There's little point. Specific answers to specific questions still implies that those answers could not have been used as educational material, only for cheating.
Knowing that the correct answer to question 52b is 28 (even with the steps to copy down) really isn't that helpful for general knowledge. It's still just an answer key, it's just not a complete answer key.
No, it's a worked out long form math problem unique to the test that was passed back out the window, and an answer received. The educational material was there.
I'm not asking you to accept anything. I'm TELLING you that there are Americans who can do the job. I'm TELLING you that if you DO institute a training program, it will pay off in the long run. I'm TELLING you that you will have a healthier work environment if you hire the best Americans you can find, and at the same time start an apprentice program with which to train your FUTURE programmers.
Look, if your university did not train you properly because it accepted the minimum ABET curriculum, and failed to institute additional classes, sorry: you are buying your education from the wrong vendor, and perhaps you should have considered that when selecting a vendor in the first place. Perhaps then, the ABET standards would be changed.
But I am damn well not going to institute an "apprenticeship" program! Any such program which is not nationally organized and administered is going to be worthless and non-transferrable to another employer, so if you end up unemployed, you are going to be back in the same boat of needing training at a new employer in "their way of doing things".
Consider that if you take a "Management Training Course" at GE or Addison Wesley It will not mean anything to IBM when you go to apply there after you are laid off from your job. It's simply non-transferrable.
Apprenticeships are normally associated with trade unions. The training programs of which are nationally organized and administered. If I hire a Journeyman Electrician, I can be reasonably certain of their skill set. What the hell is "Journeyman C Programmer, 3 years time in grade at Joe Blow's Software Company" supposed to mean to me?!? What's it supposed to mean to Google?!?
Get a damned CS degree!
Right now, you are putting yourself at the mercy of foreign schools. You think that those schools will continue to cater to your needs far into the future, but there is no reason to believe that they will.
Then I'll shop elsewhere. Until then, they have the best product, and that's where I'll buy.
Just as you are now cooperating to cripple America's work force, one day you will find that you are crippled by foreign interests who see no good reason to supply you with a workforce.
I agree. I am cooperating in crippling America's work force. I'm cooperating with the ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology). I'm cooperating with all the universities out there that implement the absolute minimum programs to get their stamp of approval, like SJSU (San Jose State University) and Georgia Tech and... you get the idea.
I'm a little guy. How the hell am I supposed to impact ABET and get them to change back from outcome based programs?
Eureka! I will give them negative reinforcement in the form of not hiring their graduates!
Oh look! It's the situation today! Yay! I'm sure ABET is learning their lesson! I see them addressing the problems with their accreditation standards next Tuesday! I see all the universities falling in line! I see thousands and thousands of employable graduates!
Or, in more common street language, what goes around comes around.
Yes. It's been "coming around" since at least 2001, when things went truly to crap in U.S. higher education, although we can trace the origins of the problem to some changes that were initially made in 1985 and 1992.
Of course, I understand that you, and all of "management" in America tend to look at short term benefits and profits. There is only a very small handful of managers left who can take a long term approach. Yes, training your own apprentices is a long term investment, but it pays, and it keeps on paying, far, far, far into the future.
Millennials are fickle. They will be gone in a year. Where is my long term investment then? If I'm going to be training people only to have the
I'm guessing you've been confused by the/. interface (it stops indenting after a while) since I'm certainly not replying to myself.
I'll have that apology now...
I'm sorry we have to live with such a crude interface.
Are you going to reply to the fact that the video demonstrates that they are getting specific answers to specific questions, rather than an answer key?
I thought APIs couldn't be copyrighted? You know, like what the Oracle v. Google Android-Java lawsuit was all about?
If so, then without copyright protection GPL is worthless - GPL requires copyright in order to work (because copyright gives you certain rights - GPL gives you MORE rights in exchange for agreeing to certain conditions - if you don't agree, your basic rights under copyright law apply). In that case the APIs are unprotected.
You really need to read the GNU Manifesto. The GPL is an instrumentality of the GNU Manifesto, and the intent is to use the opponents momentum against themselves. Think "Legal Jujitsu". RMS would prefer Copyright not exist, but since it does, there is a way to force it to behave as if it does not exist by combining it with other legal constructs surrounding the grant of rights under Copyright.
It's a license issue. The code is copyright. You accept the terms of the license, you are granted a right to use the copyright code. You don't accept the terms of the license, that grant is revoked. You're free to accept the license or not.
The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is an attempt to put a rider license compatible with the GPL on the module using the construct which additionally prohibits derivative works in the sense that Linus has already stated do not apply to kernel modules. It's essentially some people disagreeing with Linus about whether or not kernel modules constitute derivative works of the kernel, in order to try and force open proprietary software which, for legal reasons, can actually never be opened without engendering a huge internecine war between hardware companies.
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is more a case of: copyright law does not specify what counts as derived work (in particular, whether kernel modules do or do not count as such), so we're giving you a clear criteria of what we believe. If you have a different opinion you are likely to annoy people and might have to defend your theory in court.
It's not what Linus believes, as he has stated on numerous occasions when question on whether or not kernel modules were derivative works. The concept of the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was invented by Linux developers who disagrees with Linus on this, and wanted to force hardware vendors to open source their software anyway, even though there are numerous legal reasons they can't. For example, a lot of those people copy code from each other and violate copyright all over the place, and there's a gentlemen's agreement for them all to whistle to themselves while looking in the other direction. This agreement is void as soon as some lawyer can compare the source code. It's a matter of being pragmatic and closed source, or legally liable, and open source.
Yes, I'm aware that Linus has also stated that he has no deeply held philosophical beliefs about EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, either, but that's more a case of him not giving a damn whether Linux makes it as a gaming platform on an equal footing as Windows, or it never gets to that point, since he really doesn't give a squat about that aspect of things (and he's said as much on that, too).
Without the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, Linus' public statements on kernel modules not being derivative works is admissable, and he has, in fact, offered to be an expert witness in that regard.
Kids today get timeouts, or they get sent to their room (to play on their computer, watch TV, play video games, etc.).
Kids a generation ago, got spanked.
Your parents said that during your generation, and your grandparents during theirs. Your kids and grandkids will say it too. All of you are wrong.
You're trying to liken it to a cycle of child abuse which, having been involved in it, I will therefore perpetuate it. I am aware of the theory.
Shows what you know.
I was never spanked. But the threat was there. I was very well behaved. The elementary school principal had a paddle on his wall, as an implied threat when you got sent to the principals office to talk about your behaviour. I'm pretty sure it was never used, but it was during a time when the fact of In Loco Parentis was well recognized, and Catholic nuns had no problems with whacking kids knuckles for passing notes. These days, schools have no recourse but to declare a "zero tolerance policy" on everything, and expel students that would have otherwise been correctable by the school administration acting In Loco Parentis.
PS: There's a difference between a spanking and being punched in the face.
Which is why kids long ago frequently committed suicide and hide the truth from their parents. That is why sucicde rates have dropped off dramatically. The other point is we stop to listen now as opposed to saying suck it up or die. Like they did before
Except the point of the article is that attempted suicides are up today.
No, Sir, I won't tell you that you should train the American - but you really should.
You just did. I'm hiring for OS level or embedded systems work. Why would I intentionally hire someone who doesn't know assembly and C, and then tie up one of my resources who *can* do the work for three months to train someone who *can't*, in the hopes that at the end of the training, they'll be proficient?
At the end of three months, I will be three man months behind. It will take me another three months, assuming the training took, just to reach parity with where I would have been, had I not hired anyone new. So I will start to benefit after six months, assuming I can live with a three month schedule slip.
If, on the other hand, I hire someone else, someone who is capable, at the end of three months, rather than being three months behind, I will be three months ahead. At the end of six months, rather than being at parity, I will be six months ahead.
You are asking me to accept six months of schedule slip in order to hire the person who requires training.
Economically, this makes absolutely no sense. I lose six months of salary for the new person, and I lose six months of lead time on my competition.
I will tell you that there are Americans with the background, the knowledge, the education to do what you need. They may not have some very specific set of classes that you've cherrypicked as a "required curriculum".
The classes I've "cherrypicked" are:
CS 203 Programming in C CS 207 Programming in Assembly Language
The problem I have with the accreditation standards that recent graduates have studied under is that they do not teach the people about the tools they will be using. A craftsman must know his tools!
At best, hiring a new graduate from the average U.S. university, I will get someone with a smattering of self-taught C because they took a course called "CS 302 Database Programming in C". Probably, instead, they will have learned java (again self-taught, but Java is a trivial language, and therefore easy to learn.
If they go to Brown or Rice, and they pick the right degree program they will have actually been taught how to use the damn tools.
It's like teaching someone "furniture theory", and then throwing them into a woodshop with a joiner and a bandsaw and a drill press and..., and then asking them to make a chair. Someone is going to lose fingers, because the damn idiot doesn't know how to use their tools!
There are any number of individuals in this nation who have experience with anything you care to mention - but you won't consider them for an "entry level" position.
If you are talking about people who are not degreed, then, I will happily interview them, but I will tell you 95% of them will be disqualified because they will be unable to work on a large team with other qualified persons.
The will not know about time complexity (Big "O" Notation), and they will not know the formal names of various algorithms and data structures. They may have actually used this information before to make decisions; I'm not saying they're stupid. But they will lack the vocabulary necessary to communicate quickly and effectively with their peers.
In other words, they will be great people to hire into a one or two man shop, but they will drag a 50 or 300 person team down with them when they bog down team communications, because they lack the formal education necessary to get them on the same page with their teammates in a conversation, or a workgroup meeting, or a general team meeting.
These people should either go to work in a small shop, or they should become consultants. They need not apply to Twitter, or Apple, or Google or Facebook or SnapChat or WhatsApp or..., where the emphasis is on working within a team. Again: I'd rather hire an educated Eu
Perhaps you can get someone to slip you the answer. Ask around and flash some cash.
I'm already aware that you are replying to yourself rather than me, which avoids the notification, so that you can expound, and it will look like I had no ready answer to the retort. I will continue to monitor this discussion until comments are closed in order to make up for your social deficiency.
So you're saying the answer key would tell them everything they need to know?
You're replying to yourself rather than me (again).
If you watched the video, they aren't getting the answer key, they're getting a worked out version of the answer for a single problem on a scrap of paper at a time so they can write down the worked out steps.
There isn't one single "Linux crowd", and not everyone, or even nearly everyone run Linux for political reasons. RMS Gnussolini's are very much minority.
I very much welcome any proprietary software on Linux that does the job better.
I think you are wrong, and I think you are not going to get a proprietary alternative that's as fast as it could be. The interfaces needed to make graphics faster on Linux are all EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, meaning that they can't legally be used by proprietary (read: faster) kernel modules. So basically, the interfaces that are needed are, in fact, politicized.
I am seriously suggesting that a cheater who finds that he is incompetent has little reason to return to wherever he came from. He is HERE - he isn't going to willingly return to where he came from.
