Hard to say. In his first sentence, Jim Goad used a four-letter word for female genitalia to describe Amy Chu. That may be his opinion, but it's not important outside his head. Starting the article that way did not create the impression that an insightful and well-reasoned analysis will follow. I quit reading.
The author fails to explain the methodology by which she determined all these successful groups are so much like her. Given that she has a history of self-promotion, I suspect her technique was "narcissism, QED."
The actual, observable behavior of the successful groups is that they work hard, pursue self-improvement, and persevere. This is exactly what American mythology says is the formula for success, and what do you know, it worked for me, too! What motivates people to do that is largely irrelevant, and there may be more than one (or three) motivating factor or factors.
You're right. I kind of see "that would never happen" as logically equivalent to "the man's rights don't matter in this context," but the fact that someone said the former doesn't imply he/she meant the latter. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by not thinking things through.:-)
This is overlooking the reality that freedom has inherent value, and the marketplace knows it. "Making it non-free" and "making it better" are in direct conflict, and in practice, proprietary derivatives of free projects rarely seem to keep up with their free progenitors.
In other words, market forces are preventing the problem Stallman is worried about. That he failed to foresee that is understandable. Perhaps he will come around, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
... all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us.
as if that were a bad thing.
He's confusing the promotion of free software with opposition to proprietary software. Those are two different things. The former is a productive activity that helps me as a user. The latter is an uphill battle that doesn't even really need to be fought. The best way to defeat proprietary software is to provide a superior, free alternative.
I like to think of myself as one of the biggest Stallman fans out there. I think he is a visionary, and I totally agree with him that free software is important to a free society and the betterment of the human condition. But holding back from adopting a good compiler because someone proprietary vendor might also benefit sounds like cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
In fact, if, as Stallman says, "sharing with your neighbor" is an ethical imperative, then one could say he's applying that selectively. (I am aware of his argument why this is the right thing to do; I just don't accept it.)
There is huge variety within the Christian religion. Quaker, Roman Catholic, Pentacostal, Amish, Russian Orthodox, Mormon, Coptic, Presbyterian, Christian Scientist, and the newer "non-demoninational" churches all count. It's really hard to characterize them all beyond the very basics.
There are certainly people who call themselves Christian, and reject science. There are also people who call themselves American, and reject religion. It's no more accurate to say Christians are opposed to science than to say Americans are opposed to religion.
However, speaking this opinion brands you as a misogynist in the eyes of most women and some unintelligent males.
It depends on how you say it. I do not think you or GP are misogynist for pointing out the injustice of the system. But try this turn of phrase on for size: "If a woman wanted to abuse the system, what is there to protect the rights of the man?"
This is not making claims about how many women want to abuse the system, but putting the focus where it belongs: on whether the system is fair.
And, if the reply is "that would never happen," or "that's so rate as to be inconsequential," then it's not you who is the sexist.
This is the sort of study that gives science a bad name. I am beginning to suspect the reason the public doesn't accept scientific facts is that they are constantly exposed to headlines of the sensational (and unsubstantiated) conclusions of charlatans.
My suggestion would be to start by renaming the library to the "center for information and learning" or similar. Then it becomes clear this is a place that provides information resources to support the educational mission. "Library" these days implies "books," which to too many people implies "dusty, old, obsolete, and useless:" a recipe for getting your budget cut.:-)
What kinds of information resources do your kids need to support their education?
You said yourself, they don't all have Internet access at home, so a big lab of desktop machines is a good starting point.
Does your collection include DVDs and audio books? If not, you can start to develop that.
My employer has a small library with a magazine rack of several current trade publications. You could do the same, put a rack of educational magazines near the door and create a place with good lighting and some comfortable chairs for reading them.
Keep the books, of course. Books provide a depth of information that is hard to match online even today. However, do active collection management to purge the non-fiction books that are out of date. Nothing says "the library is obsolete" like a shelf full of science books from 1973.
I would also suggest some kind of outreach effort, say a newsletter or blog pointing out some new, free enrichment resources kids can find online (including YouTube videos), what's cool on PBS this month, and what new books you've added to the collection. Maybe ask some teachers and students to write reviews of books and media they would recommend.
There are many who will despair that reports like this will get ignored. What I think we can learn from history is that big legal and social changes in the United States don't happen overnight. It takes a long time to build the political will to fix a broken system. We saw that with the civil rights movement, we're seeing it now (in my humble opinion) with marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage.
Even though the agency that issued this report has no authority, it's one more source of media coverage, one more expert opinion saying the surveillance programs are un-American. What we need are years, not months, of frequent and critical media coverage. That is what change looks like.
I know the NSA's abuses can't end soon enough. The democratic process makes wise decisions slowly and foolish decisions instantly. Keep the pressure on, and give it time.
Going back retroactively to MAKE someone a criminal is an act of corruption and injustice.
It's also explicitly against the US Constitution: Article I, Section 9. The folks who wrote that document knew all the tricks in the tyrant's book -- from personal experience.
Of course, classified information is not a law, it's classified by executive order. I would point out that executive orders did not exist when the Constitution was written, and should not give the President a free pass to do what Congress is expressly forbidden from doing. By waving his hands and chanting "national security," the President places himself above the law and the Constitution. Again.
Since you are coming from an embedded systems background, have you considered staying with embedded systems? I would expect there will be more need for embedded programmers, not less, as cars get increasingly gadget-laded and Amazon starts delivering packages by drone and whatnot.
I am just speculating, but I would predict the embedded systems of the future will differ from the embedded systems of today in that they'll have sensors and will be wirelessly connected to the "internet of things." Gadgets like the Arduino and Raspberry Pi boards make it affordable to experiment with building robots at home.:-)
By all means, pursue smartphone programming if you're interested in it. This is just an option no one else has mentioned yet.
I don't know. Look at the combination of elements here:
1. NSA will no longer store data. It will be stored at the source.
2. NSA will need a warrant to even look at the data. In contrast to today, where NSA has all the data at its fingertips and NSA employees make a hobby of poring through it for fun and profit.
3. Court orders will no longer be secret forever, and the companies that hold the data can report on how many times the NSA demands to look at it
This is not everything I would hope for -- the secrecy of the FISA court remains a huge sticking point for me -- but I think these measures will improve things noticeably.
Well, presumably you would need a US attorney and a Federal judge to _agree_ that it's connected to illegal narcotics. TFA makes a couple of relevant points:
The bitcoins that Ulbricht forfeited are a fraction of the total amount seized by the government in connection with the case.
What the article doesn't say is why these assets have been seized, ahem, "forfeited," already, and what legal process was involved. I'll understand if you don't give the Federal government the benefit of the doubt, and assume the legal process was the prosecutor saying "those are mine, thanks.";-)
TFA does say:
The government still holds an additional 144,336 bitcoins, worth around $130 million at present, and has asked a court to order the forfeiture of those assets, too. Ulbricht filed a claim contesting the government's move
(emphasis added). So it looks like there is a legal process going on to seize more assets, in parallel with the criminal trial, and Ulbricht has some right to be heard in court before the rest of his Bitcoins get seized.
I do agree, though, that this looks like an erosion of the presumption of innocence, which combines poorly with rapidly-growing Federal authority.
There are people who seriously think that, or believe a similar proposition.
A friend of mine is a small-town judge. A couple of years ago, a county politician was agitating to have the county classify town courts as "solvent" or "insolvent." A "solvent" court, according to him/her, is one that brings in more in fines and court fees than it costs to operate the entire court (paying the judge and bailiffs, utility bills, courthouse maintenance, etc.). The eventual outcome proposed was for the insolvent courts to be shut down and their function moved to the county court, which was to be "solvent."
My friend wrote a very patient and well-reasoned op-ed explaining that the primary function of the courts is to administer justice, not to produce revenue. A requirement to bring in revenue would introduce systemic bias. He said -- much better than I am saying now -- if you should find yourself in town court to contest a traffic citation or other minor offense you might be mistakenly charged with, would you not prefer a court whose priority is on providing a fair hearing over one who has a mandate to collect as much money as possible?
I believe the county politician crawled back under a rock rather than attempting to write a rebuttal.
The Attorney General and all members of Congress would do well to read my friend's editorial. Daily.
Low-level technical skills have a half-life of only about three to five years. Meaning, half of what you know is obsolete in three to five years. This is true in software engineering and also, I've read, in most other kinds of engineering.
Experienced professionals know this and compensate by making a career-long commitment to staying current and developing new skills.
