I would almost agree with you. However, it doesn't take a lot of people to successfully jepordize the legitimacy of an election with a voter verifiable record. The fact that votes are verifiable after being cast at all means that a FUD campaign can be launched attacking the validity of an election.
Even if someone couldn't realistically be successful at stealing an election with vote buying (due entirely to the points that you mentioned), that doesn't mean that an interested party couldn't smear an election to the point of having a significant negative effect to the legitimacy of that election.
It's about the plausability of cheating so much as the ability to cheat. At the heart of democratic legitimacy is that each individual was able to vote their "true feeling". Saddam Hussein was voted in with 99% approval ratings each term, though I contend that it's safe to say that the votes cast were not the population's "true feelings" on the subject of government. If a person can be pressured to vote effectively, then the legitimacy of an election is subject to significant doubt.
Non-vote verifiable records are to insure that there is no effective way to pressure someone to vote against their personal convictions.
No, you're way too optimisic about the likelihood of someone getting caught for voting pressure, and assuming way too much courage on the behalf of the majority of employees.
Sure sure, you'll "get back at that SOB." But you're still fired, and now you're black listed as a whistle blower (regardless of the reason). To the vast majorty of the populous, principles aren't worth that much.
While you're almost certainly right about buying votes, that's not really the primary fear of voter verifiable records. Rather than the problem being "Candidate buys 10,000 votes", the problem is "My boss says I'm fired unless I vote for his favorite candidate and prove it."
The legitimacy of the system can be "nickle and dimed" in a significant way from pressures such as that. (Replacing boss with parents, or mobsters, or friends, or whatever is appropriate.) Part of the perk of not allowing any possible proof for a person to verify their vote is that they are free to lie about their vote to anyone that would pressure them against their beliefs.
Re:Nokia, Motorola, Sony, Samsung, WMobile and iPh
on
Nokia the Next Gizmondo?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I did notice that exact situation. They all blow. It's still an example of an extremely poor interface. The fact that they put an existing crappy solution shoe-horned into a sweet form factor further illustrates the case.
"Slapped together" doesn't necessary mean "from scratch" or even "for the specific purpose."
Re:Nokia, Motorola, Sony, Samsung, WMobile and iPh
on
Nokia the Next Gizmondo?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Right on. I would imagine that the faster processor alone would have been an amazing improvement in user experience.
Re:Nokia, Motorola, Sony, Samsung, WMobile and iPh
on
Nokia the Next Gizmondo?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I was following you 100% until you claimed the RAZR as an example of a phone that "got it right."
The RAZR is the worst example of form-over-function that I've seen in recent memory. The form factor is fantastic, but the user interface is horrid. It was clear that all of the work on the RAZR went into the slim and beautiful exterior while an interface was cheaply hacked together.
I had the sad occurance of my Nokia 3660 (running Symbian 60) dying on me, and I followed up the phone with a RAZR. I was stunned at the horrible inadequacies I faced when transitioning from the 3660.
I have a ton of contacts synchronized with my laptop. (Which didn't work properly with the RAZR, but I don't know that I would blame the OS directly, more like just poor support for the OS from synching software.) If you have say, 500 numbers in your phone and you want to look for Bob Smith with the S60 contact list, you just type say, "Bo" or "Smi" and there you'll be. With the RAZR, the best I could do was hit "S" to get the "Smith" and then scroll from there. (With 50 numbers in the S's, it was promptly a hassle.)
Most importantly was a core deficiency with text entry. They try the seemly intelligent method of determining likely words by the frequency that you have typed those words via T9. For example, "if" and "he" are the same numbers on the number pad. If you've typed "if" more often than "he", then 43 will give you "if". If you've typed "he" more often than "if", 43 will give you "he".
It sounds great until you use it in practice. In practice the interface to the RAZR is so damn slow that even an elementary student can type text faster than the interface can keep up with. When that becomes the case on a typical T9 system phone, it's no big deal. You learn that "he" is 43 and that "if" is 43# (were # is usually "next word"). So you can really go just about full speed, even though the interface is just trying to keep up.
Sudden with the RAZR this was impossible, because to the user the results of 43 (and other such common sequences) became nondeterministic! You couldn't type faster than the interface could render!