Why not? If the only skill he has is cheating, and cheating doesn't work here, but cheating does work there, then he can go back there with the cachet of having been here, lie about what he did while here, and be completely unlikely to be found out as a fraud. It would be a huge step up in a culture that he already understands how to get along in, compared to the one here where he barely scrapes by. Going back could be a fantastic deal for him to elevate his social standing.
I also seriously suggest that these H1B's are NOT any more qualified to perform any given job than crowds of US citizens. The ONLY thing that makes a US citizen unattractive to the H1B employers is, a citizen knows his rights, and will often times insist that his rights be respected. The guy flown in from Buggeristan isn't so likely to insist that any rights are respected.
Certainly not the H-1B's who've cheated their way through school are not as qualified. They aren't the only H-1B's available, however...
There are a handful of universities in the U.S. that turn out better software engineers than the rest of the world, and for the rest, I'd probably hire a German, Pole, Australian, etc., over someone educated in the U.S. in the last 15 years. The U.S. higher education system is seriously broken in a lot of ways, and while you can get a great education at a university, it's not going to be because of the curriculum, it will be in spite of it, unless you are going to Stanford, MIT, Brown, Rice, or a few others. Even at those, you have to take a particular emphasis in your major in your departmental contract, one that requires additional accreditation-optional courses that the standard coursework won't get you.
Seriously, I'm going to hire someone who learned to write software using Java or Python, or another interpreted, pointer-less language where they know absolutely nothing about pointer arithmetic or explicit memory management -- or worse, someone who only really knows ActionScript (Flash) programming because they thought they were going to be the next God's gift to video game design?
When the alternative is one of the people from Karlsruhe Institute of Technology who worked on L4 and was explicitly taught C and assembly language programming, and didn't have to learn it on their own, outside of class?
Which would you hire?
Unless you are doing nothing but front end web site work, you take a pass on the most common U.S. candidate, if you have an alternative.
And before you tell me "You should hire the U.S. candidate, and train them!", why do I have to train the U.S. candidate, if I don't have to train the German, Australian, Czech, Pole, or even Russian candidate? What did they do right that the U.S. candidate did wrong, such that I have to correct it with additional training before I can get useful work out of them?
That's right: they went to a U.S. university, and did the minimum required to get their degree, and while they likely didn't cheat, they skated by because the accreditation standards in U.S. universities are an outcome-based joke.
That's a nice strawman you have there. You clearly picked your conclusion and then endowed the subject with the characteristics you felt would prove it.
I'm confused; why are you calling out foul on your own strawman? Have I missed something here?
Since you're making the extraordinary claim (that poor people have all the resources they need), I'll let you do the proving.
They had the resources available, or the would not have the crib sheets in hand - the same resources that got them the crib sheets *could* have imparted the information *prior* to the tests, and they would not have been able to read the test questions or use the crib sheets, had they not been sufficiently literate to read, and sufficiently versed in critical thinking skills to be able to understand them.
If they had the resources to cheat, they had the resources to learn instead of cheating. Ball is in your court.
You mean the "environmental impact" of lowering the sea level in the Pacific
The environmental impact of any desal plant itself is that it dramatically raises the salinity of the water near it's outflow, the water is not lost from the normal hydrological cycle. You can minimise the salinity problem by not placing your outflow in a shallow bay.
I think this is not so much an issue. The ocean level rise accompanying global warming is due to dilution of the ocean by melting of fresh water ice. You can either redress this by pumping the salts back into the ocean after the water is extracted (effectively keeping the salinity level relatively neutral in the face of global warming), or you can extract them, since they have commercial value (I think the second to be a likely outcome of large scale desalination efforts, since humans are inherently greedy).
Unfortunately the one they built here in Melbourne was accompanied by a new brown coal plant which will only accelerate the unwelcome feedback loop between the climate and our species.
This is unfortunate. You would have been much better off with a Fujitsu pebble bed reactor... or a PWR/BPWR, which would give you both the thermal waste heat to run the desalination efforts, on top of the power generation (assuming you needed the power).
I truly do not understand the desire to build new coal-fired power plants, unless you are a manufacturer of coal fired power plants, or you are a coal miner.
Desalination from seawater costs about 8.5 kWH / m^2. That is a lot of power.
I think you mean cubic meters, not square meters.
This was misattributed to me, due to a dropped quoting level. I've fixed that. I probably would have used liters or cubic meters, myself, but kiloliter is also correct for one meter cubed.
waste heat from existing power plants via secondary heat exchangers
Usable heat is already converted to electricity, that's the one thing a coal plant does best.
This is not true; it's just not economical to cycle additional waste heat, unless you can use it locally. The water from the steam boilers goes through additional cooling, before being recycled back into the system (if it's a closed system), or it just gets dumped back into the environment at a different location to improve the overall heat differential by which the electricity is generated.
Personally, when coupled with desalination, I'd probably utilize any boiler system associated with the power generation as part of the treatment process for the water which was to come out of the desalination as potable or agricultural use.
If your manager got where he is the same way, he's not that likely to bust you. Meanwhile, you have time to actually learn the material.
Yes, but why bother, if you can just continue cheating your way through life? And what internal motivation would there be for doing this, since they obviously lacked a work ethic or other internal motivation to better themselves? They were more interested in bettering their position via cheating, then they were at actually learning the material.
And if the idea doesn't appeal to you, or you want to blame the course materials again... is it therefore your claim that *everyone* who passes these tests in these regions has done so solely by cheating, rather than by putting in the effort required to actually *learn* instead?