By all means, I encourage anyone who cannot stand the heat to get out of the kitchen. You'll be happier in a position where learning is not required, and I'll be happier not to get stuck working with another has-been.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an astute observation. What a pity the NSA decided to jeopardize that legitimate national security interest.
If their real mission is national security, they're providing negative value.
Hard to say. In his first sentence, Jim Goad used a four-letter word for female genitalia to describe Amy Chu. That may be his opinion, but it's not important outside his head. Starting the article that way did not create the impression that an insightful and well-reasoned analysis will follow. I quit reading.
The author fails to explain the methodology by which she determined all these successful groups are so much like her. Given that she has a history of self-promotion, I suspect her technique was "narcissism, QED."
The actual, observable behavior of the successful groups is that they work hard, pursue self-improvement, and persevere. This is exactly what American mythology says is the formula for success, and what do you know, it worked for me, too! What motivates people to do that is largely irrelevant, and there may be more than one (or three) motivating factor or factors.
Because it was a slow news day, and the editors thought it was time for a good elitist/racist flame war?
If you accept that argument, then all economic activity falls under the umbrella of national security, and the Constitution goes out the window.
Oh, I see what you did there.
You're right. I kind of see "that would never happen" as logically equivalent to "the man's rights don't matter in this context," but the fact that someone said the former doesn't imply he/she meant the latter. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by not thinking things through. :-)
This is overlooking the reality that freedom has inherent value, and the marketplace knows it. "Making it non-free" and "making it better" are in direct conflict, and in practice, proprietary derivatives of free projects rarely seem to keep up with their free progenitors.
In other words, market forces are preventing the problem Stallman is worried about. That he failed to foresee that is understandable. Perhaps he will come around, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Stallman said,
as if that were a bad thing.
He's confusing the promotion of free software with opposition to proprietary software. Those are two different things. The former is a productive activity that helps me as a user. The latter is an uphill battle that doesn't even really need to be fought. The best way to defeat proprietary software is to provide a superior, free alternative.
I like to think of myself as one of the biggest Stallman fans out there. I think he is a visionary, and I totally agree with him that free software is important to a free society and the betterment of the human condition. But holding back from adopting a good compiler because someone proprietary vendor might also benefit sounds like cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
In fact, if, as Stallman says, "sharing with your neighbor" is an ethical imperative, then one could say he's applying that selectively. (I am aware of his argument why this is the right thing to do; I just don't accept it.)
There is huge variety within the Christian religion. Quaker, Roman Catholic, Pentacostal, Amish, Russian Orthodox, Mormon, Coptic, Presbyterian, Christian Scientist, and the newer "non-demoninational" churches all count. It's really hard to characterize them all beyond the very basics.
There are certainly people who call themselves Christian, and reject science. There are also people who call themselves American, and reject religion. It's no more accurate to say Christians are opposed to science than to say Americans are opposed to religion.
It depends on how you say it. I do not think you or GP are misogynist for pointing out the injustice of the system. But try this turn of phrase on for size: "If a woman wanted to abuse the system, what is there to protect the rights of the man?"
This is not making claims about how many women want to abuse the system, but putting the focus where it belongs: on whether the system is fair.
And, if the reply is "that would never happen," or "that's so rate as to be inconsequential," then it's not you who is the sexist.
Only if you do it wrong.
At least, not without your lawyer present. ;-)
When people say that discrimination hurts everybody, even the people who supposedly benefit from it, this is what they mean.
This is the sort of study that gives science a bad name. I am beginning to suspect the reason the public doesn't accept scientific facts is that they are constantly exposed to headlines of the sensational (and unsubstantiated) conclusions of charlatans.
What we need is better oversight of the oversight of oversight boards!
And who will oversee that? Eventually, after enough layers of oversight, Congress.
We need a better Congress! :-)
My suggestion would be to start by renaming the library to the "center for information and learning" or similar. Then it becomes clear this is a place that provides information resources to support the educational mission. "Library" these days implies "books," which to too many people implies "dusty, old, obsolete, and useless:" a recipe for getting your budget cut. :-)
What kinds of information resources do your kids need to support their education?
You said yourself, they don't all have Internet access at home, so a big lab of desktop machines is a good starting point.
Does your collection include DVDs and audio books? If not, you can start to develop that.
My employer has a small library with a magazine rack of several current trade publications. You could do the same, put a rack of educational magazines near the door and create a place with good lighting and some comfortable chairs for reading them.
Keep the books, of course. Books provide a depth of information that is hard to match online even today. However, do active collection management to purge the non-fiction books that are out of date. Nothing says "the library is obsolete" like a shelf full of science books from 1973.
I would also suggest some kind of outreach effort, say a newsletter or blog pointing out some new, free enrichment resources kids can find online (including YouTube videos), what's cool on PBS this month, and what new books you've added to the collection. Maybe ask some teachers and students to write reviews of books and media they would recommend.
There are many who will despair that reports like this will get ignored. What I think we can learn from history is that big legal and social changes in the United States don't happen overnight. It takes a long time to build the political will to fix a broken system. We saw that with the civil rights movement, we're seeing it now (in my humble opinion) with marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage.
Even though the agency that issued this report has no authority, it's one more source of media coverage, one more expert opinion saying the surveillance programs are un-American. What we need are years, not months, of frequent and critical media coverage. That is what change looks like.
I know the NSA's abuses can't end soon enough. The democratic process makes wise decisions slowly and foolish decisions instantly. Keep the pressure on, and give it time.
It's also explicitly against the US Constitution: Article I, Section 9. The folks who wrote that document knew all the tricks in the tyrant's book -- from personal experience.
Of course, classified information is not a law, it's classified by executive order. I would point out that executive orders did not exist when the Constitution was written, and should not give the President a free pass to do what Congress is expressly forbidden from doing. By waving his hands and chanting "national security," the President places himself above the law and the Constitution. Again.
Since you are coming from an embedded systems background, have you considered staying with embedded systems? I would expect there will be more need for embedded programmers, not less, as cars get increasingly gadget-laded and Amazon starts delivering packages by drone and whatnot.
I am just speculating, but I would predict the embedded systems of the future will differ from the embedded systems of today in that they'll have sensors and will be wirelessly connected to the "internet of things." Gadgets like the Arduino and Raspberry Pi boards make it affordable to experiment with building robots at home. :-)
By all means, pursue smartphone programming if you're interested in it. This is just an option no one else has mentioned yet.
It's the wishful thinking that the NSA will somehow disappear that I consider foolish and childish.
This is not everything I would hope for -- the secrecy of the FISA court remains a huge sticking point for me -- but I think these measures will improve things noticeably.
The solution, for you, is to go back on your meds. Abolishing the Federal government would also abolish the Bill of Rights.
What the article doesn't say is why these assets have been seized, ahem, "forfeited," already, and what legal process was involved. I'll understand if you don't give the Federal government the benefit of the doubt, and assume the legal process was the prosecutor saying "those are mine, thanks." ;-)
TFA does say:
(emphasis added). So it looks like there is a legal process going on to seize more assets, in parallel with the criminal trial, and Ulbricht has some right to be heard in court before the rest of his Bitcoins get seized.
I do agree, though, that this looks like an erosion of the presumption of innocence, which combines poorly with rapidly-growing Federal authority.
There are people who seriously think that, or believe a similar proposition.
A friend of mine is a small-town judge. A couple of years ago, a county politician was agitating to have the county classify town courts as "solvent" or "insolvent." A "solvent" court, according to him/her, is one that brings in more in fines and court fees than it costs to operate the entire court (paying the judge and bailiffs, utility bills, courthouse maintenance, etc.). The eventual outcome proposed was for the insolvent courts to be shut down and their function moved to the county court, which was to be "solvent."
My friend wrote a very patient and well-reasoned op-ed explaining that the primary function of the courts is to administer justice, not to produce revenue. A requirement to bring in revenue would introduce systemic bias. He said -- much better than I am saying now -- if you should find yourself in town court to contest a traffic citation or other minor offense you might be mistakenly charged with, would you not prefer a court whose priority is on providing a fair hearing over one who has a mandate to collect as much money as possible?
I believe the county politician crawled back under a rock rather than attempting to write a rebuttal.
The Attorney General and all members of Congress would do well to read my friend's editorial. Daily.
Low-level technical skills have a half-life of only about three to five years. Meaning, half of what you know is obsolete in three to five years. This is true in software engineering and also, I've read, in most other kinds of engineering.
Experienced professionals know this and compensate by making a career-long commitment to staying current and developing new skills.
By all means, I encourage anyone who cannot stand the heat to get out of the kitchen. You'll be happier in a position where learning is not required, and I'll be happier not to get stuck working with another has-been.