I'm sure it is much prettier on my tablet or phone where the screen size is small and scrolling the norm. Wasn't there once a time when UI's provided people with settings for what the liked ?
from the article- "counter-speech efforts" Do we really need to say more? The whole point of 'freedom of speech' is that who ever controls speech controls information. Speech never harms anyone, anyone can say or write whatever they want all day long and no one is harmed unless a) someone is somehow forced to listen or read, b) someone acts on the ideas in the speech. Speech is not the crime or even the real concern the actions are and should be.
"The bad thing about it is that it is basically an admission of defeat in preventing people from shooting at each other in the first place. " -- I think not admitting defeat on this level is naïve at best. My guess would be that in places where this technology is in consistent use you will see an uptick in being knifed , beat to death and run over with cars. Although I think the use of the technology is good, focusing exclusively on eliminating one type of weapon is mistaking the nature of what is happen and why.
Why should we be so concerned about the species surviving? I mean the 'species' doesn't want anything only individuals. No one currently living affected if the species goes extinct any time after the next 150 years. I mean I guess a person could want you great great great grandchildren to survive, but really what are they to you other then other people possible future people who may or may not ever exists.
No seriously. If you believe in God then I suppose there is an argument for exploring creation, but it isn't all the strong because it isn't and doesn't seem to be very practical in the near future.
If you don't believe in God, like Hawkings, what logical reason can you possible give to have any concern about the survival of the species? Your personal survival or happiness is not going to be affected by anything so far term and when you are dead it won't make the slightest difference.
I guess maybe to make you feel like you are doing something useful? How could the survival of the species be useful to you?
This is probably an excellent example of where cause and correlation are not the same thing. Here is my suspicion, as an old programmer. The REASON why spaces are encourage over tables is for consistency of printing on a physical paper. Which is unimportant or irrelevant if you are not. a) doing code reviews where you are passing out dead tree copies like may have been done 10 to 15 years ago OR b) submitting source code formatted on word docs as some part of documentation to a customer as government contractors are some times required to do.
SOOO.... my hypothesis is that most people who regularly used spaces and were trained when it matters are either senior developers ( who tend to make more money) or working in government contracting, thus being the cause of the correlation noticed in the study. Of coarse without gathering enough data to control for the those variables you cannot have certainty of the answer. The original post doesn't include age of developer in it's data set as near as I can see , which to me is a obvious omission if you want to actually say anything useful about salary vs habits as many habbits will track with 'when' you trained.
hmm... when my son was born here in the united states the put his hand prints and foot prints in his birth records. Probably attached to his birth certificate. I guess I didn't think to ask if it was 'optional'. It certainly wasn't presented as such.
""We can't allow there to be areas that are practically outside the law," And this in the country where if it weren't possible for many to be outside the law they would have been killed. Isn't it better to shield citizens from the political apprentice and let criminals go free then to risk what may happen when the wrong group takes power? But the German's are a different culture. So trusting of government. The way my aunt who lived there for a while put it is ' The German people believe police officers never lie, which works pretty well so long as the police officers continue to believe they never lie too.'
Speaking out on political issues is something that publically funded universities don't need to get involved in. So here is how stem cell advocacy should go.
While there is great debate about the moral issues involved in stem cell research the university has a policy of remaining neutral on moral and political issues.
For the purpose of informing the public about the science involved we issue the following statement.
1) > 2)>
Wouldn't it be nice if 'scientist' actually restricted themselves to scientific statements when speaking as scientists and then offered their opinions on how to interpret the science as private citizens like everyone else?
Or another example: ( Global warming). 1) The data indicates the earths temperature from time a to b has risen x degrees. 2) If this trend continues there is an expected rise in sea level of X. 3) It is likely with 85% certainty according to model xyz that this will display NN portions of the population
Notice what is missing: No unproven speculation as to what effect this will have on the displaced population, no call for anyone to do anything about it, no judgment on weather or not destroying the planet is a good or a bad thing. Why, because although it may be commonly agreed that killing everyone on earth is a bad thing, that isn't science, it is morality.
My guess would be someone who knew them reported them because they didn't have their privacy settings in a restrictive enough fashion? on the other hand if they really believe what they posted why would they want to go to Harvard?
You are mistaken, there are at least some people who have enough ideologically integrity to realize that private liberal college has just as much right to expel people for opposing abortion as a catholic college has to expel people for supporting it. Or more over if such a thing as a private 'atheist' college exists they have every right to expel a student who joins and professes a religion or belief in God , just as much as a Catholic college has a right to expel anyone claiming to be an atheist. ( Yes, I realize this isn't exactly how it works but it should be). If the government is going to give students grants or loans is where it get's to be a bit dicey but that should be either tied to objective criteria like ( x percent of graduates in awarded majors see an x increase in salary ) or it should just be left up the students who are the consumers.
Here is the thing. There 'SHOULD' be a strong divide in what people expect from a private institution vs a government run one. In my house, my rules. If you don't like them don't come in. Don't do business with me. This is a private college so they have every right to accept or reject anyone based on any characteristic the governing group thinks makes their private association better. Other people can not like it and think it is crappy as much as they want but this is NOT a public institution. Similar examples may be. Should a anti-gay Baptist church be forced to perform Gay weddings? Should a Jewish synagogue or mosque be require to host a hog calling contest. Should a catholic church be required to support planned parenthood. Catholic universities are run by and subsidized by the catholic church, should a catholic university be required to support and allow abortion demonstration? Should a Hindi school or university be required to server meat?
There are only 2 possible answer to all these questions. 1) either the answer is no because they are private institutions that get to define what they consider moral and therefore what they teach with their only penalty being the reactions of their patrons and or neighbors. 2) yes, because the only truly acceptable morality is the official one dictated by the federal government regardless of how much we as a society pretend we are 'tolerant' of others and value 'diversity'. Because if the answer is Yes then as a society we don't really value either diversity or tolerance, we are using those words hypocritically an only to placate people.
In this case the college gets to define it. It is a private institution and as such has a reputation that is based on the moral as well as academic reputation of their graduates. SOOO... they get to decide entirely and arbitrarily who they are willing to teach and what moral characteristics they expect that person to have. That is what makes their brand and degree more ( or less) valuable the someone else's.
Colleges are not Vo Techs. It was NOT the original purpose of a college to prepare someone for the work force. They were designed an intended to teach people MORALITY first and science and information second. Western universities come to us originally as an effort of Medieval religious education intended for priest Monks and the ruling class. So anyone going to college should expect to be subject to moral formation. It might be an idea for parents to consider if they agree with the moral formation they are paying for. No one should kid themselves. Even state run schools have an agenda and program of moral formation. Often times a very anti-religious one.
i think brain surgery would be 'fun'. I started writing code in 4th grade on the commodore 64. And although there are many elements of computer programming that are challenging, I have always enjoyed solving the problem and writing the code. So after nearly 20+ years in the industry I still liken what I do to playing video games. ( given a set of inputs, push the correct buttons and create the correct patters, to solve the problem).
So yes, I think it IS fun , among other things. I think the people who are best at it enjoy it!:) That is probably the same with almost any profession.
This sounds just a hair too far 'out there' , still that is ugly.
The assumption ( other devices are owned by you) would be false under many circumstances so this tech, if it actually exists would be near to useless for that purpose. There are devices owned by other people in your home, your office , and the coffee shop you go to regularly. Of coarse you might be able to make smart assumptions about a lot of this but the articles 'other devices in your home' is obviously not a simple use case for such a thing. If it exists. Also, exactly how was and when was listening turned on for all these other supposed 'receivers' is it some kind of virus? everyone should turn off background data and update things when they want them instead of living with constant interruptions anyway. ( i think there has been some studies on that , but am too lazy to look them up right now).
then again, about the only time I actually listen to video adds is when watching you tube or other video services.
what and how do you define humble in such a way it can be measured and then studied? Humble is sometimes defined as the opposite of pride, but not all self value is pride so , again, define humble? So far as I know humble is defined as such: https://www.google.com/webhp?s...
Humility is a christian value , but honestly I don't see it as something logically consistent with any kind of Atheistic Darwinian thought process. How does the humble man fair when 'survival' of the fittest is the only real rule?
I don't think it is just STEM. How do you define 'sexual harassment'? I think if you go by the Department of Labor definition. https://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/sta... It looks like about 1/4 of all 'reported' charges are for sexual harassment across the board, and those of coarse are more egregious then the basic 'attitude and atmosphere' so it seems unlikely that any women working in any field would not have seen at least some sexual harassment. Probably all have experienced sexism even if not direct harassment. Although, I suppose because women are a significant minority in the STEM industry they are more easily targeted.
American society has a terrible problem with respecting women in general, which is primarily due to our attitudes about sex and family. It has gotten ever worse since the 'free love' generation. Women were empowered to work , but they were also expected to make themselves interchangeable with men on both an emotional and social level. That is a huge disservice to all women and all men.
On the other hand what you are saying doesn't make all that much sense either , because without copyright law the 'public domain' simply does not exist, or if it does all works once first sale occur exist within in.