Coupled with very deep nested menus (no reason to take 7 nested menus to get to a commonly used feature), poor sync-ing (using iSync personally), and horrific text entry, I was fortunate enough to just straight up trade my RAZR away for a Nokia 6600. And while I agree that the newer versions of S60 haven't gotten all that much better and perhaps a little more annoying, nothing compares to the amazing inadequacy of the RAZR interface.
The current phones on my wish list are T-Mobile Sidekick (even as just a phone and nothing else, Danger have designed a beautifully easy to use interface) and the forthcoming iPhone (because I trust Apple's iBrand to make an efficient and effective interface).
For me now, software comes first. The RAZR was scarring.
I don't think that a revenue breakdown is necessary, since intent is determined by the developing team's personal intention rather than the bottom line. And the team has made it pretty clear that they put their games first, their licensing second.
Although, I think the pricing for the licensing makes things pretty definitive. A Q3 engine license was $150,000 plus 3% royalties (at peak). While a good chunk of change, few (if any) Q3 engine games so much more than Q3 that they could overcome the (only) 3% royalties. Older engines were licensed for less. The missing variable is that I don't know Activision's cut and/or id's cut per gross sales of id Software's games... but now that it's came up that would be an interesting question. I've just never brought it up in conversation before. Next time I talk with Todd or Marty I'll ask, I'm sort of curious now. (I wonder how it compares to like Artist revenue from CD sales and junk like that.)
Anyway, I would contest that developing team intention trumps revenues, at least in id Software's rare case... after all, they don't "need" the money like other development houses do. They have the fortunate situation of being independantly wealthy with exceptional talent/leverage. Of course, the freedom they enjoy is somewhat dependant on continued excellent sales, but it's certainly not the case that they need to sacrifice the game (what they truely enjoy doing) for the technology (which is a means to an end).
This fiscal independance is also the primary reason for continuing Mac and (especially) Linux support. John sees it as the Right Thing to do, and they are able to stand by that philosophy rather than going purely by the numbers. (Linux sales for q3 were an absolute flop, heh)
That's a very common misnomer, about id Software being more about licensing engines than building games on them. Though, I can say first hand that it's patently false. It's more of a rationalization from gamers that were often id fanboys when they became disenchanted with id games but still impressed by their technology. (I'm not in that group, I've really enjoyed the id games for their "purity of vision" and still consider all id games among my very favorites.)
id Software focuses on their games with a narrow lense to do what they exactly what they want to do, the best that they can with the technology that John Carmack puts together. Their technology is so ahead of the curve because John Carmack is so ahead of the curve. Though, the id guys and Carmack specifically have taken a strong look at software development practices and with the "new game" (title and details unreleased), there's a very strong effort to not get ahead of the design process and have the technology steer the course--instead the game design will steer the course. (Often in previous games a sweet advancement would come along that would kind of be shoehorned into a release, because it was worth it. The restraint is new. Megatexturing is a new tech that is only going into the games that need it. However, the sweet wavy look from heat sources, that was actually added to Doom 3 at the last second because it was sweet.)
Even more importantly, if one is carefully following the company, one has to notice that lately id has chosen to form partnerships to continue development on their important franchises rather than simply licensing them away. Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Quake 4, and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, these are all games that have been directed by id but developed by different teams (Splash Damage, Raven, etc).
The particular view that id Software is about licensing engines and not making games, it usually results in a +5 mod around here, but it's not true (and has nothing more than conjecture to back it up). The intentions of the guys at id are to make great games. The fact that Carmack's engines are so extremely valuable means licensing will always be a part of the business plan, but that doesn't supercede the desire of Carmack or the rest of the talented id team to make great games.
The human computers that calculated lookup tables for early engineers?
Analog computers, like those that calculated missle trajectories in early wars?
Digital computers, like those in our desks?
Molecular computers, which use single molecules to recreate the logic gates that we are so familiar with?
Quantum computers, which may have more than 2 states rather than just on and off?
Computer science as a field started long before anything that we currently call a computer could have possibly existed, and as time and technology have marched on we have become closer and closer to that mythological computer that you seem to despise so much.
Theoretical science has always been ahead of physical science and (especially) practical implementation. Computer science is exactly one of those theoretical sciences.
I think it was a helpful illustration to note that computer science isn't about programming (and especially not computer hardware). Computer science is a math degree with emphasis on computing, logic, and algorithms.
If you want someone to know specific programming techniques, really you're looking for a software engineer. The good news is that software engineering is developing as a discipline of it's own and hopefully relatively soon we'll see more programs that split the two. (Our program mixes CS and SE until the masters program, at which time it is formally split.)
The (hopeful) advantage of a CS degree is a theoretical understanding of languages and techniques that should lead to an ability to pick up and understand new techniques very quickly. I know my usual ramp up time for any language or project is pretty short, a matter of hours for a new language and usually only a couple months before I'm very familiar with a given project. I certainly wouldn't expect an expert in implimentation from a CS graduate, instead it should be a well-rounded student well versed in computing that can adapt and learn to whatever you throw at him/her.
There's a clause in the financial aid law that allows for a one time "need adjustment" of $1500 (or the published allotment for your college).
A lot of students count financial aid as "free". And as an example, here at Kansas State as a Computer Science student I fell under the $1500 category, but friends in the College of Architecture and Design were in the $2500 category. Also, for "studio" in Architecture you *must* buy a fully capable computer and provide it for the duration of the coursework in a locked up studio lab.
You're not allowed to "get by", you're given the minimum requirements (which are the recommended requirements for software like AutoCAD) and told to head to financial aid if you can't afford it. No cutting edge computer means no degree.
This isn't a debunk of rational consumers. It's a statement on how much people trust technology.
When something (like winning an action) is viewed as important to the bidder, they don't *want* to leave their fate in the hands of an algorithm on a server that they don't completely understand. Instead they are willing to micromanage it and take an active role, even if that role is to the detriment of their performance as a bidder.
This is a very rational decision, it's just based on personal preference/option rather than pure fact. No less rational, just more human.
Yes, they are a business first and foremost. And as a business keeping their customers happy (and paying) is first and foremost.
Which means if the customer base wants more "socially ethical" behavior from corporations, then this is exactly what they should do.
I'm a staunch libertarian, but I'm getting sick and tired of the "they are a corporation, they are supposed to do this, you shouldn't complain" movement. It's complete bullshit. Individuals, communities, and organizations utilizing their power in boycotts, informed purchasing (which DOES include personal preferences and ethics), and publicity campaigns is EXACTLY how social change is supposed to take place.
What would you prefer for people that abhor these kinds of practices? Lobby government to make it illegal? They sure will... and that's exactly the problem.
I think this idea that "corporations are supposed to make money regardless of the harm to humanity" is a huge part of how the US has gotten this "nothing matters but price" attitude about life that leads people to buy products from companies that they disagree with politically and ethically just to save a few bucks.
Corporations are a unique institution formed by governments, they are not human. They should be--they ARE--a reflection of society, not an exemption from it.
Your "they shouldn't care about people" attitude is counterproductive. They "should" care about people, and as consumers we should make it in their best interest to do so... just like this action by the group in the article.
And another thing, about privacy. ***The things you do in public are not private.*** Saying that social networking is going to remove all privacy is stupid. Nothing done on a social networking site is private, it's all "in public".
Saying that "social networking will end privacy" is just misleading. Other people (advertisers, bosses, relatives, whatever) knowing things about the things you do in public is normal and expected, this privacy degredation is a red herring.
This comment in the summary caught me, especially how it carried a negative/alarmist connotation: "advertising a lot more effective."
I, for one, am really looking forward to "better" advertising. Advertising isn't a bad thing, it can be an informative help to find the projects/services I'm looking for. It's shitty advertising that just fires shotgun marketing in the dark hoping for a hit that sucks. I've actually clicked on a number of Google advertisements when searching for products/services, because they were relevant to what I was looking for and I wanted more information.
It's the huge pop-over, pop-under, flashy, sound making (grraah!) advertisements trying to sell a 24 year old college student home owners insurance or pull me into a pyramid scheme that are the bane of internet existance. (yes, I use firefox, flashblock, etc to lower my exposure, but still.)
If the information that I have voluntarily made public on social networks leads to advertisements for things that I'm actually interested in or even actively searching, I'm all for it. As long as I'm making all the information public myself, I'm not involuntarily losing any privacy either.
It's kind of a bummer, I think, that all the horrible advertising through time has created so many people that just knee-jerk hate the stuff. Maybe in time with relevent advertisements they could turn that around so that they seem useful instead of annoying.
This already exists, every single employee up the chain that had any knowledge of what they were doing could have been harmful would be prosecuted.
And you're right, the investment process isn't transparent enough for this. But you've got the necessary order reversed. The investment process will become transparent when the investors require that it be that transparent. Making investors responsible for the actions of the company they own also solves for this problem.
