I'd like to start by noting that I've gone to a public school since 9th grade, whereas I had previously gone to a private school. Surprisingly, I found the level of education to be better in the public school. (I later discovered that I was in one of the best public schools in the state, which was 30% community funded.) I agree that the only thing that will have a serious impact on education is funding. I live in California where the state has kept funding level constant as the student population grows. Their attempts to give the appearence of educational reform have been to add more testing and programs which are essentially worthless, and get the money for these tests out of the already stretched education budget! If teachers were paid more and had more resources available, you would see a heck of a lot more teachers moving back to education from the private sector, whereas the current trend for teachers is moving to it. The only good teachers out there currently are the ones who actually wanted to teach right from the start. Excepting that minority, the saying, "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach" is true.
It is also important to offer more freedom to school districts. I would say that most of what I know is self-taught. I never took a class on number theory, computer programming, or networking. I know enough to pass advanced placement exams and get high-tech jobs, though, as I have demonstrated in the last two years. If the state would allocate another section or two for computer-related classes, other students could have this benefit, too. Currently all computer classes are limited to communications and only 10% of students who apply can be accomodated, not due to funding, but due to state requirement. Another interesting dilemma: I got a 5 on the AP economics exam. California will not graduate me unless I spend a semester sitting in a classroom doing a HIGH SCHOOL economics course. If I didn't want to get into MIT I would be home schooling myself...which brings up another point...
At least one person on the boards mentioned that they were homeschooled. I must say that it is a good idea to take at least a few years of high school. If you study only what you want, you will never be well-rounded. You could be the greatest mathematician in the world, but you might not be able to express yourself because you haven't done any composition work. This isn't necessarily bad; in Europe, the prevalent trend is to concentrate more on what one is good at. However, I believe that everyone should have a basic level of general education. Furthermore, you could have board scores of 1600 and you still couldn't get into most four year institutions, and no matter your qualifications, you would have no documentation.
Well, slight tangent there. I would like to close by noting that a good amount of the power to effect education changes lies in the states, not the federal government. The states provide much of the money in a school's education budget.
If all you are doing is bug fixes, there wouldn't be a problem, but why couldn't the person at the other end fix the bugs? Most crypto algorithms I've seen tend to be short and sweet, and if anyone is capable of devising and coding one, they can certainly fix their own bugs. Now if you were actually writing a small bit of the code which reflected crypto code in the country, the Feds would probably get you.
I personally think the regulations are silly. If it's possible to smuggle a bomb onto an airplane or through the mail, one could certainly smuggle a floppy disk. We're not preventing anyone who seriously wants our crypto algorithms from getting them. You want relatively unknown crypto, go work for the spooks.
The real problem I have with this ban attempt is that lawyers benefit from the ban and 'they' (knowing that it's the judges who rose through the ranks) are deciding if it's 'good' or not. Regardless of their motives, it has the perception of impropriety which goes along way in the public eye (or it used to...).
If this were a case about physicians wanting to ban DIY medical software, then the physicians would have to convince lawyers to take the case and they'd argue before (I hope) a jury. Regardless, it's not a panel of doctor's deciding the fate of that case. So while stained with greed, the case still has to pass through a court system that doesn't benefit (additionally) from which way the case goes.
Let's say I buy DIY medical software, read the disclaimers and use it. Then I should deal with whatever the consequences are. But I am an idiot if i think i can practice medicine on others using that software. Is the argument for the ban (in the case of wills) that my will becomes a legal document for my heirs? And therefore without a law license, cannot write my own will. I hope not.
All other professions rely on the legal system to litigate disagreements. When one of the parties _is_ the legal system, we should turn to the public for resolution.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to start by noting that I've gone to a public school since 9th grade, whereas I had previously gone to a private school. Surprisingly, I found the level of education to be better in the public school. (I later discovered that I was in one of the best public schools in the state, which was 30% community funded.) I agree that the only thing that will have a serious impact on education is funding. I live in California where the state has kept funding level constant as the student population grows. Their attempts to give the appearence of educational reform have been to add more testing and programs which are essentially worthless, and get the money for these tests out of the already stretched education budget! If teachers were paid more and had more resources available, you would see a heck of a lot more teachers moving back to education from the private sector, whereas the current trend for teachers is moving to it. The only good teachers out there currently are the ones who actually wanted to teach right from the start. Excepting that minority, the saying, "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach" is true.
It is also important to offer more freedom to school districts. I would say that most of what I know is self-taught. I never took a class on number theory, computer programming, or networking. I know enough to pass advanced placement exams and get high-tech jobs, though, as I have demonstrated in the last two years. If the state would allocate another section or two for computer-related classes, other students could have this benefit, too. Currently all computer classes are limited to communications and only 10% of students who apply can be accomodated, not due to funding, but due to state requirement. Another interesting dilemma: I got a 5 on the AP economics exam. California will not graduate me unless I spend a semester sitting in a classroom doing a HIGH SCHOOL economics course. If I didn't want to get into MIT I would be home schooling myself...which brings up another point...
At least one person on the boards mentioned that they were homeschooled. I must say that it is a good idea to take at least a few years of high school. If you study only what you want, you will never be well-rounded. You could be the greatest mathematician in the world, but you might not be able to express yourself because you haven't done any composition work. This isn't necessarily bad; in Europe, the prevalent trend is to concentrate more on what one is good at. However, I believe that everyone should have a basic level of general education.
Furthermore, you could have board scores of 1600 and you still couldn't get into most four year institutions, and no matter your qualifications, you would have no documentation.
Well, slight tangent there. I would like to close by noting that a good amount of the power to effect education changes lies in the states, not the federal government. The states provide much of the money in a school's education budget.
If all you are doing is bug fixes, there wouldn't be a problem, but why couldn't the person at the other end fix the bugs? Most crypto algorithms I've seen tend to be short and sweet, and if anyone is capable of devising and coding one, they can certainly fix their own bugs. Now if you were actually writing a small bit of the code which reflected crypto code in the country, the Feds would probably get you.
I personally think the regulations are silly. If it's possible to smuggle a bomb onto an airplane or through the mail, one could certainly smuggle a floppy disk. We're not preventing anyone who seriously wants our crypto algorithms from getting them. You want relatively unknown crypto, go work for the spooks.
The real problem I have with this ban attempt is that lawyers benefit from the ban and 'they' (knowing that it's the judges who rose through the ranks) are deciding if it's 'good' or not. Regardless of their motives, it has the perception of impropriety which goes along way in the public eye (or it used to...).
If this were a case about physicians wanting to ban DIY medical software, then the physicians would have to convince lawyers to take the case and they'd argue before (I hope) a jury. Regardless, it's not a panel of doctor's deciding the fate of that case. So while stained with greed, the case still has to pass through a court system that doesn't benefit (additionally) from which way the case goes.
Let's say I buy DIY medical software, read the disclaimers and use it. Then I should deal with whatever the consequences are. But I am an idiot if i think i can practice medicine on others using that software. Is the argument for the ban (in the case of wills) that my will becomes a legal document for my heirs? And therefore without a law license, cannot write my own will. I hope not.
All other professions rely on the legal system to litigate disagreements. When one of the parties _is_ the legal system, we should turn to the public for resolution.