PS: I won't speak to your anecdote without some evidence, since it's rather racist, among other flaws.
Do you know one characteristic that can be counted on for inferior goods? That's right, they're sold off in bulk for cheap to get rid of them.
In other cases there's a kickback behind the sale and the book was never meant to be actually useful. You tend to see that in places where there is a lot of government corruption like...(drum roll please)...India!
And I don't blame (or credit) the school system where I grew up in the U.S. for my education, but then I had easy access to good libraries, my dad's college books, and a few exceptional teachers.
You know what's cheaper than writing and printing an inferior textbook in order order to get a kickback? Running a printing press to knock off a textbook someone else has already written, and not paying the royalty on it, and getting a kickback.
Absent evidence to the contrary, such as an analysis of the textbooks from one of the schools in question, I think I will stick with Sir William of Occam on this one.
PS: If you were personally interested in obtaining copies of the texts and course materials used in one of those schools for an analysis, I'm sure you could find a corrupt government official in India to send it to you in exchange for payola.
Whether you're form India, Pakistan, or Mars, if you fail to meet the terms of your entry into the US, you have little to worry about regarding deportation. Just don't break any major laws to get put into the "legal" system, and you'll be fine.
Fine.
So get a job working in a kitchen, because if you want a $90K/year job in software engineering, you're going to have to demonstrate elegibility for US employment as part of the application process. And if you can't, you will need to petition for a brand new visa which *is* counted against the cap, and if you petition after the fact of illegal status, you will need to do it from a U.S. Embassy outside the U.S., or the petition will be denied, and you will not get employed.
Do you seriously suggest that people are posing as software engineers just to get into the U.S. in the first place, become illegal aliens, and take low paying jobs which U.S. citizens are unwilling to take?
Your best bet might be fake it till you make it. That is, get past the test any way you can and then use the increased income or the better school with an actual library that follows to buy or borrow the books you should have been able to read in the first place but couldn't.
Any increased income you receive from such a strategy will be ephemeral. You will be fired due to incompetence, and then when people in management within that industry sector get together for lunch and talk (and they will) and you come up in conversation (which if you applied for another position within the same industry sector, you will), and your incompetence becomes generally known, you will be blackballed and unable to find work.
You are much better off resorting to criminal activity with a low probability of being caught, successfully prosecuted, and convicted, if you want ephemeral income.
At least that way, you can get a job later, whereas if you are blackballed, you will likely never work in that sector again.
As far as "cram and forget", I don't believe the "forget" part. Something will most likely stick, and compared to cheating, where *nothing* sticks, you are a better candidate for the job than the cheater, even if you did engage in the practice.
Even if *nothing* stuck, you are a better candidate for the job because:
(A) you are unlikely to explicitly cheat me or my customers, having no track record of having cheated in the past
(B) you have demonstrated an ability to learn what's needed for the task right in front of you; at worst it makes you slow, rather than completely incompetent
What makes you so sure the course materials weren't crap as well? Why would you believe that the same education system that doesn't care if the teacher is qualified or not would suddenly get conscientious about the textbooks?
Besides the fact that everyone was blaming the teachers until I brought up the possibility of autodidactic learning and ignoring the teachers?
Mostly that economies of scale dictate that mass produced textbooks are significantly cheaper than those produced in much smaller quantities, so in order for your assertion to be true, there would have to be an intentional conspiracy to produce shitty text books, and then dump them below cost in order for the shitty text book theory to hold water.
Do you honestly want me to believe that there is a well-funded conspiracy to fund useless textbooks anywhere but Texas and Oklahoma textbooks on evolutionary biology? What's the motivation? I understand, even if I don't sympathize, with a religious motivation in the Texas and Oklahoma example.
The idea that you should blame an externality, like a teacher, for your lack of education, seems to be a shirking of responsibility on your part to participate in your own education. We don't "side load" knowledge into kids brains, they actually have to put forth some effort to internalize information. And if they're demonstrably unwilling to put forth that effort -- for example, they are caught cheating -- then that's not on the teachers or the standardized course materials, it's on them.
It has only taken 10 days from the time I made a rather snarky comment thanking other states for exporting water to California in the form of cattle feedstock in a newspaper editorial, to an economist figuring out a way to make money from the idea.
My preferred solution is:
(1) Build nuclear plants (2) Use thermal waste from nuclear plants to power one of the 6 methods of thermal desalination (Karachi, Pakistan has one; Israel has one) (3) Quit charging so damn much for water and electricity, now that both are very cheap
You mean like the half dozen existing plants and 15+ proposed for construction across the state?
There's only three plants. And they are small. And two of them are there because there's no other way to get water onto an island:
(1) Sand City (2) Santa Catalina Island (3) San Nicholas Islan
You are also apparently unaware that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Desalination from seawater costs about 8.5 kWH / m^2. That is a lot of power.
So use nuclear plants. Or use thermal desalination using the waste heat from existing power plants via secondary heat exchangers -- that's totally free energy that's being radiated into the environment and contributing to global warming.
Even ignoring the environmental impact, desalination is extremely energetically expensive.
You mean the "environmental impact" of lowering the sea level in the Pacific and thus offsetting the sea level rise due to global warming? That' a pretty stupid definition of "environmental impact"...
Slashdot Mirror
Also, this author probably doesn't have a security clearance, [...]
He had one at the time he helped invent the things. Yes, it's *THAT* Dr. Kenneth W. Ford who is the author we are talking about.