If the investors have no idea and the company owners are hiding the true dealings of the company, then the investors are not as liable (innocent in criminal, less liable in civil) just as the current legal standards are, and the actors in the company perpetrating the crime are guilty and/or more guilty of the crime and also fraud on top of that.
I'm not saying that employees and administrators of corporations be let off the hook and replaced with shareholders, it's both. Those that commit crimes and those that are accomplices by knowingly (or intentionally ignorantly) providing the financial backing necessary to commit them.
Well, I want those investors to not invest in an unscrupulous company due to the risks it involves. Then that unscrupulous company will never maintain the assets necessary to do Big Evil.
I agree that those most guilty should be punished, but I think all those guity should be punished proportional to their guilt.
I agree with you whole heartedly. Strangely enough I found most accurate and insightful trouncing of the modern corporation from a libertarian speaker. (I'm quite the libertarian, but I'm starting to become used to the knee-jerk "pro-business" reaction as the default response to the knee-jerk "anti-corp" so much it's painful.)
Anyway, he said (I'm paraphrasing) that the core problem with corporations these days is this asinine idea of "limited liability ownership" in the form of publically traded companies. The fact that anyone in the nation (with appropriate personal wealth) is allowed to become a "part owner" of a corportation without any fear of criminal or civil consequences of the actions of that corporation is a bizzare anomoly in the legal status personal responsibility.
Corporations have no ethics because none (or few) of the owners ever have to take responsibility for the actions of "their" company.
The test case was a Jersey ferry corporation that was tried for murder when they had a ferry go down. The supreme court ruled that although the corporation was a "citizen" under US law, the corporation as an entity was unable to be found guilty of criminal charges. Hence... corporations have no "owners" and can literally get away with murder.
The quickest, most effective way to ethics in the corporate world? Next time a corporation commits a serious crime, hold the 200,000 or so owners accountable as accomplices to __________ in proportion to their ownership. Treat "share holders" like true share holders and you'll start to see ethics make a huge come back. Now days people don't even pause to think of what they invest in, it's just letters and numbers on a stock ticker.
Well, in this case because the methodology is sound. I'm an economics student (as well as CS) and after careful study I felt that this was a pretty good summarization.
While I certainly share your scepticism regarding partisan think tanks, the source doesn't _always_ completely devalue the information. The fact that the source is a very partisan think tank means that the information deserves the highest of scrutiny.
Also, I'm not sure that any list of "freedom" can be authoritative. I didn't try to present it that way. I described it as "pretty good", not "the final say".
I realize that economic freedom is just one of the "types" of freedoms, but it's still a very interesting read. We tie for 9th in the world.
An example of an apparent (though maybe not actual, I'm no expert) flaw in using this as an index of freedom as a whole would be the UK out ranking the US considerably, since the massive surveilance that you mentioned would seem to preclude that.
Re:Blizz should've taken a page from id's book
on
Blizzcon Writeup
·
· Score: 4, Informative
While the staff is entirely a volunteer, id Software is definitely the host. They handle most hotel and sponsor relations, with quite a bit of input from the executive board of the volunteer staff.
Travis "Ash" Bradshaw Director of Volunteer Services QuakeCon
But the problem with not using analogies is that our lawmakers, enforcement officers, and general populous doesn't get it. At all.
Something completely rediculous regarding information and electronic communication comes up from the legal system or whatever, and all of us that understand the technology go "What the fuck? How could they not get this?"
Well it's simple, they didn't understand the technology and so they used an "analogy" to find an equivalent parallel and then just treated the situation like whatever. But of course since they don't understand the technology, they pick a horrible analogy.
E.g. Downloading music is like shoplifting. (No it's not, it's not theft.) Hackers are like sophisticated evil genius supervillians. (No they're not, those kids just changed the URL so they could see their *own* admittance results.) DRM is like a lock on the producers warehouse. (No it's not, it's like a lock on every one of *my* CD's in my own house.)
When people don't understand somewhat abstract ideas and concepts, they make concrete analogies to try and get a general idea of it. If we try and stop making analogies and start "thinking fresh", the common people and our lawmakers just won't get it... and they'll continue to use their shitty analogies as guidelines that will turn into shitty laws. We don't get it perfect, but maybe as a collective eventually we can find something pretty accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
I would almost agree with you. However, it doesn't take a lot of people to successfully jepordize the legitimacy of an election with a voter verifiable record. The fact that votes are verifiable after being cast at all means that a FUD campaign can be launched attacking the validity of an election.
