I cannot say how people in China feel. I do know what (some) Chinese in the US say. One of them will be here (my university office) in 20 minutes. (A professor from Stanford and his graduate student are visiting me this weekend. The student is from China and the professor was in China within the last year.)
I have 6-7 colleagues from China. I meet many Chinese when attending conferences. "Every" math department has several mathematicians from China. The coauthor with whom I have written the most papers is from China. (I have 10-15 coauthors (e.g. peter, hal, andy, alan, maria, hasan, bent, buma, mila, julie, (+chinese) etc.) in total.) The point is that there is lots of contact in the mathematical community with people who travel to China and it is easy to get information about conditions there. The people of China are not dumb but it is often easier to overlook problems than to admit that they exist.
"By your logic, they could get away with more censorship if China left Google intact."
Right now, China is getting away with "more censorship" because of Google's help. If Google did not help the government in China, then either the government would have to block Google or allow more Internet freedom.
I am talking about American citizens from China who go to China, return to the US and talk about their experiences. While talking individually in the US, they have nothing to fear. They know there are some problems but do not realize the full extent of the problem. If Google did not help the government in China, China blocked Google and one were to ask these returning Chinese "Could you use Google in China?", they would have only one answer. They could not pretend that everything is OK.
"Would it be better if China took Google offline entirely?" yes.
The people of China would really understand what their government is doing (wrt preventing them from getting certain information). If you think this is already the case, talk to Chinese who went back to China this summer. They say "Things are getting better. (But the air and water are still bad.)" They do not see (or do not admit) that the government is a serious problem (wrt human rights).
The grantparent says:
"Seventh Secret: Most flaws occur thru "Gates" - Keep away from."
Nowhere do you see anything like "Install linux because it's magically secure!".
This is your typical troll. When CERT warns people to avoid IE and the security record of MS products is considered, warning people away from MS software is appropriate. You like to attack the people (posters) who point out things like this rather than making an honest comment. I hope MS pays you well.
Just for fun, you might like to know that a former long term MS programmer (who still likes MS as a company) is working on his PhD in math somewhere in the world. His comments are very interesting. (Sorry I cannot share them but one thread is that employing lots of very smart people with REALLY BIG egos does not yield good code - e.g. "Who are YOU to criticize my code?)
Without copyrights, it is not unreasonable to speculate that the only books that would ever get published in print are those that are sponsored by some organization that would not be relying on sales of the book to recover their losses (since there would be no protection like what authors currently have with copyright). Baen must not be making any money.
As a "last request" of a dying company, I am sure that Jim Baen would like to say: There was a school of thought, which seemed to be picking up steam, that the way to handle the problem was with handcuffs and brass knucks. Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!
Alles in ordnung!
I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:
1. Online piracy ? while it is definitely illegal and immoral ? is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.
2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.
3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market ? especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people ? is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.
"While I know it must be an easy confusion to make if you live in the USA"
Yes, we are easily confused in the US. We do not know to write "colour" or "behaviour." We do not have cool
gates to our parks.
(OK, I like Hyde Park. Sue me.)
Can you give reasons why you believe common law is better than constitutional law? Are there any limits to what Parliament can pass? (Could they pass a law saying anyone from Scotland can be executed for being from Scotland? Could they execute people for this crime?) (I have ancestors from the "Hay" family in Scotland. Would I be at risk?)
"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." Robert Anton Wilson
Yeah, you've got to hate what that Alzheimer's does. This proves that you should not get old. I'm just glad "W" is not a conservative; he would give conservatives a bad name.
Win2K is a completely different OS than Win95.
I am sure MS completely rewrites new OSs and hence no old bugs reappear in newer MS OSs. This is one reason MS has such a great security record.
FUD, shameless speculation, and bias. Man, this is just bad.
I really wish the FOSS community would follow the MS and SCO leads and avoid all of this FUD and such. Can't we be as good as MS?
My prediction is that historian in 50 or 100 years will say that the greatest terrorist group of the period 2000-2010 was be the Bush administration. Lots of correct predictions are ignored at the time they are made (e.g. Hubbert's Law or the Hubbert Curve, Wegener's 1912 book "The Origins of Continents and Oceans" and continental
drift. ) and I do not care if people flame me. Within the next one hundred years, historians will know if there were terrorist cells in Iraq before the invasion (answer: none or essentially none, as the 9/11 commision found but the Bush-fanboys dispute), will terroristic threats be greater or lesser when Bush leaves office than when he entered (answer: greater), and lots of other details at which I cannot even guess right now. This is not the main reason the Bush administration will be labeled as the top terrorist group. The Bush administration and the Congress overreacted to an isolated terroristic attack. They imposed new laws, arrested innocent people, and helped/caused a cultural change which will have echos for the next 50 years. They will continue to press for laws which reduce individual rights and enhance the power of big business (e.g. RIAA). They will continue to use the police, the FBI, the (former) INS, etc. to move the US in the direction of a police state. They will eventually find reason to arrest their critics for criticism of their policies.
