I still have an XP installation running in a vbox,
My XP laptops (two of them) get used every day and do their job perfectly but they don't have enough disk space for Windows 7/8. Should they become landfill? I don't have an extra $1200 lying around for a couple of new laptops (and even if I did, they don't make them as small as my EeePC 900 any more - it's the size that makes that one useful).
Have you tried running MINT on it? There are other OSes out there that'll run on your laptops that still get security patches, new features, and don't contain so much bloat. Even has WINE and VirtualBox for when you need to run Windows software:)
Everyone knows that they're both the most unsafe seats, and the worst overall, being so near the toilets... right?
And it really sucks to have so much available overhead space for carry-ons...
Good point; you might not get to have someone else's bowling balls in the compartment above your head, but have to stow your own stuff above your seat.
Another possible attack vector for terrorists. Unwittingly this guy is now going to make it a living nightmare for people flying around Europe for exposing this security flaw. Prepare for the requisite knee-jerk response from the EU and the US.
What, for EXPOSING this flaw to the general public, instead of keeping it a secret that only miscreants, terrorists, and airline authorities know about?
You're right. It pulls up the curtain before the security theatre is ready.
You might get lucky and get an empty seat. Hint - pick a center seat in the last few rows, these seats suck. However, if you fly into the US or many other countries, they will have received a passenger manifest electronically from the airline. You'll have fun when you get to customs and there's no record of you...
Why would there be no record of you? The airline has you recorded as checking in to that flight. The only part that's being skipped here is the billing part. Once you check in, you're in the airline's system. Of course, you might be checked in using someone else's check-in code, which could be a bit dicey come customs.
I think this depends on the reason for the HOV lane -- in some places, it is to reduce traffic congestion, not GHG emissions. This is especially the case in places were buses and taxis share the HOV lane.
It means what it says. They put down their tools. In other words, they stopped working.
It doesn't say they put down their tools... in most of the world, "downing" means to ingest. Of course, in the UK, there's Downing street, so I can see "downing their tools" having at least one other interpretation....
Until transactions are performed through a bank run broker such that the retailer NEVER GETS THEIR PAWS ON ACCOUNT CREDENTIALS, it's all a waste of time. I blame the banks; Target episodes are inevitable as long as the banks fail to provide an alternative to having retailers schlep around account credentials.
Interestingly, the US is the only place in the world not to implement Chip and PIN, which basically keeps retailers from getting their paws on account credentials. There's a move to chip, but PIN is being avoided, which means that it STILL won't be secure.
So any way you look at it, the current system is bad. I'm starting to think that it has got to the point where it is almost totally detrimental.
No, any way that YOU look at it the system is bad. For those of us who invent things that we actually own the rights to and who intend to defend those rights there are always ways to make it happen. If you can't find an attorney to litigate your patent, then you either did a bad job patenting it, you patented something worthless, or you haven't exhausted your options.
OK, you're right; there are numerous ways to look at the current system and argue it is good. Very few of those ways create a system that is good for the public at large though. I invent things I actually own the rights to, but have not bothered patenting any of them. Why? They're in software, and I think software patents are patently silly. I make money by providing service, which involves creating things. Why spend time and money on litigation when I could spend it creating? All my patents are physical.
And yes, I'm a creator in many fields, and even have my name on a patent or two.
I'm thinking you don't actually own the rights (ie your name is on the patent, but you employer owns the rights) or one of the other three apply.
It doesn't mean the system's broken.
You're correct an all counts. The fact that I don't own all the rights doesn't mean the system's broken, and the fact that you do also doesn't imply it isn't broken.
Your argument is kind of like saying "Look! There's a small group of us that benefit from this specific law! Therefore, the law's not broken!" But the truth is that even broken things work for some people.
Look at it the other way around: in most of the world, there is no software patent law. There are plenty of people making a living creating software -- just look at things like AES: it's european, and wasn't covered by patent law. The inventors did just fine for themselves, as they were paid to invent it, not to prevent others from using it. On the other side you've got Fraunhoffer and MP3 -- they've done everything they could to protect their rights on that one, and the result has been that they spent a lot of money, while others went and implemented alternative formats, or just blatantly ignored their patents. An even bigger case of this is JPEG2000, where the existing patents on wavicle transforms actually held up progress in this area until the patent expired, because everyone just used alternative means to accomplish the same task, rather than go through the hassle of licensing the patent.
Most developers these days are told NOT to look at patents, so that legal ignorance can be claimed if someone litigates. The reason for this in that in software, TIMTOWTDI. So you take the risk, and then re-write so as not to infringe if you do. This doesn't sound all that beneficial for the patent holder.
Sure, some patent holders get lucky, and get rights to their invention sold off for a pretty penny, or in a very small number of cases, actually get to hold on to their patent while licensing the technology -- to me, this is similar to the situation in music, where you have a few rock stars that claim the music publishing system isn't broken, while everyone else attempts to route around it while pursuing the dream.
I've waffled between being against them or pushing for reform; currently, I'm against them. Here's why: 1. If you're being trolled, they're bad. 2. If you're a troll, you're not creating anything other than lawsuits. 3. If you created something and are small business (don't retain an in-house lawyer or thirty), you can't afford to defend your patent anyway -- its only value is to be part of a portfolio to boost your value if you sell out to someone with lots of money (here, your invention isn't what's valued, but your patent and its war chest strength). 4. If you created something and are a big business, you have the choice of being mired in the current patent sinkhole, or competing purely on how mobile your company is -- innovation and all that, which is what patents were supposed to supprot.
So any way you look at it, the current system is bad. I'm starting to think that it has got to the point where it is almost totally detrimental.
Note that I'm talking about the patent system as it pertains to software patents, not physical inventions. THAT patent system just needs reform.
And yes, I'm a creator in many fields, and even have my name on a patent or two.
True; MSRP/listing price shennanigans on cars are an anachronism that needs to die. I don't know that I'd say the same for the overall price though; that's standard commission sales, and is rampant in pretty much every industry -- even with computers (think government contracts).
That said, I deal with a dealership that actually got my money based on quality of service and reputation. The added value there is that the sales person actually did homework to figure out which car would be right for my driving habits and future goals... on his own time. Told me to shop around while I waited for his quote and reasons -- so I did. Came back with his quote and said I felt it was a bit high, so he adjusted it, threw in some extras, and still beat what everyone else was offering. He ended up getting a lower commission, but this dealership gives the salespeople a percentage off of other business that derives from the cars they've sold -- so they keep good salespeople, and have a vested interest in providing quality service.
When I was considering a few accessories, they recommended a number of local shops that could provide the parts cheaper than they could. Because they want their customers coming back, and buying MORE stuff there, and telling their friends too.
Now I know that this isn't the "classic" dealership experience, but I'm hoping that with the growth of online reference info and review sites, it will become more common.
So I guess what I'm saying is that car dealerships don't have to be an anachronism unless they want to be. If they're run as a collection of federated services (sales, warranty, insurance, maintenance, repair, detailing, etc) but with the salesperson as the key point of contact, it breaks the old dealer model, but results in happier car owners and employees.
Every year, landmines kill 15,000 to 20,000 people — most of them children, women and the elderly — and severely maim countless more. Scattered in some 78 countries, they are an ongoing reminder of conflicts which have been over for years or even decades. Yet despite this random carnage, they continue to used as weapons of war.
Once again, this isn't hyperbole -- it's just how things are. I guess if you've never lived near an area that at some point had landmines deployed, with no record available of exactly what the coverage area was, nor of how many may still be left, you might not find this an issue. I've spent time near some WWII testing areas where this is the case -- thankfully, the result was that the entire suspected area has been fenced off ever since, and it's been scanned multiple times to ensure there are none left, but what a waste of land and energy.
Mines are a tool. Improper use of tools is human problem, not the tool's problem. Mines have kept our people safe while at the same time cause all sorts of problem for others. I get the point, but the reality is, some tools are very dangerous in the wrong hands, are perfectly safe in the right hands. Yet you blame the tool, rather than those that wield them. I find that illogical.
I don't blame the tool; blaming a tool is indeed illogical. I hate the tool, as there is no need for it to exist. You say "Mines have kept our people safe" -- whose people would those be? Would other methods have worked as well while minimizing the innocent loss of life and limbs?
The problem with mines (which isn't quite as big a problem with registered firearms, but is still there) is that once deployed, you don't get to decide whose hands they're in. With mines it's worse than handguns, as traditionally people have not taken their mines with them when they moved on, meaning they usually spend at least part of their life in the "wrong hands".
