USB booting can be somewhat slow; depending on the distro and how it uses the HDD, this is very how-much-RAM-do-you-have dependent. Also, a lot of older machines don't have boot-from-USB support in the BIOS.
Brainwashing somewhat implies a non-rational response though. Morality can be taught, you might say, but with a rational response. The term "brainwash" carries along a lot of connotations that imply irrationality and forcing views on someone that he wouldn't come to on his own.
Yes, I'm certainly familiar with the contept of original sin. Now, where I would differ from you is that I believe an actual change of our inherent "moral" nature, if you will, is possible. It's what "evangelical" Christianity's big deal about the Gospel is. True Christianity isn't [supposed to be] a morality/standard that is imposed on people from outside.
Now, I'm curious. It sounds like you believe in evolutionary principles. Why is it you refer to the non-humans as animals and separate from us?
The decision of a Linux distro for old hardware is somewhat dependent on the age of the old hardware. I've been pretty successful at using PuppyLinux (and MacPup isn't too bad) on a very old Toshiba laptop with 192mb RAM. However, I have found that the "random incompetence" factor is an issue with it, as well as some laptop quirks (X refuses to come back if you close the laptop lid, and you then have to power it off, X doesn't start up on boot, and you have to type "startx" at the command line and chose xmesa or xorg...).
Xubuntu is actually not too bad from the resources side... I tried it on an old 256mb ram/celeron computer. It was pretty slow, though.
gOS also isn't too bad. It's geared towards getting online and using Google stuff... gmail, google docs, etc. It booted faster and the liveCD was faster than Xubuntu, for me.
Another one that I haven't used a whole lot but looked pretty good was TinyME (based on PCLinuxOS I think).
It is a false conditioning, however. Only the most constant brainwashing can condition a child not to take $100 when no one is around.
Interesting comment. I suppose you would consider any form of religion as brainwashing, as well?
I happen to be a Christian, and thus taking (stealing, you are implying) $100 "when no one is around" is two things. (1) It's wrong, what I would call a "sin." (2) It's not true that "no one" is around/"no one" sees me.
I'm curious if you consider that brainwashing or put it ("morality") in a different category.
Strip searching is completely different from, say, sending a child to bed without dinner.
The day that children are allowed to do anything they want regardless of the parents is the day that children rule the world. Have you ever seen a two year old? Completely selfish. Would not at all be interested in helping "open source software." Haven't you seen 12 year olds act like two year olds? And 22 year olds act like 12 year olds? If they don't get their way, they whine and cry and throw tantrums because they expect to get their way, because that's how it's happened all their life.
The world doesn't work that way. It is not incorrect to say I was spanked as a kid and I turned out [sic] OK. On the other hand, many people seem to think that if children's desires were just gratified more as a child, they wouldn't be so problematic. We are having more and more kids have everything the want, and it's been that way increasingly for a while now. Seen any improvements in "bad things" such as greed, poverty, violence, sexual assault, etc.?
I would venture to guess that school officials such as these two female ones that strip-searched a 13 year old girl based on an accusation from a kid (who, by the way, when faced with real consequences of his actions, thought he would just get out of it by lying - something some kids are spanked for and learn is not good. Hm...) are not accustomed to not getting what they want, and likely would have gotten quite mad if the girl had refused to do what they told her to. Authority "complexes" don't come from not having every desire fulfilled as a child. "Spoiled brats" are usually quite bossy and get quite angry when they don't get their way. Seems like that behavior continues into adulthood.
Curbing that behavior in a child is pretty important. It has nothing to do with dignity, it has to do with wanting the child to behave well and not simply float around, expecting (WRONGLY) everything to be his for the ordering. That is letting the child grow up in a lie. Very respectful of his dignity, I'm sure.
Where is your evidence to show that it's that thing, out of all other possibilities?
I agree.
No, the person is still to blame, and we still criminalise their actions.
Also agree... how boring.:)
Lastly, "most people say" are not Slashdot readers.
True, though I meant it in the context of slashdot and slashdot comments/reactions.
I still see an underlying "video games/what I do on the intenret/virtual reality have nothing to do with what I do in real life. What I do online doesn't affect me" type of... attitude or POV. Which, incidentally, I think is dangerous. To start thinking that you're immune from outside influences simply because it's on a computer and not in real life, or because it's a choice and not in real life...
