to reduce salaries and pensions, and even to sell some territory. But when did EU "partners" did push for a tax reform so that the wealthier pay their share? When did EU "partners" asked for military budget reduction?
Greece has a military? It's possible that they weren't asked to make these changes because they may not have done much good? If they would have done good, and Greece have done them, it would have gotten the other countries off of their back. Wouldn't Greeks have liked that better; balancing their budget, and doing it in a way that wasn't advised to them?
Kick them out of the EU currency. It'll keep other countries inline about being honest what's on their books.
As long as the user you run as is a Standard user without admin privileges you're probably fine.
Is cool.
I know I'm going to get disappointed though when somebody has something to complain about it.
You assume that I think taxpayers should have to rebuild those houses.
I'm not assuming that. Regardless of what you think about the issue that's the reality on the ground. A location gets hit by a hurricane, news stories float around about people who have lost everything, there's a public swelling of support, and before we know it the government is in the insurance business. It's happened with coast lines, it happened with fire insurance in LA/Hollywood, it happens in many, many places. Most people can't be cold hearted basterds enough to realize that in certain situations, helping people rebuild their lives creates dependency problems. And since we're in a democracy, that's the reality on the ground.
I'm sorry, but if you want to build a house at the beach, why should it be the government's business to stop you?
Because when inevitable destruction occurs to the beach property, you'll get an interview on TV and sob and whine about how much you love your house which was just destroyed, and then my tax payer dollars have to be invested in reconstructing the house that's in a dangerous place to build. That's why the government should stop the building of houses in dangerous areas.
and instead of seeing how the slippery slope of power led to the corruption of the individuals they thought to themselves, "I want to get me some of that".
Can I be the one who decides who is undesirable and gets silenced?
No, that's Anakin Skywalker's job.
So to protect against silencing, you're going to silence?
Well, if one bully can silence 100 shrinking violets, by removing the bully, twitter will get less silence as the shrinking violets have conversations about how important everyones feelings are on whatever subject matter is worth tweeting about.
If your goal was to get as many eyeballs looking at ads on your platform, wouldn't you trade one bully for 100 shrinking violets?
Is handing out torches to angry villagers. Going to be interesting to see how they square this.
Shouldn't that be everybody's business model, supplying a need for the largest market? Do you think there are more angry villagers, or more victims being lynched?
Do you think that no science was used in the European countries who all banned GMOs?
Yes, those bans came from fear mongering.
your irrational fear is nothing but illiteracy and ignorance
I think I have an irrational fear of sentences with no capitol letters in them. It makes me feel that the person authoring them is illiterate and ignorant.
Things DO NOT need to be connected to the internet.
I wonder if that will become the definition of a 'thing' in a generation.
Thing: An item which is connected to the internet.
This is a little bit different than Internet Exploder, which MS was forcing people to keep installed when using the OS. But one could just as easily type www.yahoo.com into the URL, or even www.bing.com into the URL.
But could just as easily launch Netscape from their desktop as they could IE from their desktop.
You couldn't buy a computer (and still can't) without Windows.
But with a computer you could always buy the parts and build your own. Slashdot will regularly feature posts from companies selling non-Windows computers. Just because IE is installed doesn't force you to use it.
Manages to insert the government even more in the internet.
Given that we all first started receiving the internet over telephone lines which were subject to Title II, how does saying "Even though you're no longer connecting via a telephone line, you still have to follow Title II" insert even more government to the internet. It's keeping the same amount of government in our internet.
Why have innovation and free markets when we can have government regulations?
If you've ever read 'On the Wealth of Nations' (the book that kind of defined free markets), you'll notice how most of the book is laying out the required government regulations needed to create a free market. The two aren't mutually exclusive. A free market depends upon government regulations which prevent incumbent players from destroying the free market.
Of course there are government regulations which also cripple free markets, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the lack of government regulations are a free market. They're not.
IF You want to fix the "Comcast vs Netflix" problem, fix the last mile problem first. IF consumers actually had a choice in providers, beyond Cable vs others, you'd see better customer service.
That would be ideal, but given the reality on the ground, that's not going to happen. The FCC can fix Comcast vs Everyone via Title II, it can't fix every municipal ordinance all across the country.
Why did you have to rent your phone? Because government regulations and laws enforced a monopoly.
No, you had to rent your phone because there was only one telephone utility (AT&T), and that's what their business policy was. Do you think a bunch of telephone companies sprang up with interconnectable systems, and then the government decided to force the companies to only allow company approved hardware on the client side of their systems?
As what I'd consider a 'power user', one of the first things I do is turn that obnoxious thing off.
I remember during the Vista Beta time frame visiting a website that I'd never been to before and all of a sudden having the browser cause a UAC prompt. Now you can go off on what sort of insecure hole could exist that would allow a website to make admin level privileges on a computer, but that doesn't matter; what matters is that fact that it could. I clicked 'No' on the prompt and felt a sudden rush of power over my computer that I hadn't had before. Previously random crap from anywhere could make admin level changes to my computer, and before UAC I'd have no\little idea about it. But with UAC I was in control now.
It happened a few more times too. I was doing something that shouldn't have required admin privileges, got a prompt and denied the poorly written program the access it was trying to usurp.
As a power user, I'm sure you're aware that it's a really bad idea to do your day to day computing logged in as a user with administrative permissions. So with UAC turned off you must have some system setup where you download your installers, and then switch users to the admin to actually install them. Sounds like too much work to me.
Turning off UAC is like have a setting that will click 'yes' to every prompt. An idiot would click 'yes' to every prompt. A power user knows when to click 'no'.
From my experience dealing with Microsoft Exchange administrators, this comes as no surprise.
However, when people running high-performance, FOSS mailservers forget to get fresh certs before the old ones expire they are ridiculed and many even lose their jobs. There's a higher level of competence expected, I guess.
You're right, it totally sucks to have software that seems to be able to perform, without a crack team of competent professionals holding it together each day. All software should require massive amounts of 'competence' to manage it, instead of being able to just do what the user wanted it to do.
Just put two reasonably competent people in the cockpit
That's the real trick, ain't it. You can't guarantee that statement.