Just reinforcing the computer science is not programming/software engineering idea. I believe that there *is* a shortage of good computer scientists in the US. There is much less demand for programmers because the talent pool is worldwide, it is not that difficult (it is not unusual to start programming in high school), and the salaries are fundamentally driven by the global market.
Innovators will require a solid math/CS/EE background. For instance, there are lots of difficult problems to solve in these areas with commercial potential: networking (wireless, ad hoc), embedded systems, large databases, robotics. The required skills would be an understanding of operating systems, fundamental limits of wireless transmission, mathematical modeling (probability theory, optimization), etc. This is a much more difficult skillset to acquire (typically start in high school, followed by a "hard" major) and hence this shortage is particularly worrying. The coming together of EE and CS in several major US universities is not without purpose - it is one thing to code using existing APIs for a well-defined application ("programming"), but another to design an efficient API for a radically different system.
We might be closer than we think to complex hands at least.
Here is a project at CMU
that is building an anatomically correct hand. As we move towards making anatomically correct body parts, we will also learn more about making anatomically correct brain parts. From there, it might not be too far to get to a human-like "brain".
And that is the saddest part. The people most likely to suffer are least responsible for the problem (they did not benefit from rapid industrialization, and they consume relatively few resources per person). The earth self-regulates, and loss of human life is a part of the mechanism. The asian tsunami is a good example - the loss of life was so large because of the high population density (obvious, but this is how population will get regulated).
The effects of environmental change are already being felt in a strong way in many third world countries. It is common to see commuters wearing face masks to protect themselves against air pollution (stuff of sci-fi a few decades back), ground water has practically disappeared, and efforts to protect endangered species are all spectacular failures.
The cornerstone of ethical research concerning human subjects research is "free and informed consent". A subordinate agreeing to participate is not "free" consent (for the reasons mentioned in the earlier posts). These guidelines are part of a worldwide norm for human subjects research (so that a rich company cannot just go to Africa and pay people to be subjects) and every researcher is expected to know them. It really is shameful that such high profile research was carried out by violating these basic safeguards.
The laptop is just a means to information and communication. You are right - political openness and removing corruption are important. These are difficult goals but providing access to information helps achieve them:
1. Governments have set up websites where people can anonymously post instances of corruption. Just the fact that a politician's name could be displayed in a public place along with his/her crimes is often scary enough to stop some corruption. Without the internet, there would be no such forum. This is often the only real "free speech" that exists in these places.
2. Access to the source: Most corruption is from middlemen. People will realize that they can directly apply to government loans without having the "permission" of the local bureaucrat. They can learn of their rights without just accepting whatever the local leader tells them.
3. Taking advantage of globalization: People will realize that there is a market for their skills outside their immediate environments. And often they can expect a higher price for their services than what the local market will provide.
4. Protection from globalization: The rate of change in the economic systems in many third world countries is extremely rapid. If the people do not learn the rules of the new reality, they will be taken for a ride (they should learn that "free markets" also means fewer government subsidies and no fixed prices, how large multinationals can change their way of life,...).
5. