I don't really understand licenses that well -- this is just my uneducated opinion.
I don't think the GPL would work well with something other than software. Once I tried to think about how people could copyright music under less restictive licenses. You'd want to copyright a song (not necessarily a given recording of the song) so that coffee shop/bar bands could legally sing it, but you have to do something to preserve the integrity of the art. I don't think the GPL really does that, because with the GPL people can modify your work and distribute those modifications. This has practical value in the software community, but in the music community people want their work to remain unique and intact. I assume that authors would feel the same way.
What you'd need, in my view, is a copyright license that allows people to distribute an etext freely and ensures that no one down the line can take that freedom away. However, people should be forbidden from altering the etext, and the author should always receive credit for the work. That way, you can give your stuff to Project Gutenberg without fear of compromising its integrity.
This is just an idea, and I know that it isn't a perfect solution yet. But I think that a license based on these ideas could be worked up and actually used by authors, musicians, and artists to promote the exchange of ideas and information. That's really the spirit of the GPL anyway, right?
I don't totally understand the issue, but would be willing to help out if I understood what was going on, who to write, and what to tell them. Has anyone created a single page that describes the work of the programmer(s) in question, summarizes the copyright laws in question, offers one or more analyses of the situation, and suggests an appropriate course of action that people can take to help out? Having all this information centralized would be, in my opinion, a big help by enabling casual Slashdot readers like me lend a hand.
My uncle got a used Packard Bell 486 several years ago. After a while, the internal modem died. So he opened up the case to replace the modem, and the modem was RIVETED to the motherboard with what looked like regular airplane rivets. He had to break the old modem off with a pair of pliers in order to install a new one.
Frankly, I'm amazed that Packard Bell made it as far as it has.
If this helps, I tried running it as a standalone application. I don't enough about Linux and Wine and stuff to know if Quicktime 4 uses any weird API's, but it does have a non-traditional GUI and frequently crashes in Windows.
I have read speculation that Intel is pressuring motherboard makers not to build Athlon motherboards. If a company builds an Athlon board, then they might fall vitum to an "unfortunate shortage" of chipsets and the such. Even if Intel is playing fair, the last time I checked there weren't too many Athlon boards out there, especially compared to Intel- and K6-compatible boards.
On a related note, what happened to Gigabyte's Athlon motherboard? I read a review of it on Tom's Hardware, but there is no mention of it on the Gigabyte website.
I am under the impression that they've only opened parts of their next OS. For instance, I seriously doubt they've opened their GUI, and that's probably the most useful thing they could do. Furthermore, I doubt you'll be able to download an ISO file of the installation CD. Free speech is great, but sometimes free beer is just as important.
You have hardware companies who have nothing to lose from open source software, and you have software companies like Microsoft who have little to gain from open source software. Apple's position as both a hardware and a software maker is the source of their ambivalence.
"but in the meantime, our only choices are Wine (dunno if QT4 can be supported by this, though)"
I have Quicktime 4.0 installed on a FAT32 partition that I use with Windows 95 OEM2. I tried many times to run Quicktime with Wine version 990815 and Red Hat 6.0. Quicktime always crashed before it finished loading. That's just my experience.
I e-mailed Apple when the James Bond trailer came out. I very politely told them that I wanted to use Quicktime 4.0 but couldn't because I did most of my Internet stuff in Linux. I actually got a reply less than 24 hours later, but it didn't say anything other than that someone had received and read my comment.
I don't think Apple is such a big Open Source fan. Open Source benefits hardware makers, because the more stuff that runs on their stuff the better. Apple is a hardware company so you'd think this would be good for them.
But Apple is also a software company, and MacOS and OS X are a big part of their business model. In this area, Open Source is a threat. Linux, FreeBSD, and the like theaten the revenue derived from sale of their proprietary operating systems.
I think that Apple is in a situation where it doesn't know what to do. If they support Linux (as they have with mkLinux) they make Mac hardware more attractive, but at the same time they risk losing market share and (perhaps more importantly) mindshare.
I wrote Apple a complaint about their lack of Linux support a while back and they sent me a stupid, form-generated "yeah whatever" reply. I think that Linux competes with OS X or something. At any rate, they are pretty ambivilant (sp) about it.
If you want to see some antics that don't require Quicktime 4.0 click here. The site was created by a former employee of SGI who had way too much time on his hands.
If I remember correctly, he was sued by the record company he recorded for while he was in CCR. The record company owns the copyrights to CCR's songs, and they sued him for plagerizing one of his own songs for a solo album on a different label. The whole thing was pretty stupid, and I'm glad he defeated the lawsuit.
"now all pop music can be created by formulaic computer programs!"
Better than being created by formulaic record producers. At least now when they interview sucky artists on MTV, they'll have to be honest about where their inspiration is coming from. Instead of "Tom -- the producer -- is such an artist. He, like, totally understood where I coming from on this track" we'll finally hear the truth. "Well, like, you know, Carson, the businessmen at the record company used, like, Microsoft Hit-Maker Pro or something to generate the backing tracks and vocal melody for, like, the entire album, you know. Then, you know, some other businessman brought me some lyrics that, like, you know, test well with 14-year-old girls . .."
Of course, the MTV dopes will probably market this as the Next Big Thing -- "Cyber Rock -- the all-digital multimedia experience" or something dumb like that.
While I totally agree with you about Pine's virtues, I have to argue that Outlook is, in fact, pretty cool. Yeah Outlook is bloated, and Outlook 97 just plain sucked (what the hell were they thinking?). But I do prefer Outlook 2000 over Pine for a couple of reasons.
1. I have a lot of friends in school all over the country. I have to keep up with e-mail addresses, phone numbers, mailing addresses, birthdays, and so on. With Outlook, I only have to keep one address book. When I used other programs, I had to have a detailed address book for maintaining most info and a simple address book in my e-mail application. It's hard to keep the two up to date with each other.
2. With the help of a Dataviz application, Outlook will sync with my Palm Pilot. I know there are Palm Pilot daemons for Linux, but every solution I've encountered is lacking in one way or the other.
If anyone out there knows of a Linux application that will allow me to do the things that Outlook does, let me know. I'll make the switch tomorrow!
I don't understand the point of the ad. People who are going to be scared of a free X server are going to be scared of a free operating system.
The only replacement for XFree86 I've used is something called MetroX (is that right?). it came on an old Red Hat 5.0 CD -- I didn't see any difference, so I switched back to XFree86 when Red Hat 5.2 came out.
And the X server has never crashed in the 12 months I've been running Linux on my box.
You act as if KDE and GNOME are being shoved down your throat. They aren't. If YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE EITHER OF THEM. Even if your Linux distribution comes with one or the other you are in no way forced to run it.
I know all the unix commands for listing, copying, and moving files, and could use them to do all my file management from the console or an xterm. But you know what? I don't want to. It's quicker and easier to use drag-and-drop. You may disagree, but in Linux IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.
I agree that themes are trivial. But I do believe that it is reasonable to add a little eye candy if you want to. You look at the monitor all the time, you should have something cool to look at if you want. However, not everyone who uses KDE or GNOME uses themes. I don't use them because I don't want to fool with them, but that's my choice, and I have no business speaking for other users. Linux is cool because IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.
Now people are going to talk about stability and performance issues. I have a P200 that is far more powerful than what I need to get by. I can afford to use up some RAM and CPU cycles. And when I need the stability for something (like a long download), I just exit X Windows and do it from the console.
I don't blame you for not liking KDE and GNOME. Personally, I hate GNOME and get frustrated with KDE pretty frequently. But don't whine about it like you've been done some sort of injustice. The bottom line is that, in Linux, IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.
Techies wouldn't want them for their personal workstations, but imagine using one as a router, firewall, mail server, etc on a home LAN. All you'd need would be the slots in the back for ethernet cards.
I need a pretty inexpensive Linux box to use as a firewall and router for a home LAN. If there is a local market for used equipment, I don't know of it. I would love to be able to order a $200 linux machine, as long as it's Pentium-class I don't care how fast it is. I have a couple of extra monitors and an old CD-ROM drive, so I could easily make it work.
I wouldn't buy one for just typing and web-surfing, though. Linux doesn't really support a lot of low-end peripherals that I'd wanna use if I was looking for a computer on a budget. Maybe in a year or two.
Last year my dorm room wasn't wired with Ethernet jacks. We had to use Localtalk to network through the phone jacks. My expensive, wicked-cool PC wouldn't do that, so I bought a Mac LC at a state surplus warehouse for $40. It wasn't much, but it did everything I needed it to do, even as a CS student. Besides, "Oregon Trail" was awesome.
Actually I had three Macs total -- I added a Classic and a Classic II to my fleet for $20 each. I pillaged them for parts and software and when I was done, I gave them to friends, who used them daily for e-mail, essay-typing, and stuff.
A computer that was made in 1991 or whatever performs very well, as long as you relegate it to the tasks it was designed to handle. Or until the HD dies.
I remember reading that there was a ridiculously teeny tiny insignificant chance that something horrible would occur, but no one could prove with absolute certainty for certain that it wouldn't occur. But by the same token, you be absolutely certain that the world wasn't created in 1976 and that all of history and all of people's memories were falsified to test our faith in Storkilious, True Lord of the Universe (TM).
There comes a point where "certainty" is just a topic of academic debate for metaphysicians and logicians.
However, consider what would happen if you really could create a black hole. The Army would immediately take it, hide it away and use it as a new weapon of mass destruction. Assuming, of course, there was a way to target and limit it's power, you could just drop a black-hole bomb on China or something.
MTV explores the sinister art of fishing for AOL passwords with AOHell (or whatever it's called).
The following story, if true, reveals all one needs to know about MTV.
Once, back in 1992, they interviewed Bill Clinton, and he said that when he was young his dream was to play saxaphone with Thelonious Monk. MTV's follow up question: "Who's the lonliest monk?"
What people need is a broad education. The world changes faster than people can keep up with it, so you need to be able to learn on the fly.
There's a guy named Loren Pope who wrote a couple of really good books on the subject of choosing colleges. He recommends small liberal arts schools because you get far more contact with professors that way.
Here are the books. If you follow the links you go to their pages on Amazon.
What you should look for is the opportunity to do independent research and stuff. That will help you get a job or get into grad school. And you should be sure that the CS department has Unix. I am taking a couple classes at a branch of the University of SC, and they seem to teach all their stuff on Windows 95 (and people think NT sucks). I think every student of CS should be able to get work done in Unix.
Apply to Chapel Hill. You don't have to go there, but you'll get to show off to all the out-of-staters who can't get in.:-)
Here's a serious suggestion -- go to a smaller school that focuses on undergrad education. You're more likely to get to do research and stuff there. For instance, check out Guilford College in Greensboro. From what I hear, it's a pretty progressive place (by Southern standards, at least). You can major in physics and pick up a concentration in CS. Upon graduation, you'll probably get to attend a good grad school in either field.
As an adult, you'll have to be able to get a job. In CS this won't be hard. But you'll also want to understand social and political issues and you're gonna need to be a polished writer no matter what you do. You can theoretically go through a big school without ever writing a paper. And though freebees are cool every now and then, they're not why you go to college.
If you go to a big school, even Chapel Hill, you get Teaching Assistants. They tend to suck.
You can read more about this (and look at some statistics) in the following books by Loren Pope:
Colleges that Change Lives Looking Beyond the Ivy League
I think that the core of my argument is solid and well thought-out. Let me respond to some of your remarks.
"How is it that something which is illegal for one person to do (e.g. a non-voluntary transfer of money) becomes legal when the "community" does it?"
I suppose you mean taxes. Taxes are necessary to support a government. Government is necessary to maintain civilization. And civilization sure beats scrounging around the forest for berries and shit. Those are your only two choices. Life's a bitch.
"First, children have always worked. Second, add up the hours that children work in school, and after school on homework. Ten- to twelve-hour days are commonplace."
But not in coal mines and factories. And coal mines and factories were infinitely worse than they are now, because there was no such thing as OSHA.
The average American lived in squalid poverty before the businesses came along. How can they be said to have caused that poverty?
They made it much, much worse and did nothing to make it better, even though they had the power to do so. You should read up on urban life during the industrial revolution. Be sure to include a book called "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair in your studies.
If you ask Libertarians, they'll tell you that they don't want the benefits and security that government provides either. Such benefits and security always come at a price.
What they say they want doesn't always represent what they really want. In the United States, we live in a time of immense wealth and unprecidented prosperity. It's easy to take it for granted. In fact, I think it is almost impossible NOT to take it for granted at some level. I don't believe that libertarians consciously understand the extent to which our government provides the stability and security that serve as the foundation for this prosperity.
I can write much, much, more if necessary, but I hope this helps to clarify my thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really understand licenses that well -- this is just my uneducated opinion.
I don't think the GPL would work well with something other than software. Once I tried to think about how people could copyright music under less restictive licenses. You'd want to copyright a song (not necessarily a given recording of the song) so that coffee shop/bar bands could legally sing it, but you have to do something to preserve the integrity of the art. I don't think the GPL really does that, because with the GPL people can modify your work and distribute those modifications. This has practical value in the software community, but in the music community people want their work to remain unique and intact. I assume that authors would feel the same way.
What you'd need, in my view, is a copyright license that allows people to distribute an etext freely and ensures that no one down the line can take that freedom away. However, people should be forbidden from altering the etext, and the author should always receive credit for the work. That way, you can give your stuff to Project Gutenberg without fear of compromising its integrity.
This is just an idea, and I know that it isn't a perfect solution yet. But I think that a license based on these ideas could be worked up and actually used by authors, musicians, and artists to promote the exchange of ideas and information. That's really the spirit of the GPL anyway, right?
Take care,
Steve
I was hoping they'd include the talking paper clip that Office users are so fond of.
But Jackson also ruled that Microsoft abused it's monopoly power. So it IS a "naughty" ruling.
I don't totally understand the issue, but would be willing to help out if I understood what was going on, who to write, and what to tell them. Has anyone created a single page that describes the work of the programmer(s) in question, summarizes the copyright laws in question, offers one or more analyses of the situation, and suggests an appropriate course of action that people can take to help out? Having all this information centralized would be, in my opinion, a big help by enabling casual Slashdot readers like me lend a hand.
Take care,
Steve
My uncle got a used Packard Bell 486 several years ago. After a while, the internal modem died. So he opened up the case to replace the modem, and the modem was RIVETED to the motherboard with what looked like regular airplane rivets. He had to break the old modem off with a pair of pliers in order to install a new one.
Frankly, I'm amazed that Packard Bell made it as far as it has.
Take care,
Steve
If this helps, I tried running it as a standalone application. I don't enough about Linux and Wine and stuff to know if Quicktime 4 uses any weird API's, but it does have a non-traditional GUI and frequently crashes in Windows.
Take care,
Steve
I have read speculation that Intel is pressuring motherboard makers not to build Athlon motherboards. If a company builds an Athlon board, then they might fall vitum to an "unfortunate shortage" of chipsets and the such. Even if Intel is playing fair, the last time I checked there weren't too many Athlon boards out there, especially compared to Intel- and K6-compatible boards.
On a related note, what happened to Gigabyte's Athlon motherboard? I read a review of it on Tom's Hardware, but there is no mention of it on the Gigabyte website.
Take care,
Steve
I am under the impression that they've only opened parts of their next OS. For instance, I seriously doubt they've opened their GUI, and that's probably the most useful thing they could do. Furthermore, I doubt you'll be able to download an ISO file of the installation CD. Free speech is great, but sometimes free beer is just as important.
You have hardware companies who have nothing to lose from open source software, and you have software companies like Microsoft who have little to gain from open source software. Apple's position as both a hardware and a software maker is the source of their ambivalence.
gotta go...wish I could write more.
Take care,
Steve
"but in the meantime, our only choices are Wine (dunno if QT4 can be supported by this, though)"
I have Quicktime 4.0 installed on a FAT32 partition that I use with Windows 95 OEM2. I tried many times to run Quicktime with Wine version 990815 and Red Hat 6.0. Quicktime always crashed before it finished loading. That's just my experience.
Take care,
Steve
I e-mailed Apple when the James Bond trailer came out. I very politely told them that I wanted to use Quicktime 4.0 but couldn't because I did most of my Internet stuff in Linux. I actually got a reply less than 24 hours later, but it didn't say anything other than that someone had received and read my comment.
I don't think Apple is such a big Open Source fan. Open Source benefits hardware makers, because the more stuff that runs on their stuff the better. Apple is a hardware company so you'd think this would be good for them.
But Apple is also a software company, and MacOS and OS X are a big part of their business model. In this area, Open Source is a threat. Linux, FreeBSD, and the like theaten the revenue derived from sale of their proprietary operating systems.
I think that Apple is in a situation where it doesn't know what to do. If they support Linux (as they have with mkLinux) they make Mac hardware more attractive, but at the same time they risk losing market share and (perhaps more importantly) mindshare.
Those are my thoughts.
Take care,
Steve
I wrote Apple a complaint about their lack of Linux support a while back and they sent me a stupid, form-generated "yeah whatever" reply. I think that Linux competes with OS X or something. At any rate, they are pretty ambivilant (sp) about it.
If you want to see some antics that don't require Quicktime 4.0 click here. The site was created by a former employee of SGI who had way too much time on his hands.
Take care,
Steve
If I remember correctly, he was sued by the record company he recorded for while he was in CCR. The record company owns the copyrights to CCR's songs, and they sued him for plagerizing one of his own songs for a solo album on a different label. The whole thing was pretty stupid, and I'm glad he defeated the lawsuit.