I'd guess that people who are upset about firearms are mostly upset about the same issue -- firearms that can cause death and injury by neglect -- falling into the wrong hands. They don't hate the five-year-old who pulls the trigger; they don't hate the off-duty police officer who got distracted after a long shift and left his gun on the table while he went to the sink to get a glass of water. They likely don't even hate the company that manufactured and sold the gun. But they don't look on it as an unfortunate accident, as that gun never needed to be there in the first place.
But that's completely beside my point. My point was that you were stating as fact something that is completely subjective. Whether or not you consider those people illogical or not doesn't change the fact that they don't think like you do, so you can't speak for them -- but they're still people with opinions, and deep down, there's some reason, whether logical or emotional, that they hold those opinions. Better to figure out what that reason is and educate them than to pretend that since they don't agree with you, their reason isn't valid.
You don't hate guns. You hate the people who own guns. Hating guns is illogical as hating chairs or hats or the air you breathe. They are inanimate objects and if you "hate" them, then you're clearly unable to deal with reality.
That being said, you don't hate guns, you hate "we the people" having guns. As a liberal, forcing people to join your collective under threat of government guns is what you depend upon. Your support of Government owning guns, is very likely. You likely support army, police and other national security people owning and bearing guns, even to protect the President (Republican OR Democrat) and high ranking officials like Feinstein, Reid and so on.
I have YET to meet a "gun hating democrat" that wants to disarm EVERYONE (including the government). Therefore, you don't hate guns. You hate average people having guns. And that speaks higher volumes about your hypocrisy than anything else.
This may be true for you, but many people hate created objects. I, for one, hate land mines. I don't care who made them, or where they exist; I don't even care if they're armed or disarmed. I see no problem with someone making a land mine, but I do see a problem with that mine existing for any length of time. I find this logical; land mines not only kill people, they incite (yes, anthropomorphic, but still true) people to carelessly and indiscriminately maim and kill other people.
Likewise, I know of people who hate fully automatic weapons (doesn't matter if it's a gun or not). I know others who hate guns and want them to go away.
You seem to have a very small partisan US-centric world view. Hopefully my comment will help you to think outside the box:)
News reporting is about telling an interesting story, so the narrative is often "embellished" to make it more interesting to the readers.
Hmm, no. News reporting should always be about reporting facts. What you described is called "fiction".
Sadly, it's both, depending on who is talking. "News" no longer (did it ever?) refers to "new facts" but now refers to "new information" which has hopefully been fact-checked in the bits that can be tied down, but is anything but factual in the way it is presented.
For example: "Fires in electric vehicles triple in one year" vs "Electric vehicles: are they fire traps?" vs "Only three electric vehicles involved in fires in past year" vs "Ratio of ICE to EV fires is still proportionally 3000:1"
All of the above may be true (and all but one factual), but the implications are significantly different.
Which brings up the question is it slander/libel when the things told about you are not specifically reputation ruining, just generally wrong.
If it were, most journalists would be in a world of hurt. If the subject is not harmed and the things told about them are based on good faith and some research, and you are a journalist or person in position of power, any such suit would be rejected.
This is due to the fact that pretty much all news reporting that goes beyond reporting the bare facts (and even some of that) is generally wrong. News reporting is about telling an interesting story, so the narrative is often "embellished" to make it more interesting to the readers.
I've had a fair bit written about me in newspapers, and the only bits that have been fully correct were in tables of statistics (which never make the main spread). The other stuff? Nothing precisely wrong about most of it, but it always implied things that were definitely not the case. This is not usually due to the person doing the initial reporting -- it's due to the fact that between their investigative journalism and publication, there's a gantlet of editors, ad holes, general editors, etc. to run through that reshape the story to fit the target space. None of these added factors know anything about the original situation other than what they hear from the initial journalist or read in the copy. Every piece of "news" published has already run a game of telephone, even if the person who was #2 in the chain still has to sign off on what's published at the end.
Since you don't have any programming languages, you obviously haven't got a CompSci degree, so you're looking at "lower" IT work (services, not design). This means that you'll likely be working for lower wages, and need a lot of on-the-job training.
This idea that you need programming skills to work in IT is misguided. I know plenty of Windows server admins, Active directory admins, Storage and backup admins, network engineers and architects, and even a Linux admin that either do not know how to code or know very little.
Knowing how to program is not required for IT in the Business world unless you are a developer. Knowing your particular technology and how to configure it is.
If this guy knows his Windows Server, and Active Directory stuff, he could get a job being a server admin. Unfortunately, Windows admins are a dime a dozen and the pay is not that great.
