I support Obama, and I think he'd probably agree with/.'er view that searching is legal and has been for awhile, but it's the confescating indefinitely and without cause part that is UNAMERICAN.
However, Obama is not Jesus, and he is a politician. During a campaign all politicians have to pick their battles and be extremely careful about what they say.
The MSM covers Obama as the 'front runner' even though they don't call him that...in otherwords, the frontrunner is the one who has something to loose, so the question is, what will he do wrong? They only analyze Obama in the context of "has he fucked up yet?"
If Obama spoke the whole truth about DHS right now there would be a shitstorm. And McCain would get elected.
Fair enough in principle, but how would you propose to assess someone's ability to think critically, or work in groups?
Well, I'm supposed to be doing music reviews right now, so I can't devote a proper ammount of mindshare to the question...but...off the top of my head, I'd suggest the State Department's testing of potential foreign service applicants as a starting point.
For awhile in my early twenties I entertained the notion of joining the foreign service. A prof. at my college had done 25 years at State and he told me about the tests and training they had developed to turn all foreign service people into 'renaissance men.'
For testing the ability to work in groups, they put 5 or so applicants in a room and assign them a task. The applicants are told they are being graded on task completion, but in reality they are only looking at how they work together.
There's some scoring system (which, knowing the government, might be arcane and unwieldy). 'Ability to work in groups' is difficult to measure, but not impossible.
Even better, the student's background and history of working in groups could be a good barometer. If the kid was in stuff like team sports, band, yearbook or newspaper, debate, high school design competitions, etc. that shows they have at least worked in groups before.
'Critical Thinking'...meh...scored test with a few essays? Not measuring the quality of their analysis of a piece of art, poetry, architecture, whatever, but just their ability to evaluate and make judgements and comparisons.
Oddly, I rather like CAD - it's another of my hobbies next to literature and music.:)
right on...my hobbies are reading and talking about cosmology and astrophysics, political activism (hobby? activity...), skateboarding/snowboarding, and occasionally... Rock Band, Tiger Woods, Halo, or Fifa on the Xbox. I guess music, writing, and home improvement aren't hobbies b/c that's how I make money, but I'd do that shit for free as a hobbie if I was, say, an engineer. Also I enjoy imagining that i'm an SR-71 blackbird pilot.
Thank you for the good discussion; I have enjoyed this debate immensely.
why is working with your hands (or head) on technical tasks somehow inferior to being on the "next level" (ie. a manager)?
No way. I would never say anything like that. My point is miles from what you're making it out to be. I am a freelance writer, and I own/manage rental properties (for college students) to fill the gaps. Weekly I work with my hands fixing gutters, installing floor tile, replacing doors, etc.
I did insinuate that being a CAD monkey is undesirable compared to other engineering jobs. I'll stand by that, but I'm not knocking anyone who does a day's work.
When it comes to education I am very much pro-choice. Let the student elect what modules he or she believes is necessary for their personal development and then stand or fall on that decision.
I think we can get some common ground here. I appreciate the 'pro-choice' idea, and I'd go along with that with a caveat. A student who shows that they have already achieved a working level of 'well-roundedness' can have some/most requirements waived and be encouraged to do more engineering/physics/whatever coursework. I think a reasonably fair way of determining what engineering students are ahead of the curve (it seems like you were one of these) and which ones need remediation can be established.
Something else...most college students have no idea what is 'necessary for their personal development' maybe you were different, but I had SEVERAL friends in engineering (i was for a time) who needed alot of guidance. They were in the vast majority.
I would encourage syllabus designers to include a 'professional development' course
Another potential area of common ground.
I have a PhD in engineering and a career in robotics research. I design and build my robots with my own hands and I write peer-reviewed research papers.
cool. One day I hope to get a Masters from CU-Boulder in Communications. They have a program that is a Masters of SCIENCE in comm. which is awesome. It's inderdisciplinary, heavy in 'hard' topics (programming, satellite communications, etc.) but also includes coursework in rhetoric and criticism.
Look, you backed off your main points, and I've covered all the random criticisms you bring up (should've learned it in grade school...I don't need the Liberal Arts...blah blah) in other comments on this thread, so if you're still following this discussion refer to those (just look at my comment history).
Here's the crux:
However, I am not in favour of forcing people to take courses unrelated to their field of study.
There is more to being a professional than just the basic physical work you do. Especially at an advanced level, a person needs to very well rounded and able to draw upon several areas of knowledge.
If all you want to be is a monkey cranking out work in a cubicle for 30 years, fine...learn how to use CAD and have fun, but besides yourself, very few people would *want* that kind of shit job. The Liberal Arts gives you the skills to go to the next level.
And for the record, I'm not advocating using FORCE to make someone study something. If you don't have what it takes, you can always go get your Associates degree at Ivy tech. Enjoy that cubicle.
Let's make a distinction: there are tech. school graduates with something approximating an 'engineering' Associates degree and a person with a BS in some specialization of engineering (electrical, mechanical, aerospace, etc.)
Now, for the Associates degree at the tech school, no, I would not require Liberal Arts. For the BS in engineering however, I would definitely require Liberal Arts classes (and vice versa...don't forget that).
I studied engineering to become an engineer. How would you feel if you studied music and were told that you had to do a module on semi-conductors to make you a better rounded person?
Horribly lopsided analogy. I'm advocating that engineers should take intro. or 200 level Liberal Arts classes, but you're making it seem like the reverse of that would be for an Art major to take a upper level elec. engineering class. Wrong.
Here's how to fix your analogy: Engineer takes 200 level interpersonal communications, 20th century Russian History, or architecture survey. A Literature major would take intro. Astrophysics, Chemistry, Anatomy/physiology, or mathematics. That's balanced.
How many non-engineers even understand the basic principles of the technology their world is built on like, say, a microwave oven?
Exactly my point! That's why I think Liberal Arts people need more hard sciences!
On the flip side: How many engineers don't even understand the basic principles of human interaction that their world is built on like, say, group dynamics?
An professional engineer (maybe not the Tech school grad. w/ the Assoc. degree) needs to know how to (for example) work in a group with people of different specialities to design a UAV. They need the skills to understand the needs of the people who would be operating or repairing the UAV.
And you, my friend, seem like you could have benefited from a survey Argumentation and Debate course. That would clean up your faulty analogies.
false dichotomy..."either we have behavior monitoring cameras or we have nothing"
c'mon man...depending on where you're talking about it can be a host of strategies. strategies that work. look 9/11 could have EASILY been prevented if screeners checked the damn No-fly list and detained the guys with FUCKING UTILITY KNIVES for some background checks and questioning.
shoe bomber...hmmm guy with one way ticket and no luggage shabbily dressed and unkept...detain for questioning...don't need a damn bullshit 'behavior analysing computer' for that
and YES...in some isolated instances, there really is very little we can do to be more secure...that's life...accept it
I swear you must be a troll from Homeland Security...
While it's a worry how 1984 society is becoming, I don't think false positives are a particularly bad issue with this technology
That's like saying "Oh sure, it is worrisome that I have a live hand grenade with the pin pulled jammed in my mouth, but I don't think it would be extremely bad if it just blew off one of my pinky toes"
This kind of technology makes me want riot...ahem...i mean...to exercise my 1st amendment right to protest in a law abiding way.
I'm sickened. The CEO says: "We think a three-to-one ratio of alerts to actual events is what the market will accept."
Mind you, I'm also artistically inclined - but its nothing more than a hobby 'cause I'ld much rather be working on discovering something new or novel rather than trying to write the great American novel or splashing paint on a canvass and calling it art.
Ok, I'll bite...let's assume you are a renaissance man who never needed any help from some fagg-y bespecticaled prof to understand history, art, communications theory, etc. fine. But you're not in the majority (and a grown adult professional).
My argument is that having rigorous liberal arts requirements for undergrad science kids (and vice versa) is a necessity. At worst, you could have slept through those classes (or skipped 'em...most LA classes have loose attendance policies) and gotten an easy A to pad your GPA.