What would be a more interesting study would be to find out how far the attitudes of the American people are from what the current law requires. How may people are actually aware of what the law does and does not allow and when made aware of what it doesn't allow consider the law to be fair. As a culture we really need to have a discussion about what is 'good' copyright law and what is not. Perhaps the laws have outlived their usefulness in the digital age and need to be replaced by something more concrete that doesn't favor large corporations but still provides an income stream that encourages the creation and disseminations of art? I believe the library of congress has one copy of every book, why not some registry like that for all digital art and require all streams of that art to reference back to and give royalties to the artist who registered the art? There could also be some kind of consistent algorithm developed to distributed those royalties. However there should be good consideration given to an easy way to allow people to create a register derivative works, for some 'reasonable' fee. Ideally the majority of Americans would get to define what 'reasonable' meant.
hmm... stealing. Taking something that doesn't belong to you. So, are they taking credit for your music or are they creating links to what you already put on line so that you still get credit? What specifically are they taking that belongs to you? Obviously they can't take what you haven't made available. The assumption that people 'should' do often times varies depending on country and culture. 'Copywrite' is a type of 'virtual' property the exits only because of certain western laws. It has a long and complicated history and I'd say that it is at more then debatable weather there is a philosophical / natural right to control what happens to the art you create once it has left your hand. Copywrite exists as a kind of carve out by western government to promote the arts and industries by allowing them to control the sails of copies of their art as a way of generating income. Historically no such 'right' existed before the 19th century. So, if someone is not in the united states and not subject to it's laws saying they are 'stealing' by not following laws that don't exist in their country is kind of like saying the Chinese government impinges on your freedom of speech by not allowing you to say what you want in their country. You would actually probably have a better claim, philosophically to the later, as there is a lot better argument to be made for the freedom of speech as a natural / moral right then there is for copyright.
Most large business 'fix' this problem by creating a different entry from the MS update server that lives on their local network. Allowing them to control when updates are pushed to their desktops. Why not use the host file to 'fix' this problem if you have metered connection.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure it is much prettier on my tablet or phone where the screen size is small and scrolling the norm. Wasn't there once a time when UI's provided people with settings for what the liked ?
from the article- "counter-speech efforts"
Do we really need to say more? The whole point of 'freedom of speech' is that who ever controls speech controls information. Speech never harms anyone, anyone can say or write whatever they want all day long and no one is harmed unless a) someone is somehow forced to listen or read, b) someone acts on the ideas in the speech. Speech is not the crime or even the real concern the actions are and should be.
"The bad thing about it is that it is basically an admission of defeat in preventing people from shooting at each other in the first place. " -- I think not admitting defeat on this level is naïve at best. My guess would be that in places where this technology is in consistent use you will see an uptick in being knifed , beat to death and run over with cars. Although I think the use of the technology is good, focusing exclusively on eliminating one type of weapon is mistaking the nature of what is happen and why.
Why should we be so concerned about the species surviving?
I mean the 'species' doesn't want anything only individuals.
No one currently living affected if the species goes extinct any time after the next 150 years.
I mean I guess a person could want you great great great grandchildren to survive, but really what are they to you other then other people possible future people who may or may not ever exists.
No seriously. If you believe in God then I suppose there is an argument for exploring creation, but it isn't all the strong because it isn't and doesn't seem to be very practical in the near future.
If you don't believe in God, like Hawkings, what logical reason can you possible give to have any concern about the survival of the species? Your personal survival or happiness is not going to be affected by anything so far term and when you are dead it won't make the slightest difference.
I guess maybe to make you feel like you are doing something useful? How could the survival of the species be useful to you?
This is probably an excellent example of where cause and correlation are not the same thing.
Here is my suspicion, as an old programmer. The REASON why spaces are encourage over tables is for consistency of printing on a physical paper.
Which is unimportant or irrelevant if you are not. a) doing code reviews where you are passing out dead tree copies like may have been done 10 to 15 years ago OR b) submitting source code formatted on word docs as some part of documentation to a customer as government contractors are some times required to do.
SOOO.... my hypothesis is that most people who regularly used spaces and were trained when it matters are either senior developers ( who tend to make more money) or working in government contracting, thus being the cause of the correlation noticed in the study. Of coarse without gathering enough data to control for the those variables you cannot have certainty of the answer. The original post doesn't include age of developer in it's data set as near as I can see , which to me is a obvious omission if you want to actually say anything useful about salary vs habits as many habbits will track with 'when' you trained.
http://aceproject.org/electora...
hmm... when my son was born here in the united states the put his hand prints and foot prints in his birth records. Probably attached to his birth certificate. I guess I didn't think to ask if it was 'optional'. It certainly wasn't presented as such.
""We can't allow there to be areas that are practically outside the law,"
And this in the country where if it weren't possible for many to be outside the law they would have been killed.
Isn't it better to shield citizens from the political apprentice and let criminals go free then to risk what may happen when the wrong group takes power? But the German's are a different culture. So trusting of government. The way my aunt who lived there for a while put it is ' The German people believe police officers never lie, which works pretty well so long as the police officers continue to believe they never lie too.'
Speaking out on political issues is something that publically funded universities don't need to get involved in.
So here is how stem cell advocacy should go.
While there is great debate about the moral issues involved in stem cell research the university has a policy of remaining neutral on moral and political issues.
For the purpose of informing the public about the science involved we issue the following statement.
1) >
2)>
Wouldn't it be nice if 'scientist' actually restricted themselves to scientific statements when speaking as scientists and then offered their opinions on how to interpret the science as private citizens like everyone else?
Or another example: ( Global warming).
1) The data indicates the earths temperature from time a to b has risen x degrees.
2) If this trend continues there is an expected rise in sea level of X.
3) It is likely with 85% certainty according to model xyz that this will display NN portions of the population
Notice what is missing: No unproven speculation as to what effect this will have on the displaced population, no call for anyone to do anything about it, no judgment on weather or not destroying the planet is a good or a bad thing. Why, because although it may be commonly agreed that killing everyone on earth is a bad thing, that isn't science, it is morality.
Human beings are naturally hardwired to be conformists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
More over it is nearly impossible not to form your opinions in reference to the opinions of those around you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
My guess would be someone who knew them reported them because they didn't have their privacy settings in a restrictive enough fashion? on the other hand if they really believe what they posted why would they want to go to Harvard?
You are mistaken, there are at least some people who have enough ideologically integrity to realize that private liberal college has just as much right to expel people for opposing abortion as a catholic college has to expel people for supporting it. Or more over if such a thing as a private 'atheist' college exists they have every right to expel a student who joins and professes a religion or belief in God , just as much as a Catholic college has a right to expel anyone claiming to be an atheist. ( Yes, I realize this isn't exactly how it works but it should be).
If the government is going to give students grants or loans is where it get's to be a bit dicey but that should be either tied to objective criteria like ( x percent of graduates in awarded majors see an x increase in salary ) or it should just be left up the students who are the consumers.
Here is the thing. There 'SHOULD' be a strong divide in what people expect from a private institution vs a government run one. In my house, my rules. If you don't like them don't come in. Don't do business with me. This is a private college so they have every right to accept or reject anyone based on any characteristic the governing group thinks makes their private association better. Other people can not like it and think it is crappy as much as they want but this is NOT a public institution. Similar examples may be. Should a anti-gay Baptist church be forced to perform Gay weddings? Should a Jewish synagogue or mosque be require to host a hog calling contest. Should a catholic church be required to support planned parenthood. Catholic universities are run by and subsidized by the catholic church, should a catholic university be required to support and allow abortion demonstration? Should a Hindi school or university be required to server meat?
There are only 2 possible answer to all these questions.
1) either the answer is no because they are private institutions that get to define what they consider moral and therefore what they teach with their only penalty being the reactions of their patrons and or neighbors.
2) yes, because the only truly acceptable morality is the official one dictated by the federal government regardless of how much we as a society pretend we are 'tolerant' of others and value 'diversity'. Because if the answer is Yes then as a society we don't really value either diversity or tolerance, we are using those words hypocritically an only to placate people.
In this case the college gets to define it. It is a private institution and as such has a reputation that is based on the moral as well as academic reputation of their graduates. SOOO... they get to decide entirely and arbitrarily who they are willing to teach and what moral characteristics they expect that person to have. That is what makes their brand and degree more ( or less) valuable the someone else's.
Colleges are not Vo Techs. It was NOT the original purpose of a college to prepare someone for the work force. They were designed an intended to teach people MORALITY first and science and information second. Western universities come to us originally as an effort of Medieval religious education intended for priest Monks and the ruling class. So anyone going to college should expect to be subject to moral formation. It might be an idea for parents to consider if they agree with the moral formation they are paying for. No one should kid themselves. Even state run schools have an agenda and program of moral formation. Often times a very anti-religious one.
i think brain surgery would be 'fun'.
I started writing code in 4th grade on the commodore 64. And although there are many elements of computer programming that are challenging, I have always enjoyed solving the problem and writing the code. So after nearly 20+ years in the industry I still liken what I do to playing video games. ( given a set of inputs, push the correct buttons and create the correct patters, to solve the problem).
So yes, I think it IS fun , among other things. I think the people who are best at it enjoy it! :)
That is probably the same with almost any profession.
This sounds just a hair too far 'out there' , still that is ugly.
The assumption ( other devices are owned by you) would be false under many circumstances so this tech, if it actually exists would be near to useless for that purpose. There are devices owned by other people in your home, your office , and the coffee shop you go to regularly. Of coarse you might be able to make smart assumptions about a lot of this but the articles 'other devices in your home' is obviously not a simple use case for such a thing. If it exists. Also, exactly how was and when was listening turned on for all these other supposed 'receivers' is it some kind of virus? everyone should turn off background data and update things when they want them instead of living with constant interruptions anyway. ( i think there has been some studies on that , but am too lazy to look them up right now).
then again, about the only time I actually listen to video adds is when watching you tube or other video services.
what and how do you define humble in such a way it can be measured and then studied?
Humble is sometimes defined as the opposite of pride, but not all self value is pride so , again, define humble?
So far as I know humble is defined as such:
https://www.google.com/webhp?s...
Humility is a christian value , but honestly I don't see it as something logically consistent with any kind of Atheistic Darwinian thought process.
How does the humble man fair when 'survival' of the fittest is the only real rule?
I don't think it is just STEM. How do you define 'sexual harassment'? I think if you go by the Department of Labor definition.
https://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/sta...
It looks like about 1/4 of all 'reported' charges are for sexual harassment across the board, and those of coarse are more egregious then the basic 'attitude and atmosphere' so it seems unlikely that any women working in any field would not have seen at least some sexual harassment. Probably all have experienced sexism even if not direct harassment. Although, I suppose because women are a significant minority in the STEM industry they are more easily targeted.
American society has a terrible problem with respecting women in general, which is primarily due to our attitudes about sex and family.
It has gotten ever worse since the 'free love' generation. Women were empowered to work , but they were also expected to make themselves interchangeable with men on both an emotional and social level. That is a huge disservice to all women and all men.
ok found it:
http://www.history.com/this-da...
So, I'm reading up on my history. I apparently had some bad information fed to me in high school because I very clearly remember being taught that copyright law was almost non existent until an outcry after the death of Stephen foster. The who of which seems to have been a myth.
https://www.copyright.gov/circ...
http://www.pitt.edu/~amerimus/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
On the other hand what you are saying doesn't make all that much sense either , because without copyright law the 'public domain' simply does not exist, or if it does all works once first sale occur exist within in.
What would be a more interesting study would be to find out how far the attitudes of the American people are from what the current law requires.
How may people are actually aware of what the law does and does not allow and when made aware of what it doesn't allow consider the law to be fair.
As a culture we really need to have a discussion about what is 'good' copyright law and what is not.
Perhaps the laws have outlived their usefulness in the digital age and need to be replaced by something more concrete that doesn't favor large corporations but still provides an income stream that encourages the creation and disseminations of art? I believe the library of congress has one copy of every book, why not some registry like that for all digital art and require all streams of that art to reference back to and give royalties to the artist who registered the art?
There could also be some kind of consistent algorithm developed to distributed those royalties. However there should be good consideration given to an easy way to allow people to create a register derivative works, for some 'reasonable' fee. Ideally the majority of Americans would get to define what 'reasonable' meant.
hmm... stealing. Taking something that doesn't belong to you.
So, are they taking credit for your music or are they creating links to what you already put on line so that you still get credit?
What specifically are they taking that belongs to you?
Obviously they can't take what you haven't made available. The assumption that people 'should' do often times varies depending on country and culture.
'Copywrite' is a type of 'virtual' property the exits only because of certain western laws. It has a long and complicated history and I'd say that it is at more then debatable weather there is a philosophical / natural right to control what happens to the art you create once it has left your hand.
Copywrite exists as a kind of carve out by western government to promote the arts and industries by allowing them to control the sails of copies of their art as a way of generating income. Historically no such 'right' existed before the 19th century.
So, if someone is not in the united states and not subject to it's laws saying they are 'stealing' by not following laws that don't exist in their country is kind of like saying the Chinese government impinges on your freedom of speech by not allowing you to say what you want in their country. You would actually probably have a better claim, philosophically to the later, as there is a lot better argument to be made for the freedom of speech as a natural / moral right then there is for copyright.
Most large business 'fix' this problem by creating a different entry from the MS update server that lives on their local network. Allowing them to control when updates are pushed to their desktops. Why not use the host file to 'fix' this problem if you have metered connection.