While needing programming skills is not necessary to work in IT, having a CompSci degree is pretty much useful to work on the design side (I wouldn't hire someone for an architect position who didn't at least have a strong grasp of design fundamentals), and part of getting that degree requires work in a number of programming languages. It's not that the languages are required, it's that you're going to pick them up as part of the other stuff you're expected to learn. Even Windows DB admins need a good grounding in programming and data design and a solid grasp of SQL.
Knowing how to configure something is all well and good, but in order to progress past greasemonkey level, you're going to also have to know WHY you need to configure things in a certain way. The difference is kind of like that between someone who cooks by recipe and someone who just cooks based on the ingredients available. The first person is replaceable, and doesn't know what to do if all their ingredients aren't available. The second, if GOOD, can make something delicious out of whatever is available, and will be in high demand.
So it's not about knowing how to program, and it's not about the CompSci degree -- as I said before, it's about having the skills and connections to make the right decisions as well as perform the mundane tasks reliably.
"This idea that you need programming skills to work in IT is misguided" -- I'm not sure where you got that idea; I said that not having the CompSci training will relegate him to "lower" IT functions in IT services, such as being a Windows server admin or working at a helpdesk. All that learning to program will do is give him a few more tools to accomplish tasks, and the possibility of becoming a codemonkey. What you need to learn to go further than that is training in systems design and analysis, and a lot of real world experience (as the head knowledge doesn't translate all that well to the business "meatspace" world, where there are all sorts of external factors that can/will derail your projects).
Indeed -- the trick to going where the wind blows you is to check the forecast before you leave home, so you're actually prepared to handle where you're likely to end up:)
And yeah; I don't know what I want to do when I grow up either (and I consider IT to cover a large area -- journalism, for starters).
Somewhere in Oklahoma there is a school district that needs to review its hiring practices.
I have been having thoughts about switching careers and focusing more on technology in the private sector.
I'm wondering if those thoughts were prompted by others.
I've changed directions in the generic "IT" field a few times, and it all boiled down to "What do I actually WANT to be doing? What am I doing in my spare time in IT that is distracting me from my day job?" I then enter that field, already having experience and connections in the sub-field that I want to be working in.
So for him, I think the question is, "What am I enjoying teaching right now? What do I dig into in more detail at home after I've done my prep work? What do I spend extra time helping students with?" In those areas, start hanging out on online forums and discussing your passion areas with likeminded techies. Find out about what's happening there in the private sector.
Leverage what you know and what you like; if you don't like what you're doing (that doesn't seem to be the case), then retrain yourself. This is important: in IT, you need to be constantly learning new things; taking courses and getting credentials comes at the end, after you've got some experience under your belt -- the creds are to prove you know what you're doing, not to train you how to do it.
Since you don't have any programming languages, you obviously haven't got a CompSci degree, so you're looking at "lower" IT work (services, not design). This means that you'll likely be working for lower wages, and need a lot of on-the-job training.
So, start at helpdesk, find out what you like and don't, and work your way up inside a company once you've got the experience under your belt. As you have teacher training, working with customers and explaining things in simple terms shouldn't be difficult -- working from a script may bore you to death however.
Sigh... next time, I'll have to quote the Bhagavad Gita....
I thought the point was pretty obvious, and needed no explanation. I guess I should have known people would take umbrage at quoting a well-known document that talks about using wood to make water drinkable.
The idea was to let people make up their own minds and possibly even check context for themselves. But I guess if you think of the Bible as something that was invented in the 3rd century AD, quoting it for its similarities to the topic at hand would seem idiotic. But then... it is still talking about using wood to make water drinkable, so that means that this is either a fluke in the 3rd century, or a few centuries earlier.
Or, you could take this as a folk story passed down through the generations by the Israeli people, during which the actual interpretation of the original story, even in the original language, shifted a bit over time. Or, I guess, you could consider it a literal translation of a text that accurately recorded exactly what happened at a specific point in time. Any way you look at it though, someone thought water going through wood would make it drinkable (or that a magic log would make some water drinkable by its proximity).
Slashdot Mirror
I still have an XP installation running in a vbox,
My XP laptops (two of them) get used every day and do their job perfectly but they don't have enough disk space for Windows 7/8. Should they become landfill? I don't have an extra $1200 lying around for a couple of new laptops (and even if I did, they don't make them as small as my EeePC 900 any more - it's the size that makes that one useful).
Have you tried running MINT on it? There are other OSes out there that'll run on your laptops that still get security patches, new features, and don't contain so much bloat. Even has WINE and VirtualBox for when you need to run Windows software :)
And it really sucks to have so much available overhead space for carry-ons...
Good point; you might not get to have someone else's bowling balls in the compartment above your head, but have to stow your own stuff above your seat.
Another possible attack vector for terrorists. Unwittingly this guy is now going to make it a living nightmare for people flying around Europe for exposing this security flaw. Prepare for the requisite knee-jerk response from the EU and the US.
What, for EXPOSING this flaw to the general public, instead of keeping it a secret that only miscreants, terrorists, and airline authorities know about?
You're right. It pulls up the curtain before the security theatre is ready.
The last rows are the absolute best in the whole plane because everyone thinks they're terrible.
Shh! Everyone knows that they're both the most unsafe seats, and the worst overall, being so near the toilets... right?
You might get lucky and get an empty seat. Hint - pick a center seat in the last few rows, these seats suck. However, if you fly into the US or many other countries, they will have received a passenger manifest electronically from the airline. You'll have fun when you get to customs and there's no record of you...
Why would there be no record of you? The airline has you recorded as checking in to that flight. The only part that's being skipped here is the billing part. Once you check in, you're in the airline's system. Of course, you might be checked in using someone else's check-in code, which could be a bit dicey come customs.
What does 'RAM' stand for? What does a computer have to do with sheep?
Well, obviously sheep buy Dodge Rams instead of Ford F350s. They probably also buy these new SSD computers.
I think this depends on the reason for the HOV lane -- in some places, it is to reduce traffic congestion, not GHG emissions. This is especially the case in places were buses and taxis share the HOV lane.
That makes perfect sense... and you only need a small bit of calculus to generate the bearing load of the container from that information.
But it'd be better in metric. Or in hogsheads.
It means what it says. They put down their tools. In other words, they stopped working.
It doesn't say they put down their tools... in most of the world, "downing" means to ingest. Of course, in the UK, there's Downing street, so I can see "downing their tools" having at least one other interpretation....
Until transactions are performed through a bank run broker such that the retailer NEVER GETS THEIR PAWS ON ACCOUNT CREDENTIALS, it's all a waste of time. I blame the banks; Target episodes are inevitable as long as the banks fail to provide an alternative to having retailers schlep around account credentials.
Interestingly, the US is the only place in the world not to implement Chip and PIN, which basically keeps retailers from getting their paws on account credentials. There's a move to chip, but PIN is being avoided, which means that it STILL won't be secure.
So any way you look at it, the current system is bad. I'm starting to think that it has got to the point where it is almost totally detrimental.
No, any way that YOU look at it the system is bad. For those of us who invent things that we actually own the rights to and who intend to defend those rights there are always ways to make it happen. If you can't find an attorney to litigate your patent, then you either did a bad job patenting it, you patented something worthless, or you haven't exhausted your options.
OK, you're right; there are numerous ways to look at the current system and argue it is good. Very few of those ways create a system that is good for the public at large though. I invent things I actually own the rights to, but have not bothered patenting any of them. Why? They're in software, and I think software patents are patently silly. I make money by providing service, which involves creating things. Why spend time and money on litigation when I could spend it creating? All my patents are physical.
And yes, I'm a creator in many fields, and even have my name on a patent or two.
I'm thinking you don't actually own the rights (ie your name is on the patent, but you employer owns the rights) or one of the other three apply.
It doesn't mean the system's broken.
You're correct an all counts. The fact that I don't own all the rights doesn't mean the system's broken, and the fact that you do also doesn't imply it isn't broken.
Your argument is kind of like saying "Look! There's a small group of us that benefit from this specific law! Therefore, the law's not broken!" But the truth is that even broken things work for some people.
Look at it the other way around: in most of the world, there is no software patent law. There are plenty of people making a living creating software -- just look at things like AES: it's european, and wasn't covered by patent law. The inventors did just fine for themselves, as they were paid to invent it, not to prevent others from using it. On the other side you've got Fraunhoffer and MP3 -- they've done everything they could to protect their rights on that one, and the result has been that they spent a lot of money, while others went and implemented alternative formats, or just blatantly ignored their patents. An even bigger case of this is JPEG2000, where the existing patents on wavicle transforms actually held up progress in this area until the patent expired, because everyone just used alternative means to accomplish the same task, rather than go through the hassle of licensing the patent.
Most developers these days are told NOT to look at patents, so that legal ignorance can be claimed if someone litigates. The reason for this in that in software, TIMTOWTDI. So you take the risk, and then re-write so as not to infringe if you do. This doesn't sound all that beneficial for the patent holder.
Sure, some patent holders get lucky, and get rights to their invention sold off for a pretty penny, or in a very small number of cases, actually get to hold on to their patent while licensing the technology -- to me, this is similar to the situation in music, where you have a few rock stars that claim the music publishing system isn't broken, while everyone else attempts to route around it while pursuing the dream.
I've waffled between being against them or pushing for reform; currently, I'm against them. Here's why:
1. If you're being trolled, they're bad.
2. If you're a troll, you're not creating anything other than lawsuits.
3. If you created something and are small business (don't retain an in-house lawyer or thirty), you can't afford to defend your patent anyway -- its only value is to be part of a portfolio to boost your value if you sell out to someone with lots of money (here, your invention isn't what's valued, but your patent and its war chest strength).
4. If you created something and are a big business, you have the choice of being mired in the current patent sinkhole, or competing purely on how mobile your company is -- innovation and all that, which is what patents were supposed to supprot.
So any way you look at it, the current system is bad. I'm starting to think that it has got to the point where it is almost totally detrimental.
Note that I'm talking about the patent system as it pertains to software patents, not physical inventions. THAT patent system just needs reform.
And yes, I'm a creator in many fields, and even have my name on a patent or two.
What I envision is a sci-fi battle where Google laser beams are attempting to shoot down Facebook drones.
I envision Zuckerberg teaming up with these guys... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Lasers mounted on SHARK Drones for world domination.
Well said :)
True; MSRP/listing price shennanigans on cars are an anachronism that needs to die. I don't know that I'd say the same for the overall price though; that's standard commission sales, and is rampant in pretty much every industry -- even with computers (think government contracts).
That said, I deal with a dealership that actually got my money based on quality of service and reputation. The added value there is that the sales person actually did homework to figure out which car would be right for my driving habits and future goals... on his own time. Told me to shop around while I waited for his quote and reasons -- so I did. Came back with his quote and said I felt it was a bit high, so he adjusted it, threw in some extras, and still beat what everyone else was offering. He ended up getting a lower commission, but this dealership gives the salespeople a percentage off of other business that derives from the cars they've sold -- so they keep good salespeople, and have a vested interest in providing quality service.
When I was considering a few accessories, they recommended a number of local shops that could provide the parts cheaper than they could. Because they want their customers coming back, and buying MORE stuff there, and telling their friends too.
Now I know that this isn't the "classic" dealership experience, but I'm hoping that with the growth of online reference info and review sites, it will become more common.
So I guess what I'm saying is that car dealerships don't have to be an anachronism unless they want to be. If they're run as a collection of federated services (sales, warranty, insurance, maintenance, repair, detailing, etc) but with the salesperson as the key point of contact, it breaks the old dealer model, but results in happier car owners and employees.
Hyperbole just makes you look like a fool.
No one owns landmines legally and while many do have automatic firearms, they are highly regulated and owners go through extensive background checks.
Indeed; hyperbole would make me look like a fool. However, I'm not being hyperbolic. I'll reiterate what I said to Archangel Michael:
You seem to have a very small partisan US-centric world view. Hopefully my comment will help you to think outside the box :)
Read these: http://newint.org/features/199...
http://www.un.org/en/globaliss...
Once again, this isn't hyperbole -- it's just how things are. I guess if you've never lived near an area that at some point had landmines deployed, with no record available of exactly what the coverage area was, nor of how many may still be left, you might not find this an issue. I've spent time near some WWII testing areas where this is the case -- thankfully, the result was that the entire suspected area has been fenced off ever since, and it's been scanned multiple times to ensure there are none left, but what a waste of land and energy.
Mines are a tool. Improper use of tools is human problem, not the tool's problem. Mines have kept our people safe while at the same time cause all sorts of problem for others. I get the point, but the reality is, some tools are very dangerous in the wrong hands, are perfectly safe in the right hands. Yet you blame the tool, rather than those that wield them. I find that illogical.
I don't blame the tool; blaming a tool is indeed illogical. I hate the tool, as there is no need for it to exist. You say "Mines have kept our people safe" -- whose people would those be? Would other methods have worked as well while minimizing the innocent loss of life and limbs?
The problem with mines (which isn't quite as big a problem with registered firearms, but is still there) is that once deployed, you don't get to decide whose hands they're in. With mines it's worse than handguns, as traditionally people have not taken their mines with them when they moved on, meaning they usually spend at least part of their life in the "wrong hands".
I'd guess that people who are upset about firearms are mostly upset about the same issue -- firearms that can cause death and injury by neglect -- falling into the wrong hands. They don't hate the five-year-old who pulls the trigger; they don't hate the off-duty police officer who got distracted after a long shift and left his gun on the table while he went to the sink to get a glass of water. They likely don't even hate the company that manufactured and sold the gun. But they don't look on it as an unfortunate accident, as that gun never needed to be there in the first place.
But that's completely beside my point. My point was that you were stating as fact something that is completely subjective. Whether or not you consider those people illogical or not doesn't change the fact that they don't think like you do, so you can't speak for them -- but they're still people with opinions, and deep down, there's some reason, whether logical or emotional, that they hold those opinions. Better to figure out what that reason is and educate them than to pretend that since they don't agree with you, their reason isn't valid.
You don't hate guns. You hate the people who own guns. Hating guns is illogical as hating chairs or hats or the air you breathe. They are inanimate objects and if you "hate" them, then you're clearly unable to deal with reality.
That being said, you don't hate guns, you hate "we the people" having guns. As a liberal, forcing people to join your collective under threat of government guns is what you depend upon. Your support of Government owning guns, is very likely. You likely support army, police and other national security people owning and bearing guns, even to protect the President (Republican OR Democrat) and high ranking officials like Feinstein, Reid and so on.
I have YET to meet a "gun hating democrat" that wants to disarm EVERYONE (including the government). Therefore, you don't hate guns. You hate average people having guns. And that speaks higher volumes about your hypocrisy than anything else.
This may be true for you, but many people hate created objects. I, for one, hate land mines. I don't care who made them, or where they exist; I don't even care if they're armed or disarmed. I see no problem with someone making a land mine, but I do see a problem with that mine existing for any length of time. I find this logical; land mines not only kill people, they incite (yes, anthropomorphic, but still true) people to carelessly and indiscriminately maim and kill other people.
Likewise, I know of people who hate fully automatic weapons (doesn't matter if it's a gun or not). I know others who hate guns and want them to go away.
You seem to have a very small partisan US-centric world view. Hopefully my comment will help you to think outside the box :)
News reporting is about telling an interesting story, so the narrative is often "embellished" to make it more interesting to the readers.
Hmm, no. News reporting should always be about reporting facts. What you described is called "fiction".
Sadly, it's both, depending on who is talking. "News" no longer (did it ever?) refers to "new facts" but now refers to "new information" which has hopefully been fact-checked in the bits that can be tied down, but is anything but factual in the way it is presented.
For example: "Fires in electric vehicles triple in one year" vs "Electric vehicles: are they fire traps?" vs "Only three electric vehicles involved in fires in past year" vs "Ratio of ICE to EV fires is still proportionally 3000:1"
All of the above may be true (and all but one factual), but the implications are significantly different.
Which brings up the question is it slander/libel when the things told about you are not specifically reputation ruining, just generally wrong.
If it were, most journalists would be in a world of hurt. If the subject is not harmed and the things told about them are based on good faith and some research, and you are a journalist or person in position of power, any such suit would be rejected.
This is due to the fact that pretty much all news reporting that goes beyond reporting the bare facts (and even some of that) is generally wrong. News reporting is about telling an interesting story, so the narrative is often "embellished" to make it more interesting to the readers.
I've had a fair bit written about me in newspapers, and the only bits that have been fully correct were in tables of statistics (which never make the main spread). The other stuff? Nothing precisely wrong about most of it, but it always implied things that were definitely not the case. This is not usually due to the person doing the initial reporting -- it's due to the fact that between their investigative journalism and publication, there's a gantlet of editors, ad holes, general editors, etc. to run through that reshape the story to fit the target space. None of these added factors know anything about the original situation other than what they hear from the initial journalist or read in the copy. Every piece of "news" published has already run a game of telephone, even if the person who was #2 in the chain still has to sign off on what's published at the end.
Since you don't have any programming languages, you obviously haven't got a CompSci degree, so you're looking at "lower" IT work (services, not design). This means that you'll likely be working for lower wages, and need a lot of on-the-job training.
