USA is an imperial power. Therefore, it protects whatever serves its interest. In that sense, Taiwan is (somewhat) protected by USA (although I don't think USA will intervene if China invades Taiwan). USA "protecting" other countries is well known. Other examples include Panama, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and so forth.
I'm not exactly saying Taiwan is Chinese. But it isn't independent in any sense either. The UN does not recognize it. Most countries don't. It doesn't really have an independent foreign policy of any sort.
In a way, Taiwan is more of a half-state, like Palestine. People are free in one sense but at the same time, they aren't truly free.
Until Taiwan declares independence (at which point the UN will recognize it), I don't consider it as a seperate country.
I responded to you in another post but to reiterate: just because you have friends of a particular group doesn't mean that you can be discriminatory towards them.
No I haven't faced the terrible situation of many. I'm glad you got out of your past situation.
USA is a total joke compared to other rich countries. First of all, you have to ignore the religious organizations. Most of them are out there to convert you to their religion. Atheists like me will avoid those (unless if I'm really desperate). There is nothing worse than being forced to follow a religion in return for wealth.
The money you get for food, etc are not enough. The greatest cost is perhaps housing. That is where most of the problem lies. You need affordable housing. A couple of hundread dollars in food and clothing is nothing compared to $1000/month in rent.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, you need the social structures and institutions that provide a decent environment to live. By this I'm talking about libraries, community centers, athletic facilities, daycare, and so on. People spiral down into a pit when these things aren't there. Choosing a dark path is easy when these things aren't present. Countries like USA don't spend enough on such matters. That is why USA is worse than most European countries that even poorer than USA.
USSR's population did not suffer because of the space program. USSR had a higher standard of living than even now. It was certainly above the so-called third world (whereas Russia is part of the 3rd world now). Very few Soviets actually starved to death because of the space program. The reason millions died in USSR was because they were purposely killed. That is, they died due to political reasons. Even starvations in Ukraine were done purposely by Stalin. There is no reason why USSR couldn't have maintained its standard of living without killing these people, while keeping all their space programs.
As far as China is concerned, it spends VERY LITTLE on their space program. Even if they spent it on social welfare, it wouldn't make much of a difference. What you CAN argue against, however, is their spending on military. They, like all superpower-wannabe, spends a lot on their military.
Racial based humor is not, logically, indictive of racism.
It promotes racism though. That's why I'm against it. People do it (especially stand-up comedians) but I don't think it is really the right way of doing it.
The problem is not that the comedian is racist (in most cases, he/she isn't). The problem is with the audience viewing certain things as true. A lot of people view the stereotype as being true at all times. THAT is where the problem is.
Obvious examples include people who live in rural communities (with no contact with other ethnic groups) basing their whole opinion on comedy. If someone makes a joke that immigrants are selfish and are liers, then when you try buying a house, the sellers may have the same opinion (I just made up this example so don't assume it happens all the time). This doesn't just apply to comedy either. It could apply to drama (music, movies) just as well.
Perhaps the classic example would be the treatment of blacks between the late 1800's and the mid 1900's in USA (i.e. after slavery but before true equality). There were a lot of plays, jokes, etc that were popular about blacks ( look into Jim Crow if you want to know). The Jim Crow "musicals/plays" were stereotypes but they were all popular--just like how "racist" comedians are popular. Most sociologists point how much of an influence this travelling "musical/play" had on Americans (in particular the South). The vast majority of white Americans' view of blacks was formed from these "plays/musicals". It was so bad that laws and other important things were based solely on these stereotypes. Since slavery was abolished at this point, most whites only knew blacks through these plays/musicals.
Modern comedians using stereotypes is very similar to the Jim Crow plays/musicals. Both use stereotypes (often exaggerated and blatantly false--otherwise it wouldn't be so funny) to project humour, drama, and so forth. There is a difference however. Nowadays, society (particularly Canada and most parts of USA) are multicultural. Therefore, these things aren't THAT big of a deal (multicultural supporters are automatically support equality). So I don't really have a problem with these things for the most part. I come from Toronto, one of hte most multicultural cities, and I could care less about these things (whether you are black, white, whatever, people have a better understanding of each other). HOWEVER, what does worry me are people who live in rural areas with no contact with differing ethnic groups. These people will form opinions solely based on popular media (including comedies). That is where the problem is.
I am not making generalizations, I am stating my fucking experiences. When some fuckhead tries to make an illegal turn into your car because they have no fucking peripheral or any fucking vision, then you can fucking talk, and this is not only me, this is now folklore.
It's called racism but don't worry... many have a habit of being in denial over it.
Having said that, you may just be trolling. Is this your attempt to get TrollKore (aka TK) or GNAA to accept you?;)
It IS racism, but it is milder than say what is typical put forth by fascists. Think of it this way... Here is a thought experiment:
Consider a hypothetical society where everyone was equal in all traits except driving. In such a case, you are basically claiming that the Chinese are inferior to others when it comes to driving (without any proof, and without considering environmental/societal factors). People advocating such views in that hypothetical society are basically calling for a fascist society of "good drivers" and "bad drivers". The Chinese will take the role of the inferior people in that society.
Now, come to our real society. Everything stays the same, driving isn't a "big" issue. Since driving cars isn't so "valuable", you don't care. But the principle stays the same. It IS racist. It isn't as severe as, say, someone claiming all Chinese are dumb and stupid and hence should not be allowed to have any professional jobs. Nevertheless, the ideal is the same.
I swear I witness so many bad chineese drivers, and I know some guys from China who agree with me on this one.
You know... the #1 way to propagate discrimination is by claiming that you know some guys who fit into the particular group in question and who say the same thing. That neither advances your argument nor does it make it right! What people--even those that belong to the group--say is totally irrelevant. This is true because some people are self-haters or feel subordinate to others (A good example are some blacks who were actually brainwashed to believe that they were inferior to whites in the 50's).
All blacks are dumb because I know some blacks who say so.
All whites are warmongers because I know some whites who say so.
All Asians are selfish because I know some who say so.
All women are idiots because some women admit it.
All Americans are dumb because I know some Americans who say so.
All Canadians are stupid because I know some who admit it.
All Latinos are criminals because I know some Latinos who agree with me on this one.
All Russians are corrupt because I know some Russians who agree with me on this one.
All Jews are greedy because I know some Jews who agree with me.
All Christians are dumb because I know some who agree with me. ...
Just for reference the Canadian gun registry cost around $1 billion. Most of it supposedly is due to IT cost overruns (although I'm not 100%). Granted that the scope of the projects are different (Chicago is one city; the gun registry is national).
I'm not dissing the registry; I'm just comparing how IT is used by police and the government.
I wasn't saying that writing 'u' was evil (although I personally think so:), I was clarifying the grandparent's post.
So do u think the original poster was evil? Perhaps he is related to the devil. What do u think?;)
Thirdly, I don't know where you come from saying that languages are not taught in schools. I'm pretty sure that most school systems (even the US one) teaches you your native language, and you usually have to take some courses in college, too.
I come from Canada and language skills are not taught in university. Unless you take humanities courses on your own (or as an elective), you can pretty much go through university without touching it--which many people do. The institution that accredits Canadian universities clearly does not believe that engineering and science graduates need to take language courses. I personally think they are right.
Sure, everyone is not taught a foreign language, but then if you can't speak the language, you shouldn't be on the project because it's bound to cause problems at some stage.
We are not talking about some guy not being able to communicate. We are talking about much more specific restrictions which you place (some would call it nitpicking;) ). The original poster clearly wasn't someone who was poor at writing.
Good job with the First Post(tm).... and you aren't a troll either:)
Anyway, I haven't read the study but what they are doing is OK. I think they are just analyzing overt, direct attacks against an OS. In that context, their results are fine (assuming they didn't make up stuff, lie, or something).
So perhaps instead of saying 'linux is the most vulnerable', it should be qualified with 'linux is the most vulnerable when it comes to direct attacks'. Of course, this goes with the assumption that the study is correct. The scientific community (i.e. comp sci guys) would have to support or disprove their study.
I don't know anything about the Air Force--or any military for that matter. So I'm not going to comment on it directly. I really don't know if what you are saying is true. I'm not saying you are a lier. Rather, the point is that sometimes rhetoric, words, and speeches are very different from reality. This may not be the case with the US military but consider the typical business environment.
