It is also a matter of what and how many doors your degree will open. The engineering grad can obtain any job the liberal arts grad is qualified for, but the reverse is simply untrue.
I graduated with my CS degree during the dot com bust- I had friends who had offers in December that were yanked in February. When asked if I would still recommend CS to a prospective freshman, I argued in the affirmative, using the above as my reasoning.
That said, its extremely important what your first few jobs out of school are- after a few, your degree becomes less important than your demonstrated experience. I went directly into grad school (never finished) and waited out the bust. I then left and went right into tech in the investment banking world. It was a lucky play, and I think my salary as a result is considerably higher than it would have been if I had gone right into a defense contractor, or given up on tech for my first few jobs.
Theres also another way to look at this. P/E is defined as "a stock's market capitalization divided by its after-tax earnings over a 12-month period, usually the trailing period but occasionally the current or forward period." (investorwords.com)
Thus, we can think of it as such- how many years would it take Google to buy back all of their outstanding shares at the current market price assuming their earnings stay fixed? Right now the answer to that question is 120 years. Do you honestly believe GOOG will exist in 120 years?
Of course, this argument assumes their growth stops and doesnt decline. YMMV. Thats why the parent poster's comparisons to similar tech companies is so poignant. During the "pop" of the internet bubble, companies with P/E of over 70 suddenly lost as much as 97% of their value (assuming they survived at all). GOOG is closer to double that.
Innovation, nor expertise is driving GOOG up. It's 100% pure unadulterated hype. A P/E of 120 indicates a massive market inefficiency. Unfortunately for the good people of Google and its investors, the market has a nasty way of correcting itself, eventually but never-the-less inevitably. The real losers of the Dot-com days were the investors who fooled themselves into believing that rule didn't apply to them.
I heard about this happening at my alma mater, but didnt actually witness it so take it with a grain of salt
A male professor once exclaimed in class, after a female student answered a question incorrectly due to a math error that "Thats ok- women are naturally worse at math than men."
After an audible sucking of wind from the class (my school was about 70-30 female-male at the time), he followed with "Its ok, its not your fault. Know why?" A pause...and then he held his thumb and forefinger about an inch and a half apart. "Because all your lives men have been lying to you and telling you that this is 8 inches."
Scene: Your local "Best Buy" or other electronics store
Best Buy Guy: Here you go, we have this one over here for $89.99. It will read any DVD except for a few of the newer ones that have some new DRM scheme on them. To read those, you need this one over here- its $129.99, and the DVDs it plays are $29.99.
Customer: Wait- does the more expensive one play my old DVDs?
Best Buy Guy: Nope. It "protects" you from easily copiable media by not letting you play it. But a few of the new, more expensive dvd's coming out will work in this one that costs more.
Customer: Wait- it does less and costs more?
Best Buy Guy: Yep. Progress marches forward my man! The wheel of time halts for no man!
Customer: Ok I am sold! Sell me that more expensive DVD player that does less!
Vision 2:
Customer: This DVD I bought yesterday is defective- it doesnt play in my DVD player. I'd like my money back.
Best Buy Guy: Yessir, right away sir.
Now...which vision do you think is more likely to actually occur?
The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any installed file sharing programs
I've often wondered when someone would invent a "cross P2P network search tool." It not only tells you who has what movies, but what they're using to share them!
Your post, while amusing, is to me quite frightening. Imagine that block of code ending with "overwrite_with_certified_code();". Not only could this happen- it could have already happened, and there would be absolutely no way to prove or disprove it.
This is much more important than the identity or party affiliation of the winner. The American people wake up the day after an election content with the knowledge that if their guy didnt win, then at least he was the candidate chosen according to the rules decided on before hand. If one cannot be certain of that, theres no reason not to continue the fight into the courts, or worse, the streets.
I have been wondering why this hasnt been covered in the main-stream press, and more importantly why voters are not up in arms about this issue. As much as a conspiracy freak as I can get sometimes, I refuse to believe in a left or right wing conspiracy in the media. (I think there is an anti-administration/pro-scandal bias-compare media fervor over WMD intelligence and blue dress stain intelligence and you'll get my point)
If we want to get the public's attention on this issue, we need one of the following to happen:
Survior contestants voted off the island using suspect, paper-trailless Diebold voting machines
Lacey Peterson Jury Verdict decided by vote over suspect, paper-trailless voting machines
On this critical issue, I think we need to start petitioning producers of "Survivor" and the judge in the Lacey Peterson case- a simple effort on the part of either of these individuals could spare our nation the pain of another election scandal.
However, anyone who uses and relys on software to keep someone alive, or keep something from killing someone should not be waiting for the latest IE patch to make sure their shit works.
I can see it all now, somewhere at hospital near you...
Patient: Arrrg!
Nurse: Doctor! Doctor! This patient is going into cardiac arrest!
Doctor: Hot damn! Help me get him up on this gurney! Thanks, nurse Johnson. Now get on that windoze box and google for 'heart'!
Nurse: Right away doctor!
Doctor: And be quick about it, woman, or our patient may die right here in the operating room!
Nurse, typing frantically: Doctor, our box is so slow today! What should I do?
Doctor: My god woman, hes gonna croak it right here! Google for 'CPR'!
Nurse: I cant! Its too slow!
Doctor: Run ad-aware! Quickly now!
Bonzai Buddy: Would you like to send me to school to learn new songs?
Nurs3: WTF??? We've been 0wzored! Those asshats on the night shift must have been surfing for warez again!
Doctor (to patient): Sorry pal, but you're fucked.
You naughty, naughty inducer you....
From the Article:
"It is illegal and immoral to induce or encourage children to commit crimes," said Hatch."Tragically, some corporations now seem to think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal," said Hatch. "Some think they can legally lure children into breaking the law with false promises of 'free kitten images.'"
Just echo the sentence "Fuck you MP/RIAA!" into a shit load of files like "X-Files-Season1.zip" and "Britney-Huge-Slut.mp3", then leave em up in a directory off of your public_html. Gimme 5 mins I'll churn out a script that makes a huge set of these.
When you get a letter from them, reply "Prove it Beotch!", then go and shuffle all the filenames.
The goal here is to put forth as little effort as possible to generate the maximum amount of work on their end. Every time they send out a letter, we want them to have to take time responding to our denials. The worst thing that happens is they burn alot of billable hours, end up looking like a bunch of asshats, and you have run 5 or 6 commands at a prompt.
I have seen many arguments (some here, some elsewhere) against a broadband to the home innitiative. These include:
America is too big to make the infrastructure changes economically feasible.
This one seems logical- we are a big country after all, with a population density much less than countries in Europe and Asia. Stringing all that wire to less people will end up costing more. This would be a good argument were it not for the presence of a rather large industrial,democratic republic immediately to our north that enjoys broadband penetration rivaling that of Europe, Korea and Japan. Are they not big? Do they not have a low population density? Perhaps it has more to do with their lack of entrenched monopolies.
Public Broadband would tax all while only benefitting it users.
This is true- but why is a bad thing? Your taxes pay for the FCC, even if you never listen to the radio or watch TV. Your taxes pay for highways, even if you dont own a car. And your property taxes pay for schools even if you havent got a kid. The only argument that suffices when it comes to the question of spending tax dollars is cost vs benefits. Considering that opening up a broadband market may just be the shot in the arm our economy needs (think of all the goods and services that could be provided if everyone has access to 100MB connections), and the fact that other nations with more developed infrastructures and lower standards of living will be aptly suited as the destination of our outsourced jobs, I think the benefits to our nation as a whole far outweigh the burden of the taxes necessary to pay for it.
This violates the free market!
No. A well designed public works project fits neatly into the free market- it merely recognizes the fact that sometimes, the entire people of a nation can be a consumer. You know what really messes with a free market? Entrenched monopolies backed by government control. Build fiber to the home. Make the cost of a "broadband service license" low. Watch as hundreds of companies open shop to compete for your business. Giving companies monopoly rights in exchange for the infrastructure engineering would be a mistake- pay for it with tax dollars and license it out at cost to small companies. In effect, we would be using public monies to build a new market place.
While I agree with your post almost entirely, I feel I should point out that SCO really has nothing to lose. Groklaw points out that the $31M is roughly all SCO is worth, which means that if they shell out the $31M in legal fees and lose, it doesnt matter who sues them, nor for how much. My guess is their legal representatives have already put together the chapter 11 documents, minus signatures and dates, of course.
The only real way for SCO to lose is if the SEC finds something untoward in their probe. Then SCO stops being the corporation and starts being the collection of individual executives who may have collectively broken the law.
SCO is already dead as a corporation, which makes them extremely dangerous, because they have nothing to lose. I suspect thats what brought this sorry story to where it is today.
The old joke (amended)...
Make frivalous lawsuit
???
Pump and dump stock at enormous profit!!!
Lose or withdraw suit after spending last dime of corporate bankroll
Pray to god the SEC cant find anything
Really, SCO sued in an effort to affect its take over by IBM. When that didnt happen, they had nothing left to lose, so they stalled for time to get out of the company as individuals with the most they could. Their only other option was to drop the suit, fold up shop, and end up owing their creditors and shareholders. This way the individuals get out ahead, and the company need not pay anything to its investors. Its a unique loophole formed at the juncture of corporate law, bankruptsy law and the lack of barratry laws.
Some people objected to giving me their number to do a search for them, so I had them give me the number before and after, sequentially, so I could do a "range" search. They were happy to learn their number was secure.
Oh...also... anyone know if they throw in free floor mats on Jaguars?
It bothers me that the debate has been framed in terms "stealing stuff that you didn't pay for and how can we stop that" rather than the fact we have, for the first time in history, a culture whose important facets are all owned by corporations...
Its debateable how much of our culture is owned and operated by monlithic corporations. What really bothers me is the way we all tend to dodge the real question. Many a post has started out stating "The illegality of filesharing aside..." So I have to ask, why is the non-comercial sharing of copyrighted works still illegal? I submit that the vast numbers of installed and running filesharing applications seems to provide evidence that a large segment of our country's population finds no moral or ethical objection to downloading copyrighted media files.
The answer may be that this segment happens to be comprised of persons under the voting age, or of young adults who tend not to vote. Thus, when the large media and software companies lobby congress to protect their business model, they find a willing ear, partly because of contributions, but mainly because the mainstream constituent of that representative either (a) is ignorant of the issue, (b) doesnt care, or (c) agrees with the corp and believes copyright violation is theft. Its a safe vote for almost any congressperson.
One thing this tells me is we need to mobilize- get out and vote for congresspersons who will represent our views. The other thing it tells me, is that unless the RIAA and MPAA open "re-education camps", their business model has about one generation left to live.
So, you dont have a parliament (see http://www.aph.gov.au/) whose members are elected to represent the people? 'Cause that there qualifies yer country as a republic.
First a disclaimer- one of my undergrad degrees is in CS, I did 3 years of a CS PhD program, and taught undergrad CS. My feelings on CS are colored accordingly
Could someone please explain to me why this is a bad thing? The economy cannot support the current numbers of IT professionals, as evidenced by the unemployment statistics. Further, outsourcing isnt entirely to blame for this, though I do see it mitigating job growth. Fewer CS majors means we will have a higher "signal to noise ratio", our universities will output higher quality CS grads, and the economy will have a better chance of supporting them with job opportunities.
The vast majority of people fleeing CS at the moment are doing so because they have no interest in the subject matter other than fiscal. Most of my freshman CS majors fell into this category in 2000-2001. Does this mean that we might miss the next Turing? Possibly, but truely great minds will find a way to enrich our society regardless of the field of study they pursue. If anything, these numbers are further evidence that the dot com bubble burst was a return to sanity.
Slashdot Mirror
Microwaving it just releases the jebons
It is also a matter of what and how many doors your degree will open. The engineering grad can obtain any job the liberal arts grad is qualified for, but the reverse is simply untrue.
I graduated with my CS degree during the dot com bust- I had friends who had offers in December that were yanked in February. When asked if I would still recommend CS to a prospective freshman, I argued in the affirmative, using the above as my reasoning.
That said, its extremely important what your first few jobs out of school are- after a few, your degree becomes less important than your demonstrated experience. I went directly into grad school (never finished) and waited out the bust. I then left and went right into tech in the investment banking world. It was a lucky play, and I think my salary as a result is considerably higher than it would have been if I had gone right into a defense contractor, or given up on tech for my first few jobs.
Be a good parent, and get her a cake- one big enough for the stripper to hide inside.
Theres also another way to look at this. P/E is defined as "a stock's market capitalization divided by its after-tax earnings over a 12-month period, usually the trailing period but occasionally the current or forward period." (investorwords.com)
Thus, we can think of it as such- how many years would it take Google to buy back all of their outstanding shares at the current market price assuming their earnings stay fixed? Right now the answer to that question is 120 years. Do you honestly believe GOOG will exist in 120 years?
Of course, this argument assumes their growth stops and doesnt decline. YMMV. Thats why the parent poster's comparisons to similar tech companies is so poignant. During the "pop" of the internet bubble, companies with P/E of over 70 suddenly lost as much as 97% of their value (assuming they survived at all). GOOG is closer to double that.
Innovation, nor expertise is driving GOOG up. It's 100% pure unadulterated hype. A P/E of 120 indicates a massive market inefficiency. Unfortunately for the good people of Google and its investors, the market has a nasty way of correcting itself, eventually but never-the-less inevitably. The real losers of the Dot-com days were the investors who fooled themselves into believing that rule didn't apply to them.
Now let me rephrase this:
Now repeat after me: I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of Time Warner...
I heard about this happening at my alma mater, but didnt actually witness it so take it with a grain of salt
A male professor once exclaimed in class, after a female student answered a question incorrectly due to a math error that "Thats ok- women are naturally worse at math than men."
After an audible sucking of wind from the class (my school was about 70-30 female-male at the time), he followed with "Its ok, its not your fault. Know why?" A pause...and then he held his thumb and forefinger about an inch and a half apart. "Because all your lives men have been lying to you and telling you that this is 8 inches."
Vision 1:
Scene: Your local "Best Buy" or other electronics store
Best Buy Guy: Here you go, we have this one over here for $89.99. It will read any DVD except for a few of the newer ones that have some new DRM scheme on them. To read those, you need this one over here- its $129.99, and the DVDs it plays are $29.99.
Customer: Wait- does the more expensive one play my old DVDs?
Best Buy Guy: Nope. It "protects" you from easily copiable media by not letting you play it. But a few of the new, more expensive dvd's coming out will work in this one that costs more.
Customer: Wait- it does less and costs more?
Best Buy Guy: Yep. Progress marches forward my man! The wheel of time halts for no man!
Customer: Ok I am sold! Sell me that more expensive DVD player that does less!
Vision 2:
Customer: This DVD I bought yesterday is defective- it doesnt play in my DVD player. I'd like my money back.
Best Buy Guy: Yessir, right away sir.
Now...which vision do you think is more likely to actually occur?
Did Sally Struthers happen to be a member of the previous crew?
Finally!!!
I've often wondered when someone would invent a "cross P2P network search tool." It not only tells you who has what movies, but what they're using to share them!
Your post, while amusing, is to me quite frightening. Imagine that block of code ending with "overwrite_with_certified_code();". Not only could this happen- it could have already happened, and there would be absolutely no way to prove or disprove it.
This is much more important than the identity or party affiliation of the winner. The American people wake up the day after an election content with the knowledge that if their guy didnt win, then at least he was the candidate chosen according to the rules decided on before hand. If one cannot be certain of that, theres no reason not to continue the fight into the courts, or worse, the streets.
I have been wondering why this hasnt been covered in the main-stream press, and more importantly why voters are not up in arms about this issue. As much as a conspiracy freak as I can get sometimes, I refuse to believe in a left or right wing conspiracy in the media. (I think there is an anti-administration/pro-scandal bias-compare media fervor over WMD intelligence and blue dress stain intelligence and you'll get my point)
If we want to get the public's attention on this issue, we need one of the following to happen:
On this critical issue, I think we need to start petitioning producers of "Survivor" and the judge in the Lacey Peterson case- a simple effort on the part of either of these individuals could spare our nation the pain of another election scandal.
I can see it all now, somewhere at hospital near you...
Patient: Arrrg!
Nurse: Doctor! Doctor! This patient is going into cardiac arrest!
Doctor: Hot damn! Help me get him up on this gurney! Thanks, nurse Johnson. Now get on that windoze box and google for 'heart'!
Nurse: Right away doctor!
Doctor: And be quick about it, woman, or our patient may die right here in the operating room!
Nurse, typing frantically: Doctor, our box is so slow today! What should I do?
Doctor: My god woman, hes gonna croak it right here! Google for 'CPR'!
Nurse: I cant! Its too slow!
Doctor: Run ad-aware! Quickly now!
Bonzai Buddy: Would you like to send me to school to learn new songs?
Nurs3: WTF??? We've been 0wzored! Those asshats on the night shift must have been surfing for warez again!
Doctor (to patient): Sorry pal, but you're fucked.
Just echo the sentence "Fuck you MP/RIAA!" into a shit load of files like "X-Files-Season1.zip" and "Britney-Huge-Slut.mp3", then leave em up in a directory off of your public_html. Gimme 5 mins I'll churn out a script that makes a huge set of these.
When you get a letter from them, reply "Prove it Beotch!", then go and shuffle all the filenames.
The goal here is to put forth as little effort as possible to generate the maximum amount of work on their end. Every time they send out a letter, we want them to have to take time responding to our denials. The worst thing that happens is they burn alot of billable hours, end up looking like a bunch of asshats, and you have run 5 or 6 commands at a prompt.
I have seen many arguments (some here, some elsewhere) against a broadband to the home innitiative. These include:
This one seems logical- we are a big country after all, with a population density much less than countries in Europe and Asia. Stringing all that wire to less people will end up costing more. This would be a good argument were it not for the presence of a rather large industrial,democratic republic immediately to our north that enjoys broadband penetration rivaling that of Europe, Korea and Japan. Are they not big? Do they not have a low population density? Perhaps it has more to do with their lack of entrenched monopolies.
This is true- but why is a bad thing? Your taxes pay for the FCC, even if you never listen to the radio or watch TV. Your taxes pay for highways, even if you dont own a car. And your property taxes pay for schools even if you havent got a kid. The only argument that suffices when it comes to the question of spending tax dollars is cost vs benefits. Considering that opening up a broadband market may just be the shot in the arm our economy needs (think of all the goods and services that could be provided if everyone has access to 100MB connections), and the fact that other nations with more developed infrastructures and lower standards of living will be aptly suited as the destination of our outsourced jobs, I think the benefits to our nation as a whole far outweigh the burden of the taxes necessary to pay for it.
No. A well designed public works project fits neatly into the free market- it merely recognizes the fact that sometimes, the entire people of a nation can be a consumer. You know what really messes with a free market? Entrenched monopolies backed by government control. Build fiber to the home. Make the cost of a "broadband service license" low. Watch as hundreds of companies open shop to compete for your business. Giving companies monopoly rights in exchange for the infrastructure engineering would be a mistake- pay for it with tax dollars and license it out at cost to small companies. In effect, we would be using public monies to build a new market place.
While I agree with your post almost entirely, I feel I should point out that SCO really has nothing to lose. Groklaw points out that the $31M is roughly all SCO is worth, which means that if they shell out the $31M in legal fees and lose, it doesnt matter who sues them, nor for how much. My guess is their legal representatives have already put together the chapter 11 documents, minus signatures and dates, of course.
The only real way for SCO to lose is if the SEC finds something untoward in their probe. Then SCO stops being the corporation and starts being the collection of individual executives who may have collectively broken the law.
SCO is already dead as a corporation, which makes them extremely dangerous, because they have nothing to lose. I suspect thats what brought this sorry story to where it is today.
The old joke (amended)...
Really, SCO sued in an effort to affect its take over by IBM. When that didnt happen, they had nothing left to lose, so they stalled for time to get out of the company as individuals with the most they could. Their only other option was to drop the suit, fold up shop, and end up owing their creditors and shareholders. This way the individuals get out ahead, and the company need not pay anything to its investors. Its a unique loophole formed at the juncture of corporate law, bankruptsy law and the lack of barratry laws.
Some people objected to giving me their number to do a search for them, so I had them give me the number before and after, sequentially, so I could do a "range" search. They were happy to learn their number was secure.
Oh...also... anyone know if they throw in free floor mats on Jaguars?
Funny, I was about to post the same exact comment.
- Michael Jackson
So if a golden parachute protects corporate executives in the event the company collapses, what does golden ass aromor protect against?
Location: Gitmo
Federal Agent: Ok fileswapper! Are you ready to tell all or do I have to play more Britney Spears Albums?
Me: Ok...Ok... dont hurt me anymore! I admit I was sharing 100GB of movie files... but they were all Bush/Cheney Ads!
Federal Agent: Oh shit, there goes my job.
Its debateable how much of our culture is owned and operated by monlithic corporations. What really bothers me is the way we all tend to dodge the real question. Many a post has started out stating "The illegality of filesharing aside..." So I have to ask, why is the non-comercial sharing of copyrighted works still illegal? I submit that the vast numbers of installed and running filesharing applications seems to provide evidence that a large segment of our country's population finds no moral or ethical objection to downloading copyrighted media files.
The answer may be that this segment happens to be comprised of persons under the voting age, or of young adults who tend not to vote. Thus, when the large media and software companies lobby congress to protect their business model, they find a willing ear, partly because of contributions, but mainly because the mainstream constituent of that representative either (a) is ignorant of the issue, (b) doesnt care, or (c) agrees with the corp and believes copyright violation is theft. Its a safe vote for almost any congressperson.
One thing this tells me is we need to mobilize- get out and vote for congresspersons who will represent our views. The other thing it tells me, is that unless the RIAA and MPAA open "re-education camps", their business model has about one generation left to live.
Finally a slashdot post where I can RTFA.
So, you dont have a parliament (see http://www.aph.gov.au/) whose members are elected to represent the people? 'Cause that there qualifies yer country as a republic.
First a disclaimer- one of my undergrad degrees is in CS, I did 3 years of a CS PhD program, and taught undergrad CS. My feelings on CS are colored accordingly
Could someone please explain to me why this is a bad thing? The economy cannot support the current numbers of IT professionals, as evidenced by the unemployment statistics. Further, outsourcing isnt entirely to blame for this, though I do see it mitigating job growth. Fewer CS majors means we will have a higher "signal to noise ratio", our universities will output higher quality CS grads, and the economy will have a better chance of supporting them with job opportunities.
The vast majority of people fleeing CS at the moment are doing so because they have no interest in the subject matter other than fiscal. Most of my freshman CS majors fell into this category in 2000-2001. Does this mean that we might miss the next Turing? Possibly, but truely great minds will find a way to enrich our society regardless of the field of study they pursue. If anything, these numbers are further evidence that the dot com bubble burst was a return to sanity.
I for one am trying very hard not to think of the children.
-- Michael Jackson