Actually, I happen to think that CHOOSING to do something influences you far more than having it done to you and not having a choice. Choosing to beat someone seems like it may be more affecting to your actions/future actions than being beaten up. I suppose psycholgists disagree with me there, though, since they tend to blame-happy, from what I can tell.
Ok, so mod me -1 Scary Dude, but would still appreciate some reasoning more than simply "you don't get it."
Simple question: what is "separating" pretend from real?
I know what it is. I believe that I can separate pretend from the real. I've played rpgs, I've got a fairly active imagination, I've read quite a bit of literature (mostly pre-1900 and probably primarily 19th century). When it is fiction, I know it's not true. I also know that when authors write fictional stories, there is usually a worldview behind it. When I watch a movie (that isn't actual footage) I know it is not true, but I also know that directors/screenwriters make points, raise issues, have agendas, etc., all of which come out in their movies.
If I was simply to say, for the purpose of argument, that "if it's fiction, it has no affect on me," I'd be flat out lying. I really doubt that millions of people read Harry Potter books with a completely objective, emotionally unattached mind, analyzing it solely for literary reasons. I would venture to say that most people that read fiction read it because they like it; and I'd venture further to say that fiction (be it movies, video games, books, music, or whatever) is largely popular because it's a means of escaping (escapism...). No, I am not saying that escaping is inherently bad or something like that.
Chess: A game in which you are encouraged to send blindly loyal soldiers of varying specialties to their untimely deaths all in the name of protecting a single political figure.
I believe they are "captured." Except for pawns. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to "redeem" one of the pieces with a pawn.
Also, you are still seemingly saying that what people pretend is different from who they really are (and thus what they will tend to decide in real life). I guess all the little boys that pretend to be Robin Hood and all the little girls that pretend to be princesses really didn't WANT to be Robin Hood or a princess. It was completely disconnected from real life, since it was only pretend.
Right. And I suppose if I only "pretend" to play soccer (via FIFA), it's not like I actually enjoy playing soccer or would like to enjoy it in real life if I had enough skill to play professionally. It's completely disconnected from who I am.
That tends to be the typical response (imagination/pretending/virtual reality has nothing to do with the real me), or at least what underlies the typical response, but I don't think that's really the case. I know for me, I tend to pretend things that I like doing. For example, if I play an RPG, I tend to play it in such a way that I like what my character is doing and thus gives the REAL me enjoyment/pleasure. Playing it in such a way that the REAL me doesn't get enjoyment/pleasure out of it seems like it would be a waste of time.
Yes, music and movies and literature are part of my "life" environment. Those mediums are protected by freedom of speech but there are restrictions. Freedom of speech != absolute freedom. I'm not allowed to stand outside your window and yell profanity at you all day. I'm not allowed to publish libel of you. If I go to a bank and threaten to rob it with a gun I'll probably have the cops called on me. "Freedom of speech" does not mean that I can do whatever I want without repercussions, nor does it mean that everything is legal, etc.
That said, I don't understand what your point is. How do video games affect someone's decisions? I would contend that they very definitely influence our decisions (which, unless one is used to actively thinking about most decisions, are not usually very deeply reasoned out). Are video games (influence) OR guns (medium) to blame for a murder (a decision)? No, I don't think so. But do things affect it?
I find it odd that many are willing to accept a psychologist's explanation (some sort of mental duress or chemical imbalance) but are quick to excuse other influences (video games, music, literature, etc). I also find it strange that the general push is to alienate what people do virtually from what people do in real life, as if what people do virtually has nothing to do with what they really want. What I choose to do on the computer comes out of what I think, what I like, what I desire... as does what I choose to do in real life. So maybe it's actually that the video games I play actually show what my real personality/character/inclinations are... as opposed to video games shaping my personality/character/inclinations. Or perhaps both. This is the kind of question I'm interested in, not simply dismissing it by saying "Nope, correlation != causation, next question" and never really thinking about it.
Some people commit suicide over what happens in games. Very few, sure, but some do. Some people spend more time playing games than they do interacting outside of their virtual worlds. Not everyone lives in a ghetto.
So when a non-got-beaten-up-in-real-life person shoots someone else, we can't blame it on got-beaten-up-in-real-life.
Growing up in a physically/emotionally abusive environment isn't a choice, no, though I would still say that our actions are our own choices.. influenced by the outside, yes, but still our own choices. But then, I have a different worldview than most of slashdot, I think.