What was the alternative to the present situation?
1. We (the US) could have realized that 9/11 was carried out by a small group of crazy people and did not require the government to "go to war with the citizens of the US". "Bin-idiot"'s effect has been magnified greatly by the response of the Bush administration.
2. Attacking Afghanistan was the correct thing to do but we should have send mamy more troups there; the warlords are still in power, the terrorists have access to drug money, the country will fall to terrorists when Bush gets tired of the international terrorists "game" and decides to focus on terrorists in the US, etc.
3. Attacking Iraq was completely stupid unless we are going to invade every country that has an evil government and that we supported at some time in the past. (One could write long essays on this topic.)
4. We could begin to get off the oil addiction. We "have to" support evil governments which control oil because we are "drug"(oil) users who cannot kick our drug. (This is not just aimed at Bush; both parties have supported maintaining evil (mini)empires when they control oil.)
I have done my best to entertain you. Instead of hitting your wife/girlfriend or kids/younger brother, feel free to flame me. Just keep a copy of this post for your grandchildren and see who is laughing then. Happy Saturday.
I agree with your comments. How should "we" (the US) fix the problem? Do we depend only on business/industry? Does the government have a role to play? What do you think of the (1999 or 2000) plan/agreement to increase science/engineering funding by the US government (e.g. NSF) which Bush dumped? Do you see CEOs investing more (or less) money in basic research/technology?
While I agree with your comments, I do not see the kind of investment in fundamental research which will produce jobs in 10 or 20 years. Do you see this issue differently?
I cannot disagree with anything you said; if I had not posted on this subject, I would use one of my current mod points to mod you up.
New engineering graduates at Boeing (were/are reported to) spend the first year getting coffee for the "real" engineers and learning how things are actually done. Several of my current students have parents, friends or associates with engineering degrees; when these engineering alumni are asked Calculus 2 questions, the response is "Well, I knew how to do that when I was in college but I have no idea now." PhDs in chemistry usually reply the same way.
A good friend of mine from high school earned an accounting degree and went to work for a lumber company in northern California. The hardest part of his job was learning where to find the information; in college, the data is given to students but in a company an accountant may have to discover the various places where the necessary data is hidden. (Of course, his accounting skills were important but he said that accounting was the easy part of the job.)
Even new PhDs in chemistry are considered to be fairly worthless; they become useful and valuable when they are employed as postdocs doing serious lab work for chemistry professors who see the big picture. I am told that a chemistry PhD candidate who works with a chemistry professor for 4 or 5 years only is worthwhile for one year; before that, the professor invests more time training the student than he/she receives in lab results/output. Postdocs are much better and are actually worth having in one's lab.
I am curious to see examples of the 90%
of "worthless" majors and examples of the 10%
worthwhile majors, even if these are just based on your opinion (and so you do not have to justify them or cite any studies).
"That's rather amusing, given how useless a college degree is in most professions - CS included."
I would agree about CS but I am curious about your list of "good" and "bad" majors. Of course, I do not agree with respect on Mathematics; I think Don Knuth would agree that a Math degree is worthwhile. I cannot imagine learning "real" physics (as compared with "popular" physics) without studying it at a university. Also biology (e.g. sequencing), chemistry (e.g. good lab technique, P-chem.), some (but not all) engineering, etc. On my "bad" list might be foreign languages (i.e. just go live in Spain or Germany or Sudan(?)),
the social sciences, Comm., etc - I'm not really sure my "bad" list is serious
because you (should) have to learn to actually go to class, use the library, express your opinion in persuasive ways, open your mind to new ways of thinking, accept differing points of view, etc. Independent of your major, a good university should make you "Grow Up". (No offense to the frat's.)
I had a student in Calculus (1980s) who was very good at math and computing. His degree was in Art. He worked (and still works) as a contract employee; he lived in Europe for ten years, moves from company, makes lots of money and does artwork (for himself, not for money) whenever he can. As a single person, being out of work for a year or two is OK; he can do more artwork and his bank account has a large enough balance (and his expenses are low enough) that money is not a principal concern.
