The geeks control technology in America. Woe to anyone who thinks they can run roughshod over us forever. Trivial example #1: most all of the internet, e-commerce and all, coming to a grinding halt on Internet Strike Day, which is currently scheduled for... Jan 01, 2001.
It's going to be one of those things like Call in Sick Day -- no one can say the server/router/switch didn't really go bad/crash/get cracked on that day. Promises to be great fun.
A priori, there is no moral reason why destroying pure patterns, regardless of their origin, is immoral. I've gazed at my navel for some time now, and I can't see any reason at all why pattern destruction is immoral, which is why I will now send my Rat Thing to hunt you down and exterminate your pattern from the universe. I don't care if your life is infinitely valuable to you, nor that you've spent your whole life working on it.
Really now, if we're talking about "pure patterns", then we won't need more than one monkey and one typewriter to satisfy *your* literary tastes, will we?
Economics, as any economist will tell you, doesn't have anything at all to say about morality. That is the province of philosophy and law, or used to be anyway. What economics will tell you is that if people are compelled to give away the results of their own thinking and labor (i.e. they have no moral right to keep it, or sell it, or have any say at all in its disposal or use) -- music, novels, cola recipes, wheat, bricks, meat, pressurized cheese, etc. -- while they may consume the results of the thinking of others at will, the result will be a race to the bottom where everyone seeks to produce as little as possible and consume as much as possible, since that is obviously the most profitable course of action. Of course, that's what people will always try to do, but consider the outcomes under such rules. This sort of system is rather neatly summed up in the phrase (familiar to many): from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Funny how ability tends to disappear and need tends to flourish in such systems.
OTOH, economics will tell you that in a system which can be neatly summed up in the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his production", will, on the whole, produce many productive people, trying to produce as much as possible (you might here want to be thinking of the U.S. (in earlier times) as an example). Of course, they're trying to consume as much as possible and produce as little as possible, but wants tend to win out in systems where consumption is gated by production and profitable exchange.
No one worries about the productive people in the former system; just as long as we're all equally miserable. Everyone worries about the unproductive (disabled, old, sick, etc.) under the latter system. Well, which is the worse problem: lots of unproductive people or lots or productive people (the disabled, old, sick, etc. will be with us in either system.)?
I've been using computers since I was about 12 (32 now; it was a Kaypro). A while before then I recall checking out, and reading the first chapter of a Fortran manual. Wish I'd had a computer *then* -- sadly my parents refused to buy me a Timex Sinclair (was it 1K or 2K of RAM?) for $99 from the pages of Popular Mechanics. When I graduated high school in '86, I picked the wrong state school to go to. Mistake #1. Transferred promptly to the right one, but never managed to get really into it; tho' to be honest, it wasn't the bad start so much as me being me -- living off campus didn't help the focus any either.
As it happened, I wouldn't consider CS (Mistake #2) for two reasons: 1) didn't feel up to dealing with the math and science, despite (because of?) having taken the full load of math and science from the hard teachers in H.S. [insert long tirade against teaching math (and by association, science) as mere formula memorization and calculation], and 2) I had a poor computer teacher in H.S., who convinced me (unwittingly) that, beyond the most elementary 10-15 line BASIC program, computers were something you either already knew how to program, or not. There was an assignment about date calculations, and I had no clue about date functions (*still* don't know if BASIC had them), and couldn't figure out how to write my own, of course [insert link to rant about math and science teaching]. There was no book for the class, and the instructor wasn't giving any help. So, I gave up and played the cannon game available on the Apple IIs we were using, and wrote a smart ass program that didn't calculate anything...
Anway, after 4 yrs. of university and merely Junior standing (I was working part time and not taking a full load, and had no _compelling_ idea what I wanted to be, much less study), I bailed out on a business degree in favor of Art School. ((expensive and useless) mistake #3).