But you didn't really answer the question:) How and what DO video games affect?
It seems that most responses to this sort of article are of the form "violent video games have nothing to do with what he did!" And then when something about a black shooter in a ghetto comes up, most people say "It's his society and location, if we could just get rid of the ghettos/black gangs/whatever, we'd have less violence/shooting/murders."
So it seems that in general, people do think that the environment one lives in affects one's decisions. Well, video games are part of my environment.
So instead of simply dismissing video games as having anything to do with decisions (which, IMO, is a ridiculous proposition, the idea you could spend 20+ hours a week playing video games and not have it affect you, whether that's morally, ethically, intellectually,... grammatically... what about, oh, say, myspace? no affect?)... I'd propose that we start posting how video games (especially violent ones, since that's this article's topic) DO affect you. How does virtual violence affect someone.
And preferably more than the curt "Duh, it lets you cool off virtually making you less likely to kill someone in real life." I'm not sure that is any more or less proven than video games causing real life shootings. If it does... then [citation needed]
True, but "good" and "bad" do not necessarily only refer to quality. I think a lot of knee-jerk (which, in this case, apparently was a joke that I missed:) ) reactions of "Microsoft! Closed source! Lynch them!" come from more the "ethical" side than the business side... the sort of "I think Linux is the end-all operating system" mentality. Not to say someone usually comes out and says it like that, but there does appear to be that stance taken when non-Linux (or more generally, anything-related-to-Windows) topics come up.
Real administrators don't use package managers, either. Real administrators know how to handle compiling from source for anything they want to install and spending two hours configuring it for their system.
Real Linux users don't use silly things like synaptic and apt-get and other such command line tools. Real Linux users use wget to get a tarball and compile from source, editing menus in gnome or kde by themselves (if they ever use gnome or kde, most of the time Real Linux Users just use lynx).
The point of a GUI is not necessarily just for "computer newbies." I imagine you are using a GUI to post, in fact, and not using Lynx.
That said, you're right, normally they'd know how to handle a shell; but just because some people like having automatic configurations for all the default stuff doesn't mean they are a newbie. Can they be? sure. But using a GUI or automatic configuration tool of some sort does not mean you ARE a newbie. Just, the computer can fill in a lot of blanks a lot faster than I can.
Big deal. Two open source tools? How many closed-source tools are in the "ecosystem"?
Open Source != Good. Closed Source != Bad. Just as open source and bad are not mutually exclusive, closed source and good are not mutually exclusive, regardless of what Stallman thinks. I have used quite a few closed source programs that I like quite a bit, and quite a few open source programs that were plain awful. And vice versa. The idea that in order to be a Good Thing (tm) it has to be Open Source (tm) is a Weird Thing (tm).
Perhaps I should have said... creative and diverse. There's something to be said for not being the stereotypical geek programmer that talks in FORTRAN and reads scientific fiction.
No, arts != creativity, nor does creativity == arts, but arts is definitely one way of expressing creativity, perhaps a bit more easily than programming.
I'd also add that even a performer that spends 8 hours a day practicing... some people and judges and whatever do pick up on creativity vs. technical skill. Not all, but some do. Unfortunately, most people don't really care about how much expression and creativity goes into music these days, they just want a quick 3 minute song to listen to. So they get it, and it sells, etc. You're right, that side of "marketability." I hate it. Example: I play piano, and have for almost 20 years. I am not amazing, I don't have the technical ability that many have because at the height of my practicing, I practiced an hour a day. It's not a marketable skill in that I'm not going to make money by playing. Where's the marketability in that? It's similar to working on open source projects on the side. No payment, just enjoy using your abilities that way. And I think if we're honest, unless we have that perfect job, we are probably more creative on the things that we do because want to do them, not the things that we do because we are paid to do them.
I had exposure to Linux and Windows, various programming, architecture and design, web design/programming, etc. I wasn't on a "server admin" track or something like that. Since when did UNIX usage become a pre-requisite for any comp sci degree?:)
Slashdot Mirror
USB booting can be somewhat slow; depending on the distro and how it uses the HDD, this is very how-much-RAM-do-you-have dependent. Also, a lot of older machines don't have boot-from-USB support in the BIOS.
Brainwashing somewhat implies a non-rational response though. Morality can be taught, you might say, but with a rational response. The term "brainwash" carries along a lot of connotations that imply irrationality and forcing views on someone that he wouldn't come to on his own.
Yes, I'm certainly familiar with the contept of original sin. Now, where I would differ from you is that I believe an actual change of our inherent "moral" nature, if you will, is possible. It's what "evangelical" Christianity's big deal about the Gospel is. True Christianity isn't [supposed to be] a morality/standard that is imposed on people from outside.
Now, I'm curious. It sounds like you believe in evolutionary principles. Why is it you refer to the non-humans as animals and separate from us?
The decision of a Linux distro for old hardware is somewhat dependent on the age of the old hardware. I've been pretty successful at using PuppyLinux (and MacPup isn't too bad) on a very old Toshiba laptop with 192mb RAM. However, I have found that the "random incompetence" factor is an issue with it, as well as some laptop quirks (X refuses to come back if you close the laptop lid, and you then have to power it off, X doesn't start up on boot, and you have to type "startx" at the command line and chose xmesa or xorg...).
Xubuntu is actually not too bad from the resources side... I tried it on an old 256mb ram/celeron computer. It was pretty slow, though.
gOS also isn't too bad. It's geared towards getting online and using Google stuff... gmail, google docs, etc. It booted faster and the liveCD was faster than Xubuntu, for me.
Another one that I haven't used a whole lot but looked pretty good was TinyME (based on PCLinuxOS I think).
It is a false conditioning, however. Only the most constant brainwashing can condition a child not to take $100 when no one is around.
Interesting comment. I suppose you would consider any form of religion as brainwashing, as well?
I happen to be a Christian, and thus taking (stealing, you are implying) $100 "when no one is around" is two things. (1) It's wrong, what I would call a "sin." (2) It's not true that "no one" is around/"no one" sees me.
I'm curious if you consider that brainwashing or put it ("morality") in a different category.
Strip searching is completely different from, say, sending a child to bed without dinner.
The day that children are allowed to do anything they want regardless of the parents is the day that children rule the world. Have you ever seen a two year old? Completely selfish. Would not at all be interested in helping "open source software." Haven't you seen 12 year olds act like two year olds? And 22 year olds act like 12 year olds? If they don't get their way, they whine and cry and throw tantrums because they expect to get their way, because that's how it's happened all their life.
The world doesn't work that way. It is not incorrect to say I was spanked as a kid and I turned out [sic] OK. On the other hand, many people seem to think that if children's desires were just gratified more as a child, they wouldn't be so problematic. We are having more and more kids have everything the want, and it's been that way increasingly for a while now. Seen any improvements in "bad things" such as greed, poverty, violence, sexual assault, etc.?
I would venture to guess that school officials such as these two female ones that strip-searched a 13 year old girl based on an accusation from a kid (who, by the way, when faced with real consequences of his actions, thought he would just get out of it by lying - something some kids are spanked for and learn is not good. Hm...) are not accustomed to not getting what they want, and likely would have gotten quite mad if the girl had refused to do what they told her to. Authority "complexes" don't come from not having every desire fulfilled as a child. "Spoiled brats" are usually quite bossy and get quite angry when they don't get their way. Seems like that behavior continues into adulthood.
Curbing that behavior in a child is pretty important. It has nothing to do with dignity, it has to do with wanting the child to behave well and not simply float around, expecting (WRONGLY) everything to be his for the ordering. That is letting the child grow up in a lie. Very respectful of his dignity, I'm sure.
They were female, not male. Not excusing them, of course, just correcting your reaction.
why some families homeschool and believe their kids get a better education.
Where is your evidence to show that it's that thing, out of all other possibilities?
I agree.
No, the person is still to blame, and we still criminalise their actions.
Also agree... how boring. :)
Lastly, "most people say" are not Slashdot readers.
True, though I meant it in the context of slashdot and slashdot comments/reactions.
I still see an underlying "video games/what I do on the intenret/virtual reality have nothing to do with what I do in real life. What I do online doesn't affect me" type of ... attitude or POV. Which, incidentally, I think is dangerous. To start thinking that you're immune from outside influences simply because it's on a computer and not in real life, or because it's a choice and not in real life...
Actually, I happen to think that CHOOSING to do something influences you far more than having it done to you and not having a choice. Choosing to beat someone seems like it may be more affecting to your actions/future actions than being beaten up. I suppose psycholgists disagree with me there, though, since they tend to blame-happy, from what I can tell.