There's little point. Specific answers to specific questions still implies that those answers could not have been used as educational material, only for cheating.
Knowing that the correct answer to question 52b is 28 (even with the steps to copy down) really isn't that helpful for general knowledge. It's still just an answer key, it's just not a complete answer key.
No, it's a worked out long form math problem unique to the test that was passed back out the window, and an answer received. The educational material was there.
Whoever heard of an asinine, progress retarding lawsuit coming out of East Texas before?
Anyone?
I'm not asking you to accept anything. I'm TELLING you that there are Americans who can do the job. I'm TELLING you that if you DO institute a training program, it will pay off in the long run. I'm TELLING you that you will have a healthier work environment if you hire the best Americans you can find, and at the same time start an apprentice program with which to train your FUTURE programmers.
Look, if your university did not train you properly because it accepted the minimum ABET curriculum, and failed to institute additional classes, sorry: you are buying your education from the wrong vendor, and perhaps you should have considered that when selecting a vendor in the first place. Perhaps then, the ABET standards would be changed.
But I am damn well not going to institute an "apprenticeship" program! Any such program which is not nationally organized and administered is going to be worthless and non-transferrable to another employer, so if you end up unemployed, you are going to be back in the same boat of needing training at a new employer in "their way of doing things".
Consider that if you take a "Management Training Course" at GE or Addison Wesley It will not mean anything to IBM when you go to apply there after you are laid off from your job. It's simply non-transferrable.
Apprenticeships are normally associated with trade unions. The training programs of which are nationally organized and administered. If I hire a Journeyman Electrician, I can be reasonably certain of their skill set. What the hell is "Journeyman C Programmer, 3 years time in grade at Joe Blow's Software Company" supposed to mean to me?!? What's it supposed to mean to Google?!?
Get a damned CS degree!
Right now, you are putting yourself at the mercy of foreign schools. You think that those schools will continue to cater to your needs far into the future, but there is no reason to believe that they will.
Then I'll shop elsewhere. Until then, they have the best product, and that's where I'll buy.
Just as you are now cooperating to cripple America's work force, one day you will find that you are crippled by foreign interests who see no good reason to supply you with a workforce.
I agree. I am cooperating in crippling America's work force. I'm cooperating with the ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology). I'm cooperating with all the universities out there that implement the absolute minimum programs to get their stamp of approval, like SJSU (San Jose State University) and Georgia Tech and ... you get the idea.
I'm a little guy. How the hell am I supposed to impact ABET and get them to change back from outcome based programs?
Eureka! I will give them negative reinforcement in the form of not hiring their graduates!
Oh look! It's the situation today! Yay! I'm sure ABET is learning their lesson! I see them addressing the problems with their accreditation standards next Tuesday! I see all the universities falling in line! I see thousands and thousands of employable graduates!
Or, in more common street language, what goes around comes around.
Yes. It's been "coming around" since at least 2001, when things went truly to crap in U.S. higher education, although we can trace the origins of the problem to some changes that were initially made in 1985 and 1992.
Of course, I understand that you, and all of "management" in America tend to look at short term benefits and profits. There is only a very small handful of managers left who can take a long term approach. Yes, training your own apprentices is a long term investment, but it pays, and it keeps on paying, far, far, far into the future.
Millennials are fickle. They will be gone in a year. Where is my long term investment then? If I'm going to be training people only to have the
I'm guessing you've been confused by the /. interface (it stops indenting after a while) since I'm certainly not replying to myself.
I'll have that apology now...
I'm sorry we have to live with such a crude interface.
Are you going to reply to the fact that the video demonstrates that they are getting specific answers to specific questions, rather than an answer key?
I thought APIs couldn't be copyrighted? You know, like what the Oracle v. Google Android-Java lawsuit was all about?
If so, then without copyright protection GPL is worthless - GPL requires copyright in order to work (because copyright gives you certain rights - GPL gives you MORE rights in exchange for agreeing to certain conditions - if you don't agree, your basic rights under copyright law apply). In that case the APIs are unprotected.
You really need to read the GNU Manifesto. The GPL is an instrumentality of the GNU Manifesto, and the intent is to use the opponents momentum against themselves. Think "Legal Jujitsu". RMS would prefer Copyright not exist, but since it does, there is a way to force it to behave as if it does not exist by combining it with other legal constructs surrounding the grant of rights under Copyright.
It's a license issue. The code is copyright. You accept the terms of the license, you are granted a right to use the copyright code. You don't accept the terms of the license, that grant is revoked. You're free to accept the license or not.
The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is an attempt to put a rider license compatible with the GPL on the module using the construct which additionally prohibits derivative works in the sense that Linus has already stated do not apply to kernel modules. It's essentially some people disagreeing with Linus about whether or not kernel modules constitute derivative works of the kernel, in order to try and force open proprietary software which, for legal reasons, can actually never be opened without engendering a huge internecine war between hardware companies.
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is more a case of: copyright law does not specify what counts as derived work (in particular, whether kernel modules do or do not count as such), so we're giving you a clear criteria of what we believe. If you have a different opinion you are likely to annoy people and might have to defend your theory in court.
It's not what Linus believes, as he has stated on numerous occasions when question on whether or not kernel modules were derivative works. The concept of the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was invented by Linux developers who disagrees with Linus on this, and wanted to force hardware vendors to open source their software anyway, even though there are numerous legal reasons they can't. For example, a lot of those people copy code from each other and violate copyright all over the place, and there's a gentlemen's agreement for them all to whistle to themselves while looking in the other direction. This agreement is void as soon as some lawyer can compare the source code. It's a matter of being pragmatic and closed source, or legally liable, and open source.
