Those are good points. I would add to that by saying that the greatest value of a scientific/technical college education is not just the specific knowledge and skills that it teaches you, but the fact that -- if you do it right -- it teaches you how to learn new things. And this, really, is the most valuable job skill of all. Whatever cutting-edge software or hardware you become familiar with in your university education are almost certainly going to become obsolete in your lifetime -- even abstract concepts like theories and algorithms can always be superceded by better ones. What will really make you irreplaceable to an employer is the ability to read (and understand!) the literature and keep yourself educated on current equipment and techniques.
So in that sense, Zambonini has it completely backwards. Because courses like Theory of Computation, Numerical Analysis, Artificial Intelligence, and so forth require students to gain an understanding of complex, advanced theories and algorithms. Whether they actually use the specific things they learn is really not that important; what matters is the meta-learning.
Web based surveys are not scientific (not a random sample), therefore are completely worthless.
I completely disagree. My own web-based survey shows that Amish people are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing modern computer technology and connectivity into their communities.
Wow. Thank you for that; what a very interesting parallel. I wonder if this might someday serve as a useful legal precedent for someone who chooses to stand up to EULAs and such?
OK, here is the deal. Keeping secrets is simple for one reason: You have to fact check each new bit of classified information with a whole database of older information in order to decide whether or not something has bearing. It is often easier to simply start classifying everything that *might* have some bearing on national security than it is to actually go looking all of the time.
Actually, it's more accurate to say that it seems easier. You're right that this perception is what often drives over-enthusiastic security classification of data, but the truth is that those doing it don't consider all of the peripheral costs associated with their decision. Dealing with classified data and classified projects is not only a pain in the ass, but is much more expensive than working in an unclassified domain. Only people with an appropriate clearance level can even look at the data, and that means costly and time-consuming investigations and Clearance paperwork if you want to bring on new hires. All hardcopies must be stored in a safe or vault approved for Classified data, and maintained by people trained and qualified to manage it. Classified electronic data can only be stored on computers specially modified and approved for Classified -- and those computers can only be kept in Classified vaults. Not to mention the fact that all communications and correspondence containing Classified information must travel through appropriately secured channels. The list goes on...
Hmmm. How about if someone buys it, opens the package, and then resells it to his friend, who doesn't even see the box and so can't _possibly_ have agreed to any contract. That looks like enough to invoke first sale to me.
Even better: bring a Sharpie marker with you to the computer store, and black out the "single-use only" statement on the box before buying the cartridge.
The Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act is truly a bi-partisan bill. Of the 25 congressmen who currently support it, 12 are Democrats, 12 are Republicans, and one is Independent.
Wouldn't that make it tri-partisan?
Seriously, though, good on 'em. This is an excellent idea. It also occurs to me that, even without a specific bill like this one, consumers and trade industry groups like the AAIA might want to consider going after the auto manufacturers for anti-competitive practices -- something that is still (in theory, at least) covered by existing laws.
Can someone explaine to me why its not illegal for a company to punish a consumer for tinkering with a product that that consumer had purchased?
You've touched on what may be the most ominous thing about this. We're living in the age of the EULA, and it looks like they're trying to set a precedent for extending that model ("You're not purchasing it, you're paying for the right to use it as long as we feel like letting you") from software to hardware.
"Under the terms of this License Agreement, Ford Motor Co. may revoke your right to drive this automobile if you buy parts or seek service from any person or entity not officially licensed by Ford to provide such parts or services..."
Keep it up, folks. If you continue to trade consumer rights and usability in your quest to kill the Great White Pirate, you'll end up with a product that nobody wants to buy, and Blu-Ray (along with all of the other great new media formats you want us to buy) will die a quick and well-deserved death.
It doesn't matter whether they're official or not, it matter whether they're spying!
EXACTLY! And so far, all you've been able to point to is "some of their behavior on the surface resembles the behavior of spies". Sorry, but that's not very convincing evidence.
Oh, and spies do a lot more than just filch secrets. They also do sabotage, infiltration, provocation of trouble, propaganda... all things that the
For values of "the" == "some"
commies were doing, or trying to. So yes, spies.
You really are not helping yourself here. But thank you for making my point so clear.
When I say "sounds like spies", I don't mean "I'd suspect them of spying". I mean "that's pretty much the textbook definition of spy".
No, the textbook definition of a spy is "someone who is collecting military or government secrets and giving them to a foreign power". You latched on to all of the superficial similarities (politics, behavior, etc.) and claimed that, because they appear similar, they must be the same.
