I was 28 years old when I entered university. With a background in law enforcement and military the idea of being some prep-school university type was not something I wanted to do. In my late 30s I received my Masters degree in computer science and saw a significant increase in perception of how my income was made. After the dot.bomb I was doing pretty good but shrinking staffs, horrible hours, executives who ran IT shops like they were slave pens, had me burning out pretty quick. I'd stepped out of doing the stuff I thought was fun and started getting paid to do stuff nobody thought was fun. I took a mid-university professor job, but they wanted me to get a PhD.
A masters degree is sort of like being a journeyman. You've mastered the discipline. A PhD is about defining the future of the discipline. There are a lot of junk PhDs out there. I've read their dissertations. There are a lot of good people with bad degrees and bad people with good degrees. Look at the trends to define rather than specific anecdotal evidence like my case. Don't mix up the history PhDs with the Computer Science or Technology degrees. What I would say was that I took nearly a 66% cut in pay to become a professor and full time researcher. I got the opportunity to do what I want, when I want, and how I want. After I got my PhD I ended up in one of the top engineering schools in the world, have done tours at major science institutions and government agencies, and turn down opportunities to work with others.
So, yes a mid life PhD can be a great thing for your career. You will find that people who don't have a PhD don't have any clue what it means to have one are either jealous or ignorant. A research based doctorate (PhD) versus an applied doctorate (DSc) will give you a broader understanding of what research is and how it is done. I was just speaking at a major national lab to a bunch of masters degree students about why they should get a PhD. I told them "don't do it." Unless, you love research, are willing to commit 5 to 7 years towards the goal, have your employers buy off, family buy in, and time management skills to die for. Nobody listens but the PhD is really about what you put into the effort. That will be obvious when you finish the longest test of your life. The dissertation. In the end that will determine whether it was worth it.
Not sure about that. DOD Instruction 8500.2 (2003) says 8, but the construction requirements are exactly the same as we did it. There are differences based on the information found on the system. The Windows Server 2000/3 wouldn't even allow more than 14 characters if I remember right.
My students using 300 nodes of a computing cluster were able to crack 57K DOD spec passwords (7 characters, upper, lower, symbol, number) in a few hours (Windows 2003 enterprise server). The goal was to crack 450K passwords in 24 hours but we had to call off the last run due to finals. Nothing about this project was hard. Using F/OSS and a lot of computing cycles cracking them was a piece of cake. Simple two-factor authentication is horrible. Especially when you give up the userid as an email address, or use a standardized naming scheme. Yes this would have required basically physical access to the server. Still as a test with enough horsepower and some tuning you can break even tough passwords quickly. We were basically trying to up the ante on a previous example where a person did 400K passwords in a few months using commodity hardware.
There are a variety of good posts here (among the chaff). The post by @bigjeff5 and the anonymous coward post amendment. For standards and an understanding of the risk metrics Sandia labs has a great set of documents for SCADA security http://www.sandia.gov/ccss/ , never mind all the FUD. You'll have to decide on whether you want a best in class, good enough, or what you can afford and wherever the three vectors meet at a solution. Technically there is no reason for SCADA to be a risk. Experience though tells us there are plenty of reasons to push the SCADA operational component into the risk category. Not being able to afford to keep the utility operational engineers employed because the technical SCADA solution cost three times your budget is the risk I usually see. What you'll need is an experienced person to act as a trusted third party and there are a lot of them out there in the real world. Be wary of people who talk about security, technical issues, operating systems, and other elements in black and white terms. They rarely have the real world experience to understand real world issues in implementation. Since you appear to be talking about water and in the United States (pardon if not) you are likely highly regulated. You will also need to balance the new requirements and regulations for implementing SCADA devices too.
In the 1970s a court case in California during an evidence hearing had an interesting discussion. The evidence of an intellectual property case was bounced as the evidence was all digital in nature. How can you have a theft when you still possess the original? Several avenues were considered and the result were the first computer laws detailing crimes that happened on computers versus normal property thefts. Much abridged version, but this is basically a United States issue that isn't necessarily found in other countries as their property rights are considered differently. Though, the United States has managed to export many of the concerns along with the Internet. Much of this is detailed by Thomas Whiteside in a book called "Computer Capers" circa 1978,
As a technology professor I'm going to say it. Tech in the classroom can be as debilitating as boring lectures. PowerPoint can be a crutch. Poor teaching can't be fixed by cool tech. I've got a million dollar lab full of tech, but if I put my students to sleep who cares?
I use AdobeConnect, instant messenger, a blog, CITRIX, a variety of open source tools, and a bunch more but I am a technology professor. I don't use powerpoints with bullets (presentation zen?) and I hate snore fest lectures more than my students.
Telling professors to use tech is like telling a mechanic to use a crescent wrench. What is the context of the learning environment and what are the learning outcomes? I tailor my educational strategy to the educational outcomes. Critical thinking skills, don't need flashy graphics if linear processes are the desired result.
Heck. I'd be happy if my students simply read the text book, and additional reading. When I assign a reading on the web half the time I get complaints that I didn't print it and pass it out in class. Some of my students say 100 pages of reading a week is to much homework. These are the same students bragging before class that they spend 50-60 hours a week play the latest MMORPG.
I think it is funny that people say "you don't have those rights at border crossings", and yet that isn't even the government contention. The government believes that laptops and other electronic devices are open containers that can be examined at will after they've been seen.
In other words if this stands as a principle and you're walking down the street and they can see your iPod they (meaning police) can seize and examine the iPod. This is a principle of incremental legislation and enforcement. Case studies of similar expansions are found in seat belt laws, and punishment for driving under the influence.
As to people saying you don't have the rights accorded to the Constitution when crossing borders they are completely wrong. Administrations have held that point of view. They have also held that your rights (and responsibilities) apply wherever you are found. So, you have those rights, but can be charged for crimes from the United States even when where you are the incident is not illegal (e.g. child porn, gambling, etc..).
My under-grads are involved heavily in my research. That doesn't mean they get to run off and do whatever they want. I bought the toys and toiled a long time to build a substantial lab. I'm not selfish but my research comes first. Once they prove they have a clue by succeeding at different objectives they are encouraged to set up projects and work on them. We do a lot of cyber-warfare, network centric warfare experiments so some of the tools we play with could cause havoc. A big part of working in any lab is learning what research really is, and what is going to be expected within the discipline. Like reporting out research activities to journals and such. The way the original question is posed is as if the new under graduate student already knows all there is to know and want to do their research. Doing a comprehensive literature review, creating or choosing a methodology that is appropriate, and then finally gathering data is an art. It takes time to learn.
Hmmm. And it looks like I cut off the rest of my own comment......
For posterity.....
What you won't see in most CS programs is project management. The programs will rely on giving substantial knowledge that is general in nature. The Software Engineering discipline will likely provide substantially more information on managing a project through the entire Software Development Life Cycle. Some schools have multiple classes working together on different aspects to try and create a realistic environment.
Much has been said in literature by differing university systems, but the cap stone course still has not been tied into most curricula's substantially. Within my program all under-graduates will have a capstone course in their area of specialization and also with the entire discipline.
As a professor I see much of this has been solved as far as curriculum for Computer Science is concerned. CC2001 & CC2005 here (pdf) layout substantial information on what is required for the CS coursework. There is also the secondary volume for software engineering that lays out the requirements for that field and accreditation. These documents are about the requirements for the core to achieve ABET accreditation of the programs. Each school will implement as they see fit the standards.
To answer your questions about languages my opinion is as follows.
A student needs at least 4 semesters with C++. C++ is the mother language and if you learn it you can program in about any other language for the rest of your life.
A student needs at least two semesters in software architecture and requirements gathering.
A student needs at least 2 semesters of data structures.
A student needs at least 2 semesters of networking.
A student needs at least 2 semesters of operating systems.
A student needs at least 2 semesters in secure software coding (and integral with every other class)
A student needs at least 1 semester in structured scripting like bash, ksh, csh.
A student needs at least 1 semester of compiler theory.
A student needs at least 1 semester of language structure, grammars, syntax, etc...
A student needs at least math theory through discrete mathematics, and better yet through calculus.
These of course are just simple undergraduate courses and there is so much more that can be done beyond this.
As to comments on social software and the relationship to Wikipedia:
It is interesting to have watched as RFC debates discussed on NNTP that have evolved from dial in based Bulletin Board Systems, to web forums, and now to Wiki's. Though some would say social software is MySpace or Face Book I see the variety of collaborative on line communities as a continuum. Wikipedia would be one of the most useful implementations of social software, but as content is driven by its community and vetted by its community, it therefore is social software (in my opinion).
As to another criticism that somehow forcing students to read expert peer reviewed journals is somehow wrong or "old school":
Science is a continuing process building upon the successes and failures of those who have gone before. Whether the student uses IEEE Xplore, ACM Portal, or school provided journal/library access the web is an excellent tool to access information. Then again there is nothing wrong with digging deep into the stacks to find the 30 year old compiler theory book, or the older original articles that have never been digitized. Citing somebody who is citing someone else is poor scholarship. Knowing why ideas or concepts have changed can give some clue as to how to change them again. Finding the original articles sometimes requires actually visiting a library.
There is however a substantial difference between the Communications of the ACM, IEEE Spectrum, and ZDNet or CNet. I tell my students that Wikipedia and Google Scholar are great places to start research not complete it. The idea that we don't teach students to understand researcher's bias and use their own critical thinking skills is a bit immature. Further the challenge often for the student is to find inaccuracies or knowledge gaps in the literature and correct them or fill them. With much common website content that would be too easy to be a worthy goal. Science is an incremental process with few of what Thomas Kuhn would call paradigm shifts or scientific revolutions. Having a good literature review is often a large part of the science.
I would rather research be a story on Slashdot not gathered from there.
As a professor the primary problems I see with Wikipedia:
1) The content is in flux and what a student sees today may not be the same tomorrow.
2) Wikipedia makes a good resource to find other resources.
3) I don't allow any web based content to be a primary resource (stand alone), nor am I interested in seeing papers based on encyclopedias (only) either.
4) My limited forays into Wikipedia left a poor taste I'm not interested in dealing with the general social software scene nor turning over peer reviewed research to have it edited by who knows who.
Nuclear power isn't necessarily scarier than coal or oil fired furnaces doing the same thing. The critical issues of radioactivity have largely been fixed. Pebble Bed Reactors and other self monitoring technologies also don't produce waste product like other types of reactor.
This problem has been solved in several domains (Caddilac, Aircraft, Raytheon, etc...). It appears what they are looking for is technology transference and solution engineering. You want a HUD in a car it exists already.
As a professor I've found my students in information technology are superior writers. Engineering and Technology does not mean poor writing. Most of my students write to academic journal publication level standards at the undergraduate level. I'd say the main reason for their success is expectation. It is pretty obvious that the English department is not prepared for a bunch of technical writers to show up demanding help with copy editing.
If argument and discussion have not enlightened our politicians to the extortion and exorbitant attacks by RIAA/MPAA on consumer what will it take? When will those charged with engaging in the interest of the people actually become engaged? The last time somebody created a base of law to protect their industry and exploit the consumer they dumped in the Harbor in Boston.
Unfortunately the technophiles, the technologists and the consumer base that supports the behavior that RIAA/MPAA is objecting too is the same disinterested political groups that never get involved in electoral politics. The same group that talks about enlightened borderless societies of the Internet are not enlightened enough to act on the most obvious of political issues impacting their lives.
RIAA/MPAA has to be stopped sooner or later. Constraint of use, the simple principles of ownership, and the intellectual merits of copyright protection are appropriate debatable issues. The issue is racketeering and violation of consumer rights supported or not by the law base is anathema to the continuation of the contract between producer and consumer. If I can't use the property I purchase then in what way is the sale valid?
Illegal pirating of music is an issue that has to be dealt with, but if the industries will not adapt to the realities of the world society will move on without them. In fighting the advancement of digital music and constraining the practices of consumers MPAA/RIAA is taking the role of the caveman fighting the advances of the wheel. The artists are not happy, the consumers are not happy, the market model is flawed, and at what time has a capitalist society ever allowed a broken production consumer model to continue?
RIAA/MPAA has to be stopped. The consumers who know about the topic must become engaged to overcome the strategic political position of the entrenched bureaucracies of luditism within the industry.
I think you have very valid points.
There are two user groups that produce a lot of help desk calls. The general labor force with zero expected computer skills. The Suzy Secretary, and Joe the Janitor user are going to likely be trained only on specific applications. My gut feeling is that their adoption of an OS will be met with some trepidation, but management and expansion (installing programs) will likely not occur.
The second group is more difficult and maybe a case for not adopting Linux as a desktop operating system can be made. Sal the Sales guy who drives a third of the enterprises revenue is not going to like being put in a pigeon hole with everybody else. He already is a nightmare to IT, but not many in the enterprise are going to attempt to corral him. He's the guy who installed Tax Cut, Money, and a dozen other programs on his company laptop with all of the SpyWare known to helpdesk denizens. Pushing him off Windows isn't going to happen unless you can make a case to him.
In trying to figure out the TCO all of these user issues are so often over looked. TCO at the license, hardware, IT training, and server level are great, but the business impacts at the higher strata of users are ignored (ignore Sal the Sales guy at your peril). It's pretty obvious that most of the previous TCO studies are biased. I've suggested and seen a few examples of how a company can do its own TCO, or better yet create a TCO framework. That might allow the company to look at adoption costs, first year, second year, etc.. maintaining costs over time.
I have a gut feeling that long term adoption strategy is where Linux would shine in that path. That is where cultural and community changes of users start to create the self fulfilling adoption practices too.
I do this with my students.
We install a variety of operating systems. Since I have technology students I push them outside of their Linux zone into the world of helping others. It's really easy to say everybody needs Linux when you know the OS. It's harder to be a advocate for the users needs over your own.
In their sophmore operating systems classes I have them pick a victim, err. friend who is non-technical (even gramps, or grandma). They then have to watch and write down all of the issues of installing Linux without "helping". The person installing can use any resource they know or can find. We do the same with Windows, etc.... You can likely guess which is easier to install, and then install a new application on also.
Interesting things happen though. As the non-technical users explore Linux all of those things the development community decry (bouncing cow screensavers, games, etc..) are what draw the non-technical Linux user back to the OS. Not all like it, but a few do.
Then we start the holy discussion of Linux on the desktop or Linux in the server room only.
What I would really like to know is why Linux or Windows? Why hasn't there been a really good study that included BSD, Solaris, OSX, or even licensed variants of Unix? Is it all about Linux or is it about better operating systems?
1. The DMCA is overturned entirely when all the chief justices get threatening letters from RIAA for watching jib/jab videos.
2. The Patriot Act is declared dead in the water when it is found that undeclared wiretaps were actually against the FISA judges.
3. Video on demand systems requiring no physical media and available on multiple formats cause independent media moguls to become instant zillion-aires and they buy up studios by the dozens converting them to creative commons.
4. The really cool ultra slim portable gadgets found in Japan and Europe are actually released to North America versus gray market.
5. The hottest TV show involves high geek factor when a three guys, and a kid are marooned on a haunted island being bombed by the Pentagon, while a forgotten civilization forges forward trying to find a lost city in another galaxy with wierd looking zombie dudes who eat flesh play pool on the island with the guys and kid.
6. Video game ESPN sports takes on a new twist when they electrify the chairs with 100,000 volts.
7. Windows XP SP4 is released when nobody upgrades to the "late" Vista when no OEM produces a machine with a terabyte of disk space, and a 20Ghz processor required to do anything but load the OS. Bill Gates bursts into flames when demo-ing Vista from a microwave leaking processor.
8. Open Source Advocates actuall publish an agreed upon coding standard for all languages and it is ignored by all.
9. NASA launches a man to the moon sans rocket as it is determined that no rocket is safe therefore they get rid of the rocket and use a giant sling shot.
10. The Cubs win the world series.
I think you need to change the idea from information systems (IS), to information technology (IT).
The only way that you will be able to make the case is to change the perception of an IS department from cost center to profit center. You have to show how you can make them, save them, or create money. Slashdot style it is money, money, money. You will have to educate them over a period of time, define some specific metrics to show success, change the evaluation methods, and adapt to the environment realizing that it isn't about "you".
