getting your ideas respected and understood throughout the ages if you write like this:
gr8 r u goin 2do...
It may work in chat (this, I never disputed and in fact reinforced) but it does not work in general.
Look at Phrack papers: many of the authors of those are probably not native English speakers and/or are chat officianados and, yet, when you read their Phrack papers, they are by and large intelligently and clearly written. Most folks get this: writing clearly and correctly increases your chances of getting your ideas heard and of folks being able to understand and digest them (without breaking out a lineaer B table) in ages hence.
If you mean adding in new words (e.g. "blog"), then of course that's already built in and happens.
If you mean changing the way that basic grammar rules work, I'd think that'd be a mistake.
If you've read any Shakespeare (which I'm sure you have), you'd see that the English language has adapted since then (mostly in common word choice -- we see fewer of these: doth, 'tis, o'er, hath, etc.).
But that leads us to one of the reasons that it's important that we don't change the structure too much: all of the English written works developed for the past 800 years or so are more or less accessible to those who know proper English. If we changed dramatically the structure, either newbies would have to learn BOTH structures OR those works would be less accessible to them than they are to people trained in standard English.
It's no different than one router deciding that it wanted to do TCP a little bit differently; he can't do that. Not really anyway. Not if he's connected to all X other routers who understand the standard implementation of BGP, TCP, IP,...
You totally had me on the casual nature of chat being part of chat. Abbreviations, flexibility,... work for that medium.
But your generalization to "Language isn't meant to be a set of laws" is not supported by your earlier arguments.
The reason that language IS represented by a set of laws as if it weren't then there'd be no way to teach it in geographically disparate locations where folks may not be in contact with native speakers of that language. How can I learn Samoan if I live in SmallTown, KS? I need to refer to the laws of that language. No laws --> loss of structure --> lack of ability to communicate clearly and effectively. The laws are not there to be punitive; they are there to make the system work.
Your argument implies that those who are unwilling (or unable) to learn grammar and spelling as it stands would somehow be willing to expend the effort to learn grammar and spelling when presented with correct examples of it ad hoc. Or perhaps "the osmosis effect"?
Aren't most textbooks and many periodicals in correct grammatical form and with a limited # of typos? Yet these people--seeing those examples--have still not learned (so much for osmosis).
Perhaps our written world would be more correct but when you get those folks out into the speaking world again, there's no reason to believe that having had someone correct their written correspondence would result in their mental acuities improving.
Don't you think the majority of folks, especially those just starting out, "code then compile" in a loop til they can get an executable then "execute, observe,..." instead of doing what they HAD to do X years ago which was refine the shit out of that program (expending many human cycles thinking about it, plotting a chart for it...) before their single shot at the punchcard machine (which would REALLY produce useless debugging messages).
The lure of just programming something up without actually thinking it through--completely--ahead of time especially as complexity of the project goes up and as time to do it goes down is awfully strong. I don't wish for more limited CPU cycles... just noting the tradeoffs.
Right but the likelihood of self delusion ("I really know this stuff.... I just didn't get that homework right nor those (the majority of) midterm problems nor...") is probably higher for those who have poor academic performance (being deluded that they really DID learn) than for those who have great academic performance (but who may or may not have "truly learned").
And straight As do not always lead to comprehension but at a tough enough program, the correlation between the two (comprehension & academic success) are going to be pretty high (not to mention that straight As generally signal someone who is willing to put in the work to learn whatever concept).
I think the deal was that users' computers could have some trojan installed which, when activated, would cause the computer modem of the infected machine to dial 911, thereby flooding the (local) emergency response lines... standard DDoS.
So there'd have to be some way to geographically target certain areas in order to have a concentrated impact but that's the idea as I recall.
...which is precisely the proper way to group this sort of study as far as I'm concerned (as opposed to offering a MS with a specialization in "cyber security").
Also, since I'm not familiar with University of Tulsa's CS program (that's what you're talking about, right?), it's only fundamentals+ in the sense that any specialization is, right?