If you are Mr. Renaissance man, then you are backhandedly supporting my premise that the Liberal Arts are important. You're just saying you're really knowledgeable and well rounded already...I don't know you but I'll just concede that point...fine...you get a pass. The rest of the geeks have to have 36 credits of Art Appreciation/History/Literature analysis to graduate.
d) group-think./me shudders.
hey me too. fuck group-think. your criticism only proves the value of GOOD, EFFECTIVE group dynamics (that's what Communications people study)...maybe you should develop a theory and write it up
The chainsaw thing was a little underdeveloped though, try to flush out your analogies more next time;)
But studying the arts is a hobby for me, like music, not a core skills set
There's the big misconception. Understanding art, literature, design, history, communications and yes interpretive dance IS in itself a core skill set. Unless you rigorously train all aspects of your mind, you will be deficient. Science and engineering start with ideas...hell the word Eureka was coined from a scientific discovery...ideas start in the creative center of your brain.
You cheat yourself and disrespect science when you treat the liberal arts as nothing more than a hobby.
Some of the most exciting science and math discoveries were made because people had trained themselves to think outside the box. That's what studying the liberal arts does for you.
Basic social skills are something that should be ingrained in earlier life - by the time to reach university, it's well and truly too late.
Too late? Most people do not really form their identities until their mid-20s. University is the PERFECT time to hone social skills (or learn the basics...either way).
Bonus: Understanding liberal arts will help you get laid. That alone should be enough for the/. crowd to line up for art appreciation classes.
First, I think the midset that says "It's ok for an intro. class to be horrible b/c it weeds out the underachievers" is the first thing that should go.
Second, from what my college engineering friends told me, my own limited experience, and tons of comments on/., it seems a look at funding for research projects and how that relates to our undergrads needs a look. I've seen descriptions of what it's like to be an undergrad helping out with research in a lab that are stultifying. Probably has something to do with the pressure put on the prof's and grad students.
Third, (and this relates to #1), kids majoring in the hard sciences need more liberal arts requirements, and vice versa. All majors need to have requirements that will challenge and broaden the student's minds. Look at the creator of xkcd, or the novelist Cormac McCarthy. Both have sort of bridged the gap between liberal arts and the hard sciences in their own way. Note: this suggestion will require Physics people to acquire social skills, and Liberal Arts people to actually be logical.
the items become obsolete due to fashion considerations so build quality is a tertiary issue.
nope...marketing people with survey data in hand might try to convince you of that, but i'm well acquainted with the ipod target demographic, and build quality is NOT a tertiary issue at all.
fashion considerations...i addressed that in my example...yes, NOW build quality is tertiary b/c ipods have very good quality comparitively. If you recall from my previous post, if their build quality slipped noticably, so would their *perceived* 'cool' factor. ipods would have never been considered 'cool' in the first place if they had poor build quality
if you know it isn't then you do what you need to do to make it the best.
Look, we're talking about economic choices here...we can go from the micro (one person's choice to buy an ipod vs creative labs mp3 player) to macro (decade spanning trends in purchasing) in our examples that we use to make our arguments. We'll end up talking past each other if I give a broad example and you counter with a specific example, or vice versa, so in the interest of keeping things going, maybe we can change the way we talk about this issues?
If you're talking about some 19 year old college student choosing between an ipod or creative zen in ann arbor michigan today, at that level, at the point of sale, perception is driving the choice. But that perception has several elements, which brings me to...
On the macro scale, perceptions about popularity, quality, value, trendiness, durability are all ultimately based in, and are born out of reality. On a long enough timeline, the truth will become 100% evident (or at least close to it...let's not get into philosophy!).
example: if all gen 3 and newer models of ipod nano have cheap screens that fail months after the warranty is out, then sure, NOW, people will buy them b/c of perceptions of all the things i mentioned above, but over time, the fact that the new models are certain to break WILL cause people to buy a better product if it is available.
the perceptions change because the reality has changed
my contention is, it's better to win the reality war now AND later, and get good marketing/ad people to communicate that, as opposed to putting the reality war on the backburner and focusing on the perception war. Better for business. Long term business...
Now, lastly, several publicly held companies only care about the NEXT QUARTERLY REPORT. They are shortsighted. Yes, it might work to boost your stock from the IPO so you can dump 'em and retire after they peak, but while that's good for the individual, it's bad for the long term of the business, bad for the consumer, and bad for your employees.
I know my ideas may sound antiquated, but I believe that the best business focuses on both the now and the long term. Having your customers perceive your product the way you want is a loosing battle b/c reality drives their perceptions.
