The Salon article makes it out to sound as if Apple might somehow be hoping it's choice of BSD would split the open-source development community, BSD vs. Linux.
Well, the general fact is that the hard-core BSD developers probably don't work on the Linux kernel, and vice versa (in effect, there is already a split).
So... I would suggest that Apple's choice of BSD came down to licensing, pure and simple. The BSD license is more "friendly" to use with proprietary software, ie. the Apple GUI.
However, licensing theories aside, any thoughts on this question: if Apple was choosing the *nix core for Mac OS X today, would it still be BSD, or would it be Linux, taking into account Linux's current popularity?
> Why should I care if there are "brains" enhancing my code ? >I write software, I sell it. Customers want more features, I write another version, I sell it. >If the "brains" want to improve something, they are free to start their own projects based on their ideas and experience. It is as simple as that.
How far would we be if everybody had to start from Square Zero?
If math students had to derive the quadratic formula on their own time, instead of learning it and moving on to bigger and better math problems?
If chemistry students had to rediscover the Table of Elements in Grade 11?
> This is why I always hated "teams" in school. >You get assigned a project and then assigned a team to work in. >It always worked out that I did all the work and everyone else > in the "team" stole my work and profited from it(receiving a team score of grade A etc).
Your writing seems to indicate that you consider monetary compensation the only reward for a contribution to a larger project. Group projects can be lop-sided in school. However, once you are a professional in the real world, I think you will grow to realize that effort for others without obvious compensation can in fact be very valuable. This is a difficult thing to clearly describe, but in short, what goes around, comes around.
It seems to me that the "gift culture" is not communism -- to me, it could be more accurately described as an outgrowth of the scientific method -- the free sharing of ideas, publishing of work for peer review, et cetera.
Earlier today we had a great discussion about Knuth, and the TeX software. It seemed to me that he released the software as "open system software" simply because it made sense -- more people would use it because it was free, and because it would improve as bugs are found by users.
If one chooses to look at the "gift culture" and free software from a pure business angle, I think that one could potentially make more money from selling "services" and the "brand" rather than the compiled "intellectual property". Red Hat's stock price comes to mind.
Personally, I would say the "gift culture" and free software is a natural evolution of the software development process. I love the idea that any code I publish under the GPL will grow and mature (almost virally, as described in the article) as more eyeballs and brains improve the program. Labels of any kind on the "gift culture" are not terribly appropriate or accurate, least of all, "communism".
I'm really pleased to see GnuPG getting attention -- it deserves it. After using PGP for a while now, and reading all about various encryption algorithms this afternoon, I'm feeling pretty pumped about protecting my personal privacy.
That said, PGP & GnuPG are only useful if more people start to use the software.
So, with that in mind:
Does anybody know where there is a simple explanation of how encryption works? Something that you could show your non-geek friends, or, even (gasp) your Mom, and have them understand the basics?
Getting friends and family on email is a hurdle I've basically crossed. Now I'd like to do the same with email encryption. [ In fact, I may write such a "newbie encryption" document myself, but may as well check to see if something already exists. ]
I would be all for a new series, if they can come up with something original.
DS9 was original in the Trek lineage, but not really to my taste.
Voyager was a bad concept from the beginning, IMHO. The usual complaints of bad scripts, bad acting applies for me as well.
A new series would be welcome be me, anyway, if they:
a) Came up with an original idea/concept again.
b) Got some fresh blood in the writing pool. One reader's suggestion to include novelists like Peter David is a good one. I've always liked his Trek writing.
On a side note, at Planet Riker there are some additional rumours/facts about what the new series might be.
The problem with this bill, as I see it, is the vagueness.
The opponents were absolutely correct when they suggested this could stifile creative works -- it will.
Who is to say what is violent? When is violence OK? What about when it is justified in a movie to make a point? What about movies like American History X? The violence in that movie was gruesome, but justified -- the movie illustrates the utter ugliness of racial hatred. Would this rating system deny a teenager the ability to view that movie? If it does (and sounds like it would) this bill is dangerous.
If you are an American, I'd suppose writing your representative to voice your opinion on the bill is the best route to go. If this was in Canada, I would be writing my MP.
Well, I'm no expert on civil-liberty laws, but Canada, AFAIK, has a less paranoid and less authoritarian government than the US (that is, unless Mike Harris was to become PM of Canada... [shudder]).
Sure, we have higher taxes, but also a national Medicare system that works (for now), as well as good public education (for now).
(Sorry abouy my pessimism, but I live in Ontario, and IMHO, Mike Harris and his cronies are ruining this province.)
Some of the replies to the Justice Department proposal suprise me! A number have said something to the effect of: "What, are you a criminal? Do you have anything to worry about? If you're clean, you don't, so no problem!"
Does anybody else see this as incredibly naive thinking?
Perhaps if George Orwell could have read the future a little more accurately, 1984 would have been titled "1999" instead.
On a side note, here is one simple technical solution to spook sniffers (or sniffers of any kind) on your system: use cron and run a script that inventories all of the file checksums on your system. Run it daily, perhaps. Compare yesterday's checksums to today's. If there's a difference, cron emails you with the alert, and you replace any affected files with your clean backups [that you keep offsite, of course;) ]. I don't have the script on me, as I'm at work currently, but it runs on my system at home.
Food for thought...
KDE keeps on getting better (as does GNOME)
on
The Future of KDE
·
· Score: 1
I'm looking forward to seeing KDE 1.1.2 & 2.0 !
I have to admit that the main piece of software that made the transition from Windows to Linux palatable for me (more than a year ago) was the KDE beta 3 desktop.
(And that was in my second year of a computer science major at university, I was definitely above the level of an average computer user.)
As powerful as the command line is (and I've learned some really useful items in the last year) software like KDE (and GNOME) really *are* what's needed to increase the Linux user base on the desktop. Users just don't feel comfortable in anything else... and I have to extend some congratulations to the GNOME and KDE teams for their work in this area. Keep it up, it's a Good Thing!
As for speed and high-color bitmaps, the more the better! People who don't want them don't need to use them. I would bet that a large percentage of CPU's in use out there sit idle for a lot of the time... might as well make the desktop look nice.
Echoing another response to your post, I'd have to agree -- Clinton's administration, while more "forward-thinking" in some respects than the GOP, could hardly be called "liberal" in the traditional sense.
I'm not much into American politics (being Canadian) but I do know that much. And from a high school Politics course: don't pay any attention to a political party's name. It doesn't mean anything!:)
AFAIK, the Reform Party (in the US) is probably the largest party there that is left of centre (or at least more so than the Democrats or the Republicans).
You know, there are already a couple of comments like this one.
Regardless, I have to say that Linus just seems like one cool guy.
In every interview that I've read, his opinions seem well-balanced. He appears just plain nice, in the best sense of the word. I also liked his comments about "behave towards others as you'd like them to behave to you". He's right, it doesn't have to be a Christian thing (I couldn't call myself one), it just makes sense (IMHO).
It seems to me that the summary of the Executive Order posted above the discussion is somewhat misleading.
The summary:
...it is mandated to investigate how current federal law can be used to investigate and prosecute Internet users, propose new laws, regulations, and technology development to assist investigations, and study existing and potential technological tools for mandatory internet censorship.
The (most relevant) actual text from the Executive Order:
(3) The potential for new or existing tools and capabilities to educate and empower parents, teachers, and others to prevent or to minimize the risks from unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet.
How exactly is there any provision for mandatory censorship?
As others readers have pointed out, let us get the facts straight before posting an article. Slashdot (or at least the person submitting the summary) just looks stupid otherwise.
Secondly, this is just the United States. While the American government may not realize it yet, they do not create legislation for the rest of the world. If any material is banned (remember, this executive order is not calling for that) just look it up in Canada, Sweden, Turkey, whereever.
Relax! PS: Apologies for submitting this comment twice (once as an AC). My mistake.
No, he didn't. Do you know what the term "popular vote" means?
If there are 10 votes in the entire province, the last election would have broken down rougly along these lines:
4 votes for Mike Harris & the Conservatives 3 votes for Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals 3 votes for Howard Hampton and the New Democratic Party
So... Harris wins with just 40% of the popular vote. More people voted against him than for him.
The problem with our electoral system is that if many votes for a candidate come from an area of the province with more ridings (ie. Toronto and the 905 belt) that party gets more seats. Doesn't mean more people wanted that government in, and the results obviously do not reflect the will of the people.
Before anybody suggests I'm just anti-Harris, let me point out that the NDP got into power in 1990 with about 32% of the popular vote.
Our electoral system is flawed in that the results often do not represent the popular vote breakdown in the province. If a better system was used (there are many, I won't go into that here) Mike Harris would have won the last election, but he would have had a minority government, rather than the disproportionate majority he enjoys as the result of our flawed electoral system.
i'm GLAD the net is more occupied by those with a little more than average ticking up top. my greatest attractions to the net and web are the exchange of ideas, the ability to discuss with others of similar intellect, and the chance to learn. if every uneducated, useless member of society had a web page, an email, and a desire to forward every chain letter, and download every useless page on the web, the web would be simple hell. (snip) spread the web to the world? why bother?
Shame on you. You are missing the entire point of opening up Net access to everyone, everywhere.
Net literacy, like the ability to read, allows people access to a wide range of knowledge. As society has grown, discoveries and progress made, so too has the literacy rate. This is not a coincidence.
In many ways, the Net is like a second Renaissance. As more people gain access to the Net (and learn and grow as a result) our society has great potential to advance. As Jon Katz pointed out, most of this potential cannot be realized if Net access is restricted to a privileged elite.
Would you advocate that advanced reading lessons, for example, be restricted to those children who "are already gifted"? That we should not attempt to help third-world countries raise their literacy rates and thereby increase the likelihood that those countries would prosper?
If we were to use your argument and apply it to my questions, it sounds as though you might reply:
"No, of course not! Because we already know those poor uneducated slobs in third-world countries have nothing to contribute to society!"
It is both sad and frightening to read your comments and to see your attitude reflected in a number of other comments on Jon Katz's essay.
Did Red Hat not recently buy a well-respected web site design shop?
As previously mentioned, all of the positions in SF look web related.
Sounds like Red Hat is just creating a new division on the West Coast so all those new employees from the design house don't have to move to North Carolina (I expect most wouldn't want to!).
No, I certainly cannot dismiss specialization altogether!
I agree with your point -- I can't design a CPU, the OS to run it, or other items you mentioned. If nobody could, it would definitely pose a problem.
I think the natural answer is: "Nature loves balance." (no pun intended). I'm not sure who said it, but it almost always brings the best results.
Just as extreme generality would keep us from doing anything useful, extreme specialization has it's own inherent problems.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, the best combination is probably a good general base (some English courses, definitely!, exposure to other areas of the general field you study in, then, build upon that with a specialization).
I agree completely with your sentiment on specialization vs. "learning how to learn".
However, the politicians in my corner of the world (Ontario, Canada) don't necessarily agree. Far from it, the Mike Harris Conservative government in Ontario is promoting specialization. The theory is that greater specialization in university will lead to more direct job prospects. Our gov't is going so far as to increase funding to programs that generate graduates in high-demand job areas, at the expense of those programs that don't necessarily, such as Fine Arts, Music, etc. Not only that, but there are plans in the works to have entire universities specialize in offering certain programs, and stop offering programs that they are not "the leader" in.
If you are familar with universities in this area, a great example might be that the University of Waterloo would then only offer specialized programs in Computer Science and Engineering, and, say, the University of Guelph would only offer programs in Biological Sciences and Agriculture.
Perhaps programs such as this "Game Programming" degree in Britain are just a symptom of this entire (dangerous) mentality that specialization is desired to increase job prospects.
However, anybody who has worked in the real world for a few years, or is in a co-operative education program at their university, like me, will know that most employers value:
- well developed problem solving skills that can be applied to ANY type of situation - excellent communication skills (both oral and written) (and most of all) - adaptability
An unfortunate problem is that most university applicants don't realize this. Many prospective students are asking about employment stats for graduates and what companies hire out of the co-op program -- as if they know exactly what they want to do at graduation, 5 years in the future. Clearly some might, but the point is, a lot of North American politicians are hyping up the applicability of university programs to employment after graduation. That just feeds the "job tunnel vision" in new students.
Students will be thinking about a job after graduation -- but perhaps more should be thinking about their career, and what would happen to it if the job prospects in their high-demand field dried up, and what would happen if their highly-specialized knowledge couldn't get them hired anywhere else.
Highly specialized degrees are dangerous if they are not built upon a solid, broad base of knowledge in their field -- if only more people realized this before they started.
I could go on and provide my opinion of "business colleges" that hype up vendor-specific IT training like the MCSE program, but, I digress.:-)
It's a sad trend to see that nearly every company that has a part of the PC user's screen real estate is lining up to bombard us with advertisements.
Some posters have pointed out that ads aren't a big deal anyway -- let's face it, we hear them all the time on the radio, see them watching television, read them in the newspaper.
The key for me (and the real pisser) is that schemes like this take control away from the user.
What's the first thing I do if I don't feel like watching an ad on TV? Go get some food, or flip the channel. I change the station when ads come on the radio. Would I be able to do this with the new Phoenix BIOS's?
We'd better be able to, or Phoenix's market share could quickly drop to 30% from 70%.
Even though I like the Phoenix BIOS and use a machine with one now, I'll move to Award, or some other BIOS (a GPL'ed one would be nice) in the future to avoid these ads.
Slashdot Mirror
The Salon article makes it out to sound as if Apple might somehow be hoping it's choice of BSD would split the open-source development community, BSD vs. Linux.
Well, the general fact is that the hard-core BSD developers probably don't work on the Linux kernel, and vice versa (in effect, there is already a split).
So... I would suggest that Apple's choice of BSD came down to licensing, pure and simple. The BSD license is more "friendly" to use with proprietary software, ie. the Apple GUI.
However, licensing theories aside, any thoughts on this question: if Apple was choosing the *nix core for Mac OS X today, would it still be BSD, or would it be Linux, taking into account Linux's current popularity?
> Why should I care if there are "brains" enhancing my code ?
>I write software, I sell it. Customers want more features, I write another version, I sell it.
>If the "brains" want to improve something, they are free to start their own projects based on their ideas and experience. It is as simple as that.
How far would we be if everybody had to start from Square Zero?
If math students had to derive the quadratic formula on their own time, instead of learning it and moving on to bigger and better math problems?
If chemistry students had to rediscover the Table of Elements in Grade 11?
If every OS user had to write their own kernel?
I think you get the drift.
> This is why I always hated "teams" in school.
>You get assigned a project and then assigned a team to work in.
>It always worked out that I did all the work and everyone else
> in the "team" stole my work and profited from it(receiving a team score of grade A etc).
Your writing seems to indicate that you consider monetary compensation the only reward for a contribution to a larger project. Group projects can be lop-sided in school. However, once you are a professional in the real world, I think you will grow to realize that effort for others without obvious compensation can in fact be very valuable. This is a difficult thing to clearly describe, but in short, what goes around, comes around.
It seems to me that the "gift culture" is not communism -- to me, it could be more accurately described as an outgrowth of the scientific method -- the free sharing of ideas, publishing of work for peer review, et cetera.
Earlier today we had a great discussion about Knuth, and the TeX software. It seemed to me that he released the software as "open system software" simply because it made sense -- more people would use it because it was free, and because it would improve as bugs are found by users.
If one chooses to look at the "gift culture" and free software from a pure business angle, I think that one could potentially make more money from selling "services" and the "brand" rather than the compiled "intellectual property". Red Hat's stock price comes to mind.
Personally, I would say the "gift culture" and free software is a natural evolution of the software development process. I love the idea that any code I publish under the GPL will grow and mature (almost virally, as described in the article) as more eyeballs and brains improve the program. Labels of any kind on the "gift culture" are not terribly appropriate or accurate, least of all, "communism".
IMHO.
...for "newbies" to encryption, that is?