I.e. UTulsa ugrad or grad CS folks can major or specialize in "cyber security" (is this the actual name of the specialization?) OR they can major or specialize in something more general which would also be considered fundamentals+ in that the requisite intro level OS, AI, computability,... courses are required then upper level courses in the (possibly more widely applicable) specialization are also required.
So if you specialize in cybersecurity presumably you're not taking upper level OS, AI, Graphics, HCI, databases,... courses. And I guess I'd still opt for something more general (though perhaps partaking of some of the courses you listed).
I'm kind of not seeing how the workload is so much higher for specializing in this versus in something more general... unless the courses required for this are simpler, less time consuming etc. But again I don't know much about UTulsa.
Now, if instead of it being a "cyber security" specialization, it's a Security specialization which has a lot of overlap in Theory (for prog lang devp't, crypto,...) as well as in Systems (OS, databases, Computer Architecture), that I can see more of a case for. And more of an industry market for (i.e. for students who don't ultimately want to work for the fed gov't but instead want to work in security for MSFT, @stake, RSA,...).
I think we have different notions of typical specializations. The ones I'm familiar with are: AI, HCI, Systems, Theory, and one or two others. Not many, though. And as you can see: nice and broad.
This is as contrasted to professional type programs, like Berkeley's Certificate in Telecommunications and Network Engineering; this sort of thing: designed to meet an immediate industry need but certainly nowhere near the rigor of a normal Master's program, for example (intellectually).
So I guess I don't buy your contention that the expiration date of such a specialization as described above would be the same as a "cyber security" specialization. In fact I'm not even close to buying it...
I would not be too impressed with an entire curriculum on cyber security... at least not in a major university (and as a conduit to getting security certifications? I just don't see the role of major universities to be feeders to the CISSP or whatever).
It would be one thing to have kind of Security specialization but even then you run the risk of having an expiration date on your diploma. It needn't be this way but it's important to have a good basis in the fundamentals so that you can predict (even better: prevent!) future problems rather than just understanding how the existing attacks work. And call me old fashioned but having a nice broad background (understanding circuit design, understanding programming language design,...) seems like a pretty good prerequisite. You get exposed to other ideas, you learn better how the entire system works and fits together (and, remember: security problems often occur at the interfaces b/n various components of a system).
Something about a major in cyber security seems awfully narrow to me; OK for a professional degree program (i.e. UC Berkeley's very good Extension program) but for an actual MS specialization? Or CS major?
Also note the "Private Sector Outreach..." bullet.
Yeah, that'll bear fruit.
This is a somewhat unique infrastructure problem as the infrastructure is a shared responsibility and controlled mostly by corporations. Contrast that with security in the physical world: bridges, tunnels, water treatment plants...
That's probably the first area I'd like to see some progress in: coming up with a mechanism to foster meaningful info sharing b/n corporations that protects their interests within reason (doesn't publicly share info in re: attacks on corporation X if corp X wouldn't have otherwise been required to share this info).
What I'd really like to see a discussion on is the hacker detection angle. So often the stuff I hear coming out of the DHS on cyber security and even from folks deep into this field (i.e. studying liability assessment (e.g. angles for recouping damages from significant attacks), forensics,...) assumes that the problem of detecting hackers is intractable. So some discussion of how inherent the problem of tracking hackers is given the current architecture (the protocols...) would be helpful, I think.
I'm gullible because I believe that the attacks on the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing, the second World Trade Center decimation were *NOT* the work of the US gov't?
No, you're the fucking fruit loop for believing that OBL and Al Qaeda are anything BUT bent on our destruction. You probably also believe that the Pentagon attack was really a US drone?
Fucking moron. At least you're probably a relatively powerless moron (small comforts =).
But I am serious as a heart attack about the problems we face right now... and so I don't waste my posts being an anti-MSFT fanboy or anti-any-sort-of-preventional-measures fanboy: that's something only those living without responsibility can afford. So enjoy it.
That's cute, though; trying to portray my commentary as coming from any source other than a rational, considered one. Unfortunately since it's not a correct representation, folks with > 2 brain cells (and the willingness to use them, a crucial additive) will see your impoverished commentary for what it is.
OK, let me go slowly for you since you're obviously not a gifted ute.
The point was that just because we haven't had any airliners crashing into large buildings on Wall St. doesn't mean that we are not under attack. If the enemy takes a breather to gather new recruits, perform more reconnaissance, and/or otherwise regroup, do you say the war is over? Of course not. Traditionally, you say the war is over when an Armistice is signed (will probably not be the way this one ends if / when it does end).
And show me where I even *implied* that the president was charged with eliminating all risks to US citizens forever. YOU, my friend, are the troll.
What? Just because there's not a persistent barrage of bombs, we're not allowed to consider ourselves under attack?
OBL has declared in no uncertain terms a war with the West, with the Great Satan to be specific.
So, yes: OBL and his network have been at war with us for over 10 years and we are just recently beginning to realize this and wage war back.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
And unless you're willing to credit George W. Bush and his cabinet (or by extension the GOP-dominated legislative branches of this country) with having eliminated all risks to US citizens here in the US (be sure to provide your evidence that we are safe here), then we've still got a problem.
And if you knew anything at all about AlQ's attack schedule, you'd know they are both opportunistic and patient. They might take two to three to four to... years to plan, construct, and execute a new attack.
And you'll also note that even though the attacks on Pearl Harbor occurred during just one day, the internments lasted far beyond that.
Buy a clue.
Also note that I'm not talking about "giving up any rights" so that I will feel safer. I took issue with a specific post which was factually incorrect: that is which suggested a historical departure (that is that restrictions in civil liberties done once are never restored; so the grandparent was the one suggesting the dramatic departure from the regular course of events and offering up no proof to back up this assertion).
Now, just to do an ordinary civilian job, you'll be tracked so heavily 5 guys in CIA headquarters are thinking about your breathing.
Oh please.
In order for your fantasy to be realized, we need to have this many CIA employees (who are not, BTW, legally allowed to spy on US citizens):
((# of gov't employees) + (# of civilian employees working on gov't contract)) * 5
Does this seem likely to you? GMAB. Before this could be realized there'd have to be a bill allocating funds to pay all those spooks and that would never pass Congress because... Congressional reps are elected by their constituents who would have to approve this (or else the reps would lose their jobs... and show me a gov't teat sucker eager to lose his job and I'll show you a solution for x^3 + y^3 = z^3 where x != y != z != 0).
You people are fanatics. And your ranting is actually counter productive because it's so hyperbolic and seems to reject *any* form of IDing apparently without offering solutions to our quite impressive problems.
And while I was initially very against a national ID system, given the tremendous loopholes our current ID system appears to have, I am becoming more open to the possibility (but only if it were coupled with more vigorous attempts to boot those who are here illegally from this country (many of the 19 hijackers were NOT here legally) as well as more concentrated attempts to control our borders).
Why is there this almost pervasive belief that changes made (during extreme times) cannot be unmade? That is that a worsening condition must asymptotically get worse?
History does not bear this out.
During the American Revolution, citizens had to quarter troops in their homes. This doesn't strike you as quite a bit more invasive than a trumped-up ID card?
During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus. He sicced the militia on dissenters. He instituted a blockade. He expended funds for the purchase of weapons. And he did all these things without congressional approval. The precious Union still stands!
During WWII, some US citizens (most notably Japanese, also Italians,...) were taken from their homelands and kept in internment camps for years. Reparations have been paid; lessons have been learned (don't believe me? well, you don't see Muslims being interned now; in fact Middle Eastern folks aren't even allowed to be profiled in airport baggage check lines).
And for those cynical few who will scoff at the notion that we here in the US are experiencing extreme times, I ask you to name me another time the US mainland was attacked to such effect by a foreign entity?
We are in extreme times; this is a fact. What precisely those times warrant is up for discussion.
