My company's crack Marketing team probably got subcontracted out to them. You want a non-binding non-decision about something we aren't qualified to discuss? You got it!
Hell yes it's awesome, you $#@*!!#*@*&%! (Can I swear at you even when I agree?)
I live about 45 minutes away from Athens and I have to say that it is quite the fun little college town, although since I went to WVU I have to give props to Morgantown WV as an equally fun little college town.
I couldn't agree more. The first thing I thought of when I saw this was "Oh boy, if they can't own the internet at least they can own the individual machines connected to it." This whole scenario begs for slippery-slope abuse - we already have lots of background on how fair these 3rd (& 2nd & 1st) world governments like to play when it comes to controls over citizens. I think this is an extremely bad idea and will take some serious convincing to ever feel otherwise.
I suspect that this probably wouldn't have happened in the first place if people in that area had bothered to participate in their local elections before being humiliated on an international scale.
Ah, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster works in mysterious ways....perhaps they had no choice.
The fundamental flaw with this argument is that wealth is not an accurate measure of intelligence and certainly not a measure of genius. Paris Hilton is not going to be debunking any of Einstein's work anytime soon, and neither is Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, Dick Cheney or Bill Gates. Some of these individuals are quite intelligent and some less so, but all of them are millionaires and hence somehow smarter than the rest of us, according to your first paragraph.
This idea is offensive on so many different levels that it's difficult to even know where to begin, but I think that the part of it that bothers me the most is that this myth appears to be propogated by the wealthy elite, you know, the ones who either started or inherited the companies that non-wealthy work for, and they use this idea as a means of controlling their employees. People don't tend to question the intelligence of their "superiors", even when it's demonstrably true that they are indeed more intelligent than the people they're working for. There's the pack mentality assumption that the people "in charge" somehow deserve to be there, even though in many cases their stellar career paths can be attributed more to geaneology than to actual business acumen.
I agree that environment plays a big part in success, but again, education is not an accurate measure of intelligence. I'm sure if you think about it you can come up with some reasons why that's so.
As an aside, I think that the typewriter solo in Brian Eno's "China My China" off "Taking Tiger Mountain (By Strategy)" is another good example of someone using a non-traditional means of making music and coming up with something cool. I smile every time I hear the thing go *ding*.
There's a lot of focus being put on the "system", but not a lot being given to the people who are quitting. My GF is a social worker so I get to hear lots about the state of the kids she deals with. There are large numbers, suprisingly large numbers, of kids who for one reason or another just don't care. Maybe they've been abused, maybe they're mentally unbalanced, maybe slightly psychotic, maybe strung out on drugs/alcohol, maybe all of the above.
Whatever and however it happens, I think that for these people at least their future in the workforce is an abstraction. Kids in trouble (and I mean real trouble) aren't thinking in terms of where they'll be in 10 years, etc. You're way overanalyzing the thought process of a 14 year old runaway who is strung out on meth and has been getting fucked by her mom's boyfriends for the last 5 or 6 years. Algebra? English? A career? How about doing something that makes THEM feel in control of any aspect of their lives? They can decide that they're not going to school and that makes it better...
the people who put it on paper put down "email" to define the method of communication, when they shouldn't have specified.
This is the essence of the argument right here. Although they shouldn't have specified, they *did*. While I agree that their intent was to prevent this sort of thing the fact of the matter is that, due to the language of the law it's not clear to me that they succeeded. These sorts of technicalities and loopholes are the domain of lawyers and lawmakers - a poorly written contract is still a legally binding one and that's why this particular law sucks.
I don't think anyone is trying to argue that grown men should be allowed to stalk underage girls - I'm certainly not - I'm just saying that because the law was poorly written it's going to be contentious. The slippery slope comes in when the argument "Oh, I'm sure that's what they *meant* to say" becomes good enough to jail someone. If it takes someone getting off the hook to get the law changed then so be it. Illegally obtained evidence is enough to let someone off the hook. Violation of rights during arrest - ditto. Why is this different? Criminals slip through the legal cracks all the time - that's how you find them and hopefully fix them. Painting with broad strokes like this only propogates the construction of poor legislation. These people get paid a lot to do their jobs - why not make them do them well?
On your last point, I actually do think that internet-specific laws against this are stupid because this activity is already illegal so I think the means of contact is irrelevant.
The fun part about being on a slippery slope is that you get where you're going (whether you want to be there or not) a lot faster. Yes the essence is similar, but the trend toward broadly interpreting law to include elements or activities not specifically addressed is alarming. At least it is to me.
Does anyone else find it slightly *amusing* that a certain segment of the population uses the word "intellectual" as an insult? News flash: not all activity needs to generate financial profit to be important or meaningful. Just because unimaginative people can't see an immediate means to cash in on research they don't understand doesn't mean that people shouldn't do it anyway.
...and in a personally self-deprecating fashion I can illustrate how easily a word like "Validation" can be a candidate for misspelling. It's not hard to make a mistake, is it?
I think you've hit the nail right on the head. If it *wasn't* written to a spec then what the hell were they doing? The architecture people, you know, the ones who look at the "edges" and figure out how stuff fits together are the ones I believe are at fault here. Software Engineering 101 says to look at the boundries and look at the edges because that's where things are most likely to fall apart - in this case that has proved once again to be true.
