I posted this idea on one of the ie blogs, but it still holds true here. M$ has a choice:
1) Break webpages in a (possibly) significant way now and from now on be standards compliant, or
2) Break webpages in small but noticeable ways with EVERY release
Now, I'm voting for (1) because it has the best long term solution, and in that long term, has better benefits both for developers and companies. IMO, that's just a no-brainer. After all, companiees are going to have to update there stuff on every release because of (2) anyway. Why not make it matter?
Java is actually a good choice for a first language in this regards. This is after all the context of this conversation now isn't it. You're also assuming that I'm saying it should be the/only/ language. Are you sure that's a good assumption?
Regarding research, let me know how I can test a new OS design with Java. Also, let me know how I can program on the metal in AI research. They do program these robots things that require control of servos, etc. Surely, there are many many many more examples. But, let's start there.
Your first point was just addressed in a response to the other gentleman.
Regarding your second point, bullshit. Just take a look across the pond in Germany. Specifically, look at the Math and Physics programs (that is where I've looked and KNOW). You're also confusing what I say should be/is the primary purpose of a University (Academics agree btw) to what it currently offers. Check out the history of the dumbing down of the curricula in your own country in the last century.
I'm 30 and live in Canada. Here there has always been a difference (at least within my lifetime).
If you want clarification, here a College is something that gives 2-yr Diplomas (read: only practical, zero theory) and/or "the trades". Whereas, the Universities give out 3/4-yr (honours) BS Degrees (90%+ theory) where one has the possibility to go onto a Masters program. That Masters program possibly being at the same institution. Of course, that is being dumbed down (drastically in some cases).
For the record, I have a 2-yr Diploma (Computer Analyst/Programmer) and worked in industry as a web developer. I found my education fine for that purpose. But, perhaps it was that I took an active interest in what was going on "under the hood" i.e. I went beyond the curriculum.
I also have a Math Degree from an average University (I actually looked at different curriculum around the country so, yes, I can say that). I also took classes from another University (I've move a fair bit due to the spouse) which was a horror. There they had a significantly dumbed down and the mentality there was... They had significant problems even knowing where to start a proof in 3RD YEAR! Worse yet, I was prevented from using proper notation because it was "confusing" to the other students and if they weren't allowed/couldn't use it, then I wasn't allowed to either.
This is where we are heading in Academia. Quite frankly, this profoundly disturbs me. To send out functionally retarded people in whatever area (highschool Math teachers scare me the most) is irresponsible in the extreme. I mean, right now I find the level of critical thought and output from people horrid. I shutter to think what it'll be in another 10 or 20 years.
You're arguing that what goes on at College should be going on at Universities. This is very very wrong.
Java is fine to learn at College because of the reasons you cited i.e. the purpose is to get people actually building things that is relevant to industry.
Java is a horror at University because learning to code is NOT its primary (or secondary, or...) purpose there. The purpose of a University is to get people to be able to go onto a Masters and PhD and be able to do actual research. In this case, research in Computer Science. For this context, a programming language is just a tool to be used to really dig into an idea. And one cannot do that with Java when one is dealing with such low-level things as OS's.
Your example of Feynman diagrams is also false and misleading. There it was about notation and practicality thereof. People will stick to what works for them and those "big names" that you mention already were "stuck in there ways" with the "old" notation. They PREFERRED to use the old one because they were used to it. Feynman diagrams stuck around because they conveyed the necessary information in an easier to understand way.
Here we are talking about function. Basically, there are many many many things in the CS curriculum that require a low-level language to properly describe. This does NOT include Java. There is also a level of detail of thinking that one acquires when one programs in a lower-level language like C that one cannot get with something like Java.
Basically, while Java makes business apps and such easier to write, it is counter productive with regards to the goals of a University CS program. But, if I'm wrong, just go ahead and show us an OS that was written in pure Java.
Tonight I just watched the South Park episodes I, II and III and when reading the summary I got the distinct impression that this is what's going on. Perhaps we should nuke America's imagination?
Actually, they should have called the parents. It's not the Administrators place to parent other people's children. Especially, when it's during a time when they aren't responsible for the child in any way shape or form.
It's called knowing ones place. Something that these Administrators really really need to learn.