There are MANY corporations that say they want well-rounded people diverse backgrounds and knowledge. You will read such comments from executives, HR departments, and many other influential people. You might even have heard such things from speeches given by executives, or influential think tanks promoting policy, or even senior politicians saying it. But my experience is that this is all just a bunch of "lies".
Corporations may say they want people with diverse backgrounds but the reality is anything but. Hardly any jobs ask for it. Just check the job postings (ranging from entry level to something senior, or even management (although I don't know any managers personally so I'm not sure about that position)). You are going to get hired primarily for particular skill sets and experience. All businesses want to know is: 'can you do the job now?' My experience has been that and many others I know face the same thing. If you have the skills they are looking for (say, C/C++, Windows NT, TCP/IP networking) you are in. If not, you are out.
Maybe my impression only applies to junior positions. I am nowhere near having a senior position (especially since I've been unemployed) so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe good background DOES help when you climb up the corporate ladder. But my impression is that it doesn't matter. I know some people who are somewhat senior and no one cares whether they have knowledge in other areas. I haven't seen anyone being promoted or being hired (for a better job) based on their diverse capabilities. It's always about the skill set and experience.
On top of that, people who graduated from humanities, social science, philsophy, and the like, don't seem to get any decent jobs. This is definitely true when they enter the job field (i.e. entry level). It also seems to be true for senior positions and management that I have run across (i.e. my bosses and their bosses, and their bosses).
Once upon a time, some guy in philosophy, for example, might actually get a management position. These days it seems unlikely. Not only are these guys getting decent entry level jobs, they are not getting any job at all. And if you don't get a decent entry level job, there is no way you are going to climb the career ladder (as in the past) because the ladder doesn't exist.
Furthermore, it is becoming too expensive to enter certain fields. Due to privatization of schools and reduction in government subsidies (as called for by capitalism), people are paying more tuition now than EVER. How many people do you think will enter humanities if they are going to end up with a $30k debt with little prospect for a decent job? In the past, this wasn't the case.
I think diverse individuals are a dying breed. I know it. Because I am one. These days, all employers (and consequently society) cares about are specialists who are extremely good in one area but are poor in other areas. As the world becomes more capitalist, the labour market will head in the direction I am describing. People will become more replaceable. Outsourcing trends pretty much indicate what I'm talking about.
Lastly, what I say may not be true for the US military. I don't know. BUT I have a feeling it is probably true. If it isn't happening now, it will probably happen in the future. Militaries are inherently static so it may be slower. For instance, outsourcing in the US military is very small (I'm talking about outsourcing within the country--you probably won't outsource to other countries for security reasons). In contrast, outsourcing in the general labour market is much higher (military is something li
I'm not saying it's like that everywhere; all I'm saying is that it is common. Clearly there are exceptions. For instance, the CEO of Intel in the 90's (not sure if it's the same guy now) actually takes criticisms from engineers. He has no problems with it. But situations like this are rare. Most people don't accept criticisms because it makes them look bad.
What's wrong with that? That is very popular and pretty normal. I can see you having problems with 'your' vs 'you're', or 'its' vs 'it's' but come on. You vs u? That's like slang...
To make it worse, this is message board. Things like 'u' are perfectly acceptable. I can see you having problems with someone using 'u' in a formal document;) but on a message board?
Ruling out people for having spelling mistakes on their resumes is idiotic too--although everyone does it. People are seriously excluding talented individuals (perhaps like the original poster) because of such nitpicking. This is especially sad in scientific/engineering fields. I can see you ruling out people if it was humanities or languages or something. But science?
You argue that people who make mistakes aren't careful or meticulous. Well, if care of language was important to the job (and I claim it isn't for most science and engineering), then you can use it. For instance, I can see you caring about language for jobs like PR spokesperson, translator, philosopher, and so forth. But I don't see any need for it when it comes to science and engineering. The reason most scientists and engineers can't write well is because languages aren't taught in school. There is a reason for it: languages skills aren't important to science and engineering.
In Ontario, you cannot legally call yourself engineer (of any sort; even computer), if you don't have a certification from the Professional Engineers of Ontario. This pretty much requires an engineering degree.
Having said that, I don't think this is enforced that strongly. I know that the PEO asks some large companies to not call certain job titles 'engineer' but for the most part it doesn't matter.