After getting a (horridly useless, did I say?) technical degree in photography [insert long rant about things where you should perhaps *avoid* school if you want to learn them, maintain your passion for them, and save money too -- shut up, CS isn't one of them], then spending 4 yrs. mostly in the restaurant biz, and a friend of mine beating me over the head (thanks Tom), convinced me to pursue computers (Good Thing #1), which I'd used enthusiastically for 15+ years. The first job I could get with no degree and 'no experience' was as a clerk, counting money at Microsoft.
About 2.5 years of mindless testing contracts later [insert long tirade about the frustration of getting anyone to believe the worth of taking classes from community colleges, online, or self study; accredited CEUs and certificates suitable for framing notwithstanding], I finally got a break and got to code up a fairly complicated test script in Perl (which I learned while doing it). My eternal thanks to J. Hunter and J. Meng for that break.
So, now I'm a decent Perl programmer, and just managed to learn ANSI C; and am figuring out Linux device drivers a bit as I finish up a Unix Admin program at UCSC extension -- I wonder if anyone will believe that I can learn another computer language without a degree or paid experience... sigh.
More importantly, and more to the point, now I understand the nature and value of the things they teach in CS programs; where before I could be heard to rant about PHBs who wouldn't consider anyone w/o a degree for their bonehead job opening. (That criticism is still valid to a degree: how many HR depts. spew out fantastical wish lists instead of realistic job descriptions? But I digress; my point is only that I recognize the value and understand the nature of that knowledge. Hint for the clue deprived: it's really neat stuff, and the CS degree is one of *very few* keys (blinding genius being one other[1]), that will allow you to get paid for playing with it in your day job.) So, now I've gotten my first batch of CS / Math books for my own personal CS program. That's what I'll be doing with a lot of my free time for the next...well, the foreseeable future, let's say.;)
OK, if you're thinking about college and a CS degree vs. high paid tech job, and you've read this far (i.e. you have an attention span)...
Now, your Hot Skilz(tm) will take you somewhere nice for a while, and sure maybe you can learn the next hot language/tool/OS in a jiffy, but if, OTOH, you want to be working (read: living) with any *depth*, and Real, Deep, Meaningful Satisfaction(tm)... you will need more than mere mechanical skill.
Know This: (barring having your mind dumped to a long lasting man-made container with access to quality outside information) you will *never* have a better opportunity to learn the things they teach you in a B of S CS degree program, plus all the other wonderful things they have you learn -- and many people will not believe you if you learn it any other way. Go back and read that again, please. Done? Thank you. You may never have *any* opportunity to learn those things if you pass it up now -- think full time job, marriage, kids, etc.
I'm lucky, in that sense (single, no kids, no alimony), so I actually have the time / money to go back and learn that stuff (tho' not at a real college/university, of course -- so no one will believe me (are catching on to a pattern here?)).
You may also think that your high pay (or stock options... Bwahahahaa! I laugh in your face!) will allow you to take time off whenever you get around to wanting to go back to college, and pay for it too. Well, high pay for new-technology skills probably won't last forever (Hint: a large number of people pick their major based on the amount of money they might make (probably most of them smarter and more motivated than you -- you can't decide whether to even go, after all...). Also, more than a few of the billions of people that don't live in the US will be getting CS degrees, many from schools that would laugh out loud at your SAT scores, and your pretend US high school "education") -- oh, and you think your spouse is going to let you spend the kid's college money on yourself??
At any rate, you will likely have neither the time, nor certainly the motivation, to learn in your spare time, and still have a semblance of a life, all the things you might have learned in college.
If all this fails to convince you to Do The Right Thing(tm), I'll say what someone said on/. not too long ago: It's four years of sex and alcohol paid for by your parents and the government. You're going to pass that up?
-
My signature is a registered trademark of the corporate arm of a government research lab on a cold and distant planet; and they won't answer my requests, so I can't use it.(tm)
[1] I actually *am* a genius (somewhere in the 147-165 IQ range [2], depending on whether I've eaten a camel recently). And you were thinking how easy it will be for you to skip college, 'cause you're so much smarter than me, right? Well, maybe so, but that's just the Completely Wrong(pat. pending) sort of challenge to be taking up if you're 18 and full of vim [3] and vigor.
It's all about generating energy (somewhere), storing it (in the vehicle), and releasing it so it moves the car in a controlled fashion.
Here's what I propose: install giant flywheels at healthclubs that are tied to the exercise machines. The club doubles as a fuel (spin?) station for your car. Home models available. I think rowing machines are most easily adaptable to this.
Ok, that's obviously bs, but there ought to be a few ways to capture some of the free energy produced by people (descending elevators, regenerative braking for autos, any others?)
The problem isn't the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse -- that whenever you give good politicians the power to do good, you automatically give future politicians the power to do bad. When you give people the power to run other people's lives, you attract the worst elements of society -- who use that power for their own purposes.
No doubt! I'm getting pretty tired of Slashdot turning into the 11 o'clock news. Lots of hype which turns out to be nothing. Maybe kuro5hin is the better place now...
Q: Why are most net ads these annoying, animated, distracting, ugly, garish turds and magazine ads are often enticing, informative, attractive works of art?
A: SIZE MATTERS. I'd *much* rather scroll over a LARGE (think 300x500) magazine type ad right in the middle of the text I'm reading, than be distracted by a thousand blinky, ugly blotches of gif-trash from the sidebars. Think about it.
if this keeps up the Net will eventually mirror the real world with it's homogenized Walmarts, Starbucks' and Barnes & Nobles' being frequented by the many while independents close up shop and die. Only a short while ago everyone espoused the beauty of the Net and how everyone could be their own publisher but with the death of websites daily...are we not headed for a Net that is controlled by the few?
Don't confuse e-commerce with information sites. Just because everyone buys books at amazon and bn, doesn't mean smaller, perhaps specialty, publishers of information go away. I may buy sci-fi books at amazon, but last I checked The Linköping Science Fiction & Fantasy Archive was still going strong. The cost of maintaining a content rich (danching baloney poor) website is trivial compared with the overhead of a bricks and mortar business. More to the point: so much VC money was stuffed into taking what would have been a good information site (or newsgroup) in the precommercial net era, and trying to make it into a cash cow. Won't work, didn't work. No amount of marketing, banners, javascript (i.e. increased expenses) are going to suddenly make something poeple can get for free into a cash cow. Ludicrous on the face of it. OTOH, nothing will prevent people from taking the trouble to write a bit of HTML and share their head with the net.
Censorship is only possible to governments. All else is merely the exercise of property rights. If I delete your comments from my web site, you can post them elsewhere. It the government says you can't post your comments anywhere, you have no recourse. My power ends at the edge of my yard, so to speak.
Hey, some people might actually like a sorty grainy picture, for the same reasons that people choose black and white or physical manipulation of polaroids. Personally, I'd love to have a digicam that had a much higher resolution, but was only black and white.
In order for a corporation to exert political power it must do so through government.
A government without favors to dispense is not capable of being bought by corporations.
The minimalist state advocated by Libertarianism (tm) has no political favors to dispense.
So why do people fear the political influence of corporations under a system that precisely eliminates the possibility of granting or selling political favors/influence, i.e. eliminates the political influence of corporations?
Other activities include public speaking, conflict-resolution drills and personal interviews performed under the watchful eye of high school principals, teachers, counselors and college admissions deans who evaluate the college hopefuls.
Sound suspiciously like all the "socialization skills" teaching going on in the lower grades at the expense of hardcore math, science, grammar, etc. Are we grooming a generation of achievers or a generation of used car salesmen?
I rarely hear anyone mention that the differences measured might be due to culture rather than racism. What I mean is: Ask any number of successful black people if they ever heard the phrase "acting white" as a deragatory statement against them. If there is an undercurrent of disdain for intellectual achievement (for whatever reason) amongst a group of people, we should not wonder that that group does less well on standardized tests.