Take care,
Steve
"now all pop music can be created by formulaic computer programs!"
."
Better than being created by formulaic record producers. At least now when they interview sucky artists on MTV, they'll have to be honest about where their inspiration is coming from. Instead of "Tom -- the producer -- is such an artist. He, like, totally understood where I coming from on this track" we'll finally hear the truth. "Well, like, you know, Carson, the businessmen at the record company used, like, Microsoft Hit-Maker Pro or something to generate the backing tracks and vocal melody for, like, the entire album, you know. Then, you know, some other businessman brought me some lyrics that, like, you know, test well with 14-year-old girls . .
Of course, the MTV dopes will probably market this as the Next Big Thing -- "Cyber Rock -- the all-digital multimedia experience" or something dumb like that.
take care,
Steve
Don't take it too hard -- we still have Jar Jar to hang on to. :-)
While I totally agree with you about Pine's virtues, I have to argue that Outlook is, in fact, pretty cool. Yeah Outlook is bloated, and Outlook 97 just plain sucked (what the hell were they thinking?). But I do prefer Outlook 2000 over Pine for a couple of reasons.
1. I have a lot of friends in school all over the country. I have to keep up with e-mail addresses, phone numbers, mailing addresses, birthdays, and so on. With Outlook, I only have to keep one address book. When I used other programs, I had to have a detailed address book for maintaining most info and a simple address book in my e-mail application. It's hard to keep the two up to date with each other.
2. With the help of a Dataviz application, Outlook will sync with my Palm Pilot. I know there are Palm Pilot daemons for Linux, but every solution I've encountered is lacking in one way or the other.
If anyone out there knows of a Linux application that will allow me to do the things that Outlook does, let me know. I'll make the switch tomorrow!
Take care,
Steve
I don't understand the point of the ad. People who are going to be scared of a free X server are going to be scared of a free operating system.
The only replacement for XFree86 I've used is something called MetroX (is that right?). it came on an old Red Hat 5.0 CD -- I didn't see any difference, so I switched back to XFree86 when Red Hat 5.2 came out.
And the X server has never crashed in the 12 months I've been running Linux on my box.
Take care,
Steve
You act as if KDE and GNOME are being shoved down your throat. They aren't. If YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE EITHER OF THEM. Even if your Linux distribution comes with one or the other you are in no way forced to run it.
I know all the unix commands for listing, copying, and moving files, and could use them to do all my file management from the console or an xterm. But you know what? I don't want to. It's quicker and easier to use drag-and-drop. You may disagree, but in Linux IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.
I agree that themes are trivial. But I do believe that it is reasonable to add a little eye candy if you want to. You look at the monitor all the time, you should have something cool to look at if you want. However, not everyone who uses KDE or GNOME uses themes. I don't use them because I don't want to fool with them, but that's my choice, and I have no business speaking for other users. Linux is cool because IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.
Now people are going to talk about stability and performance issues. I have a P200 that is far more powerful than what I need to get by. I can afford to use up some RAM and CPU cycles. And when I need the stability for something (like a long download), I just exit X Windows and do it from the console.
I don't blame you for not liking KDE and GNOME. Personally, I hate GNOME and get frustrated with KDE pretty frequently. But don't whine about it like you've been done some sort of injustice. The bottom line is that, in Linux, IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.
Techies wouldn't want them for their personal workstations, but imagine using one as a router, firewall, mail server, etc on a home LAN. All you'd need would be the slots in the back for ethernet cards.
I might pick up a couple.
Take care,
Steve
I need a pretty inexpensive Linux box to use as a firewall and router for a home LAN. If there is a local market for used equipment, I don't know of it. I would love to be able to order a $200 linux machine, as long as it's Pentium-class I don't care how fast it is. I have a couple of extra monitors and an old CD-ROM drive, so I could easily make it work.
I wouldn't buy one for just typing and web-surfing, though. Linux doesn't really support a lot of low-end peripherals that I'd wanna use if I was looking for a computer on a budget. Maybe in a year or two.
Take care,
Steve
Last year my dorm room wasn't wired with Ethernet jacks. We had to use Localtalk to network through the phone jacks. My expensive, wicked-cool PC wouldn't do that, so I bought a Mac LC at a state surplus warehouse for $40. It wasn't much, but it did everything I needed it to do, even as a CS student. Besides, "Oregon Trail" was awesome.
Actually I had three Macs total -- I added a Classic and a Classic II to my fleet for $20 each. I pillaged them for parts and software and when I was done, I gave them to friends, who used them daily for e-mail, essay-typing, and stuff.
A computer that was made in 1991 or whatever performs very well, as long as you relegate it to the tasks it was designed to handle. Or until the HD dies.
Take care,
Steve
I remember reading that there was a ridiculously teeny tiny insignificant chance that something horrible would occur, but no one could prove with absolute certainty for certain that it wouldn't occur. But by the same token, you be absolutely certain that the world wasn't created in 1976 and that all of history and all of people's memories were falsified to test our faith in Storkilious, True Lord of the Universe (TM).
There comes a point where "certainty" is just a topic of academic debate for metaphysicians and logicians.
However, consider what would happen if you really could create a black hole. The Army would immediately take it, hide it away and use it as a new weapon of mass destruction. Assuming, of course, there was a way to target and limit it's power, you could just drop a black-hole bomb on China or something.
Is something like this theoretically possible?
Take care,
Steve
MTV explores the sinister art of fishing for AOL passwords with AOHell (or whatever it's called).
The following story, if true, reveals all one needs to know about MTV.
Once, back in 1992, they interviewed Bill Clinton, and he said that when he was young his dream was to play saxaphone with Thelonious Monk. MTV's follow up question: "Who's the lonliest monk?"
Take care,
Steve
What people need is a broad education. The world changes faster than people can keep up with it, so you need to be able to learn on the fly.
There's a guy named Loren Pope who wrote a couple of really good books on the subject of choosing colleges. He recommends small liberal arts schools because you get far more contact with professors that way.
Here are the books. If you follow the links you go to their pages on Amazon.
Colleges That Change Lives: 40 Schools You Should Know About Even If You're Not a Straight-A Student
Looking Beyond the Ivy League: Finding the College That's Right for You
What you should look for is the opportunity to do independent research and stuff. That will help you get a job or get into grad school. And you should be sure that the CS department has Unix. I am taking a couple classes at a branch of the University of SC, and they seem to teach all their stuff on Windows 95 (and people think NT sucks). I think every student of CS should be able to get work done in Unix.
That's my $0.02 good luck, dude.
Take care,
Steve
Apply to Chapel Hill. You don't have to go there, but you'll get to show off to all the out-of-staters who can't get in. :-)
Here's a serious suggestion -- go to a smaller school that focuses on undergrad education. You're more likely to get to do research and stuff there. For instance, check out Guilford College in Greensboro. From what I hear, it's a pretty progressive place (by Southern standards, at least). You can major in physics and pick up a concentration in CS. Upon graduation, you'll probably get to attend a good grad school in either field.
As an adult, you'll have to be able to get a job. In CS this won't be hard. But you'll also want to understand social and political issues and you're gonna need to be a polished writer no matter what you do. You can theoretically go through a big school without ever writing a paper. And though freebees are cool every now and then, they're not why you go to college.
If you go to a big school, even Chapel Hill, you get Teaching Assistants. They tend to suck.
You can read more about this (and look at some statistics) in the following books by Loren Pope:
Colleges that Change Lives
Looking Beyond the Ivy League
Good luck dude,
Steve
I think that the core of my argument is solid and well thought-out. Let me respond to some of your remarks.
"How is it that something which is illegal for one person to do (e.g. a non-voluntary transfer of money) becomes legal when the "community" does it?"
I suppose you mean taxes. Taxes are necessary to support a government. Government is necessary to maintain civilization. And civilization sure beats scrounging around the forest for berries and shit. Those are your only two choices. Life's a bitch.
"First, children have always worked. Second, add up the hours that children work in school, and after school on homework. Ten- to twelve-hour days are commonplace."
But not in coal mines and factories. And coal mines and factories were infinitely worse than they are now, because there was no such thing as OSHA.
The average American lived in squalid poverty before the businesses came along. How can they be said to have caused that poverty?
They made it much, much worse and did nothing to make it better, even though they had the power to do so. You should read up on urban life during the industrial revolution. Be sure to include a book called "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair in your studies.
If you ask Libertarians, they'll tell you that they don't want the benefits and security that government provides either. Such benefits and security always come at a price.
What they say they want doesn't always represent what they really want. In the United States, we live in a time of immense wealth and unprecidented prosperity. It's easy to take it for granted. In fact, I think it is almost impossible NOT to take it for granted at some level. I don't believe that libertarians consciously understand the extent to which our government provides the stability and security that serve as the foundation for this prosperity.
I can write much, much, more if necessary, but I hope this helps to clarify my thinking.
Take care,
Steve