This whole post may be offtopic but I am curious what people consider "good" and "bad" majors. By the way, I do not think being a "computer programmer" requires a university degree; lots of "uneducated hackers" can write (sometimes bad) code. People I know who got CS degrees usually think this was a waste; people are starting to switch from CS to math or physics. One problem with CS is that you learn some skills but you have no ("real" or "interesting") problems to which to apply these skills; who cares if you rewrite gcc? (How many times can you sort lists or learn about a "new" type of database or prove that AI really is not DEAD?) Physics has lots of interesting computational problems (e.g. simulate a quantum computer and see what it should be able to do). Math has lots of interesting computational problems (e.g. number theory, fluid dynamics, conformal mapping, surfaces (als Brakke's Surface Evolver, Bank's PLTMG, Parks & Pitts Least Gradient program), mathematical biology - population models, "wierd" yeast behavior - and mathematical genetics, etc.). (Actually, I think a foreign language major is not such a bad idea; just go to a country where the language is spoken while getting or after getting the degree.)
This is an interesting post. How do you justify the statement "because we haven't been working very hard to keep it?"?
It does not apply to me and it does not apply to many of the students I teach. One of my brothers used to work at HP and complained about the number of hours he worked (Sat., Sun., nights, etc.). I considered my usual week and realized that I put in more hours than HP expected. I do have the advantage of working on my research, which I love and can do at home. I usually arrive at my university office at 7AM (maybe 7:30AM sometimes) and leave at 6PM or 7PM or... 2AM. When I get home, I get to grade exams (tonight's task) or work on research projects or (sometimes) just relax.
Some of my students work 40 hour per week jobs and take 9-15 hours of class. I know you remember how easy Calculus 2 was as a student, especially if you work all night. (Love those Taylor series. My students get a bonus, Fourier series.) It has been a long and frustrating day but your statement is really cheap and shallow.
On the other hand, I see some validity in your comment. I think you should aim your criticism at management and Bush. CEOs can be very stupid and many are acting this way. This reminds me of stories about the 1920s; costs were going down (e.g. for building washing machines) while prices remained high and profits were great. (Now, what happened in 1929?) With respect to advancing science and engineering, both parties agreed that research (e.g. NSF) needed a big boost in funding. What happens when Bush becomes President? Tax cuts are important; investing in the future of the country is not important. Quit attacking ordinary workers and people and attack the CEOs outsourcing because this is the current fad which increases stock prices for the moment. Attack Bush (but not all Republicans) for not caring about the future of the country.
The people of Hong Kong seem to feel that the Chinese government lied to them about autonomy (e.g.
here,
here,
here,
here)
as the following quote (from 2003) indicates:
"The present governing crisis in the Hong Kong "Special Administrative Region" (SAR) of China came to a head on July 1 when over a half-million of the SAR's 6 million citizens marched in protest against strict new anti-sedition laws, the "Article 23" legislation. The magnitude of the public outcry was a shock to Beijing, which has not experienced such a grassroots rebellion since China's budding democracy movement was brutally suppressed in Tiananmen Square in June 1989 by Chinese People's Liberation Army."
Why should the people of Taiwan trust any promise of the Beijing government? Considering the large amount of money being invested in the mainland by Taiwan, one should assume that the Chinese on Taiwan would welcome joining the mainlane once a reformed and freely elected government is in place in Beijing; however the native people of Taiwan who are not of Chinese heritage may never welcome a union of Taiwan with China.
Thanks for the information. A friend (& coauthor) of mine at the University of Waterloo had a PhD student who went to work for the "Bank of Toronto". Although I like visiting Toronto, I do not know the local (or even the actual) names of the banks. I will refer to it as "TD" in the future. (Look, TD! Was it the 49ers or the Chiefs? No, the bank in Toronto. Oh, so they scored?)
If I remember correctly, the American Mathematical Society has about 30,000 members; I would guess that 5%-10% of them "become specialized enough to create anything significant." 1500 "martyrs" is a moderately large number; how many martyrs (not crazy suicide bombers) do you hear about in a year?
I agree that Ricci flows are very specialized; I believe Hamilton and Perelman are the experts (with possibly Yau, Tian, Donaldson, or a few others).
Many mathematicians get a lot of enjoyment from "solving a difficult (mathematical) puzzles" (i.e. mathematical research); getting solutions published is also fun.
Hormel has come to our campus to recruit math majors for 20-30 years. One faculty member asked a Hormel recruiter what mathematics the recruits would be doing; he was told "None; math majors just make really good, hardworking employees". A few specific examples of companies who have hired BS, MS or PhD graduates in Math: Ernst & Young, the Bank of Toronto, Hormel, Boeing.