In any case, none of this matters. It's just titles. The original restriction for the 'engineer' job position was placed due to some liability issues (if I remember correctly... I think bridges collapsed and killed people in the early 1900's(?) so an oversight body was created to ensure that (civil) engineers were actually qualified. This largely doesn't apply to computer engineering it seems--perhaps because computer engineers don't seem to be responsible for the code they create).
Rapid Application Development (I think that's what you are talking about) is very helpful. It is significantly reduces time. It is a very popular these days it seems. Programming languages like Python are desired by many because it is almost an ideal RAD environment. However, one should always know the underlying code. I'm not a web developer but using Frontpage, Pagemill, etc is ok as long as you can dig into the HTML code and do it yourself.
Programming in C/C++ is the same. Using a RAD is very benefitial but in the end, you have the know the code. Otherwise, you can't optimize the code. Having a program generate dummy functions, or simple functions is ok, but in the end you have to know the code.
The worst ones in my experience are tools that go from architecture to dummy functions without much input. I haven't had good experience with UML->C++. Anyone else did better?
The world is changing due to capitalism. Right now and in the future, I don't think anyone will care how diverse your knowledge is. Once upon a time, people had diverse knowledge. If you look at any great thinkers in the 1800's or even early 1900's, you would find that they studied many things. If you go even further back, you will find that those that were respected had a broad background. Many of the top scientists, mathematicians, etc were good at many things. Examples include Francis Bacon, Descartes, Benjamin Franklin, and so on. Nowadays that is not the case. Employers don't care about anything (for the most part). The only thing they look for is a particular skill set. No one asks if you have a good diverse background; they only ask if you have knowledge/experience in C++, drivers, memory management, and real-time design (I'm just making this up for a hypothetical job).
It is my view that as the world shifts towards (pure) capitalism (which it is), there will be a split in education. Educational institutions will be nothing more than a means to pump out workers. This essentially means that optional fields with low employer demand (eg. philosophy, social science, etc) will split (and "die off" in some sense). This is already happening, although on a smaller scale. There is battles going on between people (mostly capitalists) who only want to fund profit-generating education (eg. engineering, science, business) and cut funding to others (eg. social science, humanities, etc). Many universities have controversies over this. Who deserves funding: the philosophy department or the business department? Governments are also having this discussion (although it isn't a major issue yet). For instance, the former Premier of Ontario (Canada) essentially said that humanties and arts shouldn't be a priority (i.e. no funding for them) while science, business, and several others should be what schools concentrate on.
The issue I'm mentioning is nothing new. It has always been a question in philosophy of education: Should universities be enriching a student or should they be creating workers suited to get jobs? But this issue hasn't played out in the open yet. There are immense pressures on universities to downsize their "optional" studies (eg. arts, humanities, etc). When universities are privatizes, as capitalism calls for, these deparments will dissapear.
So to sum up, I think you are seeing the last of the diverse individual. In the future, I think people will be very shallow but focused. They will not be good at many things but they will be extremely good at one thing--the thing that will get them a job.
Unrealated but... here in Canada, some Canadian tv programs are the worst (especially sports). The same ad keeps running a million times during each game:( I am so sick and tired of it. Either I'm brainwashed by these ads already, or I have developed resistance to it;) Super Bowl is probably the worst. While you Americans get some innovative commercials, we get repeated commercials that you got sick of during the regular season...
Buchanan criticizing Perle & Frum is like Stalin criticizing Hitler. I don't know which is worse. On the one hand, you have the neoconservative imperialists calling for USA to take over the world. But on the other hand, you have a paleoconservative who thinks everything evil is due to liberalism and socialism.
I actually would agree with Buchanan on his criticism of Perle's and Frum's strategy for combating "terrorism". However, is Buchanan better than the neoconservatives? Only when it comes to foreign policy. If you include everything, both these sides are just as bad as each other--and they probably deserve each other too...
Slashdot Mirror
USA is an imperial power. Therefore, it protects whatever serves its interest. In that sense, Taiwan is (somewhat) protected by USA (although I don't think USA will intervene if China invades Taiwan). USA "protecting" other countries is well known. Other examples include Panama, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and so forth.
