I hate to tell you this, but following orders is no excuse for committing war crimes.
Of course it isn't. If I thought "I was just following orders" was a good excuse, there would be no dilemma, and it wouldn't be a lose - lose situation.
The CEO just had hotel reservations, and if he didn't go to Morocco, he'd lose his deposit (the bastards make you leave a credit card number you know).
I've been in that situation before... where the boss is hinting/saying that he wants to do something illegal and unethical to gain the upper hand. It is a terrible feeling. Follow orders or not... you're screwed either way. I got lucky: the boss got talked out of it. But honestly, that situation sucks!
It's like the soldier who's ordered to commit war crimes. What do you do? It's in no way you're fault - but you're in a lose - lose situation.
The best thing to do is refuse, and if you lose your job... there could be worse things. But still, it sucks.
Of course, this totally ignores the real point which is that the terrorists absolutely love Bush for all he's done for them.
Recruitment is way up. Any terrorist sympathisers who can vote in this country will be solidly behind Bush.
I've heard that several times on Slashdot, and I've got to say that it's really stupid.
You think AlSadr and BinLaden love the infidel? He's shot and bombed the crap out of them. There have been more arrests of terrorist leaders in the past months than from years previous. And the leaders who are left can't move quite so easily and they step a little lighter.
And lets not pretend that the terrorist groups had no recruits before Bush smacked them down. The 911 attack was unprovoked. They are consumed by hate, and they hate America with or without President Bush. They hate you too, just like they hate me. By their own proclamation we support our government by living and working in America, and so we deserve to die.
If you ask me, IBM has gone beyond simply defending itself and its own interests. It has to do that now anyway. But it has extended its legal self beyond what it needs to in order to protect/promote FOSS. It has even run linux commercials and really helped put an end to the legitimacy concerns of some management.
I say they're a comfortable ally, and moving into friend catagory.
Not to be outdone by SCO, IBM quickly came back with
I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
SCO lawyers:
Yeah, well you're all stupid.
IBM lawyers:
I know you are... but what am I.
SCO laywers(amongst themselves):
Damn, that was good one. Do we have anything else? (shuffle through papers) How 'bout "Our dads can beat up your dads"? No. Try this.
I don't think all of us will now put down our lives for IBM. If they ever tried to pull a fast one, I have no doubt everyone would turn on them real quick. But for the mean time they have proven themselves to be a friend. And many of us are in positions to make purchasing decisions. And while we may not all go out and buy Big Blue mainframes, when two comperable deals are on the table IBM now has a slight advantage.
And that's not the only reason to support FOSS. IBM is doing several things that are good for its business. They sell hardware, and hardware needs software. Better/cheaper software makes for more profit on hardware.
A lot of things SCO does reminds me of a child's behaviour, and this is one of them. Kids often dwell on things that please them, and act as if problems don't exist.
When I was a little boy I came home from school and asked my mom if we could skip Thursday. She was puzzled and said "no". She later found out that I had gotten in trouble at school, and the teacher had scheduled a disciplinary meeting on Thursday afternoon.
You seem a little bitter today. I'll excuse it as a bad day, and I won't be quite so negative in my response.
Yes, you can have more inneficient code run on a 3 GHz computer than on a 800 MHz processor and still have it keep 60fps.
I've written games and virtual reality environments in school before. Granted, they weren't production quality, but I do have some experience with this. I can see filling an entire CD with a game and running out of room. But I can't imaging running out of room on a DVD without trying to.
Think about how much CD quality music you could store on a DVD. You can store a feature length (high quality) movie on a DVD and still have room for bonus features. Are you saying an efficient game writter might need all that room from graphics and video clips? Doesn't add up if you ask me.
Well I guess I consider what you call computer engineering to be much more critical to computer science than you do.
All aspects of the computer field are so interconnected that knowing a single one without the others is of little value. My colleages and I have always used the term computer science to mean a broad and in depth understanding of all things dealing with computers, including the math, the physics, the programming, etc.
