I think that your argument for non-determinism explains the "free" part of "free will" but the implications for the "will" part are puzzling. You claim that human free will includes the ability to act without regard to preconditions (non-deterministically), and that quantum uncertainty is a possible pathway for introducing that type of true randomness. What I don't understand is how introducing that randomness allows an intelligent actor to execute his own will?
One possible explanation is that the introduction of a random element into the cognitive process allows him to generate multiple potential future scenarios which compete deterministically as the actor chooses which to pursue. While the intelligence has no control over how the random element influences the creation of those scenarios, it does have deterministic control over the selection process.
I suppose that the randomness could also be integrated into the choosing process by randomly mutating the mechanism used to choose and selecting those that perform better over time.
All this being said, I still don't see how making an intelligence non-deterministic implies anything similar to "free will." It may be a conflict of definitions, since I take free will not only means that there is some non-deterministic decision making process, but also that the actor actually retains control of that non-deterministic process. I should be able to decide between chocolate and vanilla ice cream consciously and non-deterministically.
As a matter of full disclosure, I should note that I am not convinced of humanity's own free will, since it basically just means having the ability to choose to act in a way that is at odds with the innumerable causes that have led up to the decision to act. Also, I think my definition implies a continuous, identifiable aspect of intelligence which exists outside of physical reality. I don't see any evidence that either of these are necessary to explain what we observe, but thinking about the implications of true randomness in the cognitive process has given me new food for thought.
What's your point? If you put all the straight males on one planet and all the straight females on another planet you'd still be left with 2 uninhabited planets. The only difference is that your scenario has more techno music and girl on girl action.
I think you're looking at the issue from the wrong angle. No one is arguing that it's good when a criminal gets off because of a "technicality." But the fact is, those technicalities exist to protect innocent people who are wrongly accused.
The system we have already jails more citizens than any other legal system in the world. Chances are, if you have comitted a heinous crime, you will end up in jail. Hell, even with our laundry list of "technicalities," plenty of innocent people spend time in prison cells. We make up 5% of the world's population, but account for 25% of the world's incarcerated population. If the state wants to deprive a citizen of his rights, they must follow due process, which includes a being judged by a jury of his peers. Where is the constitutional wiggle room for this law?
Its a sad state of affairs when we start considering due process to be a "get out of jail free card." When the people the constitution was meant to serve are willing to cede that protection, the document totally loses its potency.
And while most people call them 'drunk-driving' laws, the BAC limits for DUI or DWI reflect not drunkenness, but intoxication, which is different, IMO.
Well, unfortunately, your opinion does not agree with the english language. From dictionary.com:
intoxicate
To stupefy or excite by the action of a chemical substance such as alcohol.
drunken
Delirious with or as if with strong drink; intoxicated.
Where are these rights defined in the constitution?
The process of deciding how our legislative body would be composed took quite a long time. The reason? It is hard to allow the majority to express its will while still protecting the minority from oppression. You know, the type of oppression the Pilgrims suffered in Europe. And mind you, when I say minority I am NOT just talking about liberals in this administration or conservatives in the last. I am talking about racial minorities, religious minorities, and any other type of minority. We live in a large and complex world, not one where you stand on either one side or the other. That is simplistic and will not get us anywhere.
But, as I was saying, in the end our Congress was divided into a House of Representatives and a Senate. The point of the Senate was to give those smaller states, those whose interests would be in the minority a place where their opinions have weight.
In my original post, I was talking about freedom of speech, not the workings of the Congressional machine. The media has the right to report unimpeded by the government. That has absolutely nothing to do with who is in power.
This is not a democracy. The majority rules.....PERIOD.
Exactly. This is NOT a democracy. It is in a pure democracy, however, that the majority really does rule. The decisions are based purely on a popular vote of all the people. If the population hates Jews, they could be voted off the island. If they think you need to pray to Ecto Cooler or be damned to hell, they can vote to make you do it every day at noon. This is not the way our country works. The minority has rights like the right to speak their minds, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to practice whatever religion suits them. These are the core rights our country was founded on. These are the rights that allow FOX to broadcast its brand of proto-journalism, and allows ultra-violent videogames a place in the market... Oh, sorry, I forgot we were in the middle of trying to give our rights back to the government. Those videogames wll probably be suffering some of the same useless morality legislation that sparked reefer madness back in the day.
I don't care if you love this administration, hate abortion, oppose stem cell research, support war in Iraq, think American citizens should be stripped of habeus corpus at the President's command, or believe torture is the best way to extract information from a suspect. What I do care about is if you simply accept the talking points of a well oiled organization whose prime purpose is to accumulate votes. It would be much healthier for our country if politics were not an us or them decision. Please note, while I do have many socially liberal views, I am NOT a Democrat. I am quite conservative in how I view government. It should be small and efficient. Social programs should be run as cheaply as possible, and the defense budget should not be allowed to explode into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Like you said: Passion is great, but try taking a breath and thinking before your react.
There's a good reason why minority rights and dissent are so important in our country: its because the majority doesn't always know what's right.
That being said; the fact is, unbalanced or not, FOX has the right to broadcast whatever message suits their purposes. It certainly isn't the government's job to dictate how politics are covered. Not that profit motive or the free market will dictate a plan of action that guarantees intelligent broadcasting or commendable journalism. Hell, in a counrty where Britney Spears and reality TV can dominate the airwaves, popular opinion and commercial support aren't worth all that much in the intellectual domain.
The media cannot be counted on to provide us with an intelligent view of the world. That is on our own shoulders. Liberal, conservative... it doesn't matter. They have all got their morons and those that have a clue. Just learn to watch with doubt- all that takes is an ability to smell bullshit when its presented to you. Then, maybe, the media could really be held accountable.
No, I did not say that people dont have a right to survive- I said that a state as an entity does not have an innate right to survive. Yes, that means that without an army, a state has no power to ensure its continued existance.
And no, I am not a Bush supporter. I am an adamant Bush detractor. I did not support the Iraq invasion, but I also do not believe that the state of affairs right now is illegal. The sad fact is, the US has put Iraq into a position where it cannot support its own weight, and the occupation, however undesirable, is necessary for the best case (in both Iraq and the US's interest) outcome.
I simply took issue with your logic. I understand that the UN has filed resolutions agains Israel, but I also understand that Israel will have resolutions against it no matter what they do. The fact is, they exist in a region where a sizeable number of nations, some of which control a large amount of oil and therefore sway with other countries, want to see Israel disappear. Remember, the world's anti-semitism has been proven again and again.
And yes, as far as innate rules of the universe go, having an army does give one the "right" to invade a country that does not have an army. I'm confused by the way you use the word "right," though. I would say that a state as an entity has no God (or whatever) given rights.
Additionally, your list of countries that have committed atrocities against humanity is far too short. It would probably be easier to come up with a list of those that have committed none. You cannot tell me that Iraq and the Palestinians have a clean history.
By what logic is Israel occupying Palestine illegally? Were it not for the fact that Israel was attacked by forgein armies with the aim to destroy them, they would still be living within their original borders. Is it wrong for them to seize land that they found to be a defensive necessity in the face of aggressive invaders? And what Palestine is being occupied? Last I checked, there had never been an independent Palestinian state.
Don't get me wrong. I do believe that a Palestinian state is in the cards somewhere down the line. I just question the logic of your statements. You seem to have the argument backwards. If China were to invade the U.S. it would have been up to the U.S. to make sure it had a strong army with which to protect its "right" to survive.
You seem to be quick to jump to using the term "illegal occupation." Saying something is illegal connotes that it has broken some law. As far as I know, no international law has been broken by the United State's occupation of Iraq. And, while some countries have decried Israel's actions regarding Palestine, its quite far fetched to call it illegal. You may consider it immoral, unjust, or likewise undesireable, but that does not make it illegal.
Which brings me to another point- no state has a "right to survive." It is more like an obligation. If a given state fails to ensure its survival, it will disappear. Likewise, if a state fails to defend itself in the face of an invading army, it will be destroyed.
The fact is, the world does not turn on human desires. The strong will survive, or, more accurately, those that do not survive will be considered weak by those that surpass them. If Israel wants to decide to not give confidental secrets to those who play D&D, fine. That's their prerogative.
Let me add a hearty hear hear. The Making of the Atomic Bomb is easily the most interesting history/physics/engineering book I have ever read. The way the author describes the discoveries made by the pioneers of nuclear physics is simply riveting. It even inspired me to take a nuclear engineering course as one of my electives next semester.
Although I realize that neither candidate is ideal, there is one overwhelming reason to vote for Kerry in this election.
The real issue, as far as our national security is concerned, is a crippling dependence on foreign oil. Being a finite and economically extremely important resource, competition over oil is a point of conflict on a world scale. With China finally entering the scene, this competition will inevidably get worse.
Of the two candidates, only one supports putting money into a national project toward becoming independent of forgein (especially middle eastern) oil. Given an effort reminiscent of the drive to the moon, or the manhattan project, this goal is not as impossible as it may seem. The groundwork has already been laid with great advances in nuclear power plants (a 60 year old technology that we have allowed to go by the wayside due to early failures) as well as hydrogen fuel. If our best and brightest were faced with the task of developing these and new technologies, the return would be immense.
Imagine, we would no longer have such a vested interest in meddling in the affairs of the middle east. Today, it is necessary because without their oil our economy would be crushed under its own weight. Not needing their oil, we would need nothing else from the region. As unfortunate of an analogy as it may be, the Middle East could be treated in much the same way as we treat Africa, that is, given little to no attention. Not only that, but the returns as far as technology and job creation would be just what our country needs. We would produce new fields and job opportunities that will never exist otherwise. We would have a head start into the next phase of economic evolution.
Now, Im not foolish enough to think that Kerry will deliver a Kennedyesque speech starting this grand project, but he will at least get us moving in the right direction. Check out the Energy Independence section of his campaign site to see the Talking-Point versions of his ideas.
The alternative is an Oil Man who has shown no interest in changing the losing path our country is following. Instead, he started a war that may leave one of the worlds richest oil reserves up for grabs. Leave Iraq? Impossible. That would be like handing our energy needs directly to Iran, who, incidentally, already once tried to take it by force.
When you go to the polls today, please try to see past the partisan veils that have been strategically hung by attack ads and political pundits on FOX, CNN, etal. Hopefully you've done your own research, and can come to a rational decision based on facts gleaned from a wide array of sources with a whole spectrum of biases (unbiased sources simply don't exist).
You're right, tobacco doesnt cause changes the same way pot does. It causes changes the way nicotine does. Those changes happen to be very addictive, unlike marijuana. Marijuana does not cause permanent changes in brain chemistry and cannot cause brain damage like alcohol can. Additionally, it has positive medical uses and can replace some drugs that have harmful side effects.
Although this ruling does not directly lead to such an outcome, it does make it a lot easier to pass a "produce your papers" law farther down the road.
I have always been under the impression that I could not be compelled to answer an officer's questions without my lawyer present. Why should asking for my name be any different? Can I get in trouble for providing an alias?
What use is this ruling if I still dont need to identify myself if it would be self incriminating? Under what circumstances would a police officer demand my identity if not to arrest me? And if I am suspected of no crime, does it make sense that simply not giving my name can turn me into a criminal? Are prisons not already overcrowded?
To anyone willing to give up their rights and the rights of their countrymen in order to make catching terrorists easier, I say shame on you. You are helping to destroy what was once a noble human experiment. The ideals that the United States were founded on are what I like about my country. It seems ironic that the leaders of this country would ask me to give up my freedom to protect my freedom. Maybe they're working with Al Queda. As soon as personal rights are completely eroded, they can just march in and institute a Christian/Islamofascist dictatorship in order to protect me from the terrorists.
Why should I trust George Bush or Joe Sherriff with any more power than absolutely necessary? Power is just too easy to abuse.
I feel like I need to chime in because I'm currently a sophmore Computer Engineer at Purdue University.
When I decided my major, I looked back on my formative years and paid attention to what I spent most of my "throwaway" time doing. The only thing I could find that anyone would ever pay me for were the hours I spent learning how to program and tooling around with computers. So far, I have great grades, and my preparation in math and science seem to be better than that of the hordes of overseas students that make up the majority of those in my major- despite the extra hours they may have been forced to practice during high school. The fact is, the time I spent learning how to think like an engineer on my own have been more valuable than anything I was taught in school. Though the mathimatical theory is important to understand, what is needed in the workplace is a nubile mind that is able to solve difficult problems with limited information.
Besides, as far as I know, most of the tech outsourcing woes are in the areas of IT and computer programming- not computer engineering. There are still plenty of jobs out there for us (I hope). If all else fails, I'll just fall back on plan B- set up a leanto on a popular beach during spring break and sell alcohol to minors at inflated prices. I'll have a monopoly on supply and the view sure beats a sitting in a cubicle all day.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that your argument for non-determinism explains the "free" part of "free will" but the implications for the "will" part are puzzling. You claim that human free will includes the ability to act without regard to preconditions (non-deterministically), and that quantum uncertainty is a possible pathway for introducing that type of true randomness. What I don't understand is how introducing that randomness allows an intelligent actor to execute his own will?