Like Tsun Tsu said "defeated warriors go to war, then seek to win...victorious warriors win first, then go to war"
I don't really understand what you were saying in your post (were you agreeing that the level of ignorance about spam is surprising?), but I love the link in your sig...
You can sell a quality product at a reasonable price, but unless the customer forms the perception that is in fact a quality good and the price was indeed reasonable, there is no customer satisfaction
still no...
If I shoot you in the balls (this is/. so i'm assuming you're a dude), and somehow trick you into thinking I gave you a strawberry ice cream cone, your f*cking perception
doesn't mean anything, you still have no balls.
Look, 'customers' can be anywhere on a range of intelligence. You have to use advertising and marketing to communicate the truth, which is that your product is indeed the best and has the most value for the price.
I know that what I'm saying isn't what they taught you in business school. I'm well aware the 'managing perception' is the going theory about how to best get customers, but the flat fact is that way of looking at things is wrong.
As I said before if you play the perception game, everyone loses...Enron, "3 strikes, your out" laws, and the whole Bush administration are examples
even if you could get reasonable content in the class, most students wouldn't give a damn
In my experience as a high school SS and comm. teacher (only a few years, but still...) i found that the vast majority of students wanted to be 'smart' and have useful knowledge about the world that would help them in the future.
Sure, there were barriers like their lack of maturity, attention span, lack of perspective, and general laziness that had to be overcome, but those are just characteristics that everyone their age generally share so it's not like the barriers are singular to technology education. The remedy is the same.
hmm...nope. It's about providing quality goods and services first and foremost. Playing the perception game only gives you bullsh*t like, oh...Enron, 'Homeland Security,' and '3 strikes your out'. Now, I'm not saying perception doesn't matter, but it's not the driving force...there is an objective reality to measure against.
As for your other point:
And create a service that no-one wants to invest in...Provided the balance between the security and cost of lapses is balanced for investors banks won't care less...we're the cattle, the investors are the butchers
My first reaction to the story was, "Good PR stunt...otherwise pointless"...until I RTFA and found this quote from the Naperville soccer mom regarding what she found in her in-box:
"It's all snake oil. I'm amazed at what true junk is out there when you're clicking through on e-mail."
Apparently people are less informed about spam than I thought, and this little one month 'contest' really is raising awareness and educating people...
However good security requires to treat everyone like they are...We want friendly customer service this is in direct conflect with security
false dichotomy...your 'either...or' is invalid. First, providing security IS good customer service...
More importantly, your ideas about what 'good security' requires are based on a flawed theory and definition of what it means to be 'secure.' Your operating definition implies that '100% secure' is an attainable goal. It's not. There is no golden procedure that will bring you out of Oz like Dorothy clicking her heels together three times.
Ham fisted, dumb tactics like making a teller ID some old lady that has been banking there for 30 years is the height of stupidity.
The best way to provide a secure environment is to first have educated, savvy personnel at all levels. Second, have smart, targeted policies that capitalize on your educated employees using higher brain functions.
A Counter-example: Instead of your "ID everyone all the time even if it's your grandma" approach...have a policy that says "ID everyone they have a 10 year + history and relationship with the bank, and you recognize them immediately"
Why? No teller is going to comply with your example because it is unworkable. Have targeted, specific policies and employees that can think analytically instead.
ps...for those of you with Asperberger's or OCD just itching to point out flaws in my example, remember, it's just an example. If you're so interested in what I'm saying, then look at my ideas instead of nitmpicking an admittedly imperfect example.
Education and knowledge are the patch for human stupidity. The whole point of the article was that because people are so focused on online security threats, they are becoming lax with old-school threats.
If people just understood the "online" part of "online security threats" this would not be an issue. I am genuinely disappointed that your everyday American is so ignorant about what the internet actually DOES.
Make technology classes mandatory as part of literacy education.
a few caveats:
1. sometimes, education as a "patch" takes years, but it does work 2. yes, education depends on the motivation of the learner, but if rewards (like having a job, pay, etc.) are tied to internet literacy, then learners will be sufficiently motivated 3. no exceptions...everyone, including John McCain, must learn the basics
yeah, you missed the meat of the message...here's a rundown
you said something to the effect of 'young people don't care about the future and don't think ahead..blah blah'
and a reply stated that it was older generations who caused the climate crisis, which has been dumped into my generation's lap (among other problems...many others), which is a true statement that logically counters your whole 'the kids these days don't care about the future...get off my lawn' comment
you consider a conversation to be game of one-upmanship
not a chance, i'm not a flamer or a troll. There was a genuine discussion, and the point you made in your grand-parent post was successfully and adroitly countered (fatally i might add, your premise was successfully disproven IMHO), that's not one-upsmanship, that's good debating. My comment was intended to address your rebuttal and to add some humor to the discussion.
In regards to your point about "post-modernism"...fine...although I disagree with your ideas about proper usage of the word, it seems you share my disdain for its use, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend, as it were...
It seems like you enjoy going back and forth about this, so go ahead and email me and we can try to hash out the proper usage of "post-modernism" or somesuch if you want.
Slashdot Mirror
get elected in November?
I support Obama, and I think he'd probably agree with /.'er view that searching is legal and has been for awhile, but it's the confescating indefinitely and without cause part that is UNAMERICAN.
However, Obama is not Jesus, and he is a politician. During a campaign all politicians have to pick their battles and be extremely careful about what they say.
The MSM covers Obama as the 'front runner' even though they don't call him that...in otherwords, the frontrunner is the one who has something to loose, so the question is, what will he do wrong? They only analyze Obama in the context of "has he fucked up yet?"
If Obama spoke the whole truth about DHS right now there would be a shitstorm. And McCain would get elected.
Patience my friend...
Parent isn't a troll/flamebait, he's just a neo-con, however the problem is that he's spouting half-truth's he heard from conservative talk-radio.
He should be modded down b/c neo-con fear mongering half-truths are not "insightful", "informative" or "interesting"...just harmful...
Well, I'm supposed to be doing music reviews right now, so I can't devote a proper ammount of mindshare to the question...but...off the top of my head, I'd suggest the State Department's testing of potential foreign service applicants as a starting point.
For awhile in my early twenties I entertained the notion of joining the foreign service. A prof. at my college had done 25 years at State and he told me about the tests and training they had developed to turn all foreign service people into 'renaissance men.'
For testing the ability to work in groups, they put 5 or so applicants in a room and assign them a task. The applicants are told they are being graded on task completion, but in reality they are only looking at how they work together.
There's some scoring system (which, knowing the government, might be arcane and unwieldy). 'Ability to work in groups' is difficult to measure, but not impossible.
Even better, the student's background and history of working in groups could be a good barometer. If the kid was in stuff like team sports, band, yearbook or newspaper, debate, high school design competitions, etc. that shows they have at least worked in groups before.
'Critical Thinking'...meh...scored test with a few essays? Not measuring the quality of their analysis of a piece of art, poetry, architecture, whatever, but just their ability to evaluate and make judgements and comparisons.
right on...my hobbies are reading and talking about cosmology and astrophysics, political activism (hobby? activity...), skateboarding/snowboarding, and occasionally... Rock Band, Tiger Woods, Halo, or Fifa on the Xbox. I guess music, writing, and home improvement aren't hobbies b/c that's how I make money, but I'd do that shit for free as a hobbie if I was, say, an engineer. Also I enjoy imagining that i'm an SR-71 blackbird pilot.
word
No way. I would never say anything like that. My point is miles from what you're making it out to be. I am a freelance writer, and I own/manage rental properties (for college students) to fill the gaps. Weekly I work with my hands fixing gutters, installing floor tile, replacing doors, etc.
I did insinuate that being a CAD monkey is undesirable compared to other engineering jobs. I'll stand by that, but I'm not knocking anyone who does a day's work.
I think we can get some common ground here. I appreciate the 'pro-choice' idea, and I'd go along with that with a caveat. A student who shows that they have already achieved a working level of 'well-roundedness' can have some/most requirements waived and be encouraged to do more engineering/physics/whatever coursework. I think a reasonably fair way of determining what engineering students are ahead of the curve (it seems like you were one of these) and which ones need remediation can be established.
Something else...most college students have no idea what is 'necessary for their personal development' maybe you were different, but I had SEVERAL friends in engineering (i was for a time) who needed alot of guidance. They were in the vast majority.
Another potential area of common ground.
cool. One day I hope to get a Masters from CU-Boulder in Communications. They have a program that is a Masters of SCIENCE in comm. which is awesome. It's inderdisciplinary, heavy in 'hard' topics (programming, satellite communications, etc.) but also includes coursework in rhetoric and criticism.
Look, you backed off your main points, and I've covered all the random criticisms you bring up (should've learned it in grade school...I don't need the Liberal Arts...blah blah) in other comments on this thread, so if you're still following this discussion refer to those (just look at my comment history).
Here's the crux:
There is more to being a professional than just the basic physical work you do. Especially at an advanced level, a person needs to very well rounded and able to draw upon several areas of knowledge.
If all you want to be is a monkey cranking out work in a cubicle for 30 years, fine...learn how to use CAD and have fun, but besides yourself, very few people would *want* that kind of shit job. The Liberal Arts gives you the skills to go to the next level.
And for the record, I'm not advocating using FORCE to make someone study something. If you don't have what it takes, you can always go get your Associates degree at Ivy tech. Enjoy that cubicle.
Let's make a distinction: there are tech. school graduates with something approximating an 'engineering' Associates degree and a person with a BS in some specialization of engineering (electrical, mechanical, aerospace, etc.)
Now, for the Associates degree at the tech school, no, I would not require Liberal Arts. For the BS in engineering however, I would definitely require Liberal Arts classes (and vice versa...don't forget that).
Horribly lopsided analogy. I'm advocating that engineers should take intro. or 200 level Liberal Arts classes, but you're making it seem like the reverse of that would be for an Art major to take a upper level elec. engineering class. Wrong.
Here's how to fix your analogy: Engineer takes 200 level interpersonal communications, 20th century Russian History, or architecture survey. A Literature major would take intro. Astrophysics, Chemistry, Anatomy/physiology, or mathematics. That's balanced.
Exactly my point! That's why I think Liberal Arts people need more hard sciences!
On the flip side: How many engineers don't even understand the basic principles of human interaction that their world is built on like, say, group dynamics?
An professional engineer (maybe not the Tech school grad. w/ the Assoc. degree) needs to know how to (for example) work in a group with people of different specialities to design a UAV. They need the skills to understand the needs of the people who would be operating or repairing the UAV.
And you, my friend, seem like you could have benefited from a survey Argumentation and Debate course. That would clean up your faulty analogies.
false dichotomy..."either we have behavior monitoring cameras or we have nothing"
c'mon man...depending on where you're talking about it can be a host of strategies. strategies that work. look 9/11 could have EASILY been prevented if screeners checked the damn No-fly list and detained the guys with FUCKING UTILITY KNIVES for some background checks and questioning.
shoe bomber...hmmm guy with one way ticket and no luggage shabbily dressed and unkept...detain for questioning...don't need a damn bullshit 'behavior analysing computer' for that
and YES...in some isolated instances, there really is very little we can do to be more secure...that's life...accept it
I swear you must be a troll from Homeland Security...
That's like saying "Oh sure, it is worrisome that I have a live hand grenade with the pin pulled jammed in my mouth, but I don't think it would be extremely bad if it just blew off one of my pinky toes"
This kind of technology makes me want riot...ahem...i mean...to exercise my 1st amendment right to protest in a law abiding way.
I'm sickened. The CEO says: "We think a three-to-one ratio of alerts to actual events is what the market will accept."
Ok, I'll bite...let's assume you are a renaissance man who never needed any help from some fagg-y bespecticaled prof to understand history, art, communications theory, etc. fine. But you're not in the majority (and a grown adult professional).
My argument is that having rigorous liberal arts requirements for undergrad science kids (and vice versa) is a necessity. At worst, you could have slept through those classes (or skipped 'em...most LA classes have loose attendance policies) and gotten an easy A to pad your GPA.
If you are Mr. Renaissance man, then you are backhandedly supporting my premise that the Liberal Arts are important. You're just saying you're really knowledgeable and well rounded already...I don't know you but I'll just concede that point...fine...you get a pass. The rest of the geeks have to have 36 credits of Art Appreciation/History/Literature analysis to graduate.
hey me too. fuck group-think. your criticism only proves the value of GOOD, EFFECTIVE group dynamics (that's what Communications people study)...maybe you should develop a theory and write it up
The chainsaw thing was a little underdeveloped though, try to flush out your analogies more next time ;)
There's the big misconception. Understanding art, literature, design, history, communications and yes interpretive dance IS in itself a core skill set. Unless you rigorously train all aspects of your mind, you will be deficient. Science and engineering start with ideas...hell the word Eureka was coined from a scientific discovery...ideas start in the creative center of your brain.