Good luck I've been there numerous times in the last 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
I was 28 years old when I entered university. With a background in law enforcement and military the idea of being some prep-school university type was not something I wanted to do. In my late 30s I received my Masters degree in computer science and saw a significant increase in perception of how my income was made. After the dot.bomb I was doing pretty good but shrinking staffs, horrible hours, executives who ran IT shops like they were slave pens, had me burning out pretty quick. I'd stepped out of doing the stuff I thought was fun and started getting paid to do stuff nobody thought was fun. I took a mid-university professor job, but they wanted me to get a PhD. A masters degree is sort of like being a journeyman. You've mastered the discipline. A PhD is about defining the future of the discipline. There are a lot of junk PhDs out there. I've read their dissertations. There are a lot of good people with bad degrees and bad people with good degrees. Look at the trends to define rather than specific anecdotal evidence like my case. Don't mix up the history PhDs with the Computer Science or Technology degrees. What I would say was that I took nearly a 66% cut in pay to become a professor and full time researcher. I got the opportunity to do what I want, when I want, and how I want. After I got my PhD I ended up in one of the top engineering schools in the world, have done tours at major science institutions and government agencies, and turn down opportunities to work with others. So, yes a mid life PhD can be a great thing for your career. You will find that people who don't have a PhD don't have any clue what it means to have one are either jealous or ignorant. A research based doctorate (PhD) versus an applied doctorate (DSc) will give you a broader understanding of what research is and how it is done. I was just speaking at a major national lab to a bunch of masters degree students about why they should get a PhD. I told them "don't do it." Unless, you love research, are willing to commit 5 to 7 years towards the goal, have your employers buy off, family buy in, and time management skills to die for. Nobody listens but the PhD is really about what you put into the effort. That will be obvious when you finish the longest test of your life. The dissertation. In the end that will determine whether it was worth it.
Exactly. Clinton never said they hacked anything. One news agency ran with the hacking story, and over 12 hours ago they already were reporting that it was "buying advertisements". Not that reality, facts, or truth should ever be used in these situations. Even the Washington Post has changed their story http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-hacks-web-sites-of-al-qaeda-affiliate-in-yemen/2012/05/23/gJQAGnOxlU_story.html but don't let that stop anybody.
Not sure about that. DOD Instruction 8500.2 (2003) says 8, but the construction requirements are exactly the same as we did it. There are differences based on the information found on the system. The Windows Server 2000/3 wouldn't even allow more than 14 characters if I remember right.
My students using 300 nodes of a computing cluster were able to crack 57K DOD spec passwords (7 characters, upper, lower, symbol, number) in a few hours (Windows 2003 enterprise server). The goal was to crack 450K passwords in 24 hours but we had to call off the last run due to finals. Nothing about this project was hard. Using F/OSS and a lot of computing cycles cracking them was a piece of cake. Simple two-factor authentication is horrible. Especially when you give up the userid as an email address, or use a standardized naming scheme. Yes this would have required basically physical access to the server. Still as a test with enough horsepower and some tuning you can break even tough passwords quickly. We were basically trying to up the ante on a previous example where a person did 400K passwords in a few months using commodity hardware.
There are a variety of good posts here (among the chaff). The post by @bigjeff5 and the anonymous coward post amendment. For standards and an understanding of the risk metrics Sandia labs has a great set of documents for SCADA security http://www.sandia.gov/ccss/ , never mind all the FUD. You'll have to decide on whether you want a best in class, good enough, or what you can afford and wherever the three vectors meet at a solution. Technically there is no reason for SCADA to be a risk. Experience though tells us there are plenty of reasons to push the SCADA operational component into the risk category. Not being able to afford to keep the utility operational engineers employed because the technical SCADA solution cost three times your budget is the risk I usually see. What you'll need is an experienced person to act as a trusted third party and there are a lot of them out there in the real world. Be wary of people who talk about security, technical issues, operating systems, and other elements in black and white terms. They rarely have the real world experience to understand real world issues in implementation. Since you appear to be talking about water and in the United States (pardon if not) you are likely highly regulated. You will also need to balance the new requirements and regulations for implementing SCADA devices too.