Yes, I'm aware that Linus has also stated that he has no deeply held philosophical beliefs about EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, either, but that's more a case of him not giving a damn whether Linux makes it as a gaming platform on an equal footing as Windows, or it never gets to that point, since he really doesn't give a squat about that aspect of things (and he's said as much on that, too).
Without the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, Linus' public statements on kernel modules not being derivative works is admissable, and he has, in fact, offered to be an expert witness in that regard.
Your parents said that during your generation, and your grandparents during theirs. Your kids and grandkids will say it too. All of you are wrong.
You're trying to liken it to a cycle of child abuse which, having been involved in it, I will therefore perpetuate it. I am aware of the theory.
Shows what you know.
I was never spanked. But the threat was there. I was very well behaved. The elementary school principal had a paddle on his wall, as an implied threat when you got sent to the principals office to talk about your behaviour. I'm pretty sure it was never used, but it was during a time when the fact of In Loco Parentis was well recognized, and Catholic nuns had no problems with whacking kids knuckles for passing notes. These days, schools have no recourse but to declare a "zero tolerance policy" on everything, and expel students that would have otherwise been correctable by the school administration acting In Loco Parentis.
PS: There's a difference between a spanking and being punched in the face.
Which is why kids long ago frequently committed suicide and hide the truth from their parents. That is why sucicde rates have dropped off dramatically. The other point is we stop to listen now as opposed to saying suck it up or die. Like they did before
Except the point of the article is that attempted suicides are up today.
She blames the Internet.
Who do you blame?
No, Sir, I won't tell you that you should train the American - but you really should.
You just did. I'm hiring for OS level or embedded systems work. Why would I intentionally hire someone who doesn't know assembly and C, and then tie up one of my resources who *can* do the work for three months to train someone who *can't*, in the hopes that at the end of the training, they'll be proficient?
At the end of three months, I will be three man months behind. It will take me another three months, assuming the training took, just to reach parity with where I would have been, had I not hired anyone new. So I will start to benefit after six months, assuming I can live with a three month schedule slip.
If, on the other hand, I hire someone else, someone who is capable, at the end of three months, rather than being three months behind, I will be three months ahead. At the end of six months, rather than being at parity, I will be six months ahead.
You are asking me to accept six months of schedule slip in order to hire the person who requires training.
Economically, this makes absolutely no sense. I lose six months of salary for the new person, and I lose six months of lead time on my competition.
I will tell you that there are Americans with the background, the knowledge, the education to do what you need. They may not have some very specific set of classes that you've cherrypicked as a "required curriculum".
The classes I've "cherrypicked" are:
CS 203 Programming in C
CS 207 Programming in Assembly Language
The problem I have with the accreditation standards that recent graduates have studied under is that they do not teach the people about the tools they will be using. A craftsman must know his tools!
At best, hiring a new graduate from the average U.S. university, I will get someone with a smattering of self-taught C because they took a course called "CS 302 Database Programming in C". Probably, instead, they will have learned java (again self-taught, but Java is a trivial language, and therefore easy to learn.
If they go to Brown or Rice, and they pick the right degree program they will have actually been taught how to use the damn tools.
It's like teaching someone "furniture theory", and then throwing them into a woodshop with a joiner and a bandsaw and a drill press and ..., and then asking them to make a chair. Someone is going to lose fingers, because the damn idiot doesn't know how to use their tools!
There are any number of individuals in this nation who have experience with anything you care to mention - but you won't consider them for an "entry level" position.
If you are talking about people who are not degreed, then, I will happily interview them, but I will tell you 95% of them will be disqualified because they will be unable to work on a large team with other qualified persons.
The will not know about time complexity (Big "O" Notation), and they will not know the formal names of various algorithms and data structures. They may have actually used this information before to make decisions; I'm not saying they're stupid. But they will lack the vocabulary necessary to communicate quickly and effectively with their peers.
In other words, they will be great people to hire into a one or two man shop, but they will drag a 50 or 300 person team down with them when they bog down team communications, because they lack the formal education necessary to get them on the same page with their teammates in a conversation, or a workgroup meeting, or a general team meeting.
These people should either go to work in a small shop, or they should become consultants. They need not apply to Twitter, or Apple, or Google or Facebook or SnapChat or WhatsApp or ..., where the emphasis is on working within a team. Again: I'd rather hire an educated Eu
Perhaps you can get someone to slip you the answer. Ask around and flash some cash.
I'm already aware that you are replying to yourself rather than me, which avoids the notification, so that you can expound, and it will look like I had no ready answer to the retort. I will continue to monitor this discussion until comments are closed in order to make up for your social deficiency.
So you're saying the answer key would tell them everything they need to know?
You're replying to yourself rather than me (again).
If you watched the video, they aren't getting the answer key, they're getting a worked out version of the answer for a single problem on a scrap of paper at a time so they can write down the worked out steps.
She seems to blame a lot of external factors for the unruliness of today's youth.
She missed one:
Kids today get timeouts, or they get sent to their room (to play on their computer, watch TV, play video games, etc.).
Kids a generation ago, got spanked.
There isn't one single "Linux crowd", and not everyone, or even nearly everyone run Linux for political reasons. RMS Gnussolini's are very much minority.
I very much welcome any proprietary software on Linux that does the job better.
I think you are wrong, and I think you are not going to get a proprietary alternative that's as fast as it could be. The interfaces needed to make graphics faster on Linux are all EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, meaning that they can't legally be used by proprietary (read: faster) kernel modules. So basically, the interfaces that are needed are, in fact, politicized.