In a personally ironic twist my former grad school IV&V teacher (that's Independent Verification & Validataion to you) teacher works in the IV&V lab at, you guessed it, NASA. Their entire purpose is to ensure that A) what the code is supposed to do is the right thing to do and B) that it does what it's supposed to do correctly. Looks like teach might have dropped the ball on this one...:)
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should work your way toward it. Have you considered banking?
Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit smoking angel dust.
Also, I think that attracting women to these programs could have the unfortunate side effect of attracting more men...
[cue disintegration in 5...4...3...]
My company's crack Marketing team probably got subcontracted out to them. You want a non-binding non-decision about something we aren't qualified to discuss? You got it!
A peart of me really likes the idea of big money - it makes me geddy as a school girl - but you at some point have to get on with your life, son.
Funny (or not), you've pretty accurately described the American government's thoughts on spending as well.
How do you say "Do you want a piece of me, boy?" in Arabic? Is that in the phrasebook?
PseudoMod Points: +1 : interesting.
I live about 45 minutes away from Athens and I have to say that it is quite the fun little college town, although since I went to WVU I have to give props to Morgantown WV as an equally fun little college town.
I couldn't agree more. The first thing I thought of when I saw this was "Oh boy, if they can't own the internet at least they can own the individual machines connected to it." This whole scenario begs for slippery-slope abuse - we already have lots of background on how fair these 3rd (& 2nd & 1st) world governments like to play when it comes to controls over citizens. I think this is an extremely bad idea and will take some serious convincing to ever feel otherwise.
Ah, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster works in mysterious ways....perhaps they had no choice.
I only use those big round stone things from Easter Island. They're a bitch to carry around but you rarely lose them down the couch.
Well said. Life just isn't always fair, is it?
This idea is offensive on so many different levels that it's difficult to even know where to begin, but I think that the part of it that bothers me the most is that this myth appears to be propogated by the wealthy elite, you know, the ones who either started or inherited the companies that non-wealthy work for, and they use this idea as a means of controlling their employees. People don't tend to question the intelligence of their "superiors", even when it's demonstrably true that they are indeed more intelligent than the people they're working for. There's the pack mentality assumption that the people "in charge" somehow deserve to be there, even though in many cases their stellar career paths can be attributed more to geaneology than to actual business acumen.
I agree that environment plays a big part in success, but again, education is not an accurate measure of intelligence. I'm sure if you think about it you can come up with some reasons why that's so.
[rubs hands together in childlike glee, picturing large & spectacular catastrophes to come]
Man, I'd feel really super important if I wrote a bug that destructive! I feel so inadequate... I need a hug.
As an aside, I think that the typewriter solo in Brian Eno's "China My China" off "Taking Tiger Mountain (By Strategy)" is another good example of someone using a non-traditional means of making music and coming up with something cool. I smile every time I hear the thing go *ding*.
Whatever and however it happens, I think that for these people at least their future in the workforce is an abstraction. Kids in trouble (and I mean real trouble) aren't thinking in terms of where they'll be in 10 years, etc. You're way overanalyzing the thought process of a 14 year old runaway who is strung out on meth and has been getting fucked by her mom's boyfriends for the last 5 or 6 years. Algebra? English? A career? How about doing something that makes THEM feel in control of any aspect of their lives? They can decide that they're not going to school and that makes it better...
This is the essence of the argument right here. Although they shouldn't have specified, they *did*. While I agree that their intent was to prevent this sort of thing the fact of the matter is that, due to the language of the law it's not clear to me that they succeeded. These sorts of technicalities and loopholes are the domain of lawyers and lawmakers - a poorly written contract is still a legally binding one and that's why this particular law sucks.
I don't think anyone is trying to argue that grown men should be allowed to stalk underage girls - I'm certainly not - I'm just saying that because the law was poorly written it's going to be contentious. The slippery slope comes in when the argument "Oh, I'm sure that's what they *meant* to say" becomes good enough to jail someone. If it takes someone getting off the hook to get the law changed then so be it. Illegally obtained evidence is enough to let someone off the hook. Violation of rights during arrest - ditto. Why is this different? Criminals slip through the legal cracks all the time - that's how you find them and hopefully fix them. Painting with broad strokes like this only propogates the construction of poor legislation. These people get paid a lot to do their jobs - why not make them do them well?
On your last point, I actually do think that internet-specific laws against this are stupid because this activity is already illegal so I think the means of contact is irrelevant.
The fun part about being on a slippery slope is that you get where you're going (whether you want to be there or not) a lot faster. Yes the essence is similar, but the trend toward broadly interpreting law to include elements or activities not specifically addressed is alarming. At least it is to me.
Nah, my friends & I were pretty freakin' stupid in college. Come to think of it, we still are!
Does anyone else find it slightly *amusing* that a certain segment of the population uses the word "intellectual" as an insult? News flash: not all activity needs to generate financial profit to be important or meaningful. Just because unimaginative people can't see an immediate means to cash in on research they don't understand doesn't mean that people shouldn't do it anyway.
...and in a personally self-deprecating fashion I can illustrate how easily a word like "Validation" can be a candidate for misspelling. It's not hard to make a mistake, is it?
In a personally ironic twist my former grad school IV&V teacher (that's Independent Verification & Validataion to you) teacher works in the IV&V lab at, you guessed it, NASA. Their entire purpose is to ensure that A) what the code is supposed to do is the right thing to do and B) that it does what it's supposed to do correctly. Looks like teach might have dropped the ball on this one... :)