>unfortunately Professional Engineers do not get to call the shots. They are told to shut-up or get fired if they point out things that would cost more money to do correctly.
Yes, its been this way for years. And it is addressed in Engineering ethics. Take note of; http://onlineethics.org/codes/guidelines.html
Engineering is a PROFESSION. You go through a tough acadmeic school, get all sorts of legal rights (stamps/signatures/etc), get a professional certification and have a role in society. Act like it.
>All the engineering codes do is insure that the engineer acted compentently
In designing a system that the vast majority relies on yet one part can take down the entire system for mutliple days, do you think that was a compentent move by the engineers?
Don't believe anything an AC (or anyone else for that matter) posts without verifying it.
But in this case, I have to agree with this one.
There are many many high and low level people whom's careers have been severely damaged (to understate the issue). You screw up a production system like this at another company, the worse it can go is the Board of Directors. With a big 6 bank, it gets to the Minister of Finance. During an election. And wanting to merge with other big 6 soon.
Imagine if someone offers to buy you a beer. Good deal huh? Thats the idea with "Free Software".
>The beer is only good for one use.
And "Free Software" could be buggy, unsupported and cause all sorts of aliments. But it didn't cost you anything. Same thing.
>The effects are fleeting, and the byproduct is useless.
With "Free Software", its a tool to get something done. I want to add two numbers, I don't care about the software that does it, I just want the sum of the numbers.
The general idea is that you've used the software/beer and it didn't cost you anything (someone else paid for it).
>In order for something to be good, there has to be a chance of failure.
Doesn't every CD out there have a chance of failing regardless of any artistic merit or innovation? I could put out a greatest hit CD which has zero innovation and it could be a failure.
>What never fails to amaze me is how many Slashdotters-- ostensibly a group of relatively intelligent people-- are moved to approach this issue from emotional, rather than scientific point of view.
And how is the Bill Gates in a Borg suit image an indication of scientific intelligence and not of emotion?
Its free storage and bandwidth. To balance those advanges out just realize that an download Gmail account "Good while it lasts" sort of thing and its better than what is out there.
Say a file is deleted. Just email it again from another (no one has the password except for you) GMail account.
Say someone changes the password. Just create another one, its free!
>This will hopefully hasten the collapse of the software industry, highlighting exactly why software patents are bad.
I'm a bit more pestimistic of things. Once things are into law and they need to be fix, things gets more complicated rather than scrapping the whole thing.
For example, personal taxation. Another example, the inconsistances of corporation and individual rights. Another example, international trade laws and tarffs.
>The government that spends the money is not a single person, it collects taxes from the populace at large.
But its still your money (the collective tax-payers). When the government is spending that sort of money the question is still the same, do you want to spend a huge load of money on this or something else?
>The populace at large spend many billions of dollars on ball games and other forms of entertainment.
But it was their direct choice. If YOU want to spend that sort of money to go to the moon, thats fine. Just don't spend other people's money on it and imply that its better than helping others on Earth.
Suppose I said I spent mutliple billion of dollars of your money on going to ball games.
Now suppose I said although its not going to show a profit or produce anything immediatly or solve the worlds problems, but I COULD HAVE with your money. Would you just nod and passively accept that?
Not having your fellow man live in horrid conditions is not worthwhile?
I find it amazing that the majority of people here will kick and scream about having "free and open" software, yet will put future space travel over feeding his brother.
>The fact that a teacher finds their job fulfilling is the basis for a student's success,
So if the teacher is happy, then the student is sucessful?
How do you measure sucess?
The final grade a student gets? That has nothing to do with the teacher, I had teachers who hated their jobs, but I still got top marks.
If the student actually learns something? Couldn't he learn something from just reading a text book or watching PBS? Again, nothing to do with the teacher.
>the fact that many kids found science boring in general compared with pseudo-science.
Look up quantum mechanics. Its makes pseudo-science look quite conservative. Look up current thoughts on multi-universes. Look up James Burke and his work, he takes boring science history and makes it interesting.
>which means I am presenting them evidence which runs contrary to a belief system with which some of them may have entered the classroom,
And you can't even debunk things like the Face on Mars, talk about the odds of a natural formation, the opinions of others, the strange things that happen her on Earth (so its a good chance that odd things could happen on Mars)?
Lets put it this way, your students are going to YOU with an argument that there are aliens, there are civilizations on other planets. They are arguing something that is false (in your eyes). This is basically a device that you pride yourself on using on them. Yet, you can even handle it when they use it on yourself? Where is your critical thinking you are trying to impress upon your students? Is it ok that you are the one with the rhetorical devices but can't handle it when you are on the other-side? That is the failure of teachers.
Slashdot Mirror
>unfortunately Professional Engineers do not get to call the shots. They are told to shut-up or get fired if they point out things that would cost more money to do correctly.
l
Yes, its been this way for years. And it is addressed in Engineering ethics. Take note of;
http://onlineethics.org/codes/guidelines.htm
Engineering is a PROFESSION. You go through a tough acadmeic school, get all sorts of legal rights (stamps/signatures/etc), get a professional certification and have a role in society. Act like it.
>All the engineering codes do is insure that the engineer acted compentently
In designing a system that the vast majority relies on yet one part can take down the entire system for mutliple days, do you think that was a compentent move by the engineers?
Don't believe anything an AC (or anyone else for that matter) posts without verifying it.
But in this case, I have to agree with this one.
There are many many high and low level people whom's careers have been severely damaged (to understate the issue). You screw up a production system like this at another company, the worse it can go is the Board of Directors. With a big 6 bank, it gets to the Minister of Finance. During an election. And wanting to merge with other big 6 soon.
>I recommend all people go their RBC branch and get a letter explaining why payments were missed.
Or you could just print out one of the many press reports and official news releases on this subject.
Oh wait, this is slashdot. Sorry. Carry-on with the overacting dramatics.
>Heads should roll for this one.
But are the "correct" heads going to roll?
>In cases like this, you should be lucky if you aren't held 100% liable.
If you were suppose to be held liable, do you think anything would change? Were any Professional Engineers held liable for the big blackout last year?
>There are redundant systems in place.
The redundant systems can't replace the speed and accuracy of a computer.
Computers are a tool. But how do you access the radar system and translate its information with out a computer?
>Why does everyone think that simply because software was written in the past it is bad?
What is implied is that its being pushed to its limits. e.g. it was designed for 100 flights a day, when today there are 1200 flights a day.
Those small things which you could get away with before start to become factors in usability and stability.
Culling of the bottom 75% of IQ is not the smartest thing.
Cull the bottom 75% by physical beauty and then just rule over them.
>For one thing, you pay for beer.
Imagine if someone offers to buy you a beer. Good deal huh? Thats the idea with "Free Software".
>The beer is only good for one use.
And "Free Software" could be buggy, unsupported and cause all sorts of aliments. But it didn't cost you anything. Same thing.
>The effects are fleeting, and the byproduct is useless.
With "Free Software", its a tool to get something done. I want to add two numbers, I don't care about the software that does it, I just want the sum of the numbers.
The general idea is that you've used the software/beer and it didn't cost you anything (someone else paid for it).
>CONGLOMORATES are telling you what you like and not the other way around.
Its not that bad. They can only lead or propose types of music, but in the end its the people who have the last say.
Example: Grateful Dead. Only one music video, very little top X radio play. Pretty sucessful group but very little radio conglomorate support.
Example: There are lot of European music I like. How did ClearChannel tell me I like them?
If you don't like what McDonalds is selling don't buy from McDonalds.
>There is no innovation.
>In order for something to be good, there has to be a chance of failure.
Doesn't every CD out there have a chance of failing regardless of any artistic merit or innovation? I could put out a greatest hit CD which has zero innovation and it could be a failure.
>What never fails to amaze me is how many Slashdotters-- ostensibly a group of relatively intelligent people-- are moved to approach this issue from emotional, rather than scientific point of view.