I can understand foreigners lacking an appreciation about the meaning freedom has to us US citizens and how deeply ingrained it is in our beings. But for Americans do get all squeamish that our entire national fabric will be oblitherated if we take any privacy invading measures during these extreme times does not speak well for those individuals' characters (perhaps they thrive on chaos? or are just Chicken Littles).
If you actually have an opportunity to study at MIT and are not a terrorist, then the only person acting on fear (submissively) -- if he doesn't take that opportunity -- is you.
Isn't another reason (public) companies may prefer to hire someone on as a contractor rather than as a full-time employee the fact that for the former arrangement, the company can expense the contractor's salary (and for EBITDA or... something with financials reporting,...)?
they give you a timeline (6 mos., 12 mos.) for conversion (of course given that you meet their expectations)?
you know precisely what those expectations are and feel capable to meet and exceed them?
no other full-time offers available or on the horizon and/or no other companies you want to check out but haven't yet (i.e. how deep into your search are you)
What's up with the bait and switch? Was this position always intended to be "contractor to full-time" or they're offering YOU contractor b/c you're not as strong as what they're looking for or short on experience or otherwise need to prove yourself a little or what? Definitely a question I'd ask
I'd say it's not a great sign that you seem very concerned about the deal... either you are just risk averse (or somehow unsure you'll be able to perform to their expectations) OR you got some weird feeling(s) from them that you haven't fully deciphered yet.
At the risk of sounding New Agey, I'd say that any time I've had real concerns about any sort of deal (financial, job-related,...), those concerns have ended up being born out. So if you're feeling shaky about this, listen to that.
But on another note, if all of the above conditions were met, I'd take it in a heart beat. But then I tend to be pretty confident that I'll meet and exceed expectations on the job. So taking that risk is always something I'm open to (given that the company and position are worth the hassle).
Slashdot Mirror
getting your ideas respected and understood throughout the ages if you write like this:
...
gr8 r u goin 2do
It may work in chat (this, I never disputed and in fact reinforced) but it does not work in general.
Look at Phrack papers: many of the authors of those are probably not native English speakers and/or are chat officianados and, yet, when you read their Phrack papers, they are by and large intelligently and clearly written. Most folks get this: writing clearly and correctly increases your chances of getting your ideas heard and of folks being able to understand and digest them (without breaking out a lineaer B table) in ages hence.
What do you mean by language evolving exactly?
...
If you mean adding in new words (e.g. "blog"), then of course that's already built in and happens.
If you mean changing the way that basic grammar rules work, I'd think that'd be a mistake.
If you've read any Shakespeare (which I'm sure you have), you'd see that the English language has adapted since then (mostly in common word choice -- we see fewer of these: doth, 'tis, o'er, hath, etc.).
But that leads us to one of the reasons that it's important that we don't change the structure too much: all of the English written works developed for the past 800 years or so are more or less accessible to those who know proper English. If we changed dramatically the structure, either newbies would have to learn BOTH structures OR those works would be less accessible to them than they are to people trained in standard English.
It's no different than one router deciding that it wanted to do TCP a little bit differently; he can't do that. Not really anyway. Not if he's connected to all X other routers who understand the standard implementation of BGP, TCP, IP,
I believe this might be an instance of my poorly explaining myself and misunderstanding you. For that, I appologize.
I appreciate the more detailed answer. And good luck!
You totally had me on the casual nature of chat being part of chat. Abbreviations, flexibility, ... work for that medium.
But your generalization to "Language isn't meant to be a set of laws" is not supported by your earlier arguments.
The reason that language IS represented by a set of laws as if it weren't then there'd be no way to teach it in geographically disparate locations where folks may not be in contact with native speakers of that language. How can I learn Samoan if I live in SmallTown, KS? I need to refer to the laws of that language. No laws --> loss of structure --> lack of ability to communicate clearly and effectively. The laws are not there to be punitive; they are there to make the system work.
Errr...uhhh no.
Your argument implies that those who are unwilling (or unable) to learn grammar and spelling as it stands would somehow be willing to expend the effort to learn grammar and spelling when presented with correct examples of it ad hoc. Or perhaps "the osmosis effect"?