Even if someone couldn't realistically be successful at stealing an election with vote buying (due entirely to the points that you mentioned), that doesn't mean that an interested party couldn't smear an election to the point of having a significant negative effect to the legitimacy of that election.
It's about the plausability of cheating so much as the ability to cheat. At the heart of democratic legitimacy is that each individual was able to vote their "true feeling". Saddam Hussein was voted in with 99% approval ratings each term, though I contend that it's safe to say that the votes cast were not the population's "true feelings" on the subject of government. If a person can be pressured to vote effectively, then the legitimacy of an election is subject to significant doubt.
Non-vote verifiable records are to insure that there is no effective way to pressure someone to vote against their personal convictions.
No, you're way too optimisic about the likelihood of someone getting caught for voting pressure, and assuming way too much courage on the behalf of the majority of employees.
Sure sure, you'll "get back at that SOB." But you're still fired, and now you're black listed as a whistle blower (regardless of the reason). To the vast majorty of the populous, principles aren't worth that much.
While you're almost certainly right about buying votes, that's not really the primary fear of voter verifiable records. Rather than the problem being "Candidate buys 10,000 votes", the problem is "My boss says I'm fired unless I vote for his favorite candidate and prove it."
The legitimacy of the system can be "nickle and dimed" in a significant way from pressures such as that. (Replacing boss with parents, or mobsters, or friends, or whatever is appropriate.) Part of the perk of not allowing any possible proof for a person to verify their vote is that they are free to lie about their vote to anyone that would pressure them against their beliefs.
I did notice that exact situation. They all blow. It's still an example of an extremely poor interface. The fact that they put an existing crappy solution shoe-horned into a sweet form factor further illustrates the case.
"Slapped together" doesn't necessary mean "from scratch" or even "for the specific purpose."
Right on. I would imagine that the faster processor alone would have been an amazing improvement in user experience.
I was following you 100% until you claimed the RAZR as an example of a phone that "got it right."
The RAZR is the worst example of form-over-function that I've seen in recent memory. The form factor is fantastic, but the user interface is horrid. It was clear that all of the work on the RAZR went into the slim and beautiful exterior while an interface was cheaply hacked together.
I had the sad occurance of my Nokia 3660 (running Symbian 60) dying on me, and I followed up the phone with a RAZR. I was stunned at the horrible inadequacies I faced when transitioning from the 3660.
I have a ton of contacts synchronized with my laptop. (Which didn't work properly with the RAZR, but I don't know that I would blame the OS directly, more like just poor support for the OS from synching software.) If you have say, 500 numbers in your phone and you want to look for Bob Smith with the S60 contact list, you just type say, "Bo" or "Smi" and there you'll be. With the RAZR, the best I could do was hit "S" to get the "Smith" and then scroll from there. (With 50 numbers in the S's, it was promptly a hassle.)
Most importantly was a core deficiency with text entry. They try the seemly intelligent method of determining likely words by the frequency that you have typed those words via T9. For example, "if" and "he" are the same numbers on the number pad. If you've typed "if" more often than "he", then 43 will give you "if". If you've typed "he" more often than "if", 43 will give you "he".
It sounds great until you use it in practice. In practice the interface to the RAZR is so damn slow that even an elementary student can type text faster than the interface can keep up with. When that becomes the case on a typical T9 system phone, it's no big deal. You learn that "he" is 43 and that "if" is 43# (were # is usually "next word"). So you can really go just about full speed, even though the interface is just trying to keep up.
Sudden with the RAZR this was impossible, because to the user the results of 43 (and other such common sequences) became nondeterministic! You couldn't type faster than the interface could render!
Coupled with very deep nested menus (no reason to take 7 nested menus to get to a commonly used feature), poor sync-ing (using iSync personally), and horrific text entry, I was fortunate enough to just straight up trade my RAZR away for a Nokia 6600. And while I agree that the newer versions of S60 haven't gotten all that much better and perhaps a little more annoying, nothing compares to the amazing inadequacy of the RAZR interface.
The current phones on my wish list are T-Mobile Sidekick (even as just a phone and nothing else, Danger have designed a beautifully easy to use interface) and the forthcoming iPhone (because I trust Apple's iBrand to make an efficient and effective interface).
For me now, software comes first. The RAZR was scarring.
I don't think that a revenue breakdown is necessary, since intent is determined by the developing team's personal intention rather than the bottom line. And the team has made it pretty clear that they put their games first, their licensing second.
Although, I think the pricing for the licensing makes things pretty definitive. A Q3 engine license was $150,000 plus 3% royalties (at peak). While a good chunk of change, few (if any) Q3 engine games so much more than Q3 that they could overcome the (only) 3% royalties. Older engines were licensed for less. The missing variable is that I don't know Activision's cut and/or id's cut per gross sales of id Software's games... but now that it's came up that would be an interesting question. I've just never brought it up in conversation before. Next time I talk with Todd or Marty I'll ask, I'm sort of curious now. (I wonder how it compares to like Artist revenue from CD sales and junk like that.)
Anyway, I would contest that developing team intention trumps revenues, at least in id Software's rare case... after all, they don't "need" the money like other development houses do. They have the fortunate situation of being independantly wealthy with exceptional talent/leverage. Of course, the freedom they enjoy is somewhat dependant on continued excellent sales, but it's certainly not the case that they need to sacrifice the game (what they truely enjoy doing) for the technology (which is a means to an end).
This fiscal independance is also the primary reason for continuing Mac and (especially) Linux support. John sees it as the Right Thing to do, and they are able to stand by that philosophy rather than going purely by the numbers. (Linux sales for q3 were an absolute flop, heh)
That's a very common misnomer, about id Software being more about licensing engines than building games on them. Though, I can say first hand that it's patently false. It's more of a rationalization from gamers that were often id fanboys when they became disenchanted with id games but still impressed by their technology. (I'm not in that group, I've really enjoyed the id games for their "purity of vision" and still consider all id games among my very favorites.)
id Software focuses on their games with a narrow lense to do what they exactly what they want to do, the best that they can with the technology that John Carmack puts together. Their technology is so ahead of the curve because John Carmack is so ahead of the curve. Though, the id guys and Carmack specifically have taken a strong look at software development practices and with the "new game" (title and details unreleased), there's a very strong effort to not get ahead of the design process and have the technology steer the course--instead the game design will steer the course. (Often in previous games a sweet advancement would come along that would kind of be shoehorned into a release, because it was worth it. The restraint is new. Megatexturing is a new tech that is only going into the games that need it. However, the sweet wavy look from heat sources, that was actually added to Doom 3 at the last second because it was sweet.)
Even more importantly, if one is carefully following the company, one has to notice that lately id has chosen to form partnerships to continue development on their important franchises rather than simply licensing them away. Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Quake 4, and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, these are all games that have been directed by id but developed by different teams (Splash Damage, Raven, etc).
The particular view that id Software is about licensing engines and not making games, it usually results in a +5 mod around here, but it's not true (and has nothing more than conjecture to back it up). The intentions of the guys at id are to make great games. The fact that Carmack's engines are so extremely valuable means licensing will always be a part of the business plan, but that doesn't supercede the desire of Carmack or the rest of the talented id team to make great games.
Voting is truely useless when there are no candidates worthy of voting for.
The limitations of which computers?
The human computers that calculated lookup tables for early engineers?
Analog computers, like those that calculated missle trajectories in early wars?
Digital computers, like those in our desks?
Molecular computers, which use single molecules to recreate the logic gates that we are so familiar with?
Quantum computers, which may have more than 2 states rather than just on and off?
Computer science as a field started long before anything that we currently call a computer could have possibly existed, and as time and technology have marched on we have become closer and closer to that mythological computer that you seem to despise so much.
Theoretical science has always been ahead of physical science and (especially) practical implementation. Computer science is exactly one of those theoretical sciences.
No, he's not.
I think it was a helpful illustration to note that computer science isn't about programming (and especially not computer hardware). Computer science is a math degree with emphasis on computing, logic, and algorithms.
If you want someone to know specific programming techniques, really you're looking for a software engineer. The good news is that software engineering is developing as a discipline of it's own and hopefully relatively soon we'll see more programs that split the two. (Our program mixes CS and SE until the masters program, at which time it is formally split.)
The (hopeful) advantage of a CS degree is a theoretical understanding of languages and techniques that should lead to an ability to pick up and understand new techniques very quickly. I know my usual ramp up time for any language or project is pretty short, a matter of hours for a new language and usually only a couple months before I'm very familiar with a given project. I certainly wouldn't expect an expert in implimentation from a CS graduate, instead it should be a well-rounded student well versed in computing that can adapt and learn to whatever you throw at him/her.
I think the relavent quote you're looking for is:
"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
- Edsger Dijkstra
(http://www.answers.com/topic/edsger-dijkstra)
There's a clause in the financial aid law that allows for a one time "need adjustment" of $1500 (or the published allotment for your college).
A lot of students count financial aid as "free". And as an example, here at Kansas State as a Computer Science student I fell under the $1500 category, but friends in the College of Architecture and Design were in the $2500 category. Also, for "studio" in Architecture you *must* buy a fully capable computer and provide it for the duration of the coursework in a locked up studio lab.
You're not allowed to "get by", you're given the minimum requirements (which are the recommended requirements for software like AutoCAD) and told to head to financial aid if you can't afford it. No cutting edge computer means no degree.
This isn't a debunk of rational consumers. It's a statement on how much people trust technology.
When something (like winning an action) is viewed as important to the bidder, they don't *want* to leave their fate in the hands of an algorithm on a server that they don't completely understand. Instead they are willing to micromanage it and take an active role, even if that role is to the detriment of their performance as a bidder.
This is a very rational decision, it's just based on personal preference/option rather than pure fact. No less rational, just more human.
Yes, they are a business first and foremost. And as a business keeping their customers happy (and paying) is first and foremost.
Which means if the customer base wants more "socially ethical" behavior from corporations, then this is exactly what they should do.
I'm a staunch libertarian, but I'm getting sick and tired of the "they are a corporation, they are supposed to do this, you shouldn't complain" movement. It's complete bullshit. Individuals, communities, and organizations utilizing their power in boycotts, informed purchasing (which DOES include personal preferences and ethics), and publicity campaigns is EXACTLY how social change is supposed to take place.
What would you prefer for people that abhor these kinds of practices? Lobby government to make it illegal? They sure will... and that's exactly the problem.
I think this idea that "corporations are supposed to make money regardless of the harm to humanity" is a huge part of how the US has gotten this "nothing matters but price" attitude about life that leads people to buy products from companies that they disagree with politically and ethically just to save a few bucks.
Corporations are a unique institution formed by governments, they are not human. They should be--they ARE--a reflection of society, not an exemption from it.
Your "they shouldn't care about people" attitude is counterproductive. They "should" care about people, and as consumers we should make it in their best interest to do so... just like this action by the group in the article.
And another thing, about privacy. ***The things you do in public are not private.*** Saying that social networking is going to remove all privacy is stupid. Nothing done on a social networking site is private, it's all "in public".
Saying that "social networking will end privacy" is just misleading. Other people (advertisers, bosses, relatives, whatever) knowing things about the things you do in public is normal and expected, this privacy degredation is a red herring.
This comment in the summary caught me, especially how it carried a negative/alarmist connotation: "advertising a lot more effective."
I, for one, am really looking forward to "better" advertising. Advertising isn't a bad thing, it can be an informative help to find the projects/services I'm looking for. It's shitty advertising that just fires shotgun marketing in the dark hoping for a hit that sucks. I've actually clicked on a number of Google advertisements when searching for products/services, because they were relevant to what I was looking for and I wanted more information.
It's the huge pop-over, pop-under, flashy, sound making (grraah!) advertisements trying to sell a 24 year old college student home owners insurance or pull me into a pyramid scheme that are the bane of internet existance. (yes, I use firefox, flashblock, etc to lower my exposure, but still.)
If the information that I have voluntarily made public on social networks leads to advertisements for things that I'm actually interested in or even actively searching, I'm all for it. As long as I'm making all the information public myself, I'm not involuntarily losing any privacy either.
It's kind of a bummer, I think, that all the horrible advertising through time has created so many people that just knee-jerk hate the stuff. Maybe in time with relevent advertisements they could turn that around so that they seem useful instead of annoying.
This already exists, every single employee up the chain that had any knowledge of what they were doing could have been harmful would be prosecuted.
And you're right, the investment process isn't transparent enough for this. But you've got the necessary order reversed. The investment process will become transparent when the investors require that it be that transparent. Making investors responsible for the actions of the company they own also solves for this problem.
If the investors have no idea and the company owners are hiding the true dealings of the company, then the investors are not as liable (innocent in criminal, less liable in civil) just as the current legal standards are, and the actors in the company perpetrating the crime are guilty and/or more guilty of the crime and also fraud on top of that.
I'm not saying that employees and administrators of corporations be let off the hook and replaced with shareholders, it's both. Those that commit crimes and those that are accomplices by knowingly (or intentionally ignorantly) providing the financial backing necessary to commit them.
Well, I want those investors to not invest in an unscrupulous company due to the risks it involves. Then that unscrupulous company will never maintain the assets necessary to do Big Evil.
I agree that those most guilty should be punished, but I think all those guity should be punished proportional to their guilt.
I agree with you whole heartedly. Strangely enough I found most accurate and insightful trouncing of the modern corporation from a libertarian speaker. (I'm quite the libertarian, but I'm starting to become used to the knee-jerk "pro-business" reaction as the default response to the knee-jerk "anti-corp" so much it's painful.)
Anyway, he said (I'm paraphrasing) that the core problem with corporations these days is this asinine idea of "limited liability ownership" in the form of publically traded companies. The fact that anyone in the nation (with appropriate personal wealth) is allowed to become a "part owner" of a corportation without any fear of criminal or civil consequences of the actions of that corporation is a bizzare anomoly in the legal status personal responsibility.
Corporations have no ethics because none (or few) of the owners ever have to take responsibility for the actions of "their" company.
The test case was a Jersey ferry corporation that was tried for murder when they had a ferry go down. The supreme court ruled that although the corporation was a "citizen" under US law, the corporation as an entity was unable to be found guilty of criminal charges. Hence... corporations have no "owners" and can literally get away with murder.
The quickest, most effective way to ethics in the corporate world? Next time a corporation commits a serious crime, hold the 200,000 or so owners accountable as accomplices to __________ in proportion to their ownership. Treat "share holders" like true share holders and you'll start to see ethics make a huge come back. Now days people don't even pause to think of what they invest in, it's just letters and numbers on a stock ticker.
Corporate owners need to "own up."
Well, in this case because the methodology is sound. I'm an economics student (as well as CS) and after careful study I felt that this was a pretty good summarization.
While I certainly share your scepticism regarding partisan think tanks, the source doesn't _always_ completely devalue the information. The fact that the source is a very partisan think tank means that the information deserves the highest of scrutiny.
Also, I'm not sure that any list of "freedom" can be authoritative. I didn't try to present it that way. I described it as "pretty good", not "the final say".
Here's a really good index of economic freedom:
o untries.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/c
I realize that economic freedom is just one of the "types" of freedoms, but it's still a very interesting read. We tie for 9th in the world.
An example of an apparent (though maybe not actual, I'm no expert) flaw in using this as an index of freedom as a whole would be the UK out ranking the US considerably, since the massive surveilance that you mentioned would seem to preclude that.
While the staff is entirely a volunteer, id Software is definitely the host. They handle most hotel and sponsor relations, with quite a bit of input from the executive board of the volunteer staff.
Travis "Ash" Bradshaw
Director of Volunteer Services
QuakeCon
But the problem with not using analogies is that our lawmakers, enforcement officers, and general populous doesn't get it. At all.
Something completely rediculous regarding information and electronic communication comes up from the legal system or whatever, and all of us that understand the technology go "What the fuck? How could they not get this?"
Well it's simple, they didn't understand the technology and so they used an "analogy" to find an equivalent parallel and then just treated the situation like whatever. But of course since they don't understand the technology, they pick a horrible analogy.
E.g. Downloading music is like shoplifting. (No it's not, it's not theft.) Hackers are like sophisticated evil genius supervillians. (No they're not, those kids just changed the URL so they could see their *own* admittance results.) DRM is like a lock on the producers warehouse. (No it's not, it's like a lock on every one of *my* CD's in my own house.)
When people don't understand somewhat abstract ideas and concepts, they make concrete analogies to try and get a general idea of it. If we try and stop making analogies and start "thinking fresh", the common people and our lawmakers just won't get it... and they'll continue to use their shitty analogies as guidelines that will turn into shitty laws. We don't get it perfect, but maybe as a collective eventually we can find something pretty accurate.
McDonnell-Douglas still exists, it's just now the military wing of Boeing Aerospace. It's pretty much fully intact.
(Due to agreements with the EU, Boeing is contractually obligated to keep the commercial and military wings of their business seperate.)