I am seriously suggesting that a cheater who finds that he is incompetent has little reason to return to wherever he came from. He is HERE - he isn't going to willingly return to where he came from.
Why not? If the only skill he has is cheating, and cheating doesn't work here, but cheating does work there, then he can go back there with the cachet of having been here, lie about what he did while here, and be completely unlikely to be found out as a fraud. It would be a huge step up in a culture that he already understands how to get along in, compared to the one here where he barely scrapes by. Going back could be a fantastic deal for him to elevate his social standing.
I also seriously suggest that these H1B's are NOT any more qualified to perform any given job than crowds of US citizens. The ONLY thing that makes a US citizen unattractive to the H1B employers is, a citizen knows his rights, and will often times insist that his rights be respected. The guy flown in from Buggeristan isn't so likely to insist that any rights are respected.
Certainly not the H-1B's who've cheated their way through school are not as qualified. They aren't the only H-1B's available, however...
There are a handful of universities in the U.S. that turn out better software engineers than the rest of the world, and for the rest, I'd probably hire a German, Pole, Australian, etc., over someone educated in the U.S. in the last 15 years. The U.S. higher education system is seriously broken in a lot of ways, and while you can get a great education at a university, it's not going to be because of the curriculum, it will be in spite of it, unless you are going to Stanford, MIT, Brown, Rice, or a few others. Even at those, you have to take a particular emphasis in your major in your departmental contract, one that requires additional accreditation-optional courses that the standard coursework won't get you.
Seriously, I'm going to hire someone who learned to write software using Java or Python, or another interpreted, pointer-less language where they know absolutely nothing about pointer arithmetic or explicit memory management -- or worse, someone who only really knows ActionScript (Flash) programming because they thought they were going to be the next God's gift to video game design?
When the alternative is one of the people from Karlsruhe Institute of Technology who worked on L4 and was explicitly taught C and assembly language programming, and didn't have to learn it on their own, outside of class?
Which would you hire?
Unless you are doing nothing but front end web site work, you take a pass on the most common U.S. candidate, if you have an alternative.
And before you tell me "You should hire the U.S. candidate, and train them!", why do I have to train the U.S. candidate, if I don't have to train the German, Australian, Czech, Pole, or even Russian candidate? What did they do right that the U.S. candidate did wrong, such that I have to correct it with additional training before I can get useful work out of them?
That's right: they went to a U.S. university, and did the minimum required to get their degree, and while they likely didn't cheat, they skated by because the accreditation standards in U.S. universities are an outcome-based joke.
That's a nice strawman you have there. You clearly picked your conclusion and then endowed the subject with the characteristics you felt would prove it.
I'm confused; why are you calling out foul on your own strawman? Have I missed something here?
Since you're making the extraordinary claim (that poor people have all the resources they need), I'll let you do the proving.
They had the resources available, or the would not have the crib sheets in hand - the same resources that got them the crib sheets *could* have imparted the information *prior* to the tests, and they would not have been able to read the test questions or use the crib sheets, had they not been sufficiently literate to read, and sufficiently versed in critical thinking skills to be able to understand them.
If they had the resources to cheat, they had the resources to learn instead of cheating. Ball is in your court.
You mean the "environmental impact" of lowering the sea level in the Pacific
The environmental impact of any desal plant itself is that it dramatically raises the salinity of the water near it's outflow, the water is not lost from the normal hydrological cycle. You can minimise the salinity problem by not placing your outflow in a shallow bay.
I think this is not so much an issue. The ocean level rise accompanying global warming is due to dilution of the ocean by melting of fresh water ice. You can either redress this by pumping the salts back into the ocean after the water is extracted (effectively keeping the salinity level relatively neutral in the face of global warming), or you can extract them, since they have commercial value (I think the second to be a likely outcome of large scale desalination efforts, since humans are inherently greedy).
Unfortunately the one they built here in Melbourne was accompanied by a new brown coal plant which will only accelerate the unwelcome feedback loop between the climate and our species.
This is unfortunate. You would have been much better off with a Fujitsu pebble bed reactor... or a PWR/BPWR, which would give you both the thermal waste heat to run the desalination efforts, on top of the power generation (assuming you needed the power).
I truly do not understand the desire to build new coal-fired power plants, unless you are a manufacturer of coal fired power plants, or you are a coal miner.
Desalination from seawater costs about 8.5 kWH / m^2. That is a lot of power.
I think you mean cubic meters, not square meters.
This was misattributed to me, due to a dropped quoting level. I've fixed that. I probably would have used liters or cubic meters, myself, but kiloliter is also correct for one meter cubed.
waste heat from existing power plants via secondary heat exchangers
Usable heat is already converted to electricity, that's the one thing a coal plant does best.
This is not true; it's just not economical to cycle additional waste heat, unless you can use it locally. The water from the steam boilers goes through additional cooling, before being recycled back into the system (if it's a closed system), or it just gets dumped back into the environment at a different location to improve the overall heat differential by which the electricity is generated.
Personally, when coupled with desalination, I'd probably utilize any boiler system associated with the power generation as part of the treatment process for the water which was to come out of the desalination as potable or agricultural use.
If your manager got where he is the same way, he's not that likely to bust you. Meanwhile, you have time to actually learn the material.
Yes, but why bother, if you can just continue cheating your way through life? And what internal motivation would there be for doing this, since they obviously lacked a work ethic or other internal motivation to better themselves? They were more interested in bettering their position via cheating, then they were at actually learning the material.
And if the idea doesn't appeal to you, or you want to blame the course materials again ... is it therefore your claim that *everyone* who passes these tests in these regions has done so solely by cheating, rather than by putting in the effort required to actually *learn* instead?
PS: I won't speak to your anecdote without some evidence, since it's rather racist, among other flaws.
Do you know one characteristic that can be counted on for inferior goods? That's right, they're sold off in bulk for cheap to get rid of them.
In other cases there's a kickback behind the sale and the book was never meant to be actually useful. You tend to see that in places where there is a lot of government corruption like ...(drum roll please)...India!
And I don't blame (or credit) the school system where I grew up in the U.S. for my education, but then I had easy access to good libraries, my dad's college books, and a few exceptional teachers.
You know what's cheaper than writing and printing an inferior textbook in order order to get a kickback? Running a printing press to knock off a textbook someone else has already written, and not paying the royalty on it, and getting a kickback.
Absent evidence to the contrary, such as an analysis of the textbooks from one of the schools in question, I think I will stick with Sir William of Occam on this one.
PS: If you were personally interested in obtaining copies of the texts and course materials used in one of those schools for an analysis, I'm sure you could find a corrupt government official in India to send it to you in exchange for payola.
Whether you're form India, Pakistan, or Mars, if you fail to meet the terms of your entry into the US, you have little to worry about regarding deportation. Just don't break any major laws to get put into the "legal" system, and you'll be fine.
Fine.
So get a job working in a kitchen, because if you want a $90K/year job in software engineering, you're going to have to demonstrate elegibility for US employment as part of the application process. And if you can't, you will need to petition for a brand new visa which *is* counted against the cap, and if you petition after the fact of illegal status, you will need to do it from a U.S. Embassy outside the U.S., or the petition will be denied, and you will not get employed.
Do you seriously suggest that people are posing as software engineers just to get into the U.S. in the first place, become illegal aliens, and take low paying jobs which U.S. citizens are unwilling to take?
Your best bet might be fake it till you make it. That is, get past the test any way you can and then use the increased income or the better school with an actual library that follows to buy or borrow the books you should have been able to read in the first place but couldn't.
Any increased income you receive from such a strategy will be ephemeral. You will be fired due to incompetence, and then when people in management within that industry sector get together for lunch and talk (and they will) and you come up in conversation (which if you applied for another position within the same industry sector, you will), and your incompetence becomes generally known, you will be blackballed and unable to find work.
You are much better off resorting to criminal activity with a low probability of being caught, successfully prosecuted, and convicted, if you want ephemeral income.
At least that way, you can get a job later, whereas if you are blackballed, you will likely never work in that sector again.
As far as "cram and forget", I don't believe the "forget" part. Something will most likely stick, and compared to cheating, where *nothing* sticks, you are a better candidate for the job than the cheater, even if you did engage in the practice.
Even if *nothing* stuck, you are a better candidate for the job because:
(A) you are unlikely to explicitly cheat me or my customers, having no track record of having cheated in the past
(B) you have demonstrated an ability to learn what's needed for the task right in front of you; at worst it makes you slow, rather than completely incompetent
What makes you so sure the course materials weren't crap as well? Why would you believe that the same education system that doesn't care if the teacher is qualified or not would suddenly get conscientious about the textbooks?
Besides the fact that everyone was blaming the teachers until I brought up the possibility of autodidactic learning and ignoring the teachers?
Mostly that economies of scale dictate that mass produced textbooks are significantly cheaper than those produced in much smaller quantities, so in order for your assertion to be true, there would have to be an intentional conspiracy to produce shitty text books, and then dump them below cost in order for the shitty text book theory to hold water.
Do you honestly want me to believe that there is a well-funded conspiracy to fund useless textbooks anywhere but Texas and Oklahoma textbooks on evolutionary biology? What's the motivation? I understand, even if I don't sympathize, with a religious motivation in the Texas and Oklahoma example.
The idea that you should blame an externality, like a teacher, for your lack of education, seems to be a shirking of responsibility on your part to participate in your own education. We don't "side load" knowledge into kids brains, they actually have to put forth some effort to internalize information. And if they're demonstrably unwilling to put forth that effort -- for example, they are caught cheating -- then that's not on the teachers or the standardized course materials, it's on them.
I find "virtual water" amusing.
It has only taken 10 days from the time I made a rather snarky comment thanking other states for exporting water to California in the form of cattle feedstock in a newspaper editorial, to an economist figuring out a way to make money from the idea.
My preferred solution is:
(1) Build nuclear plants
(2) Use thermal waste from nuclear plants to power one of the 6 methods of thermal desalination (Karachi, Pakistan has one; Israel has one)
(3) Quit charging so damn much for water and electricity, now that both are very cheap
You mean like the half dozen existing plants and 15+ proposed for construction across the state?
There's only three plants. And they are small. And two of them are there because there's no other way to get water onto an island:
(1) Sand City
(2) Santa Catalina Island
(3) San Nicholas Islan
You are also apparently unaware that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Desalination from seawater costs about 8.5 kWH / m^2. That is a lot of power.
So use nuclear plants. Or use thermal desalination using the waste heat from existing power plants via secondary heat exchangers -- that's totally free energy that's being radiated into the environment and contributing to global warming.
Even ignoring the environmental impact, desalination is extremely energetically expensive.
You mean the "environmental impact" of lowering the sea level in the Pacific and thus offsetting the sea level rise due to global warming? That' a pretty stupid definition of "environmental impact"...