In my opinion, it's more important/how/ you solve it than/whether/ you solve it. Talk about maintaining a dominant paradigm at the expense of results...:) I'd much rather see someone effectively, successfully use the most commonly known methods for solving problems, and succeed, than see someone use a really novel method and get nowhere. College kids need a solid foundation in the basics, not just doing whatever pops into their head. The most common methods for solving problems didn't become that by *not* being suitable methods for solving problems. There may be genius kids that can use a clever approach and get the right answer -- and there is no question that they will be rightly noticed. I guess the judgement call come in when you have a novel approach, but a failed solution: is the kid really smart and just got a little over his head and couldn't quite close the mental gap on a very high level approach to a problem; or has the kid just got his head in the clouds. Tough call to make, I s'pose.
I can only imagine what's going to happen when a room full of teenagers, each of whom is under a *lot* of pressure, are each trying to show how good they are at leading a room full of teenagers who are also trying to lead. Will there be security guards standing nearby to suppress the inevitable fights?
Yeah, I let it all slide for a while. Then I got access to a raft of Solaris machines at work. Now I have a total of 2.8 GHz and 2.2 GB chugging away on seti. It sure is a lot more fun when you can see you totals jump each day.:-)
I was a bit worried about taking away from other processes, but the client runs at priority 00, so no worries.
Slashdot Mirror
No, stupid. We're the *Japanese* in this scenario, see?
An even better idea! Anonymous Coward, you get to be Minister of Propaganda -- how fitting.
:)
Let's make that December 7, 2000, just for the historical angle. People will get in such a tizzy over that.
-
The geeks control technology in America. Woe to anyone who thinks they can run roughshod over us forever. Trivial example #1: most all of the internet, e-commerce and all, coming to a grinding halt on Internet Strike Day, which is currently scheduled for... Jan 01, 2001.
It's going to be one of those things like Call in Sick Day -- no one can say the server/router/switch didn't really go bad/crash/get cracked on that day. Promises to be great fun.
A priori, there is no moral reason why destroying pure patterns, regardless of their origin, is immoral. I've gazed at my navel for some time now, and I can't see any reason at all why pattern destruction is immoral, which is why I will now send my Rat Thing to hunt you down and exterminate your pattern from the universe. I don't care if your life is infinitely valuable to you, nor that you've spent your whole life working on it.
Really now, if we're talking about "pure patterns", then we won't need more than one monkey and one typewriter to satisfy *your* literary tastes, will we?
Economics, as any economist will tell you, doesn't have anything at all to say about morality. That is the province of philosophy and law, or used to be anyway. What economics will tell you is that if people are compelled to give away the results of their own thinking and labor (i.e. they have no moral right to keep it, or sell it, or have any say at all in its disposal or use) -- music, novels, cola recipes, wheat, bricks, meat, pressurized cheese, etc. -- while they may consume the results of the thinking of others at will, the result will be a race to the bottom where everyone seeks to produce as little as possible and consume as much as possible, since that is obviously the most profitable course of action. Of course, that's what people will always try to do, but consider the outcomes under such rules. This sort of system is rather neatly summed up in the phrase (familiar to many): from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Funny how ability tends to disappear and need tends to flourish in such systems.
OTOH, economics will tell you that in a system which can be neatly summed up in the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his production", will, on the whole, produce many productive people, trying to produce as much as possible (you might here want to be thinking of the U.S. (in earlier times) as an example). Of course, they're trying to consume as much as possible and produce as little as possible, but wants tend to win out in systems where consumption is gated by production and profitable exchange.
No one worries about the productive people in the former system; just as long as we're all equally miserable. Everyone worries about the unproductive (disabled, old, sick, etc.) under the latter system. Well, which is the worse problem: lots of unproductive people or lots or productive people (the disabled, old, sick, etc. will be with us in either system.)?
>the AIDS epedemic where millions have died and continue to die because pharmecuticals own the right to the knowledge.
m
Since you mention it:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/whistleblowers.ht
Elbonia.
I've been using computers since I was about 12 (32 now; it was a Kaypro). A while before then I recall checking out, and reading the first chapter of a Fortran manual. Wish I'd had a computer *then* -- sadly my parents refused to buy me a Timex Sinclair (was it 1K or 2K of RAM?) for $99 from the pages of Popular Mechanics. When I graduated high school in '86, I picked the wrong state school to go to. Mistake #1. Transferred promptly to the right one, but never managed to get really into it; tho' to be honest, it wasn't the bad start so much as me being me -- living off campus didn't help the focus any either.
... sigh.
;)
...
... you will need more than mere mechanical skill.
... Bwahahahaa! I laugh in your face!) will allow you to take time off whenever you get around to wanting to go back to college, and pay for it too. Well, high pay for new-technology skills probably won't last forever (Hint: a large number of people pick their major based on the amount of money they might make (probably most of them smarter and more motivated than you -- you can't decide whether to even go, after all...). Also, more than a few of the billions of people that don't live in the US will be getting CS degrees, many from schools that would laugh out loud at your SAT scores, and your pretend US high school "education") -- oh, and you think your spouse is going to let you spend the kid's college money on yourself??
/. not too long ago: It's four years of sex and alcohol paid for by your parents and the government. You're going to pass that up?
As it happened, I wouldn't consider CS (Mistake #2) for two reasons: 1) didn't feel up to dealing with the math and science, despite (because of?) having taken the full load of math and science from the hard teachers in H.S. [insert long tirade against teaching math (and by association, science) as mere formula memorization and calculation], and 2) I had a poor computer teacher in H.S., who convinced me (unwittingly) that, beyond the most elementary 10-15 line BASIC program, computers were something you either already knew how to program, or not. There was an assignment about date calculations, and I had no clue about date functions (*still* don't know if BASIC had them), and couldn't figure out how to write my own, of course [insert link to rant about math and science teaching]. There was no book for the class, and the instructor wasn't giving any help. So, I gave up and played the cannon game available on the Apple IIs we were using, and wrote a smart ass program that didn't calculate anything...
Anway, after 4 yrs. of university and merely Junior standing (I was working part time and not taking a full load, and had no _compelling_ idea what I wanted to be, much less study), I bailed out on a business degree in favor of Art School. ((expensive and useless) mistake #3).
After getting a (horridly useless, did I say?) technical degree in photography [insert long rant about things where you should perhaps *avoid* school if you want to learn them, maintain your passion for them, and save money too -- shut up, CS isn't one of them], then spending 4 yrs. mostly in the restaurant biz, and a friend of mine beating me over the head (thanks Tom), convinced me to pursue computers (Good Thing #1), which I'd used enthusiastically for 15+ years. The first job I could get with no degree and 'no experience' was as a clerk, counting money at Microsoft.
About 2.5 years of mindless testing contracts later [insert long tirade about the frustration of getting anyone to believe the worth of taking classes from community colleges, online, or self study; accredited CEUs and certificates suitable for framing notwithstanding], I finally got a break and got to code up a fairly complicated test script in Perl (which I learned while doing it). My eternal thanks to J. Hunter and J. Meng for that break.
So, now I'm a decent Perl programmer, and just managed to learn ANSI C; and am figuring out Linux device drivers a bit as I finish up a Unix Admin program at UCSC extension -- I wonder if anyone will believe that I can learn another computer language without a degree or paid experience
More importantly, and more to the point, now I understand the nature and value of the things they teach in CS programs; where before I could be heard to rant about PHBs who wouldn't consider anyone w/o a degree for their bonehead job opening. (That criticism is still valid to a degree: how many HR depts. spew out fantastical wish lists instead of realistic job descriptions? But I digress; my point is only that I recognize the value and understand the nature of that knowledge. Hint for the clue deprived: it's really neat stuff, and the CS degree is one of *very few* keys (blinding genius being one other[1]), that will allow you to get paid for playing with it in your day job.) So, now I've gotten my first batch of CS / Math books for my own personal CS program. That's what I'll be doing with a lot of my free time for the next...well, the foreseeable future, let's say.
OK, if you're thinking about college and a CS degree vs. high paid tech job, and you've read this far (i.e. you have an attention span)
Now, your Hot Skilz(tm) will take you somewhere nice for a while, and sure maybe you can learn the next hot language/tool/OS in a jiffy, but if, OTOH, you want to be working (read: living) with any *depth*, and Real, Deep, Meaningful Satisfaction(tm)
Know This: (barring having your mind dumped to a long lasting man-made container with access to quality outside information) you will *never* have a better opportunity to learn the things they teach you in a B of S CS degree program, plus all the other wonderful things they have you learn -- and many people will not believe you if you learn it any other way. Go back and read that again, please. Done? Thank you. You may never have *any* opportunity to learn those things if you pass it up now -- think full time job, marriage, kids, etc.
I'm lucky, in that sense (single, no kids, no alimony), so I actually have the time / money to go back and learn that stuff (tho' not at a real college/university, of course -- so no one will believe me (are catching on to a pattern here?)).
You may also think that your high pay (or stock options
At any rate, you will likely have neither the time, nor certainly the motivation, to learn in your spare time, and still have a semblance of a life, all the things you might have learned in college.
If all this fails to convince you to Do The Right Thing(tm), I'll say what someone said on
-
My signature is a registered trademark of the corporate arm of a government research lab on a cold and distant planet; and they won't answer my requests, so I can't use it.(tm)
[1] I actually *am* a genius (somewhere in the 147-165 IQ range [2], depending on whether I've eaten a camel recently). And you were thinking how easy it will be for you to skip college, 'cause you're so much smarter than me, right? Well, maybe so, but that's just the Completely Wrong(pat. pending) sort of challenge to be taking up if you're 18 and full of vim [3] and vigor.
[2] So what's *my* problem, right? Long story...
[3] or emacs
It's all about generating energy (somewhere), storing it (in the vehicle), and releasing it so it moves the car in a controlled fashion.
Here's what I propose: install giant flywheels at healthclubs that are tied to the exercise machines. The club doubles as a fuel (spin?) station for your car. Home models available. I think rowing machines are most easily adaptable to this.
Ok, that's obviously bs, but there ought to be a few ways to capture some of the free energy produced by people (descending elevators, regenerative braking for autos, any others?)
>>Objectivists, however, denounce charitable giving as immoral.
Having read most of what Ayn Rand wrote, fiction and non-fiction, I can tell you that that is total bullshit; a complete fabrication.
Think of it as Yugo slapping their own logo on BMWs, without permission from BMW, while they figure out how to build a real car.
Nothing to stop these meta-sites from starting their own version of ebay.
fwiw, I'd be willing to write proper device drivers.
The problem isn't the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse -- that whenever you give good politicians the power to do good, you automatically give future politicians the power to do bad. When you give people the power to run other people's lives, you attract the worst elements of society -- who use that power for their own purposes.
Vote to take away that power. Vote Libertarian.
No doubt! I'm getting pretty tired of Slashdot turning into the 11 o'clock news. Lots of hype which turns out to be nothing. Maybe kuro5hin is the better place now...
Q: Why are most net ads these annoying, animated, distracting, ugly, garish turds and magazine ads are often enticing, informative, attractive works of art?
A: SIZE MATTERS. I'd *much* rather scroll over a LARGE (think 300x500) magazine type ad right in the middle of the text I'm reading, than be distracted by a thousand blinky, ugly blotches of gif-trash from the sidebars. Think about it.
if this keeps up the Net will eventually mirror the real world with it's homogenized Walmarts, Starbucks' and Barnes & Nobles' being frequented by the many while independents close up shop and die. Only a short while ago everyone espoused the beauty of the Net and how everyone could be their own publisher but with the death of websites daily...are we not headed for a Net that is controlled by the few?
Don't confuse e-commerce with information sites. Just because everyone buys books at amazon and bn, doesn't mean smaller, perhaps specialty, publishers of information go away. I may buy sci-fi books at amazon, but last I checked The Linköping Science Fiction & Fantasy Archive was still going strong. The cost of maintaining a content rich (danching baloney poor) website is trivial compared with the overhead of a bricks and mortar business. More to the point: so much VC money was stuffed into taking what would have been a good information site (or newsgroup) in the precommercial net era, and trying to make it into a cash cow. Won't work, didn't work. No amount of marketing, banners, javascript (i.e. increased expenses) are going to suddenly make something poeple can get for free into a cash cow. Ludicrous on the face of it. OTOH, nothing will prevent people from taking the trouble to write a bit of HTML and share their head with the net.
Over the last 20 years, people have put masses of information up on the Internet without hoping to make money from it.
Amen. Sometimes it seems like the only thing all the VC money has brought is more dancing baloney.
Censorship is only possible to governments. All else is merely the exercise of property rights. If I delete your comments from my web site, you can post them elsewhere. It the government says you can't post your comments anywhere, you have no recourse. My power ends at the edge of my yard, so to speak.
Hey, some people might actually like a sorty grainy picture, for the same reasons that people choose black and white or physical manipulation of polaroids. Personally, I'd love to have a digicam that had a much higher resolution, but was only black and white.
Didn't see this one mentioned: kha0s linux
http://www.kha0s.org/goals/
A distro made for secure computing; possibly a decent choice until C2 is available.
Re: The Corporate State
In order for a corporation to exert political power it must do so through government.
A government without favors to dispense is not capable of being bought by corporations.
The minimalist state advocated by Libertarianism (tm) has no political favors to dispense.
So why do people fear the political influence of corporations under a system that precisely eliminates the possibility of granting or selling political favors/influence, i.e. eliminates the political influence of corporations?
Other activities include public speaking, conflict-resolution drills and personal interviews performed under the watchful eye of high school principals, teachers, counselors and college admissions deans who evaluate the college hopefuls.
Sound suspiciously like all the "socialization skills" teaching going on in the lower grades at the expense of hardcore math, science, grammar, etc. Are we grooming a generation of achievers or a generation of used car salesmen?
I rarely hear anyone mention that the differences measured might be due to culture rather than racism. What I mean is: Ask any number of successful black people if they ever heard the phrase "acting white" as a deragatory statement against them. If there is an undercurrent of disdain for intellectual achievement (for whatever reason) amongst a group of people, we should not wonder that that group does less well on standardized tests.
In my opinion, it's more important /how/ you solve it than /whether/ you solve it. Talk about maintaining a dominant paradigm at the expense of results... :) I'd much rather see someone effectively, successfully use the most commonly known methods for solving problems, and succeed, than see someone use a really novel method and get nowhere. College kids need a solid foundation in the basics, not just doing whatever pops into their head. The most common methods for solving problems didn't become that by *not* being suitable methods for solving problems. There may be genius kids that can use a clever approach and get the right answer -- and there is no question that they will be rightly noticed. I guess the judgement call come in when you have a novel approach, but a failed solution: is the kid really smart and just got a little over his head and couldn't quite close the mental gap on a very high level approach to a problem; or has the kid just got his head in the clouds. Tough call to make, I s'pose.
I can only imagine what's going to happen when a room full of teenagers, each of whom is under a *lot* of pressure, are each trying to show how good they are at leading a room full of teenagers who are also trying to lead. Will there be security guards standing nearby to suppress the inevitable fights?
Yeah, I let it all slide for a while. Then I got access to a raft of Solaris machines at work. Now I have a total of 2.8 GHz and 2.2 GB chugging away on seti. It sure is a lot more fun when you can see you totals jump each day. :-)
I was a bit worried about taking away from other processes, but the client runs at priority 00, so no worries.