I know that this might seem obvious, but it doesn't seem to be any more. My wife has told me of a new problem with graduates that is currently be documented by employers. Namely, that because of the lack of requirements (and difficulty thereof), among other problems, that students going into the work-place aren't used to actually working. So, they put in a pathetic amount of work in any given day.
For those that disagree, lets think about the average students day. (S)he will wake up and get to there first class. This might be arriving for 8am or at some point in the afternoon. For arguments sake, lets say it's 8am. But, then how many classes a day are students taking? The full course load at most North American Universities is 5 at one time. That being split into classes on MWF and T/TH. Giving a non-skewed split of work, there'll be at most approx. 3 hours or so of classes per day.
Now, for most students this is where the typical day ends and all the work that is done. For others, there'll be a couple more hours of work through doing questions and/or reading ahead and/or... But, nothing really significant. Perhaps 1 or 2 more hours a day.
Do that for 4 or 5 or... years and it's no wonder that students have a skewed understanding of what a work day actually means. As in, the above students day is rather different from full time work where you're actually expected to work during all those hours.
So, that's my number 1; be willing to work.
My number 2 is understand what you don't know and understand how well you know what you do know. There's nothing more irritating than someone who doesn't know his/her limitations in knowledge and understanding. It's one thing to be confident, it's another matter entirely to be delusional.
Effectively, when someone says you're wrong, don't do the knee-jerk "No, you're wrong." Ask why they think that. Start a discussion. Quite frankly, IMO, if people would ask more questions instead of arrogantly assuming that they're always right, we'd get a lot more done in a lot less time ending up with a lot better quality.
For number 3, learn as much as you can that's outside your curriculum. Also, realise that you can never learn any language (or lib) specific to what you'll be using in your work when you get it. But, being able to say, I've programmed in that language a little bit, I've done -enter list here even if it's just re-writing assignments- is a hell of a lot better than starting from scratch.
This learning thing never ends btw. Stop learning and you'll quickly become obsolete. Especially in an IT related field.
For number 4, if you haven't already, watch Randy Pausch's "Last Lecture". There's a lot in there that's really really good to understand and live by.
In a College for a 2-yr Programming Diploma, this would be fine because the goal of such a program is just writing some business application or some such. Nothing that requires any real competence.
On the other hand, Universities have a much different end goal. They want to teach such that completing there program means that the student can go onto a Masters program, etc. Obviously, Java won't get students there without a massive amount of pain if they go on to further study.
Well, at least that how it was, and how it should be. Currently, Universities are edging toward the College level. What this has produced is a massive gap in knowledge/skill of where the student is expected to be and where they actually are upon entering a Graduate program.
Unfortunately, this isn't just in CS. More and more I see Mathematics and Physics programs degrading as well. From what I've seen, this is due to Administration applying... pressure for high grades, etc. No grades, no funding. The cycle continues.
Though, I must point out that there are some Departments that are making an attempt at fighting back. Small in number they may be, there is still hope for a return to actual academics. Though, we'll see how that plays out. You never know, I wouldn't put it beyond a spiteful Administration to turn a Department into offering just service courses.
""" On the other hand, it points to ineptness of successive Canadian governments that have failed to install better and more efficient nuclear systems. """
You're assuming that hasn't happened. Are you sure that's a good assumption?
Also, 50% of Ontario's power comes from nuclear power. Do you honestly think that this ONE reactor is providing all that power?
Forgot to mention the whole, "suspend CNSC's oversight role for 120 days." So, what's going to happen in 120 days? Probably shut it down again and we renew the problem. How long do you think it's ok to run with that light on and still expect nothing to go wrong?
Your example is extremely misleading. That driving with the light on will only be slightly longer than just taking it to the garage immediately. For that matter, how many people instantly take there car in as soon as the light comes on? Furthermore, how dangerous is not paying attention to the light? What could happen?
The answer to those questions is that the most likely worse cases are engine dies, only the person owning the car is affected.
On the other hand, if a problem occurs at the plant best case is that the plant is shut down for much longer. Worse case is obvious and... unpleasant.
What should have really happened is that the government should have told off the contractors unions and got them to work overtime to fix the problems faster. This is after all, a world wide health issue. And getting people to work more paid overtime is a lot better than risking something bad happening. After all, if something really bad happens to that reactor, where's the isotope gonna come from then?
I think you meant to say Conservative party. Because the Liberals (NOT the NDP NOR the Bloc) criticised this decision by asking if Harper would take responsibility if something went wrong. Here's a quote that was in the article that you have obviously not read:
"Will the minister [of natural resources] or the prime minister, for that matter, tell Canadians what will happen if there's a nuclear accident?" Alghabra asked to raucous applause.
Harpers answer was:
"There will be no nuclear accident," Harper answered in the Commons. "What there will be... is a growing crisis in the medical system here in Canada and around the world if the Liberal party continues to support the regulator obstructing this reactor from coming back on line."
Here's another quote from the people that you think did this:
"Attacking the regulator, taking [it] out of the process, is going to make the problem worse," deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Tuesday
Gotta say, that's about the level of logic and justification that I'm used to seeing from Harper. Sad isn't it.
... in an interview that from a good bug report to patch issued was on average *1 hour*. I imagine that this is because they don't have the usual administration bullshit to deal with and can just "get it done." So, I'd honestly take a look at the process of getting the patch out rather than your development of it to find where the bottle-neck is (that is unless it is you guys that suck). Because, IMO, 4-5 weeks is ludicrous.
""" cryptography used to be classified as a munition at one time in the US """
How is something that "used to be" relevant to what is *now*? How is what "used to be" the US relevant to say, France, or the UK, or... ?
""" Its use in the future could be curtailed to specific situations only """
Defeating the entire purpose of Crypto. Also, can we say degradation of privacy, etc.
You're also assuming that people will play fair. This isn't exact a reasonable assumption to say the least.
You're also assuming that everyone (e.g. other countries) will be on board for such draconian rules/regs at that level. Again, this isn't exact a reasonable assumption to say the least.
With only these two things (though there are *many* more), it is certainly *not* plausible.
"we can only speculate what additional motives might be driving nations that heavily censor the Internet and lock down the flow of information across it."
The devil you know or the devil you don't. We know that *many* in the US want to limit free speech or otherwise censor the internet. So, how much further down that road will others take it.
IMO, the many could provide (depending on setup) a redundancy that could make many types of censorship moot. It's pretty hard to cut something off in a robust distributed environment. Bittorrent (at least) has proved that.
Well, that and the US's politics makes me *very* nervous about the future on freedom of speech on the 'net.
p.s. The countries chosen to be in that list seems rather loaded to me.
I still maintain that the Wikipedia is only an approximation of the truth, if even that.
I must say that given the output of high-schools today, we should be attempting to prevent students from contributing, not encouraging them. I mean, hearing Profs say that students can't do simple algebra or even remotely think logically is now common place. Hell, I've seen what these people produce, and the only excuse that one can have is that English is/not/ the students first language. But, the problem is that it IS the students first language. Hell, from what I've seen (several Universities over several years), the foreigners do better with English than the "natives."
Quite frankly, I find this sort of thing going on, profoundly disturbing.
I disagree. I think that terrorists very much care about chemistry sets.
They care that they aren't offered and they care that people are pissed about it. They care about kids having less and less of a chance to educate themselves and they care that kids curiosity isn't being fulfilled nearly as much. They definitely care. They care that the US is becoming a more and more demoralized nation and the educated are having to fight less and less fights that matter and about more and more like this. They care that the people that think are being distracted and rendered useless. Because with them out of way, and with the idiots that are in power today, the current situation will favour them more and more and...
Take care of the thinkers of tomorrow, take care of the thinkers of today and take care that the terrorists are very very happy about this.
I don't know what you're talking about. When I watched it, I was actually quite embarrassed for Greene for producing String Theory's Infomercial. I mean, just about all the Physics that he was trying to explain I was looking at my wife (Ph.D. Theoretical Physics) saying something along the lines of, "That's wrong, it's x right?" The answer was always yes. And that's taking into consideration the inaccuracies that are generated when talking to a general audience!
It is quite telling how "good" this movie was when I (at the time I had just 1st year Physics) could tear it to shreds. IMO, people should run screaming from that piece of crap.
"" The reason for this is that so if you forget you have the account, it eventually gets closed down due to dormancy -- but your CC still gets charged like clockwork! ""
Actually, you're very very wrong on this one. It's about the separation of duties.
Dealing with a customers account has little to do with money (and has different skill sets). That's why there is a separate department to deal with that. And if you cancel your account without them stopping billing, then you'll be able to get that money back. If they don't then they are defrauding the CC company and you can have VISA/etc deal with them (as long as you have proof that you canceled your account). If they don't and you don't bitch to get your money back, then it's your own fault. I've actually programmed an e-store and stopping automated billing from the company that we were using was part of that.
Another real world example of the separation of duties is Fedex tech. When I worked there, before my time, tech support was BOTH tech support AND customer service. At that time, there wasn't enough work to go around to justify separate departments. But, as time went on, a separation was made because call volumes went above a certain level for each. And as a techie I was very happy that happened.
i.e. not everything is a big evil conspiracy against you.
It just occured to me what is actually going on; they're taxing floor.
The problem is that we already have taxes on the storage medium e.g. CD's, HDD, etc. So, these companies are already compensated through the storage mediums at Puretracks, etc as well as the storage mediums for each and every client. But this, this is like taxing the wire rather than anything else, given that it's specific to downloading.
So, the real world equivalent is like taxing the floor of a record store because that is the transmission medium (i.e. the client walks to grab the CD/etc, to the cashier and out the door) in a store.
How asinine is that?!?!
IMO, this is just more evidence that there should be an age cap on, education required for and experience in the field for, the people who propose such laws/taxes/etc. Because IMO, these people are so very obviously completely out of touch with how things actually work, that they should be forced out of the decision making process and these requirements would at least make the situation better.
Many have moved to work against this BS when it comes up, yet it still comes up again and again. The last one I could find through google:
http://www.ctf.ca/articles/News.asp?article_ID=2350 """ The Joint Committee said that retroactive tax law detrimental to taxpayers is inappropriate for two main reasons: it undermines the rule of law and the confidence that taxpayers have in our self-assessment tax system, and it is perceived as being reflective of a tax system that is neither stable nor predictable and is thus an impediment to foreign and domestic investment in Canada. """
But, I gotta say that if I had purchased music online since 1996 and they told me to pay up, I tell them where to go. They can pry that money from my cold dead fucking hands.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted this idea on one of the ie blogs, but it still holds true here. M$ has a choice:
1) Break webpages in a (possibly) significant way now and from now on be standards compliant, or
2) Break webpages in small but noticeable ways with EVERY release
Now, I'm voting for (1) because it has the best long term solution, and in that long term, has better benefits both for developers and companies. IMO, that's just a no-brainer. After all, companiees are going to have to update there stuff on every release because of (2) anyway. Why not make it matter?
Java is actually a good choice for a first language in this regards. This is after all the context of this conversation now isn't it. You're also assuming that I'm saying it should be the /only/ language. Are you sure that's a good assumption?
Regarding research, let me know how I can test a new OS design with Java. Also, let me know how I can program on the metal in AI research. They do program these robots things that require control of servos, etc. Surely, there are many many many more examples. But, let's start there.
Your first point was just addressed in a response to the other gentleman.
Regarding your second point, bullshit. Just take a look across the pond in Germany. Specifically, look at the Math and Physics programs (that is where I've looked and KNOW). You're also confusing what I say should be/is the primary purpose of a University (Academics agree btw) to what it currently offers. Check out the history of the dumbing down of the curricula in your own country in the last century.
I'm 30 and live in Canada. Here there has always been a difference (at least within my lifetime).
If you want clarification, here a College is something that gives 2-yr Diplomas (read: only practical, zero theory) and/or "the trades". Whereas, the Universities give out 3/4-yr (honours) BS Degrees (90%+ theory) where one has the possibility to go onto a Masters program. That Masters program possibly being at the same institution. Of course, that is being dumbed down (drastically in some cases).
For the record, I have a 2-yr Diploma (Computer Analyst/Programmer) and worked in industry as a web developer. I found my education fine for that purpose. But, perhaps it was that I took an active interest in what was going on "under the hood" i.e. I went beyond the curriculum.
I also have a Math Degree from an average University (I actually looked at different curriculum around the country so, yes, I can say that). I also took classes from another University (I've move a fair bit due to the spouse) which was a horror. There they had a significantly dumbed down and the mentality there was... They had significant problems even knowing where to start a proof in 3RD YEAR! Worse yet, I was prevented from using proper notation because it was "confusing" to the other students and if they weren't allowed/couldn't use it, then I wasn't allowed to either.
This is where we are heading in Academia. Quite frankly, this profoundly disturbs me. To send out functionally retarded people in whatever area (highschool Math teachers scare me the most) is irresponsible in the extreme. I mean, right now I find the level of critical thought and output from people horrid. I shutter to think what it'll be in another 10 or 20 years.
You're arguing that what goes on at College should be going on at Universities. This is very very wrong.
Java is fine to learn at College because of the reasons you cited i.e. the purpose is to get people actually building things that is relevant to industry.
Java is a horror at University because learning to code is NOT its primary (or secondary, or...) purpose there. The purpose of a University is to get people to be able to go onto a Masters and PhD and be able to do actual research. In this case, research in Computer Science. For this context, a programming language is just a tool to be used to really dig into an idea. And one cannot do that with Java when one is dealing with such low-level things as OS's.
Your example of Feynman diagrams is also false and misleading. There it was about notation and practicality thereof. People will stick to what works for them and those "big names" that you mention already were "stuck in there ways" with the "old" notation. They PREFERRED to use the old one because they were used to it. Feynman diagrams stuck around because they conveyed the necessary information in an easier to understand way.
Here we are talking about function. Basically, there are many many many things in the CS curriculum that require a low-level language to properly describe. This does NOT include Java. There is also a level of detail of thinking that one acquires when one programs in a lower-level language like C that one cannot get with something like Java.
Basically, while Java makes business apps and such easier to write, it is counter productive with regards to the goals of a University CS program. But, if I'm wrong, just go ahead and show us an OS that was written in pure Java.
Tonight I just watched the South Park episodes I, II and III and when reading the summary I got the distinct impression that this is what's going on. Perhaps we should nuke America's imagination?
Actually, they should have called the parents. It's not the Administrators place to parent other people's children. Especially, when it's during a time when they aren't responsible for the child in any way shape or form.
It's called knowing ones place. Something that these Administrators really really need to learn.
I know that this might seem obvious, but it doesn't seem to be any more. My wife has told me of a new problem with graduates that is currently be documented by employers. Namely, that because of the lack of requirements (and difficulty thereof), among other problems, that students going into the work-place aren't used to actually working. So, they put in a pathetic amount of work in any given day.
For those that disagree, lets think about the average students day. (S)he will wake up and get to there first class. This might be arriving for 8am or at some point in the afternoon. For arguments sake, lets say it's 8am. But, then how many classes a day are students taking? The full course load at most North American Universities is 5 at one time. That being split into classes on MWF and T/TH. Giving a non-skewed split of work, there'll be at most approx. 3 hours or so of classes per day.
Now, for most students this is where the typical day ends and all the work that is done. For others, there'll be a couple more hours of work through doing questions and/or reading ahead and/or... But, nothing really significant. Perhaps 1 or 2 more hours a day.
Do that for 4 or 5 or... years and it's no wonder that students have a skewed understanding of what a work day actually means. As in, the above students day is rather different from full time work where you're actually expected to work during all those hours.
So, that's my number 1; be willing to work.
My number 2 is understand what you don't know and understand how well you know what you do know. There's nothing more irritating than someone who doesn't know his/her limitations in knowledge and understanding. It's one thing to be confident, it's another matter entirely to be delusional.
Effectively, when someone says you're wrong, don't do the knee-jerk "No, you're wrong." Ask why they think that. Start a discussion. Quite frankly, IMO, if people would ask more questions instead of arrogantly assuming that they're always right, we'd get a lot more done in a lot less time ending up with a lot better quality.
For number 3, learn as much as you can that's outside your curriculum. Also, realise that you can never learn any language (or lib) specific to what you'll be using in your work when you get it. But, being able to say, I've programmed in that language a little bit, I've done -enter list here even if it's just re-writing assignments- is a hell of a lot better than starting from scratch.
This learning thing never ends btw. Stop learning and you'll quickly become obsolete. Especially in an IT related field.
For number 4, if you haven't already, watch Randy Pausch's "Last Lecture". There's a lot in there that's really really good to understand and live by.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5700431505846055184
In a College for a 2-yr Programming Diploma, this would be fine because the goal of such a program is just writing some business application or some such. Nothing that requires any real competence.
On the other hand, Universities have a much different end goal. They want to teach such that completing there program means that the student can go onto a Masters program, etc. Obviously, Java won't get students there without a massive amount of pain if they go on to further study.
Well, at least that how it was, and how it should be. Currently, Universities are edging toward the College level. What this has produced is a massive gap in knowledge/skill of where the student is expected to be and where they actually are upon entering a Graduate program.
Unfortunately, this isn't just in CS. More and more I see Mathematics and Physics programs degrading as well. From what I've seen, this is due to Administration applying... pressure for high grades, etc. No grades, no funding. The cycle continues.
Though, I must point out that there are some Departments that are making an attempt at fighting back. Small in number they may be, there is still hope for a return to actual academics. Though, we'll see how that plays out. You never know, I wouldn't put it beyond a spiteful Administration to turn a Department into offering just service courses.
"""
On the other hand, it points to ineptness of successive Canadian governments that have failed to install better and more efficient nuclear systems.
"""
You're assuming that hasn't happened. Are you sure that's a good assumption?
Also, 50% of Ontario's power comes from nuclear power. Do you honestly think that this ONE reactor is providing all that power?
Please, look into things before you comment.
Forgot to mention the whole, "suspend CNSC's oversight role for 120 days." So, what's going to happen in 120 days? Probably shut it down again and we renew the problem. How long do you think it's ok to run with that light on and still expect nothing to go wrong?
Your example is extremely misleading. That driving with the light on will only be slightly longer than just taking it to the garage immediately. For that matter, how many people instantly take there car in as soon as the light comes on? Furthermore, how dangerous is not paying attention to the light? What could happen?
The answer to those questions is that the most likely worse cases are engine dies, only the person owning the car is affected.
On the other hand, if a problem occurs at the plant best case is that the plant is shut down for much longer. Worse case is obvious and... unpleasant.
What should have really happened is that the government should have told off the contractors unions and got them to work overtime to fix the problems faster. This is after all, a world wide health issue. And getting people to work more paid overtime is a lot better than risking something bad happening. After all, if something really bad happens to that reactor, where's the isotope gonna come from then?
I think you meant to say Conservative party. Because the Liberals (NOT the NDP NOR the Bloc) criticised this decision by asking if Harper would take responsibility if something went wrong. Here's a quote that was in the article that you have obviously not read:
... is a growing crisis in the medical system here in Canada and around the world if the Liberal party continues to support the regulator obstructing this reactor from coming back on line."
"Will the minister [of natural resources] or the prime minister, for that matter, tell Canadians what will happen if there's a nuclear accident?" Alghabra asked to raucous applause.
Harpers answer was:
"There will be no nuclear accident," Harper answered in the Commons. "What there will be
Here's another quote from the people that you think did this:
"Attacking the regulator, taking [it] out of the process, is going to make the problem worse," deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Tuesday
Gotta say, that's about the level of logic and justification that I'm used to seeing from Harper. Sad isn't it.
... in an interview that from a good bug report to patch issued was on average *1 hour*. I imagine that this is because they don't have the usual administration bullshit to deal with and can just "get it done." So, I'd honestly take a look at the process of getting the patch out rather than your development of it to find where the bottle-neck is (that is unless it is you guys that suck). Because, IMO, 4-5 weeks is ludicrous.
"""
cryptography used to be classified as a munition at one time in the US
"""
How is something that "used to be" relevant to what is *now*? How is what "used to be" the US relevant to say, France, or the UK, or... ?
"""
Its use in the future could be curtailed to specific situations only
"""
Defeating the entire purpose of Crypto. Also, can we say degradation of privacy, etc.
You're also assuming that people will play fair. This isn't exact a reasonable assumption to say the least.
You're also assuming that everyone (e.g. other countries) will be on board for such draconian rules/regs at that level. Again, this isn't exact a reasonable assumption to say the least.
With only these two things (though there are *many* more), it is certainly *not* plausible.
Cryptography enters stage right... ...and your idea disappears in a puff of logic.
"we can only speculate what additional motives might be driving nations that heavily censor the Internet and lock down the flow of information across it."
The devil you know or the devil you don't. We know that *many* in the US want to limit free speech or otherwise censor the internet. So, how much further down that road will others take it.
IMO, the many could provide (depending on setup) a redundancy that could make many types of censorship moot. It's pretty hard to cut something off in a robust distributed environment. Bittorrent (at least) has proved that.
Well, that and the US's politics makes me *very* nervous about the future on freedom of speech on the 'net.
p.s. The countries chosen to be in that list seems rather loaded to me.
I still maintain that the Wikipedia is only an approximation of the truth, if even that.
/not/ the students first language. But, the problem is that it IS the students first language. Hell, from what I've seen (several Universities over several years), the foreigners do better with English than the "natives."
I must say that given the output of high-schools today, we should be attempting to prevent students from contributing, not encouraging them. I mean, hearing Profs say that students can't do simple algebra or even remotely think logically is now common place. Hell, I've seen what these people produce, and the only excuse that one can have is that English is
Quite frankly, I find this sort of thing going on, profoundly disturbing.
Maybe, just maybe, it'd be better to send a mail to one of the OpenBSD mailing lists. Perhaps then, you'll actually get some help.
Just a thought.
I disagree. I think that terrorists very much care about chemistry sets.
They care that they aren't offered and they care that people are pissed about it. They care about kids having less and less of a chance to educate themselves and they care that kids curiosity isn't being fulfilled nearly as much. They definitely care. They care that the US is becoming a more and more demoralized nation and the educated are having to fight less and less fights that matter and about more and more like this. They care that the people that think are being distracted and rendered useless. Because with them out of way, and with the idiots that are in power today, the current situation will favour them more and more and...
Take care of the thinkers of tomorrow, take care of the thinkers of today and take care that the terrorists are very very happy about this.
I don't know what you're talking about. When I watched it, I was actually quite embarrassed for Greene for producing String Theory's Infomercial. I mean, just about all the Physics that he was trying to explain I was looking at my wife (Ph.D. Theoretical Physics) saying something along the lines of, "That's wrong, it's x right?" The answer was always yes. And that's taking into consideration the inaccuracies that are generated when talking to a general audience!
It is quite telling how "good" this movie was when I (at the time I had just 1st year Physics) could tear it to shreds. IMO, people should run screaming from that piece of crap.
""
The reason for this is that so if you forget you have the account, it eventually gets closed down due to dormancy -- but your CC still gets charged like clockwork!
""
Actually, you're very very wrong on this one. It's about the separation of duties.
Dealing with a customers account has little to do with money (and has different skill sets). That's why there is a separate department to deal with that. And if you cancel your account without them stopping billing, then you'll be able to get that money back. If they don't then they are defrauding the CC company and you can have VISA/etc deal with them (as long as you have proof that you canceled your account). If they don't and you don't bitch to get your money back, then it's your own fault. I've actually programmed an e-store and stopping automated billing from the company that we were using was part of that.
Another real world example of the separation of duties is Fedex tech. When I worked there, before my time, tech support was BOTH tech support AND customer service. At that time, there wasn't enough work to go around to justify separate departments. But, as time went on, a separation was made because call volumes went above a certain level for each. And as a techie I was very happy that happened.
i.e. not everything is a big evil conspiracy against you.
It just occured to me what is actually going on; they're taxing floor.
The problem is that we already have taxes on the storage medium e.g. CD's, HDD, etc. So, these companies are already compensated through the storage mediums at Puretracks, etc as well as the storage mediums for each and every client. But this, this is like taxing the wire rather than anything else, given that it's specific to downloading.
So, the real world equivalent is like taxing the floor of a record store because that is the transmission medium (i.e. the client walks to grab the CD/etc, to the cashier and out the door) in a store.
How asinine is that?!?!
IMO, this is just more evidence that there should be an age cap on, education required for and experience in the field for, the people who propose such laws/taxes/etc. Because IMO, these people are so very obviously completely out of touch with how things actually work, that they should be forced out of the decision making process and these requirements would at least make the situation better.
Many have moved to work against this BS when it comes up, yet it still comes up again and again. The last one I could find through google:
http://www.ctf.ca/articles/News.asp?article_ID=2350
"""
The Joint Committee said that retroactive tax law detrimental to taxpayers is inappropriate for two main reasons: it undermines the rule of law and the confidence that taxpayers have in our self-assessment tax system, and it is perceived as being reflective of a tax system that is neither stable nor predictable and is thus an impediment to foreign and domestic investment in Canada.
"""
But, I gotta say that if I had purchased music online since 1996 and they told me to pay up, I tell them where to go. They can pry that money from my cold dead fucking hands.
... that will use this as proof of God in 3... 2... 1...