I'm not exactly saying Taiwan is Chinese. But it isn't independent in any sense either. The UN does not recognize it. Most countries don't. It doesn't really have an independent foreign policy of any sort.
In a way, Taiwan is more of a half-state, like Palestine. People are free in one sense but at the same time, they aren't truly free.
Until Taiwan declares independence (at which point the UN will recognize it), I don't consider it as a seperate country.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I responded to you in another post but to reiterate: just because you have friends of a particular group doesn't mean that you can be discriminatory towards them.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
No I haven't faced the terrible situation of many. I'm glad you got out of your past situation.
USA is a total joke compared to other rich countries. First of all, you have to ignore the religious organizations. Most of them are out there to convert you to their religion. Atheists like me will avoid those (unless if I'm really desperate). There is nothing worse than being forced to follow a religion in return for wealth.
The money you get for food, etc are not enough. The greatest cost is perhaps housing. That is where most of the problem lies. You need affordable housing. A couple of hundread dollars in food and clothing is nothing compared to $1000/month in rent.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, you need the social structures and institutions that provide a decent environment to live. By this I'm talking about libraries, community centers, athletic facilities, daycare, and so on. People spiral down into a pit when these things aren't there. Choosing a dark path is easy when these things aren't present. Countries like USA don't spend enough on such matters. That is why USA is worse than most European countries that even poorer than USA.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What terrorist ring is this? The one manufactured in your fantasy world by Bush and his neoconservative friends of his?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USSR's population did not suffer because of the space program. USSR had a higher standard of living than even now. It was certainly above the so-called third world (whereas Russia is part of the 3rd world now). Very few Soviets actually starved to death because of the space program. The reason millions died in USSR was because they were purposely killed. That is, they died due to political reasons. Even starvations in Ukraine were done purposely by Stalin. There is no reason why USSR couldn't have maintained its standard of living without killing these people, while keeping all their space programs.
As far as China is concerned, it spends VERY LITTLE on their space program. Even if they spent it on social welfare, it wouldn't make much of a difference. What you CAN argue against, however, is their spending on military. They, like all superpower-wannabe, spends a lot on their military.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
China DOES own Taiwan. If not them, who? USA? Recall that Taiwan is not a seperate country. It never declared independence.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
In the USA most of them live that way because they want to, not because they have to.
You can tell a conservative from a million light years away with that comment...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Racial based humor is not, logically, indictive of racism.
It promotes racism though. That's why I'm against it. People do it (especially stand-up comedians) but I don't think it is really the right way of doing it.
The problem is not that the comedian is racist (in most cases, he/she isn't). The problem is with the audience viewing certain things as true. A lot of people view the stereotype as being true at all times. THAT is where the problem is.
Obvious examples include people who live in rural communities (with no contact with other ethnic groups) basing their whole opinion on comedy. If someone makes a joke that immigrants are selfish and are liers, then when you try buying a house, the sellers may have the same opinion (I just made up this example so don't assume it happens all the time). This doesn't just apply to comedy either. It could apply to drama (music, movies) just as well.
Perhaps the classic example would be the treatment of blacks between the late 1800's and the mid 1900's in USA (i.e. after slavery but before true equality). There were a lot of plays, jokes, etc that were popular about blacks ( look into Jim Crow if you want to know). The Jim Crow "musicals/plays" were stereotypes but they were all popular--just like how "racist" comedians are popular. Most sociologists point how much of an influence this travelling "musical/play" had on Americans (in particular the South). The vast majority of white Americans' view of blacks was formed from these "plays/musicals". It was so bad that laws and other important things were based solely on these stereotypes. Since slavery was abolished at this point, most whites only knew blacks through these plays/musicals.
Modern comedians using stereotypes is very similar to the Jim Crow plays/musicals. Both use stereotypes (often exaggerated and blatantly false--otherwise it wouldn't be so funny) to project humour, drama, and so forth. There is a difference however. Nowadays, society (particularly Canada and most parts of USA) are multicultural. Therefore, these things aren't THAT big of a deal (multicultural supporters are automatically support equality). So I don't really have a problem with these things for the most part. I come from Toronto, one of hte most multicultural cities, and I could care less about these things (whether you are black, white, whatever, people have a better understanding of each other). HOWEVER, what does worry me are people who live in rural areas with no contact with differing ethnic groups. These people will form opinions solely based on popular media (including comedies). That is where the problem is.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I am not making generalizations, I am stating my fucking experiences. When some fuckhead tries to make an illegal turn into your car because they have no fucking peripheral or any fucking vision, then you can fucking talk, and this is not only me, this is now folklore.
;)
It's called racism but don't worry... many have a habit of being in denial over it.
Having said that, you may just be trolling. Is this your attempt to get TrollKore (aka TK) or GNAA to accept you?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
SARS is sooo yesterday... I think you mean Avian Flu?
:)
BTW, it's a funny post hehe
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It IS racism, but it is milder than say what is typical put forth by fascists. Think of it this way... Here is a thought experiment:
Consider a hypothetical society where everyone was equal in all traits except driving. In such a case, you are basically claiming that the Chinese are inferior to others when it comes to driving (without any proof, and without considering environmental/societal factors). People advocating such views in that hypothetical society are basically calling for a fascist society of "good drivers" and "bad drivers". The Chinese will take the role of the inferior people in that society.
Now, come to our real society. Everything stays the same, driving isn't a "big" issue. Since driving cars isn't so "valuable", you don't care. But the principle stays the same. It IS racist. It isn't as severe as, say, someone claiming all Chinese are dumb and stupid and hence should not be allowed to have any professional jobs. Nevertheless, the ideal is the same.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I swear I witness so many bad chineese drivers, and I know some guys from China who agree with me on this one.
...
You know... the #1 way to propagate discrimination is by claiming that you know some guys who fit into the particular group in question and who say the same thing. That neither advances your argument nor does it make it right! What people--even those that belong to the group--say is totally irrelevant. This is true because some people are self-haters or feel subordinate to others (A good example are some blacks who were actually brainwashed to believe that they were inferior to whites in the 50's).
All blacks are dumb because I know some blacks who say so.
All whites are warmongers because I know some whites who say so.
All Asians are selfish because I know some who say so.
All women are idiots because some women admit it.
All Americans are dumb because I know some Americans who say so.
All Canadians are stupid because I know some who admit it.
All Latinos are criminals because I know some Latinos who agree with me on this one.
All Russians are corrupt because I know some Russians who agree with me on this one.
All Jews are greedy because I know some Jews who agree with me.
All Christians are dumb because I know some who agree with me.
I hope you see what I mean...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Just for reference the Canadian gun registry cost around $1 billion. Most of it supposedly is due to IT cost overruns (although I'm not 100%). Granted that the scope of the projects are different (Chicago is one city; the gun registry is national).
I'm not dissing the registry; I'm just comparing how IT is used by police and the government.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I wasn't saying that writing 'u' was evil (although I personally think so:), I was clarifying the grandparent's post.
;)
;) ). The original poster clearly wasn't someone who was poor at writing.
So do u think the original poster was evil? Perhaps he is related to the devil. What do u think?
Thirdly, I don't know where you come from saying that languages are not taught in schools. I'm pretty sure that most school systems (even the US one) teaches you your native language, and you usually have to take some courses in college, too.
I come from Canada and language skills are not taught in university. Unless you take humanities courses on your own (or as an elective), you can pretty much go through university without touching it--which many people do. The institution that accredits Canadian universities clearly does not believe that engineering and science graduates need to take language courses. I personally think they are right.
Sure, everyone is not taught a foreign language, but then if you can't speak the language, you shouldn't be on the project because it's bound to cause problems at some stage.
We are not talking about some guy not being able to communicate. We are talking about much more specific restrictions which you place (some would call it nitpicking
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Good job with the First Post(tm).... and you aren't a troll either :)
Anyway, I haven't read the study but what they are doing is OK. I think they are just analyzing overt, direct attacks against an OS. In that context, their results are fine (assuming they didn't make up stuff, lie, or something).
So perhaps instead of saying 'linux is the most vulnerable', it should be qualified with 'linux is the most vulnerable when it comes to direct attacks'. Of course, this goes with the assumption that the study is correct. The scientific community (i.e. comp sci guys) would have to support or disprove their study.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know anything about the Air Force--or any military for that matter. So I'm not going to comment on it directly. I really don't know if what you are saying is true. I'm not saying you are a lier. Rather, the point is that sometimes rhetoric, words, and speeches are very different from reality. This may not be the case with the US military but consider the typical business environment.