Money is not the motivating factor for mathematicians who do "real" research; they could get much higher paying jobs in "industry".
"In short sir, your entire argument is full of shit. You make a quite poor representitive of the open source community, and as a member of the open source community, I invite you to leave the debates to those who are more qualified to engage in them."
I'll go out back and shoot myself. Will this satisfy you?
Being a little more serious, you say "your entire argument is full of shit."
What argument? I said quit whining and point out the flaws in someone else's arguments. I also asked a question (or two). For example,
"Has Microsoft been a "good citizen" or continued using its monopoly on the desktop to bully game developers?"
I do not think there is any need for you to answer (but feel free to do so if you like); the answer is obviously "Microsoft has continued using its monopoly on the desktop to bully game developers (and everyone else)."
Of course, it is funny how you argee with me
"How about this: FOSS supporters and Linux fanboys attack Microsoft on it's technical merits rather than on it's business practices?"
at the beginning and then say "your entire argument is full of shit" at the end. I take it that logic and math are not your strong suits?
You write:
"And since you're so ready to tell people how they should complain, how about Linux fanboys carry on some kind of technical discussion about Microsoft and Linux's merits without saying M$, Micro$oft, Microsloth, etc etc etc.
I guess either using MS for Microsoft is objectionable to you or reading is not your strong suit either; I do not see "M$, Micro$oft, Microsloth" or anything else offensive in my post. Are you complaining about some other post which is not even part of this discussion?
If you want to talk about the technical merits of DirectX, be sure to include ALL of them, including the security
holes related to DirectX.
"the guy is particularly anti-MS"
It is always easier to "kill (or criticize) the messager" than to look at the message. Has Microsoft been a "good citizen" or continued using its monopoly on the desktop to bully game developers? Does it (completely) support industry standards (e.g. opengl)?
I get really tired of "MS fan boys" complaining. FOSS software has flaws - some people developing games hate X. Microsoft does a few things well. Overall MS is an evil empire but this could change. Imagine if MS followed open standards so that each person could choose her/his favorite OS and have her/his applications/games just run.
How about this: MS supporters attack the arguments of the FOSS supporters when they are wrong instead of whining "they hate Microsoft"?
"Thankfully, the court tends to be very careful about its judgements."
I suspect that the majority of the voters in the 2000 Presidential election might disagree with the Supreme Court decision related to the Florida recount;
I believe that it would be difficult to claim that the Florida decision was a "very careful" decision. How was the Bush (pseudo)election "mitigated as much as possible"? (Did we go into Iraq for wmd or to mitigate the harm done by the Supreme Court or... why did we go into Iraq?) The fact is that when politics are involved in a case, justice can suffer. You seem to express more trust and support for the judicial system than may be appropriate.
Did you read the entire article from which I quoted?
I have to disagree with your comment "The example you gave is a precendent, not a law." (Did you mean "precedent"?) From
here:
"The common law originally developed under the auspices of the adversarial system in historical England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent. The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning."
From here
"Law. A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent."
We might argue about the meaning of the word "law":
From here
"1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority."
"4. A piece of enacted legislation."
"9.a. The body of principles or precepts held to express the divine will, especially as revealed in the Bible."
Certain precedents can sometimes have greater effect than can certain pieces of enacted legislation (e.g. "laws" in the sense I suspect you mean).
"I fail to see how they could have ruled any other way"
Are you saying that software patents are not a problem?
"However, he has to justify that opinion in his findings, or an appeals court will throw it out."
This requirement does not apply to the Supreme Court, however.
In the long run, another Supreme Court may overturn an older Supreme Court's bad decision (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka) but this often takes decades. With respect to
software patents
, the courts created their own law:
"In the 1980s, the Supreme Court forced the P.T.O. to change its position. The 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr provided the first instance in which the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the P.T.O. to grant a patent on an invention even though computer software was utilized. In that case, the invention related to a method for determining how rubber should be heated in order to be best "cured." The invention utilized a computer to calculate and control the heating times for the rubber. However, the invention (as defined by the claims) included not only the computer program, but also included steps relating to heating rubber, and removing the rubber from the heat. The Supreme Court stated that in this case, the invention was not merely a mathematical algorithm, but was a process for molding rubber, and hence was patentable. This was true even though the only "novel" feature of this invention was the timing process controlled by the computer."
Slashdot Mirror
Windows can be "rock solid" - if you remove the power cord. Security is never a problem in an unpowered Windows computer.
I cannot say how people in China feel. I do know what (some) Chinese in the US say. One of them will be here (my university office) in 20 minutes. (A professor from Stanford and his graduate student are visiting me this weekend. The student is from China and the professor was in China within the last year.)
I have 6-7 colleagues from China. I meet many Chinese when attending conferences. "Every" math department has several mathematicians from China. The coauthor with whom I have written the most papers is from China. (I have 10-15 coauthors (e.g. peter, hal, andy, alan, maria, hasan, bent, buma, mila, julie, (+chinese) etc.) in total.) The point is that there is lots of contact in the mathematical community with people who travel to China and it is easy to get information about conditions there. The people of China are not dumb but it is often easier to overlook problems than to admit that they exist.
"By your logic, they could get away with more censorship if China left Google intact."
Right now, China is getting away with "more censorship" because of Google's help. If Google did not help the government in China, then either the government would have to block Google or allow more Internet freedom.
I am talking about American citizens from China who go to China, return to the US and talk about their experiences. While talking individually in the US, they have nothing to fear. They know there are some problems but do not realize the full extent of the problem. If Google did not help the government in China, China blocked Google and one were to ask these returning Chinese "Could you use Google in China?", they would have only one answer. They could not pretend that everything is OK.
"Would it be better if China took Google offline entirely?"
yes.
The people of China would really understand what their government is doing (wrt preventing them from getting certain information). If you think this is already the case, talk to Chinese who went back to China this summer. They say "Things are getting better. (But the air and water are still bad.)" They do not see (or do not admit) that the government is a serious problem (wrt human rights).
The grantparent says:
"Seventh Secret: Most flaws occur thru "Gates" - Keep away from."
Nowhere do you see anything like "Install linux because it's magically secure!".
This is your typical troll. When CERT warns people to avoid IE and the security record of MS products is considered, warning people away from MS software is appropriate. You like to attack the people (posters) who point out things like this rather than making an honest comment. I hope MS pays you well.
Just for fun, you might like to know that a former long term MS programmer (who still likes MS as a company) is working on his PhD in math somewhere in the world. His comments are very interesting. (Sorry I cannot share them but one thread is that employing lots of very smart people with REALLY BIG egos does not yield good code - e.g. "Who are YOU to criticize my code?)
Without copyrights, it is not unreasonable to speculate that the only books that would ever get published in print are those that are sponsored by some organization that would not be relying on sales of the book to recover their losses (since there would be no protection like what authors currently have with copyright).
Baen must not be making any money.
As a "last request" of a dying company, I am sure that Jim Baen would like to say:
There was a school of thought, which seemed to be picking up steam, that the way to handle the problem was with handcuffs and brass knucks. Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!
Alles in ordnung!
I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:
1. Online piracy ? while it is definitely illegal and immoral ? is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.
2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.
3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market ? especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people ? is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.
I could not have said it better myself.
"While I know it must be an easy confusion to make if you live in the USA"
Yes, we are easily confused in the US. We do not know to write "colour" or "behaviour." We do not have cool gates to our parks. (OK, I like Hyde Park. Sue me.)
Can you give reasons why you believe common law is better than constitutional law? Are there any limits to what Parliament can pass? (Could they pass a law saying anyone from Scotland can be executed for being from Scotland? Could they execute people for this crime?) (I have ancestors from the "Hay" family in Scotland. Would I be at risk?)
Can we trade? One "W" for one "TT"? I would like a leader with at least two brain cells.
Yeah, there is a house in Canberra with your name on it.
"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." Robert Anton Wilson
Yeah, you've got to hate what that Alzheimer's does. This proves that you should not get old. I'm just glad "W" is not a conservative; he would give conservatives a bad name.
Win2K is a completely different OS than Win95.
I am sure MS completely rewrites new OSs and hence no old bugs reappear in newer MS OSs. This is one reason MS has such a great security record.
FUD, shameless speculation, and bias. Man, this is just bad.
I really wish the FOSS community would follow the MS and SCO leads and avoid all of this FUD and such. Can't we be as good as MS?
My prediction is that historian in 50 or 100 years will say that the greatest terrorist group of the period 2000-2010 was be the Bush administration. Lots of correct predictions are ignored at the time they are made (e.g. Hubbert's Law or the Hubbert Curve, Wegener's 1912 book "The Origins of Continents and Oceans" and continental drift. ) and I do not care if people flame me. Within the next one hundred years, historians will know if there were terrorist cells in Iraq before the invasion (answer: none or essentially none, as the 9/11 commision found but the Bush-fanboys dispute), will terroristic threats be greater or lesser when Bush leaves office than when he entered (answer: greater), and lots of other details at which I cannot even guess right now. This is not the main reason the Bush administration will be labeled as the top terrorist group. The Bush administration and the Congress overreacted to an isolated terroristic attack. They imposed new laws, arrested innocent people, and helped/caused a cultural change which will have echos for the next 50 years. They will continue to press for laws which reduce individual rights and enhance the power of big business (e.g. RIAA). They will continue to use the police, the FBI, the (former) INS, etc. to move the US in the direction of a police state. They will eventually find reason to arrest their critics for criticism of their policies.