A quote comes to mind: "The difference between practice and theory is much greater in practice than in theory." I may have butchered that. But the point is there. Computational theory must be applied in practice. The pure mathematical abstraction of a computational machine has little meaning without the machine itself.
When Turing did his theory work (pure 100% computer science by your standards), there was no machine that could do what he proposed. I guarantee that no one would know who Alan Turing was if somebody hadn't starting building physical computers. His wonderful ideas would be meaningless without some sort of implimentation.
Turing's ideas are discussed, but rarely used because we don't use an infinite tape machine for a computer.
Von Neuman, on the other hand, developed his theory along with a practical architecture. And his ideas are in use today.
I'm rambling, but my point is this. Computer theory without archicture has little value. Hardware without theory has little value. They each must be aware of each other.
Quantum computing is a perfect example. It could be the next big step in computing. And the scientists working on it have to have extensive knowledge of physics, computational theory, and the current state of computing. I understand some people would like to keep the theory and the architecture separate. But the theory and the architecture are useless without the other, and would benefit from being developed with each other in mind.
Oh, and one other thing I wanted to point out. In your original post you said that they cut out the liberal arts - indicating that the liberal arts were the part of the education outside computer science.
What they cut
Liberal arts. That's the part of a college education that teaches people to think for themselves, and to be generalists.
Nothing wrong with that, but nobody should be under the impression that this is as good as a traditional degree with a full curriculum. Unfortunately, the students who graduate from such a program will think they are well rounded, and well educated.
Then later, you told me that the core computer fundamentals actually were the liberal arts!
People who don't understand liberal arts usually fail to recognize liberal arts when they see it. The things you mentioned above are all liberal arts.
So which is it? Did they cut the liberal arts or didn't they? Details like that are the difference between science and liberal arts.
I guess this is just more evidence for my previous comment that those who haven't been educated in the liberal arts aren't capable of realizing the gaps in their own education.
I assume by that you mean that I am an example of someone who cannot see the gaps in my own education. However, you should know that I have a 4 year liberal arts degree.
Also, you claimed that most of the hard science components I mentioned are, in fact, liberal arts, even though I don't know it. I would not consider the computer science core to be liberal arts by today's understanding. (You should be proud of me here, because I'm going against your definition and using my own ideas.)
But all this is diverging from my original point. You can't be taught to think independantly. If you do, you're still doing what someone else told you to do. Thinking independantly is something you have to do on your own.
You make a very good point. Computers/hardware/applications/theory/research/ap plied math is getting to be such a broad, yet intertwined field, that you have to specialize if you are going to reach a deep level of expertise. There simply isn't enough time in the day to learn everything about everything. So you have to choose what you want to learn and match that with what you want to do with it.
Computing science has little to do with computers. Computers are tools; computing science is math.
Whooah! I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Computer science IS A LOT of math, no disagreement there. But to say it has nothing to do with computers? That's a stretch. Computer science includes math, physics, and an understanding of the current incarnation of computers, arbitrary though it may be.
Prime example:
Should your program recalculate 100 numbers or read them from a hard disk?
In theory, there's no reason to waste time recalculating what you already know. But in practice, it might take much longer to read from the physical disk than it would to recalculate.
In that situation you better know math, but you better know the physical process as well. I could type situations like this all day.
Why can't you just overclock your processor beyond belief?
Why is some RAM faster than others?
Why is a bitwise shift faster than a multiply?
If I were a CS professor, I would want my students to be able to describe back to me what happenes from mouse click, through GUI, through kernel, through machine language, through ram and the processor, down to the electrons in the semiconductor juctions themselves... and then back up. Then you know what you're talking about.
After all, MacGyuver would want to know all that stuff, shouldn't you?
That's the part of a college education that teaches people to think for themselves...
I would much prefer to cut liberal arts than core computer fundamentals, like math, data structures, and algorithm analysis. These things are all very important to understanding computer science, and they are invaluable later on in the game.
Learning to think for yourself, on the other hand...
I went to college thinking for myself. And I had some classmates who did too. I also had a lot of classmates who didn't come to college thinking for themselves. My experience: Those of us who came thinking on our own, left thinking on our own. Those who were "taught" to think on their own mostly just repeated what everyone around them was saying... things like "think for yourself."
I'm not really sure if you can be taught to think independantly. You can be taught good computer science if you have the capacity.
...can be completed in a little over 2 years, and it comes with IBM's WebSphere and Microsoft's MCSD certification.
I've said this before, and will again. A collection of certificates is not the same as a computer science degree.
Learning to program or to operate a specific set of programs if valuable, don't get me wrong there. But that is not the same thing as understanding the workings of a computer (which I consider Computer Science).
Learning a set of skills is very job-applicable, and very practical. But it should not be called computer science.
I would think so. But now with increasing processor speeds and huge storage discs, they can bloat their games all they want, hire bad programmers with no concept of efficiency, and still come out ahead.
Honestly though, I could see selling an entire game pack for $500. "Buy the whole pack and never have to change the disc."... like the old NeoGeo games.
Also, it would be a great licensing scheme. There are lots of people who would like storage like that.
Slashdot Mirror
what it is like to track down and fix a bug in Microsoft Office...
Why would you ever want to track down a bug in Microsoft Office? Just pick any line of code and you have a one in three chance of finding one.
They're not exactly equal in degree, but the situations are indeed similar. You're being overly critical.
I hate to tell you this, but following orders is no excuse for committing war crimes.
Of course it isn't. If I thought "I was just following orders" was a good excuse, there would be no dilemma, and it wouldn't be a lose - lose situation.
Yeah, but they were all innocent!
The CEO just had hotel reservations, and if he didn't go to Morocco, he'd lose his deposit (the bastards make you leave a credit card number you know).
I've been in that situation before... where the boss is hinting/saying that he wants to do something illegal and unethical to gain the upper hand. It is a terrible feeling. Follow orders or not... you're screwed either way. I got lucky: the boss got talked out of it. But honestly, that situation sucks!
It's like the soldier who's ordered to commit war crimes. What do you do? It's in no way you're fault - but you're in a lose - lose situation.
The best thing to do is refuse, and if you lose your job... there could be worse things. But still, it sucks.
Thanks... I didn't notice that actually. I just assumed I was in a back and forth conversation....
whoops
Of course, this totally ignores the real point which is that the terrorists absolutely love Bush for all he's done for them. Recruitment is way up. Any terrorist sympathisers who can vote in this country will be solidly behind Bush.
I've heard that several times on Slashdot, and I've got to say that it's really stupid.
You think AlSadr and BinLaden love the infidel? He's shot and bombed the crap out of them. There have been more arrests of terrorist leaders in the past months than from years previous. And the leaders who are left can't move quite so easily and they step a little lighter.
And lets not pretend that the terrorist groups had no recruits before Bush smacked them down. The 911 attack was unprovoked. They are consumed by hate, and they hate America with or without President Bush. They hate you too, just like they hate me. By their own proclamation we support our government by living and working in America, and so we deserve to die.
From your post:
That makes all those who support anybody but Bush in league with the terrorists - Good fallacy [nizkor.org].
You claimed that I merged all who don't support Bush with terrorists into one group. But that's not the case.
Call B terrorists, call A non-Bush supporters.
I said terrorists don't like Bush
(All B are in A)
That does NOT imply anyone who doesn't support Bush is a terrorist.
(all A are NOT necessarily in B)
Before you go off-half cocked, correcting others about logic and fallacies, examine your own.
Given:
All elements of A are elements of B
True or False?
All elements of B are necessarily elements of A.
Answer this question, and answer what's wrong with your reasoning.
If you ask me, IBM has gone beyond simply defending itself and its own interests. It has to do that now anyway. But it has extended its legal self beyond what it needs to in order to protect/promote FOSS. It has even run linux commercials and really helped put an end to the legitimacy concerns of some management.
I say they're a comfortable ally, and moving into friend catagory.
Not to be outdone by SCO, IBM quickly came back with
I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
SCO lawyers:
Yeah, well you're all stupid.
IBM lawyers:
I know you are... but what am I.
SCO laywers(amongst themselves):
Damn, that was good one. Do we have anything else? (shuffle through papers) How 'bout "Our dads can beat up your dads"? No. Try this.
SCO laywers(to IBM):
You're mom!
Man I love this graph!
SCO is officially well under the $4 mark on their one-artificially-healthy stock.
Does IBM's actions buy loyalty?
Yes.
I don't think all of us will now put down our lives for IBM. If they ever tried to pull a fast one, I have no doubt everyone would turn on them real quick. But for the mean time they have proven themselves to be a friend. And many of us are in positions to make purchasing decisions. And while we may not all go out and buy Big Blue mainframes, when two comperable deals are on the table IBM now has a slight advantage.
And that's not the only reason to support FOSS. IBM is doing several things that are good for its business. They sell hardware, and hardware needs software. Better/cheaper software makes for more profit on hardware.
A lot of things SCO does reminds me of a child's behaviour, and this is one of them. Kids often dwell on things that please them, and act as if problems don't exist.
When I was a little boy I came home from school and asked my mom if we could skip Thursday. She was puzzled and said "no". She later found out that I had gotten in trouble at school, and the teacher had scheduled a disciplinary meeting on Thursday afternoon.
Thursday doesn't exist.
You seem a little bitter today. I'll excuse it as a bad day, and I won't be quite so negative in my response.
Yes, you can have more inneficient code run on a 3 GHz computer than on a 800 MHz processor and still have it keep 60fps.
I've written games and virtual reality environments in school before. Granted, they weren't production quality, but I do have some experience with this. I can see filling an entire CD with a game and running out of room. But I can't imaging running out of room on a DVD without trying to.
Think about how much CD quality music you could store on a DVD. You can store a feature length (high quality) movie on a DVD and still have room for bonus features. Are you saying an efficient game writter might need all that room from graphics and video clips? Doesn't add up if you ask me.
Oh, and your sig is dumber than mine.
Well I guess I consider what you call computer engineering to be much more critical to computer science than you do.
All aspects of the computer field are so interconnected that knowing a single one without the others is of little value. My colleages and I have always used the term computer science to mean a broad and in depth understanding of all things dealing with computers, including the math, the physics, the programming, etc.
A quote comes to mind: "The difference between practice and theory is much greater in practice than in theory." I may have butchered that. But the point is there. Computational theory must be applied in practice. The pure mathematical abstraction of a computational machine has little meaning without the machine itself.
When Turing did his theory work (pure 100% computer science by your standards), there was no machine that could do what he proposed. I guarantee that no one would know who Alan Turing was if somebody hadn't starting building physical computers. His wonderful ideas would be meaningless without some sort of implimentation. Turing's ideas are discussed, but rarely used because we don't use an infinite tape machine for a computer.
Von Neuman, on the other hand, developed his theory along with a practical architecture. And his ideas are in use today.
I'm rambling, but my point is this. Computer theory without archicture has little value. Hardware without theory has little value. They each must be aware of each other.
Quantum computing is a perfect example. It could be the next big step in computing. And the scientists working on it have to have extensive knowledge of physics, computational theory, and the current state of computing. I understand some people would like to keep the theory and the architecture separate. But the theory and the architecture are useless without the other, and would benefit from being developed with each other in mind.
Ok, I can agree with you on most of that.
And just so you know, I rarely debate very long with people I don't respect. (meant in a good way, not a bad way)
Oh, and one other thing I wanted to point out. In your original post you said that they cut out the liberal arts - indicating that the liberal arts were the part of the education outside computer science.
What they cut
Liberal arts. That's the part of a college education that teaches people to think for themselves, and to be generalists.
Nothing wrong with that, but nobody should be under the impression that this is as good as a traditional degree with a full curriculum. Unfortunately, the students who graduate from such a program will think they are well rounded, and well educated.
Then later, you told me that the core computer fundamentals actually were the liberal arts!
People who don't understand liberal arts usually fail to recognize liberal arts when they see it. The things you mentioned above are all liberal arts.
So which is it? Did they cut the liberal arts or didn't they? Details like that are the difference between science and liberal arts.
Actually, if one of the certificates says "Bachelor of Science in Computer Science" ...then it is precisely a computer science degree
Good point, I stand amused and corrected.
I guess this is just more evidence for my previous comment that those who haven't been educated in the liberal arts aren't capable of realizing the gaps in their own education.
I assume by that you mean that I am an example of someone who cannot see the gaps in my own education. However, you should know that I have a 4 year liberal arts degree.
Also, you claimed that most of the hard science components I mentioned are, in fact, liberal arts, even though I don't know it. I would not consider the computer science core to be liberal arts by today's understanding. (You should be proud of me here, because I'm going against your definition and using my own ideas.)
But all this is diverging from my original point. You can't be taught to think independantly. If you do, you're still doing what someone else told you to do. Thinking independantly is something you have to do on your own.
You make a very good point.p plied math is getting to be such a broad, yet intertwined field, that you have to specialize if you are going to reach a deep level of expertise. There simply isn't enough time in the day to learn everything about everything. So you have to choose what you want to learn and match that with what you want to do with it.
Computers/hardware/applications/theory/research/a
Computing science has little to do with computers. Computers are tools; computing science is math.
Whooah! I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Computer science IS A LOT of math, no disagreement there. But to say it has nothing to do with computers? That's a stretch. Computer science includes math, physics, and an understanding of the current incarnation of computers, arbitrary though it may be.
Prime example:
Should your program recalculate 100 numbers or read them from a hard disk?
In theory, there's no reason to waste time recalculating what you already know. But in practice, it might take much longer to read from the physical disk than it would to recalculate.
In that situation you better know math, but you better know the physical process as well. I could type situations like this all day.
Why can't you just overclock your processor beyond belief?
Why is some RAM faster than others?
Why is a bitwise shift faster than a multiply?
If I were a CS professor, I would want my students to be able to describe back to me what happenes from mouse click, through GUI, through kernel, through machine language, through ram and the processor, down to the electrons in the semiconductor juctions themselves... and then back up. Then you know what you're talking about.
After all, MacGyuver would want to know all that stuff, shouldn't you?
That's the part of a college education that teaches people to think for themselves...
I would much prefer to cut liberal arts than core computer fundamentals, like math, data structures, and algorithm analysis. These things are all very important to understanding computer science, and they are invaluable later on in the game.
Learning to think for yourself, on the other hand...
I went to college thinking for myself. And I had some classmates who did too. I also had a lot of classmates who didn't come to college thinking for themselves. My experience: Those of us who came thinking on our own, left thinking on our own. Those who were "taught" to think on their own mostly just repeated what everyone around them was saying... things like "think for yourself."
I'm not really sure if you can be taught to think independantly. You can be taught good computer science if you have the capacity.
...can be completed in a little over 2 years, and it comes with IBM's WebSphere and Microsoft's MCSD certification.
I've said this before, and will again. A collection of certificates is not the same as a computer science degree.
Learning to program or to operate a specific set of programs if valuable, don't get me wrong there. But that is not the same thing as understanding the workings of a computer (which I consider Computer Science).
Learning a set of skills is very job-applicable, and very practical. But it should not be called computer science.
Shouldn't DVDs handle their games?
... like the old NeoGeo games.
I would think so. But now with increasing processor speeds and huge storage discs, they can bloat their games all they want, hire bad programmers with no concept of efficiency, and still come out ahead.
Honestly though, I could see selling an entire game pack for $500. "Buy the whole pack and never have to change the disc."
Also, it would be a great licensing scheme. There are lots of people who would like storage like that.