I am not convinced the US has a problem. TFA projects the number of developers in the US will grow by 25% over the same 5-year period, which is pretty darned robust. That growth looks feeble only by comparison to India.
I really disagree with that.:-) I thought _Ender's Game_ was dull and shallow, and based on that one essay, I have precious little to learn or gain from reading his political writings. So unless there is some hidden gem much better than _Ender's Game_ out there, I have at least 999 better things to do than waste more time reading Orson Scott Card.
I skimmed the essay linked from the summary. I think it reflects a narrow-minded point of view (assuming that society cannot prosper unless all families look like Card's family) but I would hardly call it "hateful." If that is what you think hate speech looks like, you've had a very sheltered life.
The "prejudicial" label fits, because Card is fundamentally asserting that his values are normative and should become universal. But how is that not the same as what we do when we call him a bigot?
On the one hand, I think gun owners would be justified in fearing real-world repercussions from being listed in this database. (Some might see it as a benefit, deterring burglary etc.) In fact, it's not only gun owners who ought to worry, since as others have pointed out, the data in the app can be based on imagination or lies.
On the other hand, it's hard to see how anyone could *stop* people writing apps like this and uploading data to them.
This is a great example of why I think privacy is a right. Maybe that was the whole point.
In case it's not obvious from the tone and content of my post, I Am Not a Lawyer.
It's young enough to not be protected under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Interesting loophole there -- it's illegal to discriminate against people 40 and over based on age, but the 35-year-olds are, apparently, out in the cold. IANAL and I am definitely not a lawyer licensed in California.
It's a good thing Google and Facebook aren't the only employers, then. I was at a local conference lately where I met techies who work for organizations like the state police and fraternal societies (the Freemasons, Shriners, etc.). At another talk, a bank VP told the crowd "when we looked at how dependent we are on software and how much of it we develop in-house, we realized we're a software company."
I don't mean to understate the problems age discrimination causes for tech workers. I do want to point out that IT has penetrated very deeply into the economy, creating a need for programmers and sys admins and whatnot in places you might not expect them. Look around. I don't know how salaries compare, but you can probably find a company whose culture is a better fit for people over 40.
It sounds like your kid may need some help as well. Nobody wants to be a loser -- if he sits around all day, it could be a sign of depression or anxiety. If you have health insurance, it probably covers screening and treatment for conditions like that.
As the profession of software development matures, I increasingly question the value of teaching coding first. That gives the illusion that once you know how to code, you are ready to be a developer.
In my opinion, that approach is what has led to the pervasively vulnerable infrastructure of today. People think that because they can make something work in PHP, that's all there is to it.
I'm suggesting that teaching kids to attack and exploit vulnerable systems first might be more valuable. Once you understand the basics of that, you become powerfully motivated to avoid writing vulnerable code. And as you probably know, you need to learn some programming anyway to be an effective attacker.
I realize this will never happen. There are lots of people who would say, "Oh, noes, we can't teach kids to hack! They'll do something evil!" I would reply, if you are seriously afraid of having your systems compromised by high-school kids, then you should agree with me on the importance of teaching defensive programming early!
If they anally rape you when you put the letter in the mailbox, that doesn't prevent them from delivering it either. Would you want that free extra service, too?
I remember that incident you are referring to. If you remember it as well, or if you read the Wikipedia article, you'll see that the Vincennes attempted to identify the Iranian airliner, failed, and in the tense environment, overlooked a series of cues that could have distinguished it from a hostile fighter. So when the airliner did not respond to radio contact, the captain ordered a missile fired at it.
Consensus is that it was a horrible mistake.
So consider this. When and where the US Navy deploys is up to politicians. There are *way* too many hawks in the US government right now, but that's not the Navy's fault. Future tragedies can be averted by giving the Navy better technology. Consider for example better radar that can tell the operator clearly whether the aircraft is ascending or descending, or better communications so the cruiser can get a video feed from a friendly aircraft or drone to visually identify the target before they decide to shoot. This would make the Navy deadlier toward people the Navy is trying to kill, but potentially a lot less deadly toward people it is *not* trying to kill.
If you want to prevent the next Iran Air 655, there are two approaches. You can stop the US sending its military all over the world (good luck!). Or you can provide them with the best sensors and information systems money can buy so when they have to decide whether to pull the trigger, they make that decision with the best possible information.
