the core of the problem, which is today's universities are mass producing what employers want, rather then the thinkers of tomorrow.
It's always a trade-off. The true "thinkers of tomorrow" are abstract mathematicians, physicists, poets, etc. And they have a remarkably hard time getting jobs. I think that ideally, would-be software engineers should get a spectrum of training from the immediately practical (SQL, C, etc.) to the profound (group theory, quantum physics, philosophy, etc.) It's hard to pack too much into a 4-year program, but you can still cover a lot of bases.
I just thought I'd attack the first cynical apologist for no good reason other than I don't like people like you.
Those who whine and mumble "It will never happen" think they are being 'realists', but they are just dragging everyone
down with their own depressive lack of vision. Neil, you are as much a part of the problem as the RIAA and other criminals.
The problem is you're both potentially right, and I think it depends on how many people want change to occur.
If not maybe people want change to occur, then the pessimist's approach is sensible: make the best of the situation, because trying to change it is at best a waste of effort and cost. The pessimist is only part of the problem if there are lots of swing-votes / swing-participants, and the pessimists' speech causes those swing-participants to not advocate for change.
The dilemma is that I think the pessimist is usually right, but if we always listen to pessimists, things will probably never change.
I don't mean this as a troll, but just to air a pet peeve. Sorry that it's off-topic.
I hate it when people use the word "incentivize". It's a pointlessly long and clumsy word, where "incent" is a better choice. When I hear "incentivize", it sounds like trendy business-person-speak. It makes me jump to the conclusion that the speaker is caught up in a subculture echo-chamber of moronic business / marketing majors who get so excited about having a new trendy word to use that they use it merely because of its perceived trendiness.
I've traditionally voted Republican because I'm a social conservative. In 2007, Bush and the Congressional Republicans behaved so irresponsibly that I wanted them out.
So I leaned Democrat. Until I saw that the Democratic Congress rolled over for Bush just as much as the Republicans did.
I needed to do Linux development on a Cell processor, so I picked up a PS/3 and a 24" LCD monitor. At the time I thought that I needed an HDCP-compatible monitor in order to use the PS/3 in high-res mode. (I didn't realize that you only need a HDCP-enabled monitor if you want to watch Blue-Ray movies at high-res.)
So I accidentally joined the small group of people with a high-def setup. Oops.
I'm supposed to take this reviewer seriously, when he hasn't got around to testing Debian Etch but wants me to trust his knowledge of Linux systems, including Ubuntu? Right.
Posting from an Ubuntu 64 workstation, running several Debian Etch VPS containers in VMWare Server, and a couple of dedicated Debian and FreeBSD boxes on this LAN.
Are you like, totally serious? You've set that all up by yourself. OMG OMG OMG!!! Please, like, tell us your opinion on FC8 vs. Ubuntu. Pleeeeeasssseeee;)
(I so can't wait to tell my friends that I actually talked to you! OMG OMG OMG... )
possibly, but I'd rather be bombarded with focused protons than barely focused gamma/x rays.
Oh my gosh! The FDA probably didn't realize that you disagree with the findings of the medical research! I'll let them know right away! We must get this information into the hands of oncologists immediately!
I know they use write leveling, but that just means everything will have a tendency to fail around the some time later, rather than a spot or two now and then.
Not necessarily. It really depends on the statistical distribution of the number-of-writes-until-failure the various blocks (or whatever the unit of failure is) in a SSD. If they're normally distributed, then you'd probably see several blocks fail here or there long before the majority of them had failed.
OTOH, if you or your operating system are never told that blocks have begun to fail here and there, then you might not be aware of the device's poor health until lots of blocks have failed. This might be exacerbated if a SSD silently handles failed blocks under the covers.
In a part of the world where government corruption is hideously rampant, I think this is a wonderful sign. I suggests that China's national government and many citizens want to reduce corruption. This program might not take down highly connected corrupted officials (only a free press can do that, I think), but I bet it could make lots of people's lives better.
Assuming that the complaints are actually investigated, that the investigations are fair, and that most people don't make false accusations of corruption, that is.
How can you teach a computer course and not know about Knoppix?
Because of the level of knowledge students are expected to have after completing the course. A course like that doesn't even require an instructor with a BS in computer science / IT. It just requires a power-user with a lot of patience.
It bothers me that so much money is spent on military technology having so many other issues that could be addressed.
The problem with not investing heavily in military research is that your adversaries still might make such investments, contributing towards them beating you in really important battles later on. Or more subtly, it being clear that they could beat you in battles, leading, for example, to you being unwilling to intervene when they invade other countries.
I think all sane people want to live in a world where no country needs to waste money on a defense budget. The problem is that occasionally some a$$hole gets control of a country with a lot of military potential (U.S. (Bush), Russia (Stalin), China (Mao), Germany (Hitler), etc.) Until we can get that problem under control, all other countries need some way to make invading them seem no worthwhile. Thus, the big defense budgets.
Why do all that work to achieve a theoretical peak performance of 860 GFlops, when a IBM Cell processor has a theoretical peak around 1000 GFlops?
My point is that the theoretical maximum speed rating, all by itself, doesn't fully characterize the relevant performance of a given computer for the computations which it's intended to perform.
Or maybe the Iranians really should just make a trip to Best Buy...
When our society already has plenty of excuses to avoid personal responsibility (e.g. overdiagnosis of ADD to include kids who are just undiscipled), we give more ammunition to people who just don't want to try to get it right.
I've read that the original idea behind India's caste system (a long, long time ago) was that different people were qualified for different jobs. I.e., ruling, manual labor, trade, etc. The idea was to basically codify this reality. (I don't believe that caste was originally imagined as hereditary, but I could be wrong.)
Anyway, if persons' ability to handle responsibility, make good decisions, etc. could be shown to have a genetic basis, I wonder if this would actually validate some of that old system's grounding principles.
What I remember is a service manager who said he'd look into something for me, and then didn't. And then when I confronted him with the fact that he wasn't following through on a promise, he didn't care. Neither did the store manager. It was clear that in their minds the problem was with me, rather than their crappy service or in not keeping their word.
I don't much care what happens to the corporation. I want justice for those employees.
Easy answer. If it REALLY costs the MPAA companies $6bn a year, they should be willing to pay quite a lot to have it done. Say, somewhere around 50% of the "pirated" revenue. So ask them to pay the ISPs $3bn a year and see if they are so keen. How many other investments do you know with a guaranteed 100% return?
I, for one, don't want anyone offering my ISP a few hundred million $ to start filtering content. They just might accept the offer.
Then what? Would Congress get more strict the next year, resulting in dozens of started-but-never completed projects? Would the public say, "Those NASA dudes can't be trusted! See how they handled the Mars ban?
Oh sure, like we wouldn't trust them after NASA enforces its new rule on mandatory background checks. Sheesh...
Slashdot Mirror
It's always a trade-off. The true "thinkers of tomorrow" are abstract mathematicians, physicists, poets, etc. And they have a remarkably hard time getting jobs. I think that ideally, would-be software engineers should get a spectrum of training from the immediately practical (SQL, C, etc.) to the profound (group theory, quantum physics, philosophy, etc.) It's hard to pack too much into a 4-year program, but you can still cover a lot of bases.
I can't think of a single good reason that I want my TV talking back to my cable company.
What's the point of connecting two people who both yelling, "Bluescreen??? I was just about to save my work! Aaaggg!!!"
The problem is you're both potentially right, and I think it depends on how many people want change to occur.
If not maybe people want change to occur, then the pessimist's approach is sensible: make the best of the situation, because trying to change it is at best a waste of effort and cost. The pessimist is only part of the problem if there are lots of swing-votes / swing-participants, and the pessimists' speech causes those swing-participants to not advocate for change.
The dilemma is that I think the pessimist is usually right, but if we always listen to pessimists, things will probably never change.
I don't mean this as a troll, but just to air a pet peeve. Sorry that it's off-topic. I hate it when people use the word "incentivize". It's a pointlessly long and clumsy word, where "incent" is a better choice. When I hear "incentivize", it sounds like trendy business-person-speak. It makes me jump to the conclusion that the speaker is caught up in a subculture echo-chamber of moronic business / marketing majors who get so excited about having a new trendy word to use that they use it merely because of its perceived trendiness.
I've traditionally voted Republican because I'm a social conservative. In 2007, Bush and the Congressional Republicans behaved so irresponsibly that I wanted them out.
So I leaned Democrat. Until I saw that the Democratic Congress rolled over for Bush just as much as the Republicans did.
Now I don't know how to lean. Now I just despair.
There's no one good website for it. Google is your friend on this one.
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but...
I needed to do Linux development on a Cell processor, so I picked up a PS/3 and a 24" LCD monitor. At the time I thought that I needed an HDCP-compatible monitor in order to use the PS/3 in high-res mode. (I didn't realize that you only need a HDCP-enabled monitor if you want to watch Blue-Ray movies at high-res.)
So I accidentally joined the small group of people with a high-def setup. Oops.
Are you like, totally serious? You've set that all up by yourself. OMG OMG OMG!!! Please, like, tell us your opinion on FC8 vs. Ubuntu. Pleeeeeasssseeee ;)
(I so can't wait to tell my friends that I actually talked to you! OMG OMG OMG... )
Oh my gosh! The FDA probably didn't realize that you disagree with the findings of the medical research! I'll let them know right away! We must get this information into the hands of oncologists immediately!
Not necessarily. It really depends on the statistical distribution of the number-of-writes-until-failure the various blocks (or whatever the unit of failure is) in a SSD. If they're normally distributed, then you'd probably see several blocks fail here or there long before the majority of them had failed.
OTOH, if you or your operating system are never told that blocks have begun to fail here and there, then you might not be aware of the device's poor health until lots of blocks have failed. This might be exacerbated if a SSD silently handles failed blocks under the covers.
Maybe you have to turn it to 11?
In a part of the world where government corruption is hideously rampant, I think this is a wonderful sign. I suggests that China's national government and many citizens want to reduce corruption. This program might not take down highly connected corrupted officials (only a free press can do that, I think), but I bet it could make lots of people's lives better.
Assuming that the complaints are actually investigated, that the investigations are fair, and that most people don't make false accusations of corruption, that is.
It's also stupid idea to underestimate a rich industry, especially rich with federal legislatures in their pockets.
Hate to have one of those explode in my lap!
Because of the level of knowledge students are expected to have after completing the course. A course like that doesn't even require an instructor with a BS in computer science / IT. It just requires a power-user with a lot of patience.
The problem with not investing heavily in military research is that your adversaries still might make such investments, contributing towards them beating you in really important battles later on. Or more subtly, it being clear that they could beat you in battles, leading, for example, to you being unwilling to intervene when they invade other countries.
I think all sane people want to live in a world where no country needs to waste money on a defense budget. The problem is that occasionally some a$$hole gets control of a country with a lot of military potential (U.S. (Bush), Russia (Stalin), China (Mao), Germany (Hitler), etc.) Until we can get that problem under control, all other countries need some way to make invading them seem no worthwhile. Thus, the big defense budgets.
No worries - they still don't have enough horsepower for Vista ;)
Why do all that work to achieve a theoretical peak performance of 860 GFlops, when a IBM Cell processor has a theoretical peak around 1000 GFlops?
My point is that the theoretical maximum speed rating, all by itself, doesn't fully characterize the relevant performance of a given computer for the computations which it's intended to perform.
Or maybe the Iranians really should just make a trip to Best Buy...
I've read that the original idea behind India's caste system (a long, long time ago) was that different people were qualified for different jobs. I.e., ruling, manual labor, trade, etc. The idea was to basically codify this reality. (I don't believe that caste was originally imagined as hereditary, but I could be wrong.)
Anyway, if persons' ability to handle responsibility, make good decisions, etc. could be shown to have a genetic basis, I wonder if this would actually validate some of that old system's grounding principles.
(Also reminds me go Gattaca, though.)What I remember is a service manager who said he'd look into something for me, and then didn't. And then when I confronted him with the fact that he wasn't following through on a promise, he didn't care. Neither did the store manager. It was clear that in their minds the problem was with me, rather than their crappy service or in not keeping their word.
I don't much care what happens to the corporation. I want justice for those employees.
Why on earth would WD even do this to one of their products?
I can't imagine that they, a device maker, fear being sued by the RIAA / MPAA.
Alright, fine. I'll capitulate to your terminology demands. It's properly called GNU/bricking. Sheesh.
I, for one, don't want anyone offering my ISP a few hundred million $ to start filtering content. They just might accept the offer.
Oh sure, like we wouldn't trust them after NASA enforces its new rule on mandatory background checks. Sheesh...