And how is the Bill Gates in a Borg suit image an indication of scientific intelligence and not of emotion?
>This is never going to model real drug addiction for one simple reason
No, just like it can't model long-term damage to a body from running around, jumping off of walls etc.
At best it can highlight the fact that some drugs when used in excess do have determential effects which might not be worth it.
>a certain kind of ownership in it.
You have an emotional investment in "it" but you do not have control over "its" present or future condition.
Without the later condition, there are better words to describe what you are feeling about "it" than "own".
>They may have wrote it, but it BELONGS to us.
Interesting use of the term "own".
Under your definition, exactly what is not "owned" by someone who experienced it?
Saying that one is just a placeholder is just a way of hedging your bets.
Epicycles weren't wrong, they were just placeholders for Copernicus movement.
> their users will never have more than, say, 1 MB of mail anyway.
Never underestimate the power of spam.
Its free storage and bandwidth. To balance those advanges out just realize that an download Gmail account "Good while it lasts" sort of thing and its better than what is out there.
Say a file is deleted. Just email it again from another (no one has the password except for you) GMail account.
Say someone changes the password. Just create another one, its free!
>This will hopefully hasten the collapse of the software industry, highlighting exactly why software patents are bad.
I'm a bit more pestimistic of things. Once things are into law and they need to be fix, things gets more complicated rather than scrapping the whole thing.
For example, personal taxation. Another example, the inconsistances of corporation and individual rights. Another example, international trade laws and tarffs.
>The government that spends the money is not a single person, it collects taxes from the populace at large.
But its still your money (the collective tax-payers). When the government is spending that sort of money the question is still the same, do you want to spend a huge load of money on this or something else?
>The populace at large spend many billions of dollars on ball games and other forms of entertainment.
But it was their direct choice. If YOU want to spend that sort of money to go to the moon, thats fine. Just don't spend other people's money on it and imply that its better than helping others on Earth.
>Spent any money going to a baseball game lately?
Suppose I said I spent mutliple billion of dollars of your money on going to ball games.
Now suppose I said although its not going to show a profit or produce anything immediatly or solve the worlds problems, but I COULD HAVE with your money. Would you just nod and passively accept that?
>or never done anything else worthwhile.
Not having your fellow man live in horrid conditions is not worthwhile?
I find it amazing that the majority of people here will kick and scream about having "free and open" software, yet will put future space travel over feeding his brother.
But they would lose some moral ground by giving justification to pirating on the grounds that a person is already paying for it.
Here in Canada, because of that point, there are already alot of legal grey areas and trade offs because of this.
SCO.
They have a monopoly on dumb-ass legal manuvers.
>The fact that a teacher finds their job fulfilling is the basis for a student's success,
So if the teacher is happy, then the student is sucessful?
How do you measure sucess?
The final grade a student gets? That has nothing to do with the teacher, I had teachers who hated their jobs, but I still got top marks.
If the student actually learns something? Couldn't he learn something from just reading a text book or watching PBS? Again, nothing to do with the teacher.
>the fact that many kids found science boring in general compared with pseudo-science.
Look up quantum mechanics. Its makes pseudo-science look quite conservative. Look up current thoughts on multi-universes. Look up James Burke and his work, he takes boring science history and makes it interesting.
>which means I am presenting them evidence which runs contrary to a belief system with which some of them may have entered the classroom,
And you can't even debunk things like the Face on Mars, talk about the odds of a natural formation, the opinions of others, the strange things that happen her on Earth (so its a good chance that odd things could happen on Mars)?
Lets put it this way, your students are going to YOU with an argument that there are aliens, there are civilizations on other planets. They are arguing something that is false (in your eyes). This is basically a device that you pride yourself on using on them. Yet, you can even handle it when they use it on yourself? Where is your critical thinking you are trying to impress upon your students? Is it ok that you are the one with the rhetorical devices but can't handle it when you are on the other-side? That is the failure of teachers.