I'm really pleased to see GnuPG getting attention -- it deserves it. After using PGP for a while now, and reading all about various encryption algorithms this afternoon, I'm feeling pretty pumped about protecting my personal privacy.
That said, PGP & GnuPG are only useful if more people start to use the software.
So, with that in mind:
Does anybody know where there is a simple explanation of how encryption works? Something that you could show your non-geek friends, or, even (gasp) your Mom, and have them understand the basics?
Getting friends and family on email is a hurdle I've basically crossed. Now I'd like to do the same with email encryption. [ In fact, I may write such a "newbie encryption" document myself, but may as well check to see if something already exists. ]
I would be all for a new series, if they can come up with something original.
DS9 was original in the Trek lineage, but not really to my taste.
Voyager was a bad concept from the beginning, IMHO. The usual complaints of bad scripts, bad acting applies for me as well.
A new series would be welcome be me, anyway, if they:
a) Came up with an original idea/concept again.
b) Got some fresh blood in the writing pool. One reader's suggestion to include novelists like Peter David is a good one. I've always liked his Trek writing.
On a side note, at Planet Riker there are some additional rumours/facts about what the new series might be.
The problem with this bill, as I see it, is the vagueness.
The opponents were absolutely correct when they suggested this could stifile creative works -- it will.
Who is to say what is violent? When is violence OK? What about when it is justified in a movie to make a point? What about movies like American History X? The violence in that movie was gruesome, but justified -- the movie illustrates the utter ugliness of racial hatred. Would this rating system deny a teenager the ability to view that movie? If it does (and sounds like it would) this bill is dangerous.
If you are an American, I'd suppose writing your representative to voice your opinion on the bill is the best route to go. If this was in Canada, I would be writing my MP.
1984 was just a few years to early...
> Now I understand why they bashed Canada so bad in the movie.
:)
Hey, one stupid person in Canada does not equal a stupid nation. If so, the States would be in a lot of trouble.
(I'm kidding, you know.)
... is here.
Nothing more than a gloss-over news alert at this point, but at least another source is looking at this.
Maybe we can determine whether this is for real or not with a 3rd party verification.
Wow. I had no idea this existed, and I live in Canada and am a Computer Science major.
Maybe this means my university will scrap those stupid 14.4 dial-ups I used to have to use.
Hmmm... Rogers, if you are listening, maybe it's time to reduce those cable modem rates?
Well, I'm no expert on civil-liberty laws, but Canada, AFAIK, has a less paranoid and less authoritarian government than the US (that is, unless Mike Harris was to become PM of Canada... [shudder]).
Sure, we have higher taxes, but also a national Medicare system that works (for now), as well as good public education (for now).
(Sorry abouy my pessimism, but I live in Ontario, and IMHO, Mike Harris and his cronies are ruining this province.)
Some of the replies to the Justice Department proposal suprise me! A number have said something to the effect of: "What, are you a criminal? Do you have anything to worry about? If you're clean, you don't, so no problem!"
;) ]. I don't have the script on me, as I'm at work currently, but it runs on my system at home.
Does anybody else see this as incredibly naive thinking?
Perhaps if George Orwell could have read the future a little more accurately, 1984 would have been titled "1999" instead.
On a side note, here is one simple technical solution to spook sniffers (or sniffers of any kind) on your system: use cron and run a script that inventories all of the file checksums on your system. Run it daily, perhaps. Compare yesterday's checksums to today's. If there's a difference, cron emails you with the alert, and you replace any affected files with your clean backups [that you keep offsite, of course
Food for thought...
I'm looking forward to seeing KDE 1.1.2 & 2.0 !
I have to admit that the main piece of software that made the transition from Windows to Linux palatable for me (more than a year ago) was the KDE beta 3 desktop.
(And that was in my second year of a computer science major at university, I was definitely above the level of an average computer user.)
As powerful as the command line is (and I've learned some really useful items in the last year) software like KDE (and GNOME) really *are* what's needed to increase the Linux user base on the desktop. Users just don't feel comfortable in anything else... and I have to extend some congratulations to the GNOME and KDE teams for their work in this area. Keep it up, it's a Good Thing!