This idea that you need programming skills to work in IT is misguided. I know plenty of Windows server admins, Active directory admins, Storage and backup admins, network engineers and architects, and even a Linux admin that either do not know how to code or know very little.
Knowing how to program is not required for IT in the Business world unless you are a developer. Knowing your particular technology and how to configure it is.
If this guy knows his Windows Server, and Active Directory stuff, he could get a job being a server admin. Unfortunately, Windows admins are a dime a dozen and the pay is not that great.
While needing programming skills is not necessary to work in IT, having a CompSci degree is pretty much useful to work on the design side (I wouldn't hire someone for an architect position who didn't at least have a strong grasp of design fundamentals), and part of getting that degree requires work in a number of programming languages. It's not that the languages are required, it's that you're going to pick them up as part of the other stuff you're expected to learn. Even Windows DB admins need a good grounding in programming and data design and a solid grasp of SQL.
Knowing how to configure something is all well and good, but in order to progress past greasemonkey level, you're going to also have to know WHY you need to configure things in a certain way. The difference is kind of like that between someone who cooks by recipe and someone who just cooks based on the ingredients available. The first person is replaceable, and doesn't know what to do if all their ingredients aren't available. The second, if GOOD, can make something delicious out of whatever is available, and will be in high demand.
So it's not about knowing how to program, and it's not about the CompSci degree -- as I said before, it's about having the skills and connections to make the right decisions as well as perform the mundane tasks reliably.
"This idea that you need programming skills to work in IT is misguided" -- I'm not sure where you got that idea; I said that not having the CompSci training will relegate him to "lower" IT functions in IT services, such as being a Windows server admin or working at a helpdesk. All that learning to program will do is give him a few more tools to accomplish tasks, and the possibility of becoming a codemonkey. What you need to learn to go further than that is training in systems design and analysis, and a lot of real world experience (as the head knowledge doesn't translate all that well to the business "meatspace" world, where there are all sorts of external factors that can/will derail your projects).
Indeed -- the trick to going where the wind blows you is to check the forecast before you leave home, so you're actually prepared to handle where you're likely to end up :)
And yeah; I don't know what I want to do when I grow up either (and I consider IT to cover a large area -- journalism, for starters).
Somewhere in Oklahoma there is a school district that needs to review its hiring practices.
I'm wondering if those thoughts were prompted by others.
I've changed directions in the generic "IT" field a few times, and it all boiled down to "What do I actually WANT to be doing? What am I doing in my spare time in IT that is distracting me from my day job?" I then enter that field, already having experience and connections in the sub-field that I want to be working in.
So for him, I think the question is, "What am I enjoying teaching right now? What do I dig into in more detail at home after I've done my prep work? What do I spend extra time helping students with?" In those areas, start hanging out on online forums and discussing your passion areas with likeminded techies. Find out about what's happening there in the private sector.
Leverage what you know and what you like; if you don't like what you're doing (that doesn't seem to be the case), then retrain yourself. This is important: in IT, you need to be constantly learning new things; taking courses and getting credentials comes at the end, after you've got some experience under your belt -- the creds are to prove you know what you're doing, not to train you how to do it.
Since you don't have any programming languages, you obviously haven't got a CompSci degree, so you're looking at "lower" IT work (services, not design). This means that you'll likely be working for lower wages, and need a lot of on-the-job training.
So, start at helpdesk, find out what you like and don't, and work your way up inside a company once you've got the experience under your belt. As you have teacher training, working with customers and explaining things in simple terms shouldn't be difficult -- working from a script may bore you to death however.
Sigh... next time, I'll have to quote the Bhagavad Gita....
I thought the point was pretty obvious, and needed no explanation. I guess I should have known people would take umbrage at quoting a well-known document that talks about using wood to make water drinkable.
The idea was to let people make up their own minds and possibly even check context for themselves. But I guess if you think of the Bible as something that was invented in the 3rd century AD, quoting it for its similarities to the topic at hand would seem idiotic. But then... it is still talking about using wood to make water drinkable, so that means that this is either a fluke in the 3rd century, or a few centuries earlier.
Or, you could take this as a folk story passed down through the generations by the Israeli people, during which the actual interpretation of the original story, even in the original language, shifted a bit over time. Or, I guess, you could consider it a literal translation of a text that accurately recorded exactly what happened at a specific point in time. Any way you look at it though, someone thought water going through wood would make it drinkable (or that a magic log would make some water drinkable by its proximity).