Ok, so mod me -1 Scary Dude, but would still appreciate some reasoning more than simply "you don't get it."
Simple question: what is "separating" pretend from real?
I know what it is. I believe that I can separate pretend from the real. I've played rpgs, I've got a fairly active imagination, I've read quite a bit of literature (mostly pre-1900 and probably primarily 19th century). When it is fiction, I know it's not true. I also know that when authors write fictional stories, there is usually a worldview behind it. When I watch a movie (that isn't actual footage) I know it is not true, but I also know that directors/screenwriters make points, raise issues, have agendas, etc., all of which come out in their movies.
If I was simply to say, for the purpose of argument, that "if it's fiction, it has no affect on me," I'd be flat out lying. I really doubt that millions of people read Harry Potter books with a completely objective, emotionally unattached mind, analyzing it solely for literary reasons. I would venture to say that most people that read fiction read it because they like it; and I'd venture further to say that fiction (be it movies, video games, books, music, or whatever) is largely popular because it's a means of escaping (escapism...). No, I am not saying that escaping is inherently bad or something like that.
Chess: A game in which you are encouraged to send blindly loyal soldiers of varying specialties to their untimely deaths all in the name of protecting a single political figure.
I believe they are "captured." Except for pawns. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to "redeem" one of the pieces with a pawn.
I'm not sure I ever said that I didn't.
Also, you are still seemingly saying that what people pretend is different from who they really are (and thus what they will tend to decide in real life). I guess all the little boys that pretend to be Robin Hood and all the little girls that pretend to be princesses really didn't WANT to be Robin Hood or a princess. It was completely disconnected from real life, since it was only pretend.
Right. And I suppose if I only "pretend" to play soccer (via FIFA), it's not like I actually enjoy playing soccer or would like to enjoy it in real life if I had enough skill to play professionally. It's completely disconnected from who I am.
That tends to be the typical response (imagination/pretending/virtual reality has nothing to do with the real me), or at least what underlies the typical response, but I don't think that's really the case. I know for me, I tend to pretend things that I like doing. For example, if I play an RPG, I tend to play it in such a way that I like what my character is doing and thus gives the REAL me enjoyment/pleasure. Playing it in such a way that the REAL me doesn't get enjoyment/pleasure out of it seems like it would be a waste of time.
Sorry, yes, effect in that case. Myspace affects and has an effect...
Yes, music and movies and literature are part of my "life" environment. Those mediums are protected by freedom of speech but there are restrictions. Freedom of speech != absolute freedom. I'm not allowed to stand outside your window and yell profanity at you all day. I'm not allowed to publish libel of you. If I go to a bank and threaten to rob it with a gun I'll probably have the cops called on me. "Freedom of speech" does not mean that I can do whatever I want without repercussions, nor does it mean that everything is legal, etc.
That said, I don't understand what your point is. How do video games affect someone's decisions? I would contend that they very definitely influence our decisions (which, unless one is used to actively thinking about most decisions, are not usually very deeply reasoned out). Are video games (influence) OR guns (medium) to blame for a murder (a decision)? No, I don't think so. But do things affect it?
I find it odd that many are willing to accept a psychologist's explanation (some sort of mental duress or chemical imbalance) but are quick to excuse other influences (video games, music, literature, etc). I also find it strange that the general push is to alienate what people do virtually from what people do in real life, as if what people do virtually has nothing to do with what they really want. What I choose to do on the computer comes out of what I think, what I like, what I desire... as does what I choose to do in real life. So maybe it's actually that the video games I play actually show what my real personality/character/inclinations are... as opposed to video games shaping my personality/character/inclinations. Or perhaps both. This is the kind of question I'm interested in, not simply dismissing it by saying "Nope, correlation != causation, next question" and never really thinking about it.
Some people commit suicide over what happens in games. Very few, sure, but some do. Some people spend more time playing games than they do interacting outside of their virtual worlds. Not everyone lives in a ghetto.
So when a non-got-beaten-up-in-real-life person shoots someone else, we can't blame it on got-beaten-up-in-real-life.
Growing up in a physically/emotionally abusive environment isn't a choice, no, though I would still say that our actions are our own choices.. influenced by the outside, yes, but still our own choices. But then, I have a different worldview than most of slashdot, I think.
But you didn't really answer the question :) How and what DO video games affect?
It seems that most responses to this sort of article are of the form "violent video games have nothing to do with what he did!" And then when something about a black shooter in a ghetto comes up, most people say "It's his society and location, if we could just get rid of the ghettos/black gangs/whatever, we'd have less violence/shooting/murders."
So it seems that in general, people do think that the environment one lives in affects one's decisions. Well, video games are part of my environment.
So instead of simply dismissing video games as having anything to do with decisions (which, IMO, is a ridiculous proposition, the idea you could spend 20+ hours a week playing video games and not have it affect you, whether that's morally, ethically, intellectually, ... grammatically ... what about, oh, say, myspace? no affect?)... I'd propose that we start posting how video games (especially violent ones, since that's this article's topic) DO affect you. How does virtual violence affect someone.
And preferably more than the curt "Duh, it lets you cool off virtually making you less likely to kill someone in real life." I'm not sure that is any more or less proven than video games causing real life shootings. If it does... then [citation needed]
You're right... sed -i s,Real\ Administrator,Quasi-Real\ Administrator,g
True, but "good" and "bad" do not necessarily only refer to quality. I think a lot of knee-jerk (which, in this case, apparently was a joke that I missed :) ) reactions of "Microsoft! Closed source! Lynch them!" come from more the "ethical" side than the business side... the sort of "I think Linux is the end-all operating system" mentality. Not to say someone usually comes out and says it like that, but there does appear to be that stance taken when non-Linux (or more generally, anything-related-to-Windows) topics come up.
Ha. I've actually considered buying the shirt; I just forgot what the summary said... :)
Real administrators don't use package managers, either. Real administrators know how to handle compiling from source for anything they want to install and spending two hours configuring it for their system.
Real Linux users don't use silly things like synaptic and apt-get and other such command line tools. Real Linux users use wget to get a tarball and compile from source, editing menus in gnome or kde by themselves (if they ever use gnome or kde, most of the time Real Linux Users just use lynx).
The point of a GUI is not necessarily just for "computer newbies." I imagine you are using a GUI to post, in fact, and not using Lynx.
That said, you're right, normally they'd know how to handle a shell; but just because some people like having automatic configurations for all the default stuff doesn't mean they are a newbie. Can they be? sure. But using a GUI or automatic configuration tool of some sort does not mean you ARE a newbie. Just, the computer can fill in a lot of blanks a lot faster than I can.
Big deal. Two open source tools? How many closed-source tools are in the "ecosystem"?
Open Source != Good. Closed Source != Bad. Just as open source and bad are not mutually exclusive, closed source and good are not mutually exclusive, regardless of what Stallman thinks. I have used quite a few closed source programs that I like quite a bit, and quite a few open source programs that were plain awful. And vice versa. The idea that in order to be a Good Thing (tm) it has to be Open Source (tm) is a Weird Thing (tm).
Some people post on slashdot, some people write on wikipedia. ;)
Hope you didn't illegally download that 2x4. ;)
Perhaps I should have said ... creative and diverse. There's something to be said for not being the stereotypical geek programmer that talks in FORTRAN and reads scientific fiction.
No, arts != creativity, nor does creativity == arts, but arts is definitely one way of expressing creativity, perhaps a bit more easily than programming.
I'd also add that even a performer that spends 8 hours a day practicing ... some people and judges and whatever do pick up on creativity vs. technical skill. Not all, but some do. Unfortunately, most people don't really care about how much expression and creativity goes into music these days, they just want a quick 3 minute song to listen to. So they get it, and it sells, etc. You're right, that side of "marketability." I hate it. Example: I play piano, and have for almost 20 years. I am not amazing, I don't have the technical ability that many have because at the height of my practicing, I practiced an hour a day. It's not a marketable skill in that I'm not going to make money by playing. Where's the marketability in that? It's similar to working on open source projects on the side. No payment, just enjoy using your abilities that way. And I think if we're honest, unless we have that perfect job, we are probably more creative on the things that we do because want to do them, not the things that we do because we are paid to do them.
I had exposure to Linux and Windows, various programming, architecture and design, web design/programming, etc. I wasn't on a "server admin" track or something like that. Since when did UNIX usage become a pre-requisite for any comp sci degree? :)
Basically, yes. sed -i s/billion/trillion/g parent