Aren't most textbooks and many periodicals in correct grammatical form and with a limited # of typos? Yet these people--seeing those examples--have still not learned (so much for osmosis).
Perhaps our written world would be more correct but when you get those folks out into the speaking world again, there's no reason to believe that having had someone correct their written correspondence would result in their mental acuities improving.
Don't you think the majority of folks, especially those just starting out, "code then compile" in a loop til they can get an executable then "execute, observe, ..." instead of doing what they HAD to do X years ago which was refine the shit out of that program (expending many human cycles thinking about it, plotting a chart for it...) before their single shot at the punchcard machine (which would REALLY produce useless debugging messages).
The lure of just programming something up without actually thinking it through--completely--ahead of time especially as complexity of the project goes up and as time to do it goes down is awfully strong. I don't wish for more limited CPU cycles... just noting the tradeoffs.
Right but the likelihood of self delusion ("I really know this stuff.... I just didn't get that homework right nor those (the majority of) midterm problems nor...") is probably higher for those who have poor academic performance (being deluded that they really DID learn) than for those who have great academic performance (but who may or may not have "truly learned").
And straight As do not always lead to comprehension but at a tough enough program, the correlation between the two (comprehension & academic success) are going to be pretty high (not to mention that straight As generally signal someone who is willing to put in the work to learn whatever concept).
I think the deal was that users' computers could have some trojan installed which, when activated, would cause the computer modem of the infected machine to dial 911, thereby flooding the (local) emergency response lines... standard DDoS.
So there'd have to be some way to geographically target certain areas in order to have a concentrated impact but that's the idea as I recall.
...which is precisely the proper way to group this sort of study as far as I'm concerned (as opposed to offering a MS with a specialization in "cyber security").
...
Here's the not-yet-extant Univ of Illinois - Urbana Champaign certificate program in Computer Security description
They'll probably supplement it with Network Security stuff, Intro to Crypto,
Also, since I'm not familiar with University of Tulsa's CS program (that's what you're talking about, right?), it's only fundamentals+ in the sense that any specialization is, right?
... courses are required then upper level courses in the (possibly more widely applicable) specialization are also required.
... courses. And I guess I'd still opt for something more general (though perhaps partaking of some of the courses you listed).
...) as well as in Systems (OS, databases, Computer Architecture), that I can see more of a case for. And more of an industry market for (i.e. for students who don't ultimately want to work for the fed gov't but instead want to work in security for MSFT, @stake, RSA, ...).
I.e. UTulsa ugrad or grad CS folks can major or specialize in "cyber security" (is this the actual name of the specialization?) OR they can major or specialize in something more general which would also be considered fundamentals+ in that the requisite intro level OS, AI, computability,
So if you specialize in cybersecurity presumably you're not taking upper level OS, AI, Graphics, HCI, databases,
I'm kind of not seeing how the workload is so much higher for specializing in this versus in something more general... unless the courses required for this are simpler, less time consuming etc. But again I don't know much about UTulsa.
Now, if instead of it being a "cyber security" specialization, it's a Security specialization which has a lot of overlap in Theory (for prog lang devp't, crypto,
I think we have different notions of typical specializations. The ones I'm familiar with are: AI, HCI, Systems, Theory, and one or two others. Not many, though. And as you can see: nice and broad.
This is as contrasted to professional type programs, like Berkeley's Certificate in Telecommunications and Network Engineering; this sort of thing: designed to meet an immediate industry need but certainly nowhere near the rigor of a normal Master's program, for example (intellectually).
So I guess I don't buy your contention that the expiration date of such a specialization as described above would be the same as a "cyber security" specialization. In fact I'm not even close to buying it...
I would not be too impressed with an entire curriculum on cyber security ... at least not in a major university (and as a conduit to getting security certifications? I just don't see the role of major universities to be feeders to the CISSP or whatever).
...) seems like a pretty good prerequisite. You get exposed to other ideas, you learn better how the entire system works and fits together (and, remember: security problems often occur at the interfaces b/n various components of a system).
