At least when I was still in school (2001-2002), the logic to decode x86 into the native micro-ops was actually a very sizable fraction of the chip area (almost half IIRC).
That's a large part of how Transmeta was able to get such insane power reductions with their Crusoe CPUs - they offloaded the x86-to-VLIW-micro-op translation step into software, rather than do it in circuitry. That caused a performance hit but saved a LOT of power.
So you're saying that money is more important to you too? I think he's saying that his 401k doesn't have options that let him easily vote with his dollars. His only option would be to withdraw his funds completely from the 401k, thus taking a financial penalty and possibly endangering his ability to support himself when he's old.
Unless you're living on the street, you and your kids are eating a bare minimum subsistence diet, you're saving nothing for retirement or for their education, all because you've given every bit of money you have to support the crisis in Darfur or oppose censorship in China... unless you've done all that, you're in the same glass house as the rest of us.
Give the guilt-trip a rest. In the real world, people have to make trade-offs between conflicting but deeply-held principles. Choosing to feed your kids doesn't mean you don't care greatly about the hungry in Africa, or censorship in China. When you have limited resources you have to choose. There's nothing wrong or hypocritical about that.
I don't think Google views what they are doing as "whatever we can get away with to make a profit". Google provides a service. Google wants to provide the best service they can. Unfortunately, Chinese law requires them to put limits on their service in China. So Google has a choice - either A) provide the limited service, B) provide no service, or C) violate the law, thus getting kicked out of China and providing no service at all. B and C are thus the same, with the exception that C probably costs them lots of money without helping anybody.
Clearly the Chinese law is considered morally wrong by most of us in the West. We feel it hurts the Chinese citizens, which presumably is why some folks have been pressuring Google on this.
But how does providing no service at all help the people in China? If Google provides no service, either A) the customers have no service, or B) some homegrown Chinese company, which has less concern over censorship than Google does, will provide the limited service. In case A the Chinese citizens are worse off than if Google had followed Chinese law. In case B the citizens are at best in the same position as they would if Google were providing the service, but they could be worse off if either the Chinese company has inferior algorithms or less interest in persuading the authorities to open up.
In other words, no refusal on the part of Google to follow Chinese law is going to help Chinese citizens. Google does not have the power to force the Chinese government to do anything. And a symbolic gesture like quitting the Chinese market is unlikely to do a thing either. So the best of admittedly unpleasant options for Google is to participate according to the Chinese rules, while developing relationships in China through which to persuade the Chinese there is a better way for their people.
As another person who attended a top engineering school, I had a different experience than the parent post. I attended Carnegie Mellon for Computer Engineering (the degree title is Electrical & Computer, but you can tailor your courses to your desired focus).
First, there are some folks who will stay up to 5 AM (or pull an "all-nighter") to finish problem sets, but you do not have to be one of them. For the vast majority of cases, this is not necessary unless you procrastinate too much in starting assignments. (BTW, I'm naturally a procrastinator, and even so the late-night work was an exception rather than the rule). In the rare case where you just don't have the time to finish the assignment without staying up all night, my recommendation is that usually you're better off just getting a good night's sleep. Since the situation is rare, if you don't complete a problem or two on a given assignment, it's not going to significantly impact your grades. And being rested means you'll learn in class the next day, rather than be fighting the urge to sleep.
Regarding the "socially maladapted" folks at top schools. There are some for sure. There are also plenty of socially normal people too. You can choose which you want to hang out with. If nothing else, it'll give you some good stories about the handful of really weird folks you see around campus.
The Carnegie Mellon ECE program was very flexible for which courses you take, both in regards to technical courses, and to a slightly lesser extent for humanities requirements. The upside to this freedom is you can take courses you are interested in. The downside is that you may regret your choices later if you don't make yourself choose a sufficient variety. Overall though I think it's a great program, and more flexible than some other schools' programs, especially with respect to freedom to choose your technical courses. Check out your prospective schools' programs carefully.
I do not feel like I ended up "hollow" as a result of my chosen school or program - quite the opposite. Actually the school tries to encourage you to broaden your horizons - for example the CS majors (but not the ECE majors) are required to have a minor or double major outside their field. And like I mentioned, the ECE program is very flexible, and it's usually not hard to get into courses outside your major, unless it's one of the very most popular courses (Acting for Non-majors was the only course I was ever unable to get into, which was because *everyone* wanted to get into it).
I do agree with the parent post that the "brand" matters from your college. If people know your school is good, they tend to assume you know your stuff because the school weeds out the incompetent. So interviews tend to focus more on making sure you'll fit in than grilling you technically. Those from less-known schools face greater scrutiny - you have to work harder to convince someone of your merits.
As others here on Slashdot have noted, the caliber of your classmates matters a lot too. Good classmates help keep your standards high, help you learn from each other better, and make the connections and friendships you forge at college more valuable in advancing your career.
The other advantage to a well-regarded technical school, versus a liberal arts one, is that you're likely to get more technical companies recruiting on-campus for technical majors. This will likely help your internship and job searches.
In the end, though, pick whichever one you think is going to give you the better overall experience. You're only an undergrad once:-)
wow. That's nuts. Reinstalling Windows to get Solitaire takes the cake though.
You're right that I work with good people, so we haven't seen much of that (in terms of slacking off or in terms of dumb behavior). Probably doesn't hurt that many of our users are software developers, so they're more aware of the risks involved.
Either way, it doesn't mean the IT staff isn't doing their jobs. It's possible for the IT staff to be doing their jobs and still be unable to meet the needs of their customers. Many IT organizations have limited budgets and personnel, so they have to focus on the things they can get done with the manpower they have. But there may still be many needs that can't be met within those limits. That's especially true for small tasks that may be very important to an individual but not so important relative to other bigger projects.
I don't think that's true. Lots of people just want to screw around with things and get an ego boost out of flouting authority or trying to show-up the IT staff. I can't speak for everyone else, but in my experience most of the time when people are screwing around with things it's because they have a need that's unmet. Most of us don't have time to waste doing something just to get some immature pleasure from messing with IT. And if IT is working well, such that they're viewed as allies rather than obstacles, most people won't have that desire anyway. That's not to say there are never bad apples - there are. But most of the time people aren't trying to be jerks, they're trying to get their job done.
I didn't see anything in the post that would imply Monsanto should only get a one-time payment, or be unable to negotiate what price they can get for their product.
I saw it simply as noting that: 1) Monsanto uses highly questionable tactics that end up hurting its own innocent customers, and 2) Those who object to being treated in this way have little recourse, given their dependence on the Monsanto product.
In any case, I don't think the behemoth that is Monsanto is in any danger of being "owned" by farmers anytime soon. Quite clearly, the relationship is the other way around. Even farmers who try to avoid Monsanto products can end up with their fields being contaminated with seed from other farmers' nearby plots, and then Monsanto sends their lawyers after them. Hell, Monsanto even sends the lawyers after companies that advertise the fact that they DON'T use Monsanto products (e.g. the dairy in the article advertising its avoidance of hormone treated cows).
Sort of like a political ad I saw tonight where the candidate proclaimed he was "pro life and pro gun". I'm not entirely sure how you reconcile those positions. Perhaps by noting that a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen can protect the lives of that citizen and their loved ones from violent criminals. It's a very pro-life position to assert a right to self-defense, even if that defense may involve potentially lethal force against your attacker.
(This is not to say guns aren't without their own dangers - the risk of accidental shootings is higher than the chances it'll save you, at least in many parts of the country. But that's a tradeoff that's going to be different for every individual situation, and everyone will have to make up their own mind whether it makes sense for them personally).
The solution to that is to offer the medium pizza. I.e. offer different pricing plans based on actual bandwidth usage, rather than these all-you-can-eat plans offered currently. Cellular companies do this with minutes, ISPs could do it with gigabytes.
For the majority that just use the Net for email and Web surfing, that'd be fine, and they wouldn't have to increase what they're paying. Arguably they could spend a little less. The folks who would pay more are those who want or need to do lots of P2P, who are the folks causing the increase in cost under the current "unlimited" plans.
I'll tell you why Win 7 will be a huge flop: since it breaks almost all compatibility between itself and previous windows releases, it has to compete on the same grounds as Linux, *BSD and OSX. Which means, that without the massive inertia of the previous windows releases, those three will kick the living crap out of Win 7 in terms of maturity, usability and price. Don't be so sure about that. The article is claiming Microsoft is staking the future of its flagship product on providing a virtual machine to provide backwards compatibility, while redesigning the native API to be a fresh start. Obviously the virtual machine is the potential Achilles' heel, and they know it upfront. Given the importance of this, they're going to invest heavily to make sure it works well. And they've got incredible cash reserves they can use to invest in doing it right - far more than anyone's invested in WINE.
And while Microsoft has a decidedly mixed record with the quality of their software (to put it nicely), they can come through when the competitive threat is high. I may not be old, but I'm old enough to remember a time when Internet Explorer was actually the best browser. Of course, it decayed quickly once Netscape was no longer a big threat. But when it thinks it's backed into a corner, Microsoft can execute.
Also, a well-performing VM would allow them to exploit the "network effects" of their huge installed base, which would mean the playing field would still be tilted greatly in their favor.
Demonstrable falsehoods are one thing. But more often it's not that simple. For example, there was a fascinating study about coverage of a massacre in Beirut, where the same news articles were viewed by both sides as biased towards the opposing point of view. Clearly the exact same article can't be biased in both one direction and its opposite, but yet both groups felt their point of view was being treated unfairly.
In other words, the two sides had completely different ideas of what constituted "the truth". That is a problem not with the news coverage, but with the audience.
Not only do people perceive things differently, but there it is well-known that people tend to discount information that disagrees with their previously formed opinions, especially when it comes to emotional subjects like politics (confirmation bias).
I think there's much more to it than the more juvenile "game" aspects. Sure, you could obsess about how many "Friends" you have, or check your Facebook twenty times a day. There are certainly people who do that. I think that's kinda nuts, but there are lots of behaviors I think are strange. To each his own.
As for the rest of us, social networking sites provide an easy (and thus well-utilized) way to maintain real-world relationships when people aren't nearby to hang out. A lot of us make good friends in college, but then move all over the country for jobs. Social-networking sites provide tools to help keep in touch, keep on top of what our friends have been doing, etc., so the relationships don't just die out. Much like people used to do with letters, but since the required effort is much smaller, people have the time and ability to keep many more friends in the loop.
And then when you do get a chance to meet up with people you haven't seen in a while, it's not as weird. Having no contact with someone for years produces awkward social interactions when you do, as anyone who's attended a 10-year high school reunion can tell you. But if you've been occasionally communicating via social networking (or other means) during that interval, you still feel like you know the person.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves with the Bush Administration. If the 'War on Terror' is worth fighting then it's worth paying for. I agree with that 100%. But the same is true for every other government project - entitlement programs, pork-barrel projects, everything. There's no reason to mortgage our kids' future just because the politicians in both parties refuse to accept responsibility for deciding what expenses are actually priorities.
I'll go one further. Anybody that supports the war should volunteer to pay more taxes to finance it. Are you similarly willing to say that anyone who supports welfare/entitlement programs should pay more taxes to finance them? I suspect you might get quite a number of folks willing to pay more for the war if they could pay less for other government projects *they* feel are unjustified.
Explain how windows media player isn't enough to play music? Perhaps the window-shade mode of WinAmp allows him to use his screen real estate more effectively. Reduced window-swapping saves time, and as we all know time is money.
Oh, and don't forget to include the reason it increases your productivity and either makes the company revenue, or saves them cost. One problem with this sort of deny-by-default approach is that many people just give up because writing up a business case for a given tool, awaiting IT approval, and possibly arguing some sort of appeal takes more time than they have. It is often even more inefficient than using an inferior but "authorized" tool. Now, over the long run it may be more efficient to get a new tool approved, but people usually make these decisions in the short term when they need something done immediately.
Another problem is that you put IT in the position of having to make decisions about which tools are better (and thus allowed), rather than letting the subject matter experts do so. IT expertise is not the same as expertise in engineering, accounting, HR, etc. How is a sysadmin supposed to know better than an aeronautical engineer which CAD software will better meet the engineer's needs?
A third problem is that you effectively prevent employees from discovering new, better tools. You don't know whether a tool will meet your needs until you try it out, but you can't try it without installing it, which you don't have authorization to do because you haven't been able to make a business case for why "you really need something to be productive".
If something like PDF converter is a usefull tool to you, why not propose it up the management chain as a STANDARD install on all desktops. In some cases that's exactly what should be done. But if only 2 employees out of 1000 would benefit from PDF converters, do you bloat the "standard" install with it, or just install it on those two guys' PCs? Or do you tell them tough luck, they can't have it?
The real problem here is that there is no One True Solution. You have to balance flexibility for the user, a positive work environment, and innovative tool selection against the risk of the user doing something stupid, support costs, security risks, etc. This is fundamentally a judgment call that depends on the specific user base and business environment. Unfortunately, all too often there are IT folks who forget that their job is to make the rest of the company more productive, just like there are users who forget that IT has to look out for the whole company, not just one individual's desires. And then it gets too easy to lose the right balance.
And in fact it would be in the network operators' interests to provide this sort information to P2P developers. After all, the operator derives most of the benefit of the reduced loading from this "P4P" approach.
Thus all peer-to-peer software, regardless of type or legality, could be done more efficiently.
Wrong analogy. It's more like printing the address of an office where a company is giving away free samples. By creating a web service that is available at the given address to anyone who asks, that is exactly what MobiTV has done.
It's ridiculous for them to then complain that someone dared advertise what the company itself was doing. If they don't want people to take the product for free, stop giving it away.
I haven't talked with any Senate staffers, simply because I don't know any.
I've seen the occasional media report that his temper sometimes gets the better of him, although he reportedly also apologizes and makes up quickly with most folks.
I agree that we need to keep an open, non-discriminatory Internet. But the Wikipedia link doesn't tell the full story. A more complete picture (including the quote you cited) appears here, and it adds some context:
"Unless there is a clear-cut, unequivocal restraint of competition, the government should stay out of it. These things will sort themselves out."
"The great thing about the Internet is that it has enjoyed, to a large degree, immunity from federal interference and federal regulation," McCain recently told Michael Arrington in a TechCrunch podcast. "So, I have a tendency to say, look, lets see how this thing all turns out, rather than anticipate a problem that so far has not arisen in any significant way." To me taking a wait-and-see approach is reasonable. When you are dealing with federal regulations, you take the risk that the cure might be worse than the disease. He's not saying he completely rules out regulatory actions, just that you have to clearly have a problem before creating regulations that might have unintended negative consequences.
I think the odds of a nationwide draft in the next 4 or 8 years are comparable to being struck by lightning. And despite the apparent Internet rumor mill, McCain isn't in favor of reinstating the draft:
McCain: "I don't think we need to think of the draft again because I don't think it makes sense in a whole variety of ways."
What he HAS said is he's in favor of increasing the size of the volunteer military, so that future conflicts do not strain the military as severely as Iraq has.
The only person I've seen propose reinstating the draft is Charlie Rangel (D), who was using it as an anti-war propaganda mechanism. When the Republicans called his bluff and forced a vote on Rangel's bill, even Rangel himself voted against it. The measure died 2-402, with the only two yes votes coming from Democrats.
Clearly there is no significant support within either party to bring back the draft.
It's very possible the republicans are what helped Clinton win in the Texas primary. That may be, given Rush Limbaugh urged conservatives to do just that. But IMO that's playing with fire - Clinton may be easier to beat than Obama, but that's not the same as easy to beat. And I think most Republicans could live with Obama much easier than with Clinton - he at least listens to opposing viewpoints rather than trying to treat those who disagree as mortal enemies. I don't understand folks who would take a huge chance on putting this country through another four or eight years of the politics of personal destruction, just to get a slightly better shot at the Republican winning in the fall.
I think McCain is the best Presidential candidate I've seen in my lifetime. He's got my vote in the fall. But even though I think Obama's a tougher candidate than Clinton, I'm still hoping he gets the Democratic nomination. At least then I think we could have a relatively clean, honest debate over the issues rather than the low-road personal politics that Clinton calls "the fun part".
It's true that many people don't care much about quality, especially for something which they use infrequently. So buying something cheap and barely good enough is often an individually rational strategy. Which goes a long way towards explaining the market.
One other observation is that an individual doesn't directly pay the full cost of his decision to buy crappy software. Sure some buggy software might be "good enough" for him to tolerate in exchange for a cheap price. But suppose he then connects to the public Internet and now his machine gets taken over by a botnet. The rest of society bears the cost of that infected machine spewing spam, DOS attacks, etc., not the guy who bought the crappy software with a security hole the size of Kansas.
The premise under discussion is whether unauthorized taking is a transgression. It absolutely is. There is also no question that making a copy, even of an infinite resource, is 'taking'--an intransitive, active verb whose patient is the doer. I think there is a question (in the public mind, though not the current law) whether making a copy is a "taking". If I make a copy of data in your possession, you still possess that data, so it seems odd to say that I have "taken" something from you. It's even stranger to say that in the process I have taken something from a third party who wasn't even involved in the copying process.
Obviously the copyright law sees it differently - as you say, the law prohibits copying/distribution of any sort, with some limited affirmative defenses such as fair use. Clearly there is quite a bit of recent argument over what should be considered fair use.
The debate currently exists because the law as it stands doesn't distinguish 'casual piracy' from the kind actually deserving of those harsh punishments. It's unquestionable that casual file sharing is currently piracy; it's distribution, which is one of the exclusive reserved rights of the owner. The question is whether we should redefine or place limits on those definitions at law. I agree completely with the sentiment that most casual copying violates the current law, and that the question is whether we should redefine the law.
I believe we should, but I also believe that making that case is infinitely harder when people make broad, sweeping statements about their entitlement to the work of others. Broad, sweeping statements are often problematic. But the broad assumption underlying your statement is that generating a piece of information entitles a person to prevent others from having that information. That assumption turns copying into a transgression that we may choose to allow, versus copying being the natural state that we may choose to forbid.
Both views, when taking into account the various practical considerations, may eventually lead to a similar copyright law. But I think there's a real philosophical difference there. And I think the historical record of copyright law favors the view that information sharing is the norm which Congress was empowered by the Constitution to restrict for limited times, in order to "promote progress in science and the useful arts". Thus holding a copyright is not an entitlement, it's a government-granted monopoly provided to promote a public good. I think it's useful to keep in mind what the goals of the law are when we discuss how it should be reformed.
The transgression, if you want to separate it from the law, is that a person's work is his own and it is not for others to take without consent. You don't accept that premise, but the law does, so your argument is not organic, it's purely academic and hypothetical. The validity of the law's premise is exactly what's in question. Clearly a large segment of the population does not accept that premise (whether rightly or wrongly). Otherwise we wouldn't have articles in the LA Times about whether to consider it "file sharing" or "theft" or something in-between.
It's simply not possible in a society valuing individual autonomy and privacy to argue that one has a right of any kind to the work or thoughts of others. That's simply untrue. Copyright has only been around a few hundred years. Valuing ones's autonomy and privacy goes much further back into history.
And as for the "thoughts of others", the notable thing about ideas and thoughts is that while the recipient is enriched, the giver is none the poorer. Thomas Jefferson's views on the matter are instructive:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. [...] Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Our Founders created our system of copyright (based on England's) to promote progress in the arts. One can believe that this was a well-designed system without claiming it's somehow an inherent right. It's not. It's a system created by the government for a public purpose, and as such it's fair to debate whether or not the public's purposes are best served by such a system.
I'm not arguing the earlier post was right, but the argument he's making is not simply "vacuous".
It's fundamentally un-American to make a law restricting anyone's ability to give money to any cause whatsoever they so wish to voluntarily give to Fair enough. But there are a lot of folks who believe that it's fundamentally un-American to have public servants beholden to a handful of mega-contributors instead of their constituents. So when it's un-American to do one thing, and un-American to do the opposite, a compromise is a reasonable approach.
In terms of economic freedom, consider it this way: in the end politicians are employees of the American public. As their employer, the public has the same right any employer has, which is to demand as condition of employment limits upon their employees' outside employment. Especially when the outside job is considered detrimental to their performance, due to conflicts of interest or other problems. McCain-Feingold exercised that freedom on behalf of the public, and if the politicians don't like it they're free to seek employment elsewhere.
Certainly money facilitates getting your speech heard by a large audience. Advertising, printing, and websites all cost money, after all. So there are some First Amendment implications to regulating political spending.
But that does not mean money equals speech. If it did, the IRS would be infringing on your First Amendment rights with every paycheck's income tax withholdings.
And while I think you'll find few people as strongly in favor of free speech rights as I am, even I will acknowledge First Amendment rights are not absolute. ("Fire in a crowded theater", libel, slander, trademarks, and all that).
So given that it's not absolute right, the question becomes how to best protect the ability of the most Americans to get their views heard. If you have no restrictions, then the most wealthy interests can bid up the price of media/advertising to the point where ordinary Americans don't have the ability to get their own message out. And being able to write unlimited checks to politicians certainly seems like bribery much more than speech. On the other hand, limiting the amount of spending will to some extent limit the amount of political advertising - speech - that can be distributed.
I don't think this is an easy issue. And one can certainly argue with the details of McCain-Feingold (the pre-election time limits don't make much sense to me, for example). But I think the law's intent is pro-speech, not anti-speech. It's trying to protect the speech rights of the many by limiting the few to a comparable level of spending. And it protects us all against legalized bribery of elected officials. Having money go through issue organizations to me seems a far more speech-friendly and anti-corruption path than having politicans being bought by the wealthy few.
And if you look at the Presidential races so far, it seems like the law has had some benefits. Politicians are being forced to raise money from larger numbers of citizens, rather than relying on a few heavyweight contributors. That is a real democratic accomplishment.
Slashdot Mirror
At least when I was still in school (2001-2002), the logic to decode x86 into the native micro-ops was actually a very sizable fraction of the chip area (almost half IIRC).
That's a large part of how Transmeta was able to get such insane power reductions with their Crusoe CPUs - they offloaded the x86-to-VLIW-micro-op translation step into software, rather than do it in circuitry. That caused a performance hit but saved a LOT of power.
Unless you're living on the street, you and your kids are eating a bare minimum subsistence diet, you're saving nothing for retirement or for their education, all because you've given every bit of money you have to support the crisis in Darfur or oppose censorship in China... unless you've done all that, you're in the same glass house as the rest of us.
Give the guilt-trip a rest. In the real world, people have to make trade-offs between conflicting but deeply-held principles. Choosing to feed your kids doesn't mean you don't care greatly about the hungry in Africa, or censorship in China. When you have limited resources you have to choose. There's nothing wrong or hypocritical about that.
I don't think Google views what they are doing as "whatever we can get away with to make a profit". Google provides a service. Google wants to provide the best service they can. Unfortunately, Chinese law requires them to put limits on their service in China. So Google has a choice - either A) provide the limited service, B) provide no service, or C) violate the law, thus getting kicked out of China and providing no service at all. B and C are thus the same, with the exception that C probably costs them lots of money without helping anybody.
Clearly the Chinese law is considered morally wrong by most of us in the West. We feel it hurts the Chinese citizens, which presumably is why some folks have been pressuring Google on this.
But how does providing no service at all help the people in China? If Google provides no service, either A) the customers have no service, or B) some homegrown Chinese company, which has less concern over censorship than Google does, will provide the limited service. In case A the Chinese citizens are worse off than if Google had followed Chinese law. In case B the citizens are at best in the same position as they would if Google were providing the service, but they could be worse off if either the Chinese company has inferior algorithms or less interest in persuading the authorities to open up.
In other words, no refusal on the part of Google to follow Chinese law is going to help Chinese citizens. Google does not have the power to force the Chinese government to do anything. And a symbolic gesture like quitting the Chinese market is unlikely to do a thing either. So the best of admittedly unpleasant options for Google is to participate according to the Chinese rules, while developing relationships in China through which to persuade the Chinese there is a better way for their people.
As another person who attended a top engineering school, I had a different experience than the parent post. I attended Carnegie Mellon for Computer Engineering (the degree title is Electrical & Computer, but you can tailor your courses to your desired focus).
:-)
First, there are some folks who will stay up to 5 AM (or pull an "all-nighter") to finish problem sets, but you do not have to be one of them. For the vast majority of cases, this is not necessary unless you procrastinate too much in starting assignments. (BTW, I'm naturally a procrastinator, and even so the late-night work was an exception rather than the rule). In the rare case where you just don't have the time to finish the assignment without staying up all night, my recommendation is that usually you're better off just getting a good night's sleep. Since the situation is rare, if you don't complete a problem or two on a given assignment, it's not going to significantly impact your grades. And being rested means you'll learn in class the next day, rather than be fighting the urge to sleep.
Regarding the "socially maladapted" folks at top schools. There are some for sure. There are also plenty of socially normal people too. You can choose which you want to hang out with. If nothing else, it'll give you some good stories about the handful of really weird folks you see around campus.
The Carnegie Mellon ECE program was very flexible for which courses you take, both in regards to technical courses, and to a slightly lesser extent for humanities requirements. The upside to this freedom is you can take courses you are interested in. The downside is that you may regret your choices later if you don't make yourself choose a sufficient variety. Overall though I think it's a great program, and more flexible than some other schools' programs, especially with respect to freedom to choose your technical courses. Check out your prospective schools' programs carefully.
I do not feel like I ended up "hollow" as a result of my chosen school or program - quite the opposite. Actually the school tries to encourage you to broaden your horizons - for example the CS majors (but not the ECE majors) are required to have a minor or double major outside their field. And like I mentioned, the ECE program is very flexible, and it's usually not hard to get into courses outside your major, unless it's one of the very most popular courses (Acting for Non-majors was the only course I was ever unable to get into, which was because *everyone* wanted to get into it).
I do agree with the parent post that the "brand" matters from your college. If people know your school is good, they tend to assume you know your stuff because the school weeds out the incompetent. So interviews tend to focus more on making sure you'll fit in than grilling you technically. Those from less-known schools face greater scrutiny - you have to work harder to convince someone of your merits.
As others here on Slashdot have noted, the caliber of your classmates matters a lot too. Good classmates help keep your standards high, help you learn from each other better, and make the connections and friendships you forge at college more valuable in advancing your career.
The other advantage to a well-regarded technical school, versus a liberal arts one, is that you're likely to get more technical companies recruiting on-campus for technical majors. This will likely help your internship and job searches.
In the end, though, pick whichever one you think is going to give you the better overall experience. You're only an undergrad once
wow. That's nuts. Reinstalling Windows to get Solitaire takes the cake though.
You're right that I work with good people, so we haven't seen much of that (in terms of slacking off or in terms of dumb behavior). Probably doesn't hurt that many of our users are software developers, so they're more aware of the risks involved.
I didn't see anything in the post that would imply Monsanto should only get a one-time payment, or be unable to negotiate what price they can get for their product.
I saw it simply as noting that:
1) Monsanto uses highly questionable tactics that end up hurting its own innocent customers, and
2) Those who object to being treated in this way have little recourse, given their dependence on the Monsanto product.
In any case, I don't think the behemoth that is Monsanto is in any danger of being "owned" by farmers anytime soon. Quite clearly, the relationship is the other way around. Even farmers who try to avoid Monsanto products can end up with their fields being contaminated with seed from other farmers' nearby plots, and then Monsanto sends their lawyers after them. Hell, Monsanto even sends the lawyers after companies that advertise the fact that they DON'T use Monsanto products (e.g. the dairy in the article advertising its avoidance of hormone treated cows).
(This is not to say guns aren't without their own dangers - the risk of accidental shootings is higher than the chances it'll save you, at least in many parts of the country. But that's a tradeoff that's going to be different for every individual situation, and everyone will have to make up their own mind whether it makes sense for them personally).
The solution to that is to offer the medium pizza. I.e. offer different pricing plans based on actual bandwidth usage, rather than these all-you-can-eat plans offered currently. Cellular companies do this with minutes, ISPs could do it with gigabytes.
For the majority that just use the Net for email and Web surfing, that'd be fine, and they wouldn't have to increase what they're paying. Arguably they could spend a little less. The folks who would pay more are those who want or need to do lots of P2P, who are the folks causing the increase in cost under the current "unlimited" plans.
And while Microsoft has a decidedly mixed record with the quality of their software (to put it nicely), they can come through when the competitive threat is high. I may not be old, but I'm old enough to remember a time when Internet Explorer was actually the best browser. Of course, it decayed quickly once Netscape was no longer a big threat. But when it thinks it's backed into a corner, Microsoft can execute.
Also, a well-performing VM would allow them to exploit the "network effects" of their huge installed base, which would mean the playing field would still be tilted greatly in their favor.
Demonstrable falsehoods are one thing. But more often it's not that simple. For example, there was a fascinating study about coverage of a massacre in Beirut, where the same news articles were viewed by both sides as biased towards the opposing point of view. Clearly the exact same article can't be biased in both one direction and its opposite, but yet both groups felt their point of view was being treated unfairly.
In other words, the two sides had completely different ideas of what constituted "the truth". That is a problem not with the news coverage, but with the audience.
Not only do people perceive things differently, but there it is well-known that people tend to discount information that disagrees with their previously formed opinions, especially when it comes to emotional subjects like politics (confirmation bias).
I think there's much more to it than the more juvenile "game" aspects. Sure, you could obsess about how many "Friends" you have, or check your Facebook twenty times a day. There are certainly people who do that. I think that's kinda nuts, but there are lots of behaviors I think are strange. To each his own.
As for the rest of us, social networking sites provide an easy (and thus well-utilized) way to maintain real-world relationships when people aren't nearby to hang out. A lot of us make good friends in college, but then move all over the country for jobs. Social-networking sites provide tools to help keep in touch, keep on top of what our friends have been doing, etc., so the relationships don't just die out. Much like people used to do with letters, but since the required effort is much smaller, people have the time and ability to keep many more friends in the loop.
And then when you do get a chance to meet up with people you haven't seen in a while, it's not as weird. Having no contact with someone for years produces awkward social interactions when you do, as anyone who's attended a 10-year high school reunion can tell you. But if you've been occasionally communicating via social networking (or other means) during that interval, you still feel like you know the person.
Another problem is that you put IT in the position of having to make decisions about which tools are better (and thus allowed), rather than letting the subject matter experts do so. IT expertise is not the same as expertise in engineering, accounting, HR, etc. How is a sysadmin supposed to know better than an aeronautical engineer which CAD software will better meet the engineer's needs?
A third problem is that you effectively prevent employees from discovering new, better tools. You don't know whether a tool will meet your needs until you try it out, but you can't try it without installing it, which you don't have authorization to do because you haven't been able to make a business case for why "you really need something to be productive". If something like PDF converter is a usefull tool to you, why not propose it up the management chain as a STANDARD install on all desktops. In some cases that's exactly what should be done. But if only 2 employees out of 1000 would benefit from PDF converters, do you bloat the "standard" install with it, or just install it on those two guys' PCs? Or do you tell them tough luck, they can't have it?
The real problem here is that there is no One True Solution. You have to balance flexibility for the user, a positive work environment, and innovative tool selection against the risk of the user doing something stupid, support costs, security risks, etc. This is fundamentally a judgment call that depends on the specific user base and business environment. Unfortunately, all too often there are IT folks who forget that their job is to make the rest of the company more productive, just like there are users who forget that IT has to look out for the whole company, not just one individual's desires. And then it gets too easy to lose the right balance.
And in fact it would be in the network operators' interests to provide this sort information to P2P developers. After all, the operator derives most of the benefit of the reduced loading from this "P4P" approach.
Thus all peer-to-peer software, regardless of type or legality, could be done more efficiently.
Wrong analogy. It's more like printing the address of an office where a company is giving away free samples. By creating a web service that is available at the given address to anyone who asks, that is exactly what MobiTV has done.
It's ridiculous for them to then complain that someone dared advertise what the company itself was doing. If they don't want people to take the product for free, stop giving it away.
I haven't talked with any Senate staffers, simply because I don't know any.
I've seen the occasional media report that his temper sometimes gets the better of him, although he reportedly also apologizes and makes up quickly with most folks.
Is there something beyond this?
I think the odds of a nationwide draft in the next 4 or 8 years are comparable to being struck by lightning. And despite the apparent Internet rumor mill, McCain isn't in favor of reinstating the draft:
McCain: "I don't think we need to think of the draft again because I don't think it makes sense in a whole variety of ways."
What he HAS said is he's in favor of increasing the size of the volunteer military, so that future conflicts do not strain the military as severely as Iraq has.
The only person I've seen propose reinstating the draft is Charlie Rangel (D), who was using it as an anti-war propaganda mechanism. When the Republicans called his bluff and forced a vote on Rangel's bill, even Rangel himself voted against it. The measure died 2-402, with the only two yes votes coming from Democrats.
Clearly there is no significant support within either party to bring back the draft.
I think McCain is the best Presidential candidate I've seen in my lifetime. He's got my vote in the fall. But even though I think Obama's a tougher candidate than Clinton, I'm still hoping he gets the Democratic nomination. At least then I think we could have a relatively clean, honest debate over the issues rather than the low-road personal politics that Clinton calls "the fun part".
It's true that many people don't care much about quality, especially for something which they use infrequently. So buying something cheap and barely good enough is often an individually rational strategy. Which goes a long way towards explaining the market.
One other observation is that an individual doesn't directly pay the full cost of his decision to buy crappy software. Sure some buggy software might be "good enough" for him to tolerate in exchange for a cheap price. But suppose he then connects to the public Internet and now his machine gets taken over by a botnet. The rest of society bears the cost of that infected machine spewing spam, DOS attacks, etc., not the guy who bought the crappy software with a security hole the size of Kansas.
Obviously the copyright law sees it differently - as you say, the law prohibits copying/distribution of any sort, with some limited affirmative defenses such as fair use. Clearly there is quite a bit of recent argument over what should be considered fair use. The debate currently exists because the law as it stands doesn't distinguish 'casual piracy' from the kind actually deserving of those harsh punishments. It's unquestionable that casual file sharing is currently piracy; it's distribution, which is one of the exclusive reserved rights of the owner. The question is whether we should redefine or place limits on those definitions at law. I agree completely with the sentiment that most casual copying violates the current law, and that the question is whether we should redefine the law. I believe we should, but I also believe that making that case is infinitely harder when people make broad, sweeping statements about their entitlement to the work of others. Broad, sweeping statements are often problematic. But the broad assumption underlying your statement is that generating a piece of information entitles a person to prevent others from having that information. That assumption turns copying into a transgression that we may choose to allow, versus copying being the natural state that we may choose to forbid.
Both views, when taking into account the various practical considerations, may eventually lead to a similar copyright law. But I think there's a real philosophical difference there. And I think the historical record of copyright law favors the view that information sharing is the norm which Congress was empowered by the Constitution to restrict for limited times, in order to "promote progress in science and the useful arts". Thus holding a copyright is not an entitlement, it's a government-granted monopoly provided to promote a public good. I think it's useful to keep in mind what the goals of the law are when we discuss how it should be reformed.
And as for the "thoughts of others", the notable thing about ideas and thoughts is that while the recipient is enriched, the giver is none the poorer. Thomas Jefferson's views on the matter are instructive: If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
[...]
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Our Founders created our system of copyright (based on England's) to promote progress in the arts. One can believe that this was a well-designed system without claiming it's somehow an inherent right. It's not. It's a system created by the government for a public purpose, and as such it's fair to debate whether or not the public's purposes are best served by such a system.
I'm not arguing the earlier post was right, but the argument he's making is not simply "vacuous".
In terms of economic freedom, consider it this way: in the end politicians are employees of the American public. As their employer, the public has the same right any employer has, which is to demand as condition of employment limits upon their employees' outside employment. Especially when the outside job is considered detrimental to their performance, due to conflicts of interest or other problems. McCain-Feingold exercised that freedom on behalf of the public, and if the politicians don't like it they're free to seek employment elsewhere.
Certainly money facilitates getting your speech heard by a large audience. Advertising, printing, and websites all cost money, after all. So there are some First Amendment implications to regulating political spending.
But that does not mean money equals speech. If it did, the IRS would be infringing on your First Amendment rights with every paycheck's income tax withholdings.
And while I think you'll find few people as strongly in favor of free speech rights as I am, even I will acknowledge First Amendment rights are not absolute. ("Fire in a crowded theater", libel, slander, trademarks, and all that).
So given that it's not absolute right, the question becomes how to best protect the ability of the most Americans to get their views heard. If you have no restrictions, then the most wealthy interests can bid up the price of media/advertising to the point where ordinary Americans don't have the ability to get their own message out. And being able to write unlimited checks to politicians certainly seems like bribery much more than speech. On the other hand, limiting the amount of spending will to some extent limit the amount of political advertising - speech - that can be distributed.
I don't think this is an easy issue. And one can certainly argue with the details of McCain-Feingold (the pre-election time limits don't make much sense to me, for example). But I think the law's intent is pro-speech, not anti-speech. It's trying to protect the speech rights of the many by limiting the few to a comparable level of spending. And it protects us all against legalized bribery of elected officials. Having money go through issue organizations to me seems a far more speech-friendly and anti-corruption path than having politicans being bought by the wealthy few.
And if you look at the Presidential races so far, it seems like the law has had some benefits. Politicians are being forced to raise money from larger numbers of citizens, rather than relying on a few heavyweight contributors. That is a real democratic accomplishment.