You cheat yourself and disrespect science when you treat the liberal arts as nothing more than a hobby.
Some of the most exciting science and math discoveries were made because people had trained themselves to think outside the box. That's what studying the liberal arts does for you.
Too late? Most people do not really form their identities until their mid-20s. University is the PERFECT time to hone social skills (or learn the basics...either way).
Bonus: Understanding liberal arts will help you get laid. That alone should be enough for the /. crowd to line up for art appreciation classes.
yeah, talking about COLLEGE science education...
First, I think the midset that says "It's ok for an intro. class to be horrible b/c it weeds out the underachievers" is the first thing that should go.
Second, from what my college engineering friends told me, my own limited experience, and tons of comments on /., it seems a look at funding for research projects and how that relates to our undergrads needs a look. I've seen descriptions of what it's like to be an undergrad helping out with research in a lab that are stultifying. Probably has something to do with the pressure put on the prof's and grad students.
Third, (and this relates to #1), kids majoring in the hard sciences need more liberal arts requirements, and vice versa. All majors need to have requirements that will challenge and broaden the student's minds. Look at the creator of xkcd, or the novelist Cormac McCarthy. Both have sort of bridged the gap between liberal arts and the hard sciences in their own way. Note: this suggestion will require Physics people to acquire social skills, and Liberal Arts people to actually be logical.
nope...marketing people with survey data in hand might try to convince you of that, but i'm well acquainted with the ipod target demographic, and build quality is NOT a tertiary issue at all.
fashion considerations...i addressed that in my example...yes, NOW build quality is tertiary b/c ipods have very good quality comparitively. If you recall from my previous post, if their build quality slipped noticably, so would their *perceived* 'cool' factor. ipods would have never been considered 'cool' in the first place if they had poor build quality
yep...typo
if you know it isn't then you do what you need to do to make it the best.
Look, we're talking about economic choices here...we can go from the micro (one person's choice to buy an ipod vs creative labs mp3 player) to macro (decade spanning trends in purchasing) in our examples that we use to make our arguments. We'll end up talking past each other if I give a broad example and you counter with a specific example, or vice versa, so in the interest of keeping things going, maybe we can change the way we talk about this issues?
If you're talking about some 19 year old college student choosing between an ipod or creative zen in ann arbor michigan today, at that level, at the point of sale, perception is driving the choice. But that perception has several elements, which brings me to...
On the macro scale, perceptions about popularity, quality, value, trendiness, durability are all ultimately based in, and are born out of reality. On a long enough timeline, the truth will become 100% evident (or at least close to it...let's not get into philosophy!).
example: if all gen 3 and newer models of ipod nano have cheap screens that fail months after the warranty is out, then sure, NOW, people will buy them b/c of perceptions of all the things i mentioned above, but over time, the fact that the new models are certain to break WILL cause people to buy a better product if it is available.
the perceptions change because the reality has changed
my contention is, it's better to win the reality war now AND later, and get good marketing/ad people to communicate that, as opposed to putting the reality war on the backburner and focusing on the perception war. Better for business. Long term business...
Now, lastly, several publicly held companies only care about the NEXT QUARTERLY REPORT. They are shortsighted. Yes, it might work to boost your stock from the IPO so you can dump 'em and retire after they peak, but while that's good for the individual, it's bad for the long term of the business, bad for the consumer, and bad for your employees.
I know my ideas may sound antiquated, but I believe that the best business focuses on both the now and the long term. Having your customers perceive your product the way you want is a loosing battle b/c reality drives their perceptions.
Like Tsun Tsu said "defeated warriors go to war, then seek to win...victorious warriors win first, then go to war"
I don't really understand what you were saying in your post (were you agreeing that the level of ignorance about spam is surprising?), but I love the link in your sig...
some qualified, intelligent people
still no...
If I shoot you in the balls (this is /. so i'm assuming you're a dude), and somehow trick you into thinking I gave you a strawberry ice cream cone, your f*cking perception
doesn't mean anything, you still have no balls.
Look, 'customers' can be anywhere on a range of intelligence. You have to use advertising and marketing to communicate the truth, which is that your product is indeed the best and has the most value for the price.
I know that what I'm saying isn't what they taught you in business school. I'm well aware the 'managing perception' is the going theory about how to best get customers, but the flat fact is that way of looking at things is wrong.
As I said before if you play the perception game, everyone loses...Enron, "3 strikes, your out" laws, and the whole Bush administration are examples
In my experience as a high school SS and comm. teacher (only a few years, but still...) i found that the vast majority of students wanted to be 'smart' and have useful knowledge about the world that would help them in the future.
Sure, there were barriers like their lack of maturity, attention span, lack of perspective, and general laziness that had to be overcome, but those are just characteristics that everyone their age generally share so it's not like the barriers are singular to technology education. The remedy is the same.
hmm...nope. It's about providing quality goods and services first and foremost. Playing the perception game only gives you bullsh*t like, oh...Enron, 'Homeland Security,' and '3 strikes your out'. Now, I'm not saying perception doesn't matter, but it's not the driving force...there is an objective reality to measure against.
As for your other point:
Forgive me but I just don't follow you there
My first reaction to the story was, "Good PR stunt...otherwise pointless"...until I RTFA and found this quote from the Naperville soccer mom regarding what she found in her in-box:
Apparently people are less informed about spam than I thought, and this little one month 'contest' really is raising awareness and educating people...
false dichotomy...your 'either...or' is invalid. First, providing security IS good customer service...
More importantly, your ideas about what 'good security' requires are based on a flawed theory and definition of what it means to be 'secure.' Your operating definition implies that '100% secure' is an attainable goal. It's not. There is no golden procedure that will bring you out of Oz like Dorothy clicking her heels together three times.
Ham fisted, dumb tactics like making a teller ID some old lady that has been banking there for 30 years is the height of stupidity.
The best way to provide a secure environment is to first have educated, savvy personnel at all levels. Second, have smart, targeted policies that capitalize on your educated employees using higher brain functions.
A Counter-example: Instead of your "ID everyone all the time even if it's your grandma" approach...have a policy that says "ID everyone they have a 10 year + history and relationship with the bank, and you recognize them immediately"
Why? No teller is going to comply with your example because it is unworkable. Have targeted, specific policies and employees that can think analytically instead.
ps...for those of you with Asperberger's or OCD just itching to point out flaws in my example, remember, it's just an example. If you're so interested in what I'm saying, then look at my ideas instead of nitmpicking an admittedly imperfect example.Education and knowledge are the patch for human stupidity. The whole point of the article was that because people are so focused on online security threats, they are becoming lax with old-school threats.
If people just understood the "online" part of "online security threats" this would not be an issue. I am genuinely disappointed that your everyday American is so ignorant about what the internet actually DOES.
Make technology classes mandatory as part of literacy education.
a few caveats:
1. sometimes, education as a "patch" takes years, but it does work
2. yes, education depends on the motivation of the learner, but if rewards (like having a job, pay, etc.) are tied to internet literacy, then learners will be sufficiently motivated
3. no exceptions...everyone, including John McCain, must learn the basics
well said, pierre, just remember that next time you think about trying to tell us how to run our country
yeah, you missed the meat of the message...here's a rundown
you said something to the effect of 'young people don't care about the future and don't think ahead..blah blah'
and a reply stated that it was older generations who caused the climate crisis, which has been dumped into my generation's lap (among other problems...many others), which is a true statement that logically counters your whole 'the kids these days don't care about the future...get off my lawn' comment
you should have paid attention to that portion...
not a chance, i'm not a flamer or a troll. There was a genuine discussion, and the point you made in your grand-parent post was successfully and adroitly countered (fatally i might add, your premise was successfully disproven IMHO), that's not one-upsmanship, that's good debating. My comment was intended to address your rebuttal and to add some humor to the discussion.
In regards to your point about "post-modernism"...fine...although I disagree with your ideas about proper usage of the word, it seems you share my disdain for its use, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend, as it were...
It seems like you enjoy going back and forth about this, so go ahead and email me and we can try to hash out the proper usage of "post-modernism" or somesuch if you want.