It would be one thing to have kind of Security specialization but even then you run the risk of having an expiration date on your diploma. It needn't be this way but it's important to have a good basis in the fundamentals so that you can predict (even better: prevent!) future problems rather than just understanding how the existing attacks work. And call me old fashioned but having a nice broad background (understanding circuit design, understanding programming language design,
Something about a major in cyber security seems awfully narrow to me; OK for a professional degree program (i.e. UC Berkeley's very good Extension program) but for an actual MS specialization? Or CS major?
Also note the "Private Sector Outreach..." bullet.
...) assumes that the problem of detecting hackers is intractable. So some discussion of how inherent the problem of tracking hackers is given the current architecture (the protocols...) would be helpful, I think.
Yeah, that'll bear fruit.
This is a somewhat unique infrastructure problem as the infrastructure is a shared responsibility and controlled mostly by corporations. Contrast that with security in the physical world: bridges, tunnels, water treatment plants...
That's probably the first area I'd like to see some progress in: coming up with a mechanism to foster meaningful info sharing b/n corporations that protects their interests within reason (doesn't publicly share info in re: attacks on corporation X if corp X wouldn't have otherwise been required to share this info).
What I'd really like to see a discussion on is the hacker detection angle. So often the stuff I hear coming out of the DHS on cyber security and even from folks deep into this field (i.e. studying liability assessment (e.g. angles for recouping damages from significant attacks), forensics,
WINK
I'm gullible because I believe that the attacks on the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing, the second World Trade Center decimation were *NOT* the work of the US gov't?
No, you're the fucking fruit loop for believing that OBL and Al Qaeda are anything BUT bent on our destruction. You probably also believe that the Pentagon attack was really a US drone?
Fucking moron. At least you're probably a relatively powerless moron (small comforts =).
(Seriously, you really are that gullible.)
Actually I'm not.
But I am serious as a heart attack about the problems we face right now... and so I don't waste my posts being an anti-MSFT fanboy or anti-any-sort-of-preventional-measures fanboy: that's something only those living without responsibility can afford. So enjoy it.
That's cute, though; trying to portray my commentary as coming from any source other than a rational, considered one. Unfortunately since it's not a correct representation, folks with > 2 brain cells (and the willingness to use them, a crucial additive) will see your impoverished commentary for what it is.
their bullshit treatment of women. Egads.
OK, let me go slowly for you since you're obviously not a gifted ute.
The point was that just because we haven't had any airliners crashing into large buildings on Wall St. doesn't mean that we are not under attack. If the enemy takes a breather to gather new recruits, perform more reconnaissance, and/or otherwise regroup, do you say the war is over? Of course not. Traditionally, you say the war is over when an Armistice is signed (will probably not be the way this one ends if / when it does end).
And show me where I even *implied* that the president was charged with eliminating all risks to US citizens forever. YOU, my friend, are the troll.
What? Just because there's not a persistent barrage of bombs, we're not allowed to consider ourselves under attack?
... years to plan, construct, and execute a new attack.
OBL has declared in no uncertain terms a war with the West, with the Great Satan to be specific.
So, yes: OBL and his network have been at war with us for over 10 years and we are just recently beginning to realize this and wage war back.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
And unless you're willing to credit George W. Bush and his cabinet (or by extension the GOP-dominated legislative branches of this country) with having eliminated all risks to US citizens here in the US (be sure to provide your evidence that we are safe here), then we've still got a problem.
And if you knew anything at all about AlQ's attack schedule, you'd know they are both opportunistic and patient. They might take two to three to four to
And you'll also note that even though the attacks on Pearl Harbor occurred during just one day, the internments lasted far beyond that.
Buy a clue.
Also note that I'm not talking about "giving up any rights" so that I will feel safer. I took issue with a specific post which was factually incorrect: that is which suggested a historical departure (that is that restrictions in civil liberties done once are never restored; so the grandparent was the one suggesting the dramatic departure from the regular course of events and offering up no proof to back up this assertion).