One possible explanation is that the introduction of a random element into the cognitive process allows him to generate multiple potential future scenarios which compete deterministically as the actor chooses which to pursue. While the intelligence has no control over how the random element influences the creation of those scenarios, it does have deterministic control over the selection process.
I suppose that the randomness could also be integrated into the choosing process by randomly mutating the mechanism used to choose and selecting those that perform better over time.
All this being said, I still don't see how making an intelligence non-deterministic implies anything similar to "free will." It may be a conflict of definitions, since I take free will not only means that there is some non-deterministic decision making process, but also that the actor actually retains control of that non-deterministic process. I should be able to decide between chocolate and vanilla ice cream consciously and non-deterministically.
As a matter of full disclosure, I should note that I am not convinced of humanity's own free will, since it basically just means having the ability to choose to act in a way that is at odds with the innumerable causes that have led up to the decision to act. Also, I think my definition implies a continuous, identifiable aspect of intelligence which exists outside of physical reality. I don't see any evidence that either of these are necessary to explain what we observe, but thinking about the implications of true randomness in the cognitive process has given me new food for thought.
What's your point? If you put all the straight males on one planet and all the straight females on another planet you'd still be left with 2 uninhabited planets. The only difference is that your scenario has more techno music and girl on girl action.
"Wouldn't that be like trying to tickle yourself? (Note you can't ..."
Oh yeah? Try rubbing the roof of your mouth with your finger.
I think you're looking at the issue from the wrong angle. No one is arguing that it's good when a criminal gets off because of a "technicality." But the fact is, those technicalities exist to protect innocent people who are wrongly accused.
The system we have already jails more citizens than any other legal system in the world. Chances are, if you have comitted a heinous crime, you will end up in jail. Hell, even with our laundry list of "technicalities," plenty of innocent people spend time in prison cells. We make up 5% of the world's population, but account for 25% of the world's incarcerated population. If the state wants to deprive a citizen of his rights, they must follow due process, which includes a being judged by a jury of his peers. Where is the constitutional wiggle room for this law?
Its a sad state of affairs when we start considering due process to be a "get out of jail free card." When the people the constitution was meant to serve are willing to cede that protection, the document totally loses its potency.
And while most people call them 'drunk-driving' laws, the BAC limits for DUI or DWI reflect not drunkenness, but intoxication, which is different, IMO.
Well, unfortunately, your opinion does not agree with the english language. From dictionary.com:
intoxicate
To stupefy or excite by the action of a chemical substance such as alcohol.
drunken
Delirious with or as if with strong drink; intoxicated.
mental health professionals found to have no shortage of work due to loose definition of "addiction."
I'm willing to take the bait...
Where are these rights defined in the constitution?
The process of deciding how our legislative body would be composed took quite a long time. The reason? It is hard to allow the majority to express its will while still protecting the minority from oppression. You know, the type of oppression the Pilgrims suffered in Europe. And mind you, when I say minority I am NOT just talking about liberals in this administration or conservatives in the last. I am talking about racial minorities, religious minorities, and any other type of minority. We live in a large and complex world, not one where you stand on either one side or the other. That is simplistic and will not get us anywhere.
But, as I was saying, in the end our Congress was divided into a House of Representatives and a Senate. The point of the Senate was to give those smaller states, those whose interests would be in the minority a place where their opinions have weight.
In my original post, I was talking about freedom of speech, not the workings of the Congressional machine. The media has the right to report unimpeded by the government. That has absolutely nothing to do with who is in power.
This is not a democracy. The majority rules.....PERIOD.
Exactly. This is NOT a democracy. It is in a pure democracy, however, that the majority really does rule. The decisions are based purely on a popular vote of all the people. If the population hates Jews, they could be voted off the island. If they think you need to pray to Ecto Cooler or be damned to hell, they can vote to make you do it every day at noon. This is not the way our country works. The minority has rights like the right to speak their minds, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to practice whatever religion suits them. These are the core rights our country was founded on. These are the rights that allow FOX to broadcast its brand of proto-journalism, and allows ultra-violent videogames a place in the market... Oh, sorry, I forgot we were in the middle of trying to give our rights back to the government. Those videogames wll probably be suffering some of the same useless morality legislation that sparked reefer madness back in the day.
I don't care if you love this administration, hate abortion, oppose stem cell research, support war in Iraq, think American citizens should be stripped of habeus corpus at the President's command, or believe torture is the best way to extract information from a suspect. What I do care about is if you simply accept the talking points of a well oiled organization whose prime purpose is to accumulate votes. It would be much healthier for our country if politics were not an us or them decision. Please note, while I do have many socially liberal views, I am NOT a Democrat. I am quite conservative in how I view government. It should be small and efficient. Social programs should be run as cheaply as possible, and the defense budget should not be allowed to explode into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Like you said: Passion is great, but try taking a breath and thinking before your react.
Tooba
There's a good reason why minority rights and dissent are so important in our country: its because the majority doesn't always know what's right.
That being said; the fact is, unbalanced or not, FOX has the right to broadcast whatever message suits their purposes. It certainly isn't the government's job to dictate how politics are covered. Not that profit motive or the free market will dictate a plan of action that guarantees intelligent broadcasting or commendable journalism. Hell, in a counrty where Britney Spears and reality TV can dominate the airwaves, popular opinion and commercial support aren't worth all that much in the intellectual domain.
The media cannot be counted on to provide us with an intelligent view of the world. That is on our own shoulders. Liberal, conservative... it doesn't matter. They have all got their morons and those that have a clue. Just learn to watch with doubt- all that takes is an ability to smell bullshit when its presented to you. Then, maybe, the media could really be held accountable.
Tooba
Does this mean that there are a bunch of secret ideas out there that I can patent for my own personal profit? Score!
No, I did not say that people dont have a right to survive- I said that a state as an entity does not have an innate right to survive. Yes, that means that without an army, a state has no power to ensure its continued existance.
And no, I am not a Bush supporter. I am an adamant Bush detractor. I did not support the Iraq invasion, but I also do not believe that the state of affairs right now is illegal. The sad fact is, the US has put Iraq into a position where it cannot support its own weight, and the occupation, however undesirable, is necessary for the best case (in both Iraq and the US's interest) outcome.
I simply took issue with your logic. I understand that the UN has filed resolutions agains Israel, but I also understand that Israel will have resolutions against it no matter what they do. The fact is, they exist in a region where a sizeable number of nations, some of which control a large amount of oil and therefore sway with other countries, want to see Israel disappear. Remember, the world's anti-semitism has been proven again and again.
And yes, as far as innate rules of the universe go, having an army does give one the "right" to invade a country that does not have an army. I'm confused by the way you use the word "right," though. I would say that a state as an entity has no God (or whatever) given rights.
Additionally, your list of countries that have committed atrocities against humanity is far too short. It would probably be easier to come up with a list of those that have committed none. You cannot tell me that Iraq and the Palestinians have a clean history.
Tryba
By what logic is Israel occupying Palestine illegally? Were it not for the fact that Israel was attacked by forgein armies with the aim to destroy them, they would still be living within their original borders. Is it wrong for them to seize land that they found to be a defensive necessity in the face of aggressive invaders? And what Palestine is being occupied? Last I checked, there had never been an independent Palestinian state.
Don't get me wrong. I do believe that a Palestinian state is in the cards somewhere down the line. I just question the logic of your statements. You seem to have the argument backwards. If China were to invade the U.S. it would have been up to the U.S. to make sure it had a strong army with which to protect its "right" to survive.
You seem to be quick to jump to using the term "illegal occupation." Saying something is illegal connotes that it has broken some law. As far as I know, no international law has been broken by the United State's occupation of Iraq. And, while some countries have decried Israel's actions regarding Palestine, its quite far fetched to call it illegal. You may consider it immoral, unjust, or likewise undesireable, but that does not make it illegal.
Which brings me to another point- no state has a "right to survive." It is more like an obligation. If a given state fails to ensure its survival, it will disappear. Likewise, if a state fails to defend itself in the face of an invading army, it will be destroyed.
The fact is, the world does not turn on human desires. The strong will survive, or, more accurately, those that do not survive will be considered weak by those that surpass them. If Israel wants to decide to not give confidental secrets to those who play D&D, fine. That's their prerogative.
Tryba
Let me add a hearty hear hear. The Making of the Atomic Bomb is easily the most interesting history/physics/engineering book I have ever read. The way the author describes the discoveries made by the pioneers of nuclear physics is simply riveting. It even inspired me to take a nuclear engineering course as one of my electives next semester.
Although I realize that neither candidate is ideal, there is one overwhelming reason to vote for Kerry in this election.
The real issue, as far as our national security is concerned, is a crippling dependence on foreign oil. Being a finite and economically extremely important resource, competition over oil is a point of conflict on a world scale. With China finally entering the scene, this competition will inevidably get worse.
Of the two candidates, only one supports putting money into a national project toward becoming independent of forgein (especially middle eastern) oil. Given an effort reminiscent of the drive to the moon, or the manhattan project, this goal is not as impossible as it may seem. The groundwork has already been laid with great advances in nuclear power plants (a 60 year old technology that we have allowed to go by the wayside due to early failures) as well as hydrogen fuel. If our best and brightest were faced with the task of developing these and new technologies, the return would be immense.
Imagine, we would no longer have such a vested interest in meddling in the affairs of the middle east. Today, it is necessary because without their oil our economy would be crushed under its own weight. Not needing their oil, we would need nothing else from the region. As unfortunate of an analogy as it may be, the Middle East could be treated in much the same way as we treat Africa, that is, given little to no attention. Not only that, but the returns as far as technology and job creation would be just what our country needs. We would produce new fields and job opportunities that will never exist otherwise. We would have a head start into the next phase of economic evolution.
Now, Im not foolish enough to think that Kerry will deliver a Kennedyesque speech starting this grand project, but he will at least get us moving in the right direction. Check out the Energy Independence section of his campaign site to see the Talking-Point versions of his ideas.
The alternative is an Oil Man who has shown no interest in changing the losing path our country is following. Instead, he started a war that may leave one of the worlds richest oil reserves up for grabs. Leave Iraq? Impossible. That would be like handing our energy needs directly to Iran, who, incidentally, already once tried to take it by force.
When you go to the polls today, please try to see past the partisan veils that have been strategically hung by attack ads and political pundits on FOX, CNN, etal. Hopefully you've done your own research, and can come to a rational decision based on facts gleaned from a wide array of sources with a whole spectrum of biases (unbiased sources simply don't exist).
Tryba
Implying what? That you think being a doctor or a computer engineer won't require thought?
You're right, tobacco doesnt cause changes the same way pot does. It causes changes the way nicotine does. Those changes happen to be very addictive, unlike marijuana. Marijuana does not cause permanent changes in brain chemistry and cannot cause brain damage like alcohol can. Additionally, it has positive medical uses and can replace some drugs that have harmful side effects.
Although this ruling does not directly lead to such an outcome, it does make it a lot easier to pass a "produce your papers" law farther down the road. I have always been under the impression that I could not be compelled to answer an officer's questions without my lawyer present. Why should asking for my name be any different? Can I get in trouble for providing an alias? What use is this ruling if I still dont need to identify myself if it would be self incriminating? Under what circumstances would a police officer demand my identity if not to arrest me? And if I am suspected of no crime, does it make sense that simply not giving my name can turn me into a criminal? Are prisons not already overcrowded? To anyone willing to give up their rights and the rights of their countrymen in order to make catching terrorists easier, I say shame on you. You are helping to destroy what was once a noble human experiment. The ideals that the United States were founded on are what I like about my country. It seems ironic that the leaders of this country would ask me to give up my freedom to protect my freedom. Maybe they're working with Al Queda. As soon as personal rights are completely eroded, they can just march in and institute a Christian/Islamofascist dictatorship in order to protect me from the terrorists. Why should I trust George Bush or Joe Sherriff with any more power than absolutely necessary? Power is just too easy to abuse.
I feel like I need to chime in because I'm currently a sophmore Computer Engineer at Purdue University.
When I decided my major, I looked back on my formative years and paid attention to what I spent most of my "throwaway" time doing. The only thing I could find that anyone would ever pay me for were the hours I spent learning how to program and tooling around with computers. So far, I have great grades, and my preparation in math and science seem to be better than that of the hordes of overseas students that make up the majority of those in my major- despite the extra hours they may have been forced to practice during high school. The fact is, the time I spent learning how to think like an engineer on my own have been more valuable than anything I was taught in school. Though the mathimatical theory is important to understand, what is needed in the workplace is a nubile mind that is able to solve difficult problems with limited information.
Besides, as far as I know, most of the tech outsourcing woes are in the areas of IT and computer programming- not computer engineering. There are still plenty of jobs out there for us (I hope). If all else fails, I'll just fall back on plan B- set up a leanto on a popular beach during spring break and sell alcohol to minors at inflated prices. I'll have a monopoly on supply and the view sure beats a sitting in a cubicle all day.