In the 1970s a court case in California during an evidence hearing had an interesting discussion. The evidence of an intellectual property case was bounced as the evidence was all digital in nature. How can you have a theft when you still possess the original? Several avenues were considered and the result were the first computer laws detailing crimes that happened on computers versus normal property thefts. Much abridged version, but this is basically a United States issue that isn't necessarily found in other countries as their property rights are considered differently. Though, the United States has managed to export many of the concerns along with the Internet. Much of this is detailed by Thomas Whiteside in a book called "Computer Capers" circa 1978,
I use AdobeConnect, instant messenger, a blog, CITRIX, a variety of open source tools, and a bunch more but I am a technology professor. I don't use powerpoints with bullets (presentation zen?) and I hate snore fest lectures more than my students.
Telling professors to use tech is like telling a mechanic to use a crescent wrench. What is the context of the learning environment and what are the learning outcomes? I tailor my educational strategy to the educational outcomes. Critical thinking skills, don't need flashy graphics if linear processes are the desired result.
Heck. I'd be happy if my students simply read the text book, and additional reading. When I assign a reading on the web half the time I get complaints that I didn't print it and pass it out in class. Some of my students say 100 pages of reading a week is to much homework. These are the same students bragging before class that they spend 50-60 hours a week play the latest MMORPG.
I think it is funny that people say "you don't have those rights at border crossings", and yet that isn't even the government contention. The government believes that laptops and other electronic devices are open containers that can be examined at will after they've been seen. In other words if this stands as a principle and you're walking down the street and they can see your iPod they (meaning police) can seize and examine the iPod. This is a principle of incremental legislation and enforcement. Case studies of similar expansions are found in seat belt laws, and punishment for driving under the influence. As to people saying you don't have the rights accorded to the Constitution when crossing borders they are completely wrong. Administrations have held that point of view. They have also held that your rights (and responsibilities) apply wherever you are found. So, you have those rights, but can be charged for crimes from the United States even when where you are the incident is not illegal (e.g. child porn, gambling, etc..).
My under-grads are involved heavily in my research. That doesn't mean they get to run off and do whatever they want. I bought the toys and toiled a long time to build a substantial lab. I'm not selfish but my research comes first. Once they prove they have a clue by succeeding at different objectives they are encouraged to set up projects and work on them. We do a lot of cyber-warfare, network centric warfare experiments so some of the tools we play with could cause havoc. A big part of working in any lab is learning what research really is, and what is going to be expected within the discipline. Like reporting out research activities to journals and such. The way the original question is posed is as if the new under graduate student already knows all there is to know and want to do their research. Doing a comprehensive literature review, creating or choosing a methodology that is appropriate, and then finally gathering data is an art. It takes time to learn.
Companies do not have constitutional rights. Companies are regulated. People have rights. As in "We the People".
For posterity.....
What you won't see in most CS programs is project management. The programs will rely on giving substantial knowledge that is general in nature. The Software Engineering discipline will likely provide substantially more information on managing a project through the entire Software Development Life Cycle. Some schools have multiple classes working together on different aspects to try and create a realistic environment.
Much has been said in literature by differing university systems, but the cap stone course still has not been tied into most curricula's substantially. Within my program all under-graduates will have a capstone course in their area of specialization and also with the entire discipline.
To answer your questions about languages my opinion is as follows.
A student needs at least 4 semesters with C++. C++ is the mother language and if you learn it you can program in about any other language for the rest of your life.
A student needs at least two semesters in software architecture and requirements gathering.
A student needs at least 2 semesters of data structures.
A student needs at least 2 semesters of networking.
A student needs at least 2 semesters of operating systems.
A student needs at least 2 semesters in secure software coding (and integral with every other class)
A student needs at least 1 semester in structured scripting like bash, ksh, csh.
A student needs at least 1 semester of compiler theory.
A student needs at least 1 semester of language structure, grammars, syntax, etc...
A student needs at least math theory through discrete mathematics, and better yet through calculus.
These of course are just simple undergraduate courses and there is so much more that can be done beyond this.
As to comments on social software and the relationship to Wikipedia:
It is interesting to have watched as RFC debates discussed on NNTP that have evolved from dial in based Bulletin Board Systems, to web forums, and now to Wiki's. Though some would say social software is MySpace or Face Book I see the variety of collaborative on line communities as a continuum. Wikipedia would be one of the most useful implementations of social software, but as content is driven by its community and vetted by its community, it therefore is social software (in my opinion).
As to another criticism that somehow forcing students to read expert peer reviewed journals is somehow wrong or "old school":
Science is a continuing process building upon the successes and failures of those who have gone before. Whether the student uses IEEE Xplore, ACM Portal, or school provided journal/library access the web is an excellent tool to access information. Then again there is nothing wrong with digging deep into the stacks to find the 30 year old compiler theory book, or the older original articles that have never been digitized. Citing somebody who is citing someone else is poor scholarship. Knowing why ideas or concepts have changed can give some clue as to how to change them again. Finding the original articles sometimes requires actually visiting a library.
There is however a substantial difference between the Communications of the ACM, IEEE Spectrum, and ZDNet or CNet. I tell my students that Wikipedia and Google Scholar are great places to start research not complete it. The idea that we don't teach students to understand researcher's bias and use their own critical thinking skills is a bit immature. Further the challenge often for the student is to find inaccuracies or knowledge gaps in the literature and correct them or fill them. With much common website content that would be too easy to be a worthy goal. Science is an incremental process with few of what Thomas Kuhn would call paradigm shifts or scientific revolutions. Having a good literature review is often a large part of the science.
I would rather research be a story on Slashdot not gathered from there.
As a professor the primary problems I see with Wikipedia:
1) The content is in flux and what a student sees today may not be the same tomorrow.
2) Wikipedia makes a good resource to find other resources.
3) I don't allow any web based content to be a primary resource (stand alone), nor am I interested in seeing papers based on encyclopedias (only) either.
4) My limited forays into Wikipedia left a poor taste I'm not interested in dealing with the general social software scene nor turning over peer reviewed research to have it edited by who knows who.
Nuclear power isn't necessarily scarier than coal or oil fired furnaces doing the same thing. The critical issues of radioactivity have largely been fixed. Pebble Bed Reactors and other self monitoring technologies also don't produce waste product like other types of reactor.
This problem has been solved in several domains (Caddilac, Aircraft, Raytheon, etc...). It appears what they are looking for is technology transference and solution engineering. You want a HUD in a car it exists already.
As a professor I've found my students in information technology are superior writers. Engineering and Technology does not mean poor writing. Most of my students write to academic journal publication level standards at the undergraduate level. I'd say the main reason for their success is expectation. It is pretty obvious that the English department is not prepared for a bunch of technical writers to show up demanding help with copy editing.
If argument and discussion have not enlightened our politicians to the extortion and exorbitant attacks by RIAA/MPAA on consumer what will it take? When will those charged with engaging in the interest of the people actually become engaged? The last time somebody created a base of law to protect their industry and exploit the consumer they dumped in the Harbor in Boston.
Unfortunately the technophiles, the technologists and the consumer base that supports the behavior that RIAA/MPAA is objecting too is the same disinterested political groups that never get involved in electoral politics. The same group that talks about enlightened borderless societies of the Internet are not enlightened enough to act on the most obvious of political issues impacting their lives.
RIAA/MPAA has to be stopped sooner or later. Constraint of use, the simple principles of ownership, and the intellectual merits of copyright protection are appropriate debatable issues. The issue is racketeering and violation of consumer rights supported or not by the law base is anathema to the continuation of the contract between producer and consumer. If I can't use the property I purchase then in what way is the sale valid?
Illegal pirating of music is an issue that has to be dealt with, but if the industries will not adapt to the realities of the world society will move on without them. In fighting the advancement of digital music and constraining the practices of consumers MPAA/RIAA is taking the role of the caveman fighting the advances of the wheel. The artists are not happy, the consumers are not happy, the market model is flawed, and at what time has a capitalist society ever allowed a broken production consumer model to continue?
RIAA/MPAA has to be stopped. The consumers who know about the topic must become engaged to overcome the strategic political position of the entrenched bureaucracies of luditism within the industry.
Those who say there is no more innovation have no imagination.