Now, just to do an ordinary civilian job, you'll be tracked so heavily 5 guys in CIA headquarters are thinking about your breathing.
Oh please.
In order for your fantasy to be realized, we need to have this many CIA employees (who are not, BTW, legally allowed to spy on US citizens):
((# of gov't employees) + (# of civilian employees working on gov't contract)) * 5
Does this seem likely to you? GMAB. Before this could be realized there'd have to be a bill allocating funds to pay all those spooks and that would never pass Congress because... Congressional reps are elected by their constituents who would have to approve this (or else the reps would lose their jobs... and show me a gov't teat sucker eager to lose his job and I'll show you a solution for x^3 + y^3 = z^3 where x != y != z != 0).
You people are fanatics. And your ranting is actually counter productive because it's so hyperbolic and seems to reject *any* form of IDing apparently without offering solutions to our quite impressive problems.
And while I was initially very against a national ID system, given the tremendous loopholes our current ID system appears to have, I am becoming more open to the possibility (but only if it were coupled with more vigorous attempts to boot those who are here illegally from this country (many of the 19 hijackers were NOT here legally) as well as more concentrated attempts to control our borders).
Actually you don't ... know much about history.
...) were taken from their homelands and kept in internment camps for years. Reparations have been paid; lessons have been learned (don't believe me? well, you don't see Muslims being interned now; in fact Middle Eastern folks aren't even allowed to be profiled in airport baggage check lines).
Why is there this almost pervasive belief that changes made (during extreme times) cannot be unmade? That is that a worsening condition must asymptotically get worse?
History does not bear this out.
During the American Revolution, citizens had to quarter troops in their homes. This doesn't strike you as quite a bit more invasive than a trumped-up ID card?
During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus. He sicced the militia on dissenters. He instituted a blockade. He expended funds for the purchase of weapons. And he did all these things without congressional approval. The precious Union still stands!
During WWII, some US citizens (most notably Japanese, also Italians,
And for those cynical few who will scoff at the notion that we here in the US are experiencing extreme times, I ask you to name me another time the US mainland was attacked to such effect by a foreign entity?
We are in extreme times; this is a fact. What precisely those times warrant is up for discussion.
I can understand foreigners lacking an appreciation about the meaning freedom has to us US citizens and how deeply ingrained it is in our beings. But for Americans do get all squeamish that our entire national fabric will be oblitherated if we take any privacy invading measures during these extreme times does not speak well for those individuals' characters (perhaps they thrive on chaos? or are just Chicken Littles).
If you actually have an opportunity to study at MIT and are not a terrorist, then the only person acting on fear (submissively) -- if he doesn't take that opportunity -- is you.
at least they have to show cause.
Not in California... (or other at-will states)
Isn't another reason (public) companies may prefer to hire someone on as a contractor rather than as a full-time employee the fact that for the former arrangement, the company can expense the contractor's salary (and for EBITDA or ... something with financials reporting, ...)?
- Conditions:
- seemingly solid company?
- bright folks?
- they give you a timeline (6 mos., 12 mos.) for conversion (of course given that you meet their expectations)?
- you know precisely what those expectations are and feel capable to meet and exceed them?
- no other full-time offers available or on the horizon and/or no other companies you want to check out but haven't yet (i.e. how deep into your search are you)
- What's up with the bait and switch? Was this position always intended to be "contractor to full-time" or they're offering YOU contractor b/c you're not as strong as what they're looking for or short on experience or otherwise need to prove yourself a little or what? Definitely a question I'd ask
I'd say it's not a great sign that you seem very concerned about the deal... either you are just risk averse (or somehow unsure you'll be able to perform to their expectations) OR you got some weird feeling(s) from them that you haven't fully deciphered yet.At the risk of sounding New Agey, I'd say that any time I've had real concerns about any sort of deal (financial, job-related,
But on another note, if all of the above conditions were met, I'd take it in a heart beat. But then I tend to be pretty confident that I'll meet and exceed expectations on the job. So taking that risk is always something I'm open to (given that the company and position are worth the hassle).