There are MANY corporations that say they want well-rounded people diverse backgrounds and knowledge. You will read such comments from executives, HR departments, and many other influential people. You might even have heard such things from speeches given by executives, or influential think tanks promoting policy, or even senior politicians saying it. But my experience is that this is all just a bunch of "lies".
Corporations may say they want people with diverse backgrounds but the reality is anything but. Hardly any jobs ask for it. Just check the job postings (ranging from entry level to something senior, or even management (although I don't know any managers personally so I'm not sure about that position)). You are going to get hired primarily for particular skill sets and experience. All businesses want to know is: 'can you do the job now?' My experience has been that and many others I know face the same thing. If you have the skills they are looking for (say, C/C++, Windows NT, TCP/IP networking) you are in. If not, you are out.
Maybe my impression only applies to junior positions. I am nowhere near having a senior position (especially since I've been unemployed) so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe good background DOES help when you climb up the corporate ladder. But my impression is that it doesn't matter. I know some people who are somewhat senior and no one cares whether they have knowledge in other areas. I haven't seen anyone being promoted or being hired (for a better job) based on their diverse capabilities. It's always about the skill set and experience.
On top of that, people who graduated from humanities, social science, philsophy, and the like, don't seem to get any decent jobs. This is definitely true when they enter the job field (i.e. entry level). It also seems to be true for senior positions and management that I have run across (i.e. my bosses and their bosses, and their bosses).
Once upon a time, some guy in philosophy, for example, might actually get a management position. These days it seems unlikely. Not only are these guys getting decent entry level jobs, they are not getting any job at all. And if you don't get a decent entry level job, there is no way you are going to climb the career ladder (as in the past) because the ladder doesn't exist.
Furthermore, it is becoming too expensive to enter certain fields. Due to privatization of schools and reduction in government subsidies (as called for by capitalism), people are paying more tuition now than EVER. How many people do you think will enter humanities if they are going to end up with a $30k debt with little prospect for a decent job? In the past, this wasn't the case.
I think diverse individuals are a dying breed. I know it. Because I am one. These days, all employers (and consequently society) cares about are specialists who are extremely good in one area but are poor in other areas. As the world becomes more capitalist, the labour market will head in the direction I am describing. People will become more replaceable. Outsourcing trends pretty much indicate what I'm talking about.
Lastly, what I say may not be true for the US military. I don't know. BUT I have a feeling it is probably true. If it isn't happening now, it will probably happen in the future. Militaries are inherently static so it may be slower. For instance, outsourcing in the US military is very small (I'm talking about outsourcing within the country--you probably won't outsource to other countries for security reasons). In contrast, outsourcing in the general labour market is much higher (military is something li
Neoconservatives haven't taken over the world--YET! :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not saying it's like that everywhere; all I'm saying is that it is common. Clearly there are exceptions. For instance, the CEO of Intel in the 90's (not sure if it's the same guy now) actually takes criticisms from engineers. He has no problems with it. But situations like this are rare. Most people don't accept criticisms because it makes them look bad.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think spelling 'you' as 'u' counts as one.
;) but on a message board?
What's wrong with that? That is very popular and pretty normal. I can see you having problems with 'your' vs 'you're', or 'its' vs 'it's' but come on. You vs u? That's like slang...
To make it worse, this is message board. Things like 'u' are perfectly acceptable. I can see you having problems with someone using 'u' in a formal document
Ruling out people for having spelling mistakes on their resumes is idiotic too--although everyone does it. People are seriously excluding talented individuals (perhaps like the original poster) because of such nitpicking. This is especially sad in scientific/engineering fields. I can see you ruling out people if it was humanities or languages or something. But science?
You argue that people who make mistakes aren't careful or meticulous. Well, if care of language was important to the job (and I claim it isn't for most science and engineering), then you can use it. For instance, I can see you caring about language for jobs like PR spokesperson, translator, philosopher, and so forth. But I don't see any need for it when it comes to science and engineering. The reason most scientists and engineers can't write well is because languages aren't taught in school. There is a reason for it: languages skills aren't important to science and engineering.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
In Ontario, you cannot legally call yourself engineer (of any sort; even computer), if you don't have a certification from the Professional Engineers of Ontario. This pretty much requires an engineering degree.
Having said that, I don't think this is enforced that strongly. I know that the PEO asks some large companies to not call certain job titles 'engineer' but for the most part it doesn't matter.
In any case, none of this matters. It's just titles. The original restriction for the 'engineer' job position was placed due to some liability issues (if I remember correctly... I think bridges collapsed and killed people in the early 1900's(?) so an oversight body was created to ensure that (civil) engineers were actually qualified. This largely doesn't apply to computer engineering it seems--perhaps because computer engineers don't seem to be responsible for the code they create).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Rapid Application Development (I think that's what you are talking about) is very helpful. It is significantly reduces time. It is a very popular these days it seems. Programming languages like Python are desired by many because it is almost an ideal RAD environment. However, one should always know the underlying code. I'm not a web developer but using Frontpage, Pagemill, etc is ok as long as you can dig into the HTML code and do it yourself.
Programming in C/C++ is the same. Using a RAD is very benefitial but in the end, you have the know the code. Otherwise, you can't optimize the code. Having a program generate dummy functions, or simple functions is ok, but in the end you have to know the code.
The worst ones in my experience are tools that go from architecture to dummy functions without much input. I haven't had good experience with UML->C++. Anyone else did better?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The world is changing due to capitalism. Right now and in the future, I don't think anyone will care how diverse your knowledge is. Once upon a time, people had diverse knowledge. If you look at any great thinkers in the 1800's or even early 1900's, you would find that they studied many things. If you go even further back, you will find that those that were respected had a broad background. Many of the top scientists, mathematicians, etc were good at many things. Examples include Francis Bacon, Descartes, Benjamin Franklin, and so on. Nowadays that is not the case. Employers don't care about anything (for the most part). The only thing they look for is a particular skill set. No one asks if you have a good diverse background; they only ask if you have knowledge/experience in C++, drivers, memory management, and real-time design (I'm just making this up for a hypothetical job).
It is my view that as the world shifts towards (pure) capitalism (which it is), there will be a split in education. Educational institutions will be nothing more than a means to pump out workers. This essentially means that optional fields with low employer demand (eg. philosophy, social science, etc) will split (and "die off" in some sense). This is already happening, although on a smaller scale. There is battles going on between people (mostly capitalists) who only want to fund profit-generating education (eg. engineering, science, business) and cut funding to others (eg. social science, humanities, etc). Many universities have controversies over this. Who deserves funding: the philosophy department or the business department? Governments are also having this discussion (although it isn't a major issue yet). For instance, the former Premier of Ontario (Canada) essentially said that humanties and arts shouldn't be a priority (i.e. no funding for them) while science, business, and several others should be what schools concentrate on.
The issue I'm mentioning is nothing new. It has always been a question in philosophy of education: Should universities be enriching a student or should they be creating workers suited to get jobs? But this issue hasn't played out in the open yet. There are immense pressures on universities to downsize their "optional" studies (eg. arts, humanities, etc). When universities are privatizes, as capitalism calls for, these deparments will dissapear.
So to sum up, I think you are seeing the last of the diverse individual. In the future, I think people will be very shallow but focused. They will not be good at many things but they will be extremely good at one thing--the thing that will get them a job.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Unrealated but... here in Canada, some Canadian tv programs are the worst (especially sports). The same ad keeps running a million times during each game :( I am so sick and tired of it. Either I'm brainwashed by these ads already, or I have developed resistance to it ;) Super Bowl is probably the worst. While you Americans get some innovative commercials, we get repeated commercials that you got sick of during the regular season...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Buchanan criticizing Perle & Frum is like Stalin criticizing Hitler. I don't know which is worse. On the one hand, you have the neoconservative imperialists calling for USA to take over the world. But on the other hand, you have a paleoconservative who thinks everything evil is due to liberalism and socialism.
I actually would agree with Buchanan on his criticism of Perle's and Frum's strategy for combating "terrorism". However, is Buchanan better than the neoconservatives? Only when it comes to foreign policy. If you include everything, both these sides are just as bad as each other--and they probably deserve each other too...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Bail bonds? Is that a US thingie? I don't see any mention of it anywhere in Canada... Then again, we know who has the higher violent crime rate ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai