Because they do not have those. This is pretty much on the level of the fairy-tales climate-change deniers tell themselves. Only effect: Even less prepared when the inevitable happens.
If that were true, it would be a problem. It is not true. May as well say standardized components have killed the market for mechanical engineers. It has not.
What has killed the software engineering market is a flood of really cheap but really bad coders and management too stupid to see that you cannot do engineering jobs with amateurs and expect a good outcome.
While you probably meant that as a joke, it is likely the only option to keep society going medium-to-long-term. 20% of the population doing hardcore jobs, the rest basically not working or volunteering. And even that will be a huge problem as especially those 80% that are not really fit for academic education often have trouble finding meaning in life without work. And that creates unrest, mental illness (strongly on the raise, I wonder why?), destructive behavior, etc.
An UBI is necessary, but it is nowhere near a working solution. And yes, I will be one of those paying overall, not benefiting. I am just able to overcome egoism and see what is.
Indeed. Having done the CS thing myself, there were some parties, but not a lot. One of the Profs said in the beginning "This course is intended to bring you to your limits. If you are still with us after that, then you are one of those we want." He was right, and those partying all the time were gone pretty soon. STEM majors are intellectually tough. They can understand things. That puts them ahead of 80% of the population, including most students and graduates of other subjects. It also makes them replaceable by nothing else than similar graduates, even if the software economy is still trying to do demanding engineering jobs with amateurs. With predictable results.
My take also. By know everybody really involved must know that teaching is not a tech-question. I could teach my software security course without any problem just with a blackboard and email and the students would need some networked computer access to code the exercises. That is massively below what is available anyways. No, good teaching requires good teachers, time, selection of the right students (Ones that want to learn stuff and not just want to get that degree on the cheap and the best grades possible. The second group has no business being academics. You can only teach those that can be taught and want to be taught.), meaningful feedback to the teachers and teachers that really understand their subject and the relevant part of the real world. The last is critical and often missing with pure academic teachers. Personally, I teach one course and supervise one lab. But the rest of the time I do industrial work and keep current. That gets hugely appreciated by the students. Also, as to teaching skills, it really comes down to some personality traits and to clear thinking and the ability to identify what is important and what not and to represent that. It is very important to realize that you are there for the students and that it is not about making things so complicated that you can demonstrate what a genius you are (an unfortunately frequent mistake). Beyond that, the impact of teaching skills becomes low, at least on academic level, because most of the actual learning effort has to be done by the students themselves anyways.
What is absolutely critical to realize though is that only something like 20-30% of a generation has any business getting an academic education. The rest is far better served with other options and putting them trough academic education is harmful to themselves and to society.
Completely wrong. Researchers get zero money for publishing their research or for reviewing the research of others. It is all going to greedy and, today, mostly worthless publishers.
Too many companies that made abysmally bad strategic IT decisions and not cannot get rid of Oracles crap. My students tell me they expect Java to be dead within a few years (due to the upcoming fees by Oracle), but it will be decades until all legacy stuff is gone.
Anybody thinking they can buy non-compromised telco equipment is kidding themselves. That is why anybody with a clue insists on end-to-end encryption and is aware that it is obvious who talks to whom to the usual creeps (NSA, GCHQ, etc...)
Well, you have either never seen this happening or you have not realized what was going on. I have seen this numerous times. Anybody that wants power on this level is corrupt and has no honor. No exceptions. So they will investigate what people want to hear, pick a group they think can give them a win and say anything tho please that group.
Huawei will have access to all previews and likely is part of a select small group that gets them even earlier, so that is not a very strong argument. As malicious actors can be incompetent too, it is not a worthless argument, just weak. But Hanlon's Razor has stood the test of time and is usually right.
Doing something positive with the money? Naa, we cannot have that. Doing negative things like fighting some trumped up evil is far easier, because you do not actually have to be effective. Some small victories here and there, the occasional larger one, but never anything decisive and never even attempt to win overall. That way you can be seen doing "good" all the time without needing any actual success or endangering your job.
Also, the whole thing does not work on the tech side in the first place. If it did, the packaging of the wares would just be upgraded to something the dogs cannot snuff though. Also, it is absolutely no problem to send, say, 10% fake shipments to people that never ordered anything, probably with just the carton soaked in the stuff to set off the dogs, but not endanger anybody at the target. That would kill the dog idea pretty fast. They would collapse from overwork and no useful result would ensue.
You overlook two things: First, getting drugs is actually easy. And second, it is mostly tolerated, simply because doing something effective would cost a lot of people their jobs. The same people that are employed in the "war" on drugs, incidentally. So they just need to make enough arrests (mostly small, the occasional larger one, but never threatening the whole business) to keep the fear going and to justify their pay-checks. But they must never actually put a real dent in the thing.
That does not happen. With clean, medical grade drugs, even heroine addicts do not have a reduced life-expectancy (and can even work regular jobs). This is one of the lies pushed in the "war" on drugs. Alcohol, smoking, sugar and fat are a different story. They do massively impact life-expectancy unless used very carefully.
I"m surprised more countries don't start looking at their model.
That would need rational politicians that actually try to understand stuff instead of just plain pushing their ideology and winning elections at any cost. We only have a tiny number of them and they are not very successful. What we get is those drunk with thirst for power and for control over others.
Maybe this can be the next thing some small country tries: Politicians that actually care to find out the facts and then act according to them.
1- Name one place it's been tried and didn't turn to shit (as seen in Vancouver)
Many problems here. First off, Vancouver did not legalize drugs, probably just marijuana. And, that was partly in response to the fact that it was being treated as legal at the ground level already. Hardly a useful example.
Amsterdam is not a shithole, and certainly not MORE of a shithole than prior to decriminalization. Portugal has had positive numbers (lower youth use, less secondary and tertiary problems from addiction, falling use in general, etc). [...] I've responded to this strawman enough.
The prohibitionists need to keep this strawman going, mostly with direct lies, because the have no rational arguments. They need to distort the perception of reality of others or they lose and their real motivations become obvious ("no fun except in prayer", desperate desire to control others, plain greed, plain maliciousness, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
Because they do not have those. This is pretty much on the level of the fairy-tales climate-change deniers tell themselves.
Only effect: Even less prepared when the inevitable happens.
If that were true, it would be a problem. It is not true. May as well say standardized components have killed the market for mechanical engineers. It has not.
What has killed the software engineering market is a flood of really cheap but really bad coders and management too stupid to see that you cannot do engineering jobs with amateurs and expect a good outcome.
A yes, that would be "those" programmers. I have cleaned up a few of the messes they routinely make because of lack of insight and talent.
While you probably meant that as a joke, it is likely the only option to keep society going medium-to-long-term. 20% of the population doing hardcore jobs, the rest basically not working or volunteering. And even that will be a huge problem as especially those 80% that are not really fit for academic education often have trouble finding meaning in life without work. And that creates unrest, mental illness (strongly on the raise, I wonder why?), destructive behavior, etc.
An UBI is necessary, but it is nowhere near a working solution. And yes, I will be one of those paying overall, not benefiting. I am just able to overcome egoism and see what is.
Indeed. Having done the CS thing myself, there were some parties, but not a lot. One of the Profs said in the beginning "This course is intended to bring you to your limits. If you are still with us after that, then you are one of those we want." He was right, and those partying all the time were gone pretty soon. STEM majors are intellectually tough. They can understand things. That puts them ahead of 80% of the population, including most students and graduates of other subjects. It also makes them replaceable by nothing else than similar graduates, even if the software economy is still trying to do demanding engineering jobs with amateurs. With predictable results.
My take also. By know everybody really involved must know that teaching is not a tech-question. I could teach my software security course without any problem just with a blackboard and email and the students would need some networked computer access to code the exercises. That is massively below what is available anyways. No, good teaching requires good teachers, time, selection of the right students (Ones that want to learn stuff and not just want to get that degree on the cheap and the best grades possible. The second group has no business being academics. You can only teach those that can be taught and want to be taught.), meaningful feedback to the teachers and teachers that really understand their subject and the relevant part of the real world. The last is critical and often missing with pure academic teachers. Personally, I teach one course and supervise one lab. But the rest of the time I do industrial work and keep current. That gets hugely appreciated by the students. Also, as to teaching skills, it really comes down to some personality traits and to clear thinking and the ability to identify what is important and what not and to represent that. It is very important to realize that you are there for the students and that it is not about making things so complicated that you can demonstrate what a genius you are (an unfortunately frequent mistake). Beyond that, the impact of teaching skills becomes low, at least on academic level, because most of the actual learning effort has to be done by the students themselves anyways.
What is absolutely critical to realize though is that only something like 20-30% of a generation has any business getting an academic education. The rest is far better served with other options and putting them trough academic education is harmful to themselves and to society.
Completely wrong. Researchers get zero money for publishing their research or for reviewing the research of others. It is all going to greedy and, today, mostly worthless publishers.
There are always some fuckers that want to restrict access and get rich on it. It is an utter disgrace.
Solaris is pretty slow on anything. And it has a really bad network stack and that is after it was cleaned up.
Nice!
Slowlaris on a phone? Could the ideas get any worse?
Too many companies that made abysmally bad strategic IT decisions and not cannot get rid of Oracles crap. My students tell me they expect Java to be dead within a few years (due to the upcoming fees by Oracle), but it will be decades until all legacy stuff is gone.
And I say that as an atheist. Oracle is the proverbial Evil Inc. that only cares about fucking its customers over.
Indeed.
Anybody thinking they can buy non-compromised telco equipment is kidding themselves. That is why anybody with a clue insists on end-to-end encryption and is aware that it is obvious who talks to whom to the usual creeps (NSA, GCHQ, etc...)
Well, you have either never seen this happening or you have not realized what was going on. I have seen this numerous times. Anybody that wants power on this level is corrupt and has no honor. No exceptions. So they will investigate what people want to hear, pick a group they think can give them a win and say anything tho please that group.
She will probably forget about all these ideas fast, should she get elected.
Huawei will have access to all previews and likely is part of a select small group that gets them even earlier, so that is not a very strong argument. As malicious actors can be incompetent too, it is not a worthless argument, just weak. But Hanlon's Razor has stood the test of time and is usually right.
Have the snake-oil vendors gotten into the HSM market after all? Care to share a reference to a product?
Doing something positive with the money? Naa, we cannot have that. Doing negative things like fighting some trumped up evil is far easier, because you do not actually have to be effective. Some small victories here and there, the occasional larger one, but never anything decisive and never even attempt to win overall. That way you can be seen doing "good" all the time without needing any actual success or endangering your job.
Also, the whole thing does not work on the tech side in the first place. If it did, the packaging of the wares would just be upgraded to something the dogs cannot snuff though. Also, it is absolutely no problem to send, say, 10% fake shipments to people that never ordered anything, probably with just the carton soaked in the stuff to set off the dogs, but not endanger anybody at the target. That would kill the dog idea pretty fast. They would collapse from overwork and no useful result would ensue.
You overlook two things: First, getting drugs is actually easy. And second, it is mostly tolerated, simply because doing something effective would cost a lot of people their jobs. The same people that are employed in the "war" on drugs, incidentally. So they just need to make enough arrests (mostly small, the occasional larger one, but never threatening the whole business) to keep the fear going and to justify their pay-checks. But they must never actually put a real dent in the thing.
...(many killing themselves via OD)...
That does not happen. With clean, medical grade drugs, even heroine addicts do not have a reduced life-expectancy (and can even work regular jobs). This is one of the lies pushed in the "war" on drugs. Alcohol, smoking, sugar and fat are a different story. They do massively impact life-expectancy unless used very carefully.
>
I"m surprised more countries don't start looking at their model.
That would need rational politicians that actually try to understand stuff instead of just plain pushing their ideology and winning elections at any cost. We only have a tiny number of them and they are not very successful. What we get is those drunk with thirst for power and for control over others.
Maybe this can be the next thing some small country tries: Politicians that actually care to find out the facts and then act according to them.
1- Name one place it's been tried and didn't turn to shit (as seen in Vancouver)
Many problems here. First off, Vancouver did not legalize drugs, probably just marijuana. And, that was partly in response to the fact that it was being treated as legal at the ground level already. Hardly a useful example.
Amsterdam is not a shithole, and certainly not MORE of a shithole than prior to decriminalization. Portugal has had positive numbers (lower youth use, less secondary and tertiary problems from addiction, falling use in general, etc). [...] I've responded to this strawman enough.
The prohibitionists need to keep this strawman going, mostly with direct lies, because the have no rational arguments. They need to distort the perception of reality of others or they lose and their real motivations become obvious ("no fun except in prayer", desperate desire to control others, plain greed, plain maliciousness, etc.).