As for speed and high-color bitmaps, the more the better! People who don't want them don't need to use them. I would bet that a large percentage of CPU's in use out there sit idle for a lot of the time... might as well make the desktop look nice.
Go KDE! Go GNOME!
"Newbie-ized" help files on security-related issues.
Echoing another response to your post, I'd have to agree -- Clinton's administration, while more "forward-thinking" in some respects than the GOP, could hardly be called "liberal" in the traditional sense.
:)
I'm not much into American politics (being Canadian) but I do know that much. And from a high school Politics course: don't pay any attention to a political party's name. It doesn't mean anything!
AFAIK, the Reform Party (in the US) is probably the largest party there that is left of centre (or at least more so than the Democrats or the Republicans).
You know, there are already a couple of comments like this one.
:)
Regardless, I have to say that Linus just seems like one cool guy.
In every interview that I've read, his opinions seem well-balanced. He appears just plain nice, in the best sense of the word. I also liked his comments about "behave towards others as you'd like them to behave to you". He's right, it doesn't have to be a Christian thing (I couldn't call myself one), it just makes sense (IMHO).
OK, enough hero worship.
It seems to me that the summary of the Executive Order posted above the discussion is somewhat misleading.
...it is mandated to investigate how current federal law can be used to investigate and prosecute Internet users, propose new laws, regulations, and technology development to assist investigations, and study existing and potential technological tools for mandatory internet censorship.
The summary:
The (most relevant) actual text from the Executive Order:
(3) The potential for new or existing tools and capabilities to educate and empower parents, teachers, and others to prevent or to minimize the risks from unlawful conduct that involves the use of the Internet.
How exactly is there any provision for mandatory censorship?
As others readers have pointed out, let us get the facts straight before posting an article. Slashdot (or at least the person submitting the summary) just looks stupid otherwise.
Secondly, this is just the United States. While the American government may not realize it yet, they do not create legislation for the rest of the world. If any material is banned (remember, this executive order is not calling for that) just look it up in Canada, Sweden, Turkey, whereever.
Relax! PS: Apologies for submitting this comment twice (once as an AC). My mistake.
No, he didn't. Do you know what the term "popular vote" means?
If there are 10 votes in the entire province, the last election would have broken down rougly along these lines:
4 votes for Mike Harris & the Conservatives 3 votes for Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals 3 votes for Howard Hampton and the New Democratic Party
So... Harris wins with just 40% of the popular vote. More people voted against him than for him.
The problem with our electoral system is that if many votes for a candidate come from an area of the province with more ridings (ie. Toronto and the 905 belt) that party gets more seats. Doesn't mean more people wanted that government in, and the results obviously do not reflect the will of the people.
Before anybody suggests I'm just anti-Harris, let me point out that the NDP got into power in 1990 with about 32% of the popular vote.
Our electoral system is flawed in that the results often do not represent the popular vote breakdown in the province. If a better system was used (there are many, I won't go into that here) Mike Harris would have won the last election, but he would have had a minority government, rather than the disproportionate majority he enjoys as the result of our flawed electoral system.
Just like to point out, I meant to post that comment logged in.
Gryphon, in all my humble opinionated glory.
i'm GLAD the net is more occupied by those with a little more than average ticking up top.
my greatest attractions to the net and web are the exchange of ideas, the ability to discuss with others of similar intellect, and the chance to learn.
if every uneducated, useless member of society had a web page, an email, and a desire to forward every chain letter, and download every useless page on the web, the web would be simple hell.
(snip)
spread the web to the world?
why bother?
Shame on you. You are missing the entire point of opening up Net access to everyone, everywhere.
Net literacy, like the ability to read, allows people access to a wide range of knowledge. As society has grown, discoveries and progress made, so too has the literacy rate. This is not a coincidence.
In many ways, the Net is like a second Renaissance. As more people gain access to the Net (and learn and grow as a result) our society has great potential to advance. As Jon Katz pointed out, most of this potential cannot be realized if Net access is restricted to a privileged elite.
Would you advocate that advanced reading lessons, for example, be restricted to those children who "are already gifted"? That we should not attempt to help third-world countries raise their literacy rates and thereby increase the likelihood that those countries would prosper?
If we were to use your argument and apply it to my questions, it sounds as though you might reply:
"No, of course not! Because we already know those poor uneducated slobs in third-world countries have nothing to contribute to society!"
It is both sad and frightening to read your comments and to see your attitude reflected in a number of other comments on Jon Katz's essay.
Did Red Hat not recently buy a well-respected web site design shop?
As previously mentioned, all of the positions in SF look web related.
Sounds like Red Hat is just creating a new division on the West Coast so all those new employees from the design house don't have to move to North Carolina (I expect most wouldn't want to!).
No, I certainly cannot dismiss specialization altogether!
I agree with your point -- I can't design a CPU, the OS to run it, or other items you mentioned. If nobody could, it would definitely pose a problem.
I think the natural answer is: "Nature loves balance." (no pun intended). I'm not sure who said it, but it almost always brings the best results.
Just as extreme generality would keep us from doing anything useful, extreme specialization has it's own inherent problems.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, the best combination is probably a good general base (some English courses, definitely!, exposure to other areas of the general field you study in, then, build upon that with a specialization).
I agree completely with your sentiment on specialization vs. "learning how to learn".
:-)
However, the politicians in my corner of the world (Ontario, Canada) don't necessarily agree. Far from it, the Mike Harris Conservative government in Ontario is promoting specialization. The theory is that greater specialization in university will lead to more direct job prospects. Our gov't is going so far as to increase funding to programs that generate graduates in high-demand job areas, at the expense of those programs that don't necessarily, such as Fine Arts, Music, etc. Not only that, but there are plans in the works to have entire universities specialize in offering certain programs, and stop offering programs that they are not "the leader" in.
If you are familar with universities in this area, a great example might be that the University of Waterloo would then only offer specialized programs in Computer Science and Engineering, and, say, the University of Guelph would only offer programs in Biological Sciences and Agriculture.
Perhaps programs such as this "Game Programming" degree in Britain are just a symptom of this entire (dangerous) mentality that specialization is desired to increase job prospects.
However, anybody who has worked in the real world for a few years, or is in a co-operative education program at their university, like me, will know that most employers value:
- well developed problem solving skills that can be applied to ANY type of situation
- excellent communication skills (both oral and written)
(and most of all)
- adaptability
An unfortunate problem is that most university applicants don't realize this. Many prospective students are asking about employment stats for graduates and what companies hire out of the co-op program -- as if they know exactly what they want to do at graduation, 5 years in the future. Clearly some might, but the point is, a lot of North American politicians are hyping up the applicability of university programs to employment after graduation. That just feeds the "job tunnel vision" in new students.
Students will be thinking about a job after graduation -- but perhaps more should be thinking about their career, and what would happen to it if the job prospects in their high-demand field dried up, and what would happen if their highly-specialized knowledge couldn't get them hired anywhere else.
Highly specialized degrees are dangerous if they are not built upon a solid, broad base of knowledge in their field -- if only more people realized this before they started.
I could go on and provide my opinion of "business colleges" that hype up vendor-specific IT training like the MCSE program, but, I digress.
Whoops, now that you mention it, I remember seeing that.
.
.
.
.
It's a sad trend to see that nearly every company that has a part of the PC user's screen real estate is lining up to bombard us with advertisements.
:)
Some posters have pointed out that ads aren't a big deal anyway -- let's face it, we hear them all the time on the radio, see them watching television, read them in the newspaper.
The key for me (and the real pisser) is that schemes like this take control away from the user.
What's the first thing I do if I don't feel like watching an ad on TV? Go get some food, or flip the channel. I change the station when ads come on the radio. Would I be able to do this with the new Phoenix BIOS's?
We'd better be able to, or Phoenix's market share could quickly drop to 30% from 70%.
Even though I like the Phoenix BIOS and use a machine with one now, I'll move to Award, or some other BIOS (a GPL'ed one would be nice) in the future to avoid these ads.
Boo on advertisements! BOO!