And yes, I've done Navy work myself. You may wish me a slow, horrible death, too, but I would prefer to discuss your objections over a croissant.
Would you care if the government demanded you submit a list of all your Facebook friends? If that bothers you, then consider there is little practical difference between that and logging all your mail. Both reveal a graph of your communications.
A public debate about blanket surveillance and the meaning of the 4th Amendment is long overdue. The more dirt comes up all at once, the harder it will be for the public and Congress to ignore.
There are really two possible outcomes: either Congress gets off its ass to rein in this kind of BS, or the American people actually admit they don't mind being spied on by the government (and there's a spike in emigration from the US to Europe).
Why did you write "killing U.S. citizens"? Why not "killing humans"?
Perhaps simply because it's an easier case to make, when arguing with other Americans. There are a scary number of my countrymen who are willing to agree with statements like "[anyone accused as] a terrorist doesn't have any rights." Even the most ignorant American is aware that US citizens have certain, specific rights. Persuading him that those rights need to be respected is, in my opinion, a prerequisite to subsequently selling him on the idea of natural and universal human rights.
So I think framing the discussion as "killing US citizens" does reflect a certain chauvinism, but not as bad as it probably appears to a foreigner.:-(
Unless I'm mistaken, that's what they used to say about chemotherapy. Finding ways to help patients survive the therapy may be an easier problem than finding ways to help them survive the disease.
do you honestly believe that close Western allies of the US are systematically bugging US embassies and spying on US politicians on a massive scale?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.
That's beside the point though, because I also believe two wrongs don't make a right. I wish my government still felt that way, too.
Whether the US should take the moral high road or dive into the muck like "just another country" is a debate that goes back to the founding of the Republic. It looks like it's finally been settled.:-(
Actually, if you need citations for this, you're thinking critically. Are you suggesting we should believe every unsupported opinion by every AC on Slashdot, or just you?
Slashdot Mirror
Edit: I am not convinced the US has a problem with *the growth in number of developers.* It has lots of other problems. :-)
I am not convinced the US has a problem. TFA projects the number of developers in the US will grow by 25% over the same 5-year period, which is pretty darned robust. That growth looks feeble only by comparison to India.
I really disagree with that. :-) I thought _Ender's Game_ was dull and shallow, and based on that one essay, I have precious little to learn or gain from reading his political writings. So unless there is some hidden gem much better than _Ender's Game_ out there, I have at least 999 better things to do than waste more time reading Orson Scott Card.
I skimmed the essay linked from the summary. I think it reflects a narrow-minded point of view (assuming that society cannot prosper unless all families look like Card's family) but I would hardly call it "hateful." If that is what you think hate speech looks like, you've had a very sheltered life.
The "prejudicial" label fits, because Card is fundamentally asserting that his values are normative and should become universal. But how is that not the same as what we do when we call him a bigot?
Be careful what you wish for. The DOJ would be bringing people like Manning and Snowden before that court.
On the one hand, I think gun owners would be justified in fearing real-world repercussions from being listed in this database. (Some might see it as a benefit, deterring burglary etc.) In fact, it's not only gun owners who ought to worry, since as others have pointed out, the data in the app can be based on imagination or lies.
On the other hand, it's hard to see how anyone could *stop* people writing apps like this and uploading data to them.
This is a great example of why I think privacy is a right. Maybe that was the whole point.
In case it's not obvious from the tone and content of my post, I Am Not a Lawyer.
In other words, the same way any president gets a second term. :-)
Or you could say Obama got a second term because the voters still remember George W. Bush.
It's young enough to not be protected under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Interesting loophole there -- it's illegal to discriminate against people 40 and over based on age, but the 35-year-olds are, apparently, out in the cold. IANAL and I am definitely not a lawyer licensed in California.
Only hiring young people to keep salaries down *is* age discrimination.
It's a good thing Google and Facebook aren't the only employers, then. I was at a local conference lately where I met techies who work for organizations like the state police and fraternal societies (the Freemasons, Shriners, etc.). At another talk, a bank VP told the crowd "when we looked at how dependent we are on software and how much of it we develop in-house, we realized we're a software company."
I don't mean to understate the problems age discrimination causes for tech workers. I do want to point out that IT has penetrated very deeply into the economy, creating a need for programmers and sys admins and whatnot in places you might not expect them. Look around. I don't know how salaries compare, but you can probably find a company whose culture is a better fit for people over 40.
I thought that, too, but in this case Le Monde called this program "perfectly illegal". I'm inclined to believe its editors understand French law better than I (an American) do.
*If* the kid is in good mental health, I would agree. That's a big "if."
It sounds like your kid may need some help as well. Nobody wants to be a loser -- if he sits around all day, it could be a sign of depression or anxiety. If you have health insurance, it probably covers screening and treatment for conditions like that.
As the profession of software development matures, I increasingly question the value of teaching coding first. That gives the illusion that once you know how to code, you are ready to be a developer.
In my opinion, that approach is what has led to the pervasively vulnerable infrastructure of today. People think that because they can make something work in PHP, that's all there is to it.
I'm suggesting that teaching kids to attack and exploit vulnerable systems first might be more valuable. Once you understand the basics of that, you become powerfully motivated to avoid writing vulnerable code. And as you probably know, you need to learn some programming anyway to be an effective attacker.
I realize this will never happen. There are lots of people who would say, "Oh, noes, we can't teach kids to hack! They'll do something evil!" I would reply, if you are seriously afraid of having your systems compromised by high-school kids, then you should agree with me on the importance of teaching defensive programming early!
I think it's pretty clear that not everything I post is the best argument I can come up with. :-(
I apologize for expressing myself so poorly that you found it insulting. I was actually trying to defend you. I'll shut up now.
If they anally rape you when you put the letter in the mailbox, that doesn't prevent them from delivering it either. Would you want that free extra service, too?
I remember that incident you are referring to. If you remember it as well, or if you read the Wikipedia article, you'll see that the Vincennes attempted to identify the Iranian airliner, failed, and in the tense environment, overlooked a series of cues that could have distinguished it from a hostile fighter. So when the airliner did not respond to radio contact, the captain ordered a missile fired at it.
Consensus is that it was a horrible mistake.
So consider this. When and where the US Navy deploys is up to politicians. There are *way* too many hawks in the US government right now, but that's not the Navy's fault. Future tragedies can be averted by giving the Navy better technology. Consider for example better radar that can tell the operator clearly whether the aircraft is ascending or descending, or better communications so the cruiser can get a video feed from a friendly aircraft or drone to visually identify the target before they decide to shoot. This would make the Navy deadlier toward people the Navy is trying to kill, but potentially a lot less deadly toward people it is *not* trying to kill.
If you want to prevent the next Iran Air 655, there are two approaches. You can stop the US sending its military all over the world (good luck!). Or you can provide them with the best sensors and information systems money can buy so when they have to decide whether to pull the trigger, they make that decision with the best possible information.
And yes, I've done Navy work myself. You may wish me a slow, horrible death, too, but I would prefer to discuss your objections over a croissant.
Would you care if the government demanded you submit a list of all your Facebook friends? If that bothers you, then consider there is little practical difference between that and logging all your mail. Both reveal a graph of your communications.
A public debate about blanket surveillance and the meaning of the 4th Amendment is long overdue. The more dirt comes up all at once, the harder it will be for the public and Congress to ignore.
There are really two possible outcomes: either Congress gets off its ass to rein in this kind of BS, or the American people actually admit they don't mind being spied on by the government (and there's a spike in emigration from the US to Europe).
Perhaps simply because it's an easier case to make, when arguing with other Americans. There are a scary number of my countrymen who are willing to agree with statements like "[anyone accused as] a terrorist doesn't have any rights." Even the most ignorant American is aware that US citizens have certain, specific rights. Persuading him that those rights need to be respected is, in my opinion, a prerequisite to subsequently selling him on the idea of natural and universal human rights.
So I think framing the discussion as "killing US citizens" does reflect a certain chauvinism, but not as bad as it probably appears to a foreigner. :-(
Unless I'm mistaken, that's what they used to say about chemotherapy. Finding ways to help patients survive the therapy may be an easier problem than finding ways to help them survive the disease.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.
That's beside the point though, because I also believe two wrongs don't make a right. I wish my government still felt that way, too.
Whether the US should take the moral high road or dive into the muck like "just another country" is a debate that goes back to the founding of the Republic. It looks like it's finally been settled. :-(
Actually, if you need citations for this, you're thinking critically. Are you suggesting we should believe every unsupported opinion by every AC on Slashdot, or just you?