What was the alternative to the present situation?
1. We (the US) could have realized that 9/11 was carried out by a small group of crazy people and did not require the government to "go to war with the citizens of the US". "Bin-idiot"'s effect has been magnified greatly by the response of the Bush administration.
2. Attacking Afghanistan was the correct thing to do but we should have send mamy more troups there; the warlords are still in power, the terrorists have access to drug money, the country will fall to terrorists when Bush gets tired of the international terrorists "game" and decides to focus on terrorists in the US, etc.
3. Attacking Iraq was completely stupid unless we are going to invade every country that has an evil government and that we supported at some time in the past. (One could write long essays on this topic.)
4. We could begin to get off the oil addiction. We "have to" support evil governments which control oil because we are "drug"(oil) users who cannot kick our drug. (This is not just aimed at Bush; both parties have supported maintaining evil (mini)empires when they control oil.)
I have done my best to entertain you. Instead of hitting your wife/girlfriend or kids/younger brother, feel free to flame me. Just keep a copy of this post for your grandchildren and see who is laughing then. Happy Saturday.
I agree with your comments. How should "we" (the US) fix the problem? Do we depend only on business/industry? Does the government have a role to play? What do you think of the (1999 or 2000) plan/agreement to increase science/engineering funding by the US government (e.g. NSF) which Bush dumped? Do you see CEOs investing more (or less) money in basic research/technology?
While I agree with your comments, I do not see the kind of investment in fundamental research which will produce jobs in 10 or 20 years. Do you see this issue differently?
I cannot disagree with anything you said; if I had not posted on this subject, I would use one of my current mod points to mod you up.
New engineering graduates at Boeing (were/are reported to) spend the first year getting coffee for the "real" engineers and learning how things are actually done. Several of my current students have parents, friends or associates with engineering degrees; when these engineering alumni are asked Calculus 2 questions, the response is "Well, I knew how to do that when I was in college but I have no idea now." PhDs in chemistry usually reply the same way.
A good friend of mine from high school earned an accounting degree and went to work for a lumber company in northern California. The hardest part of his job was learning where to find the information; in college, the data is given to students but in a company an accountant may have to discover the various places where the necessary data is hidden. (Of course, his accounting skills were important but he said that accounting was the easy part of the job.)
Even new PhDs in chemistry are considered to be fairly worthless; they become useful and valuable when they are employed as postdocs doing serious lab work for chemistry professors who see the big picture. I am told that a chemistry PhD candidate who works with a chemistry professor for 4 or 5 years only is worthwhile for one year; before that, the professor invests more time training the student than he/she receives in lab results/output. Postdocs are much better and are actually worth having in one's lab.
I am curious to see examples of the 90% of "worthless" majors and examples of the 10% worthwhile majors, even if these are just based on your opinion (and so you do not have to justify them or cite any studies).
"That's rather amusing, given how useless a college degree is in most professions - CS included."
I would agree about CS but I am curious about your list of "good" and "bad" majors. Of course, I do not agree with respect on Mathematics; I think Don Knuth would agree that a Math degree is worthwhile. I cannot imagine learning "real" physics (as compared with "popular" physics) without studying it at a university. Also biology (e.g. sequencing), chemistry (e.g. good lab technique, P-chem.), some (but not all) engineering, etc. On my "bad" list might be foreign languages (i.e. just go live in Spain or Germany or Sudan(?)), the social sciences, Comm., etc - I'm not really sure my "bad" list is serious because you (should) have to learn to actually go to class, use the library, express your opinion in persuasive ways, open your mind to new ways of thinking, accept differing points of view, etc. Independent of your major, a good university should make you "Grow Up". (No offense to the frat's.)
I had a student in Calculus (1980s) who was very good at math and computing. His degree was in Art. He worked (and still works) as a contract employee; he lived in Europe for ten years, moves from company, makes lots of money and does artwork (for himself, not for money) whenever he can. As a single person, being out of work for a year or two is OK; he can do more artwork and his bank account has a large enough balance (and his expenses are low enough) that money is not a principal concern.
This whole post may be offtopic but I am curious what people consider "good" and "bad" majors. By the way, I do not think being a "computer programmer" requires a university degree; lots of "uneducated hackers" can write (sometimes bad) code. People I know who got CS degrees usually think this was a waste; people are starting to switch from CS to math or physics. One problem with CS is that you learn some skills but you have no ("real" or "interesting") problems to which to apply these skills; who cares if you rewrite gcc? (How many times can you sort lists or learn about a "new" type of database or prove that AI really is not DEAD?) Physics has lots of interesting computational problems (e.g. simulate a quantum computer and see what it should be able to do). Math has lots of interesting computational problems (e.g. number theory, fluid dynamics, conformal mapping, surfaces (als Brakke's Surface Evolver, Bank's PLTMG, Parks & Pitts Least Gradient program), mathematical biology - population models, "wierd" yeast behavior - and mathematical genetics, etc.). (Actually, I think a foreign language major is not such a bad idea; just go to a country where the language is spoken while getting or after getting the degree.)
This is an interesting post. How do you justify the statement "because we haven't been working very hard to keep it?"? ... 2AM. When I get home, I get to grade exams (tonight's task) or work on research projects or (sometimes) just relax.
It does not apply to me and it does not apply to many of the students I teach. One of my brothers used to work at HP and complained about the number of hours he worked (Sat., Sun., nights, etc.). I considered my usual week and realized that I put in more hours than HP expected. I do have the advantage of working on my research, which I love and can do at home. I usually arrive at my university office at 7AM (maybe 7:30AM sometimes) and leave at 6PM or 7PM or
Some of my students work 40 hour per week jobs and take 9-15 hours of class. I know you remember how easy Calculus 2 was as a student, especially if you work all night. (Love those Taylor series. My students get a bonus, Fourier series.) It has been a long and frustrating day but your statement is really cheap and shallow.
On the other hand, I see some validity in your comment. I think you should aim your criticism at management and Bush. CEOs can be very stupid and many are acting this way. This reminds me of stories about the 1920s; costs were going down (e.g. for building washing machines) while prices remained high and profits were great. (Now, what happened in 1929?) With respect to advancing science and engineering, both parties agreed that research (e.g. NSF) needed a big boost in funding. What happens when Bush becomes President? Tax cuts are important; investing in the future of the country is not important. Quit attacking ordinary workers and people and attack the CEOs outsourcing because this is the current fad which increases stock prices for the moment. Attack Bush (but not all Republicans) for not caring about the future of the country.
The people of Hong Kong seem to feel that the Chinese government lied to them about autonomy (e.g. here, here, here, here) as the following quote (from 2003) indicates:
"The present governing crisis in the Hong Kong "Special Administrative Region" (SAR) of China came to a head on July 1 when over a half-million of the SAR's 6 million citizens marched in protest against strict new anti-sedition laws, the "Article 23" legislation. The magnitude of the public outcry was a shock to Beijing, which has not experienced such a grassroots rebellion since China's budding democracy movement was brutally suppressed in Tiananmen Square in June 1989 by Chinese People's Liberation Army."
Why should the people of Taiwan trust any promise of the Beijing government? Considering the large amount of money being invested in the mainland by Taiwan, one should assume that the Chinese on Taiwan would welcome joining the mainlane once a reformed and freely elected government is in place in Beijing; however the native people of Taiwan who are not of Chinese heritage may never welcome a union of Taiwan with China.
Thanks for the information. A friend (& coauthor) of mine at the University of Waterloo had a PhD student who went to work for the "Bank of Toronto". Although I like visiting Toronto, I do not know the local (or even the actual) names of the banks. I will refer to it as "TD" in the future. (Look, TD! Was it the 49ers or the Chiefs? No, the bank in Toronto. Oh, so they scored?)
If I remember correctly, the American Mathematical Society has about 30,000 members; I would guess that 5%-10% of them "become specialized enough to create anything significant." 1500 "martyrs" is a moderately large number; how many martyrs (not crazy suicide bombers) do you hear about in a year?
I agree that Ricci flows are very specialized; I believe Hamilton and Perelman are the experts (with possibly Yau, Tian, Donaldson, or a few others). Many mathematicians get a lot of enjoyment from "solving a difficult (mathematical) puzzles" (i.e. mathematical research); getting solutions published is also fun.
Hormel has come to our campus to recruit math majors for 20-30 years. One faculty member asked a Hormel recruiter what mathematics the recruits would be doing; he was told "None; math majors just make really good, hardworking employees". A few specific examples of companies who have hired BS, MS or PhD graduates in Math: Ernst & Young, the Bank of Toronto, Hormel, Boeing. Money is not the motivating factor for mathematicians who do "real" research; they could get much higher paying jobs in "industry".
"In short sir, your entire argument is full of shit. You make a quite poor representitive of the open source community, and as a member of the open source community, I invite you to leave the debates to those who are more qualified to engage in them."
I'll go out back and shoot myself. Will this satisfy you?
Being a little more serious, you say "your entire argument is full of shit." What argument? I said quit whining and point out the flaws in someone else's arguments. I also asked a question (or two). For example,
"Has Microsoft been a "good citizen" or continued using its monopoly on the desktop to bully game developers?"
I do not think there is any need for you to answer (but feel free to do so if you like); the answer is obviously "Microsoft has continued using its monopoly on the desktop to bully game developers (and everyone else)." Of course, it is funny how you argee with me
"How about this: FOSS supporters and Linux fanboys attack Microsoft on it's technical merits rather than on it's business practices?"
at the beginning and then say "your entire argument is full of shit" at the end. I take it that logic and math are not your strong suits?
You write:
"And since you're so ready to tell people how they should complain, how about Linux fanboys carry on some kind of technical discussion about Microsoft and Linux's merits without saying M$, Micro$oft, Microsloth, etc etc etc.
I guess either using MS for Microsoft is objectionable to you or reading is not your strong suit either; I do not see "M$, Micro$oft, Microsloth" or anything else offensive in my post. Are you complaining about some other post which is not even part of this discussion?
If you want to talk about the technical merits of DirectX, be sure to include ALL of them, including the security holes related to DirectX.
"the guy is particularly anti-MS"
It is always easier to "kill (or criticize) the messager" than to look at the message. Has Microsoft been a "good citizen" or continued using its monopoly on the desktop to bully game developers? Does it (completely) support industry standards (e.g. opengl)?
I get really tired of "MS fan boys" complaining. FOSS software has flaws - some people developing games hate X. Microsoft does a few things well. Overall MS is an evil empire but this could change. Imagine if MS followed open standards so that each person could choose her/his favorite OS and have her/his applications/games just run.
How about this: MS supporters attack the arguments of the FOSS supporters when they are wrong instead of whining "they hate Microsoft"?
"Thankfully, the court tends to be very careful about its judgements." ... why did we go into Iraq?) The fact is that when politics are involved in a case, justice can suffer. You seem to express more trust and support for the judicial system than may be appropriate.
I suspect that the majority of the voters in the 2000 Presidential election might disagree with the Supreme Court decision related to the Florida recount; I believe that it would be difficult to claim that the Florida decision was a "very careful" decision. How was the Bush (pseudo)election "mitigated as much as possible"? (Did we go into Iraq for wmd or to mitigate the harm done by the Supreme Court or
Did you read the entire article from which I quoted?
I have to disagree with your comment "The example you gave is a precendent, not a law." (Did you mean "precedent"?) From here:
"The common law originally developed under the auspices of the adversarial system in historical England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent. The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning."
From here
"Law. A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent."
We might argue about the meaning of the word "law":
From here
"1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority."
"4. A piece of enacted legislation."
"9.a. The body of principles or precepts held to express the divine will, especially as revealed in the Bible."
Certain precedents can sometimes have greater effect than can certain pieces of enacted legislation (e.g. "laws" in the sense I suspect you mean).
"I fail to see how they could have ruled any other way"
Are you saying that software patents are not a problem?
"However, he has to justify that opinion in his findings, or an appeals court will throw it out."
This requirement does not apply to the Supreme Court, however.
In the long run, another Supreme Court may overturn an older Supreme Court's bad decision (e.g. Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka) but this often takes decades. With respect to software patents , the courts created their own law:
"In the 1980s, the Supreme Court forced the P.T.O. to change its position. The 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr provided the first instance in which the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the P.T.O. to grant a patent on an invention even though computer software was utilized. In that case, the invention related to a method for determining how rubber should be heated in order to be best "cured." The invention utilized a computer to calculate and control the heating times for the rubber. However, the invention (as defined by the claims) included not only the computer program, but also included steps relating to heating rubber, and removing the rubber from the heat. The Supreme Court stated that in this case, the invention was not merely a mathematical algorithm, but was a process for molding rubber, and hence was patentable. This was true even though the only "novel" feature of this invention was the timing process controlled by the computer."
OT "10 out of 10 Terrorists agree - Anybody but Bush in 2004" :-)
Thank goodness they don't support BG for President. That would be evil.