I think you have very valid points. There are two user groups that produce a lot of help desk calls. The general labor force with zero expected computer skills. The Suzy Secretary, and Joe the Janitor user are going to likely be trained only on specific applications. My gut feeling is that their adoption of an OS will be met with some trepidation, but management and expansion (installing programs) will likely not occur. The second group is more difficult and maybe a case for not adopting Linux as a desktop operating system can be made. Sal the Sales guy who drives a third of the enterprises revenue is not going to like being put in a pigeon hole with everybody else. He already is a nightmare to IT, but not many in the enterprise are going to attempt to corral him. He's the guy who installed Tax Cut, Money, and a dozen other programs on his company laptop with all of the SpyWare known to helpdesk denizens. Pushing him off Windows isn't going to happen unless you can make a case to him. In trying to figure out the TCO all of these user issues are so often over looked. TCO at the license, hardware, IT training, and server level are great, but the business impacts at the higher strata of users are ignored (ignore Sal the Sales guy at your peril). It's pretty obvious that most of the previous TCO studies are biased. I've suggested and seen a few examples of how a company can do its own TCO, or better yet create a TCO framework. That might allow the company to look at adoption costs, first year, second year, etc.. maintaining costs over time. I have a gut feeling that long term adoption strategy is where Linux would shine in that path. That is where cultural and community changes of users start to create the self fulfilling adoption practices too.
I do this with my students. We install a variety of operating systems. Since I have technology students I push them outside of their Linux zone into the world of helping others. It's really easy to say everybody needs Linux when you know the OS. It's harder to be a advocate for the users needs over your own. In their sophmore operating systems classes I have them pick a victim, err. friend who is non-technical (even gramps, or grandma). They then have to watch and write down all of the issues of installing Linux without "helping". The person installing can use any resource they know or can find. We do the same with Windows, etc.... You can likely guess which is easier to install, and then install a new application on also. Interesting things happen though. As the non-technical users explore Linux all of those things the development community decry (bouncing cow screensavers, games, etc..) are what draw the non-technical Linux user back to the OS. Not all like it, but a few do. Then we start the holy discussion of Linux on the desktop or Linux in the server room only.
What I would really like to know is why Linux or Windows? Why hasn't there been a really good study that included BSD, Solaris, OSX, or even licensed variants of Unix? Is it all about Linux or is it about better operating systems?
1. The DMCA is overturned entirely when all the chief justices get threatening letters from RIAA for watching jib/jab videos. 2. The Patriot Act is declared dead in the water when it is found that undeclared wiretaps were actually against the FISA judges. 3. Video on demand systems requiring no physical media and available on multiple formats cause independent media moguls to become instant zillion-aires and they buy up studios by the dozens converting them to creative commons. 4. The really cool ultra slim portable gadgets found in Japan and Europe are actually released to North America versus gray market. 5. The hottest TV show involves high geek factor when a three guys, and a kid are marooned on a haunted island being bombed by the Pentagon, while a forgotten civilization forges forward trying to find a lost city in another galaxy with wierd looking zombie dudes who eat flesh play pool on the island with the guys and kid. 6. Video game ESPN sports takes on a new twist when they electrify the chairs with 100,000 volts. 7. Windows XP SP4 is released when nobody upgrades to the "late" Vista when no OEM produces a machine with a terabyte of disk space, and a 20Ghz processor required to do anything but load the OS. Bill Gates bursts into flames when demo-ing Vista from a microwave leaking processor. 8. Open Source Advocates actuall publish an agreed upon coding standard for all languages and it is ignored by all. 9. NASA launches a man to the moon sans rocket as it is determined that no rocket is safe therefore they get rid of the rocket and use a giant sling shot. 10. The Cubs win the world series.
I think you need to change the idea from information systems (IS), to information technology (IT). The only way that you will be able to make the case is to change the perception of an IS department from cost center to profit center. You have to show how you can make them, save them, or create money. Slashdot style it is money, money, money. You will have to educate them over a period of time, define some specific metrics to show success, change the evaluation methods, and adapt to the environment realizing that it isn't about "you". Good luck I've been there numerous times in the last 20 years.
Lot's of Knuth, and Code Complete. And, about 600 other books.