At the time the American Communist Party was taking orders (and money) from soviet Russia
I'm sure a few of the members were. Doesn't mean all the others were guilty by association.
idealizing revolution by military force, and encouraging members to lay low, hide their affiliation, and achieve strategic aims by stealth. Sounds like spies to me.
Thank you for proving my point. "They sound like spies, so they should be treated like spies. Who needs pesky little details like Due Process?"
There is no doubt that the USSR had active spies operating in the U.S. all throughout the Cold War. There is also no doubt that the vast majority of people that Joseph McCarthy maligned were guilty of nothing more than political naivete.
This quote never appears in the article, in spite of your use of quotation marks.
It should be pretty clear from context (such as use of the word "summary") that the quotation marks were not intended to imply that it was a direct quote from the article.
Frankly I don't care one way or the other as I pointed out I'm not a Christian. However, you are entirely correct as I conflated the pledge of allegiance with the Constitution and my oath to this country which ended "so help me God", someone that I don't know whether he/she exists or not.
I understand the confusion. Pretty much every oath taken in this country, from being sworn into a courtroom to being sworn in as POTUS, is linked through words and actions to Christianity. But this is purely an artifact of our time, not in any way mandated or even suggested by the Constitution.
My apologies. At least I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.
And that alone makes you more qualified than 99% of the people currently running this country.
For those that don't have time to RTFA, here's a time-saving summary:
"There were some Commies and spies (hey, aren't they all really the same anyway?) living in the U.S., so McCarthy was perfectly justified in destroying as many lives as he wished."
Slashdot Mirror
If there's anything America needs, it's more science teachers.
Even better would be more scientists on school boards and in politics.
He [Abagnale] was basically a horny teenager (much of his crime was committed in pursuit of women).
Whereas the person in question here was a horny teenager with exceptionally bad taste in women.
Where do they come up with these names?
I think I'll call my next project "Big Small"!
erm...I did say "Others would argue that it is to prepare you for a lifetime of learning."
You did, didn't you. I guess I was repeating you then.
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Those are good points. I would add to that by saying that the greatest value of a scientific/technical college education is not just the specific knowledge and skills that it teaches you, but the fact that -- if you do it right -- it teaches you how to learn new things. And this, really, is the most valuable job skill of all. Whatever cutting-edge software or hardware you become familiar with in your university education are almost certainly going to become obsolete in your lifetime -- even abstract concepts like theories and algorithms can always be superceded by better ones. What will really make you irreplaceable to an employer is the ability to read (and understand!) the literature and keep yourself educated on current equipment and techniques.
So in that sense, Zambonini has it completely backwards. Because courses like Theory of Computation, Numerical Analysis, Artificial Intelligence, and so forth require students to gain an understanding of complex, advanced theories and algorithms. Whether they actually use the specific things they learn is really not that important; what matters is the meta-learning.
Web based surveys are not scientific (not a random sample), therefore are completely worthless.
I completely disagree. My own web-based survey shows that Amish people are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing modern computer technology and connectivity into their communities.
At least there's one country where Ballmer doesn't have to fucking kill Google and Larry Page.
Ironically, one where he could probably get away with it.
Wow. Thank you for that; what a very interesting parallel. I wonder if this might someday serve as a useful legal precedent for someone who chooses to stand up to EULAs and such?
Looks like someone can't handle criticism like a grown-up.
Manufacturer lock has been outlawed in some countries. Wouldn't surprise me if some countries would outlaw these BRD players as well.
Here's hoping that those laws make it someday to that third-world backwater wedged between Canada and Mexico.
OK, here is the deal. Keeping secrets is simple for one reason: You have to fact check each new bit of classified information with a whole database of older information in order to decide whether or not something has bearing. It is often easier to simply start classifying everything that *might* have some bearing on national security than it is to actually go looking all of the time.
Actually, it's more accurate to say that it seems easier. You're right that this perception is what often drives over-enthusiastic security classification of data, but the truth is that those doing it don't consider all of the peripheral costs associated with their decision. Dealing with classified data and classified projects is not only a pain in the ass, but is much more expensive than working in an unclassified domain. Only people with an appropriate clearance level can even look at the data, and that means costly and time-consuming investigations and Clearance paperwork if you want to bring on new hires. All hardcopies must be stored in a safe or vault approved for Classified data, and maintained by people trained and qualified to manage it. Classified electronic data can only be stored on computers specially modified and approved for Classified -- and those computers can only be kept in Classified vaults. Not to mention the fact that all communications and correspondence containing Classified information must travel through appropriately secured channels. The list goes on...
Hmmm. How about if someone buys it, opens the package, and then resells it to his friend, who doesn't even see the box and so can't _possibly_ have agreed to any contract. That looks like enough to invoke first sale to me.
Even better: bring a Sharpie marker with you to the computer store, and black out the "single-use only" statement on the box before buying the cartridge.
The Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act is truly a bi-partisan bill. Of the 25 congressmen who currently support it, 12 are Democrats, 12 are Republicans, and one is Independent.
Wouldn't that make it tri-partisan?
Seriously, though, good on 'em. This is an excellent idea. It also occurs to me that, even without a specific bill like this one, consumers and trade industry groups like the AAIA might want to consider going after the auto manufacturers for anti-competitive practices -- something that is still (in theory, at least) covered by existing laws.
Can someone explaine to me why its not illegal for a company to punish a consumer for tinkering with a product that that consumer had purchased?
You've touched on what may be the most ominous thing about this. We're living in the age of the EULA, and it looks like they're trying to set a precedent for extending that model ("You're not purchasing it, you're paying for the right to use it as long as we feel like letting you") from software to hardware.
"Under the terms of this License Agreement, Ford Motor Co. may revoke your right to drive this automobile if you buy parts or seek service from any person or entity not officially licensed by Ford to provide such parts or services..."
It's a Brave New World...
Keep it up, folks. If you continue to trade consumer rights and usability in your quest to kill the Great White Pirate, you'll end up with a product that nobody wants to buy, and Blu-Ray (along with all of the other great new media formats you want us to buy) will die a quick and well-deserved death.
Just CTRL-ALT-DEL and this time, don't hit F8. Windows will boot normally. Duh.
But then 1800SearchAssistant will load up again and you'll be in the same boat.
I never have mod points when I need 'em most.
It doesn't matter whether they're official or not, it matter whether they're spying!
EXACTLY! And so far, all you've been able to point to is "some of their behavior on the surface resembles the behavior of spies". Sorry, but that's not very convincing evidence.
Oh, and spies do a lot more than just filch secrets. They also do sabotage, infiltration, provocation of trouble, propaganda... all things that the
For values of "the" == "some"commies were doing, or trying to. So yes, spies.
You really are not helping yourself here. But thank you for making my point so clear.
When I say "sounds like spies", I don't mean "I'd suspect them of spying". I mean "that's pretty much the textbook definition of spy".
No, the textbook definition of a spy is "someone who is collecting military or government secrets and giving them to a foreign power". You latched on to all of the superficial similarities (politics, behavior, etc.) and claimed that, because they appear similar, they must be the same.
At the time the American Communist Party was taking orders (and money) from soviet Russia
I'm sure a few of the members were. Doesn't mean all the others were guilty by association.
idealizing revolution by military force, and encouraging members to lay low, hide their affiliation, and achieve strategic aims by stealth. Sounds like spies to me.
Thank you for proving my point. "They sound like spies, so they should be treated like spies. Who needs pesky little details like Due Process?"
There is no doubt that the USSR had active spies operating in the U.S. all throughout the Cold War. There is also no doubt that the vast majority of people that Joseph McCarthy maligned were guilty of nothing more than political naivete.
This quote never appears in the article, in spite of your use of quotation marks.
It should be pretty clear from context (such as use of the word "summary") that the quotation marks were not intended to imply that it was a direct quote from the article.
Frankly I don't care one way or the other as I pointed out I'm not a Christian. However, you are entirely correct as I conflated the pledge of allegiance with the Constitution and my oath to this country which ended "so help me God", someone that I don't know whether he/she exists or not.
I understand the confusion. Pretty much every oath taken in this country, from being sworn into a courtroom to being sworn in as POTUS, is linked through words and actions to Christianity. But this is purely an artifact of our time, not in any way mandated or even suggested by the Constitution.
My apologies. At least I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.
And that alone makes you more qualified than 99% of the people currently running this country.
Whoooosh!
Why would those of us who are Amish care...we don't have rights online.
ISIAH!! SLASHDOTTING AGAIN? You are in SO much trouble, young man!
Since blasting McCarthy is so popular, how about another side to the story http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13 .html
OK, that's... interesting.
For those that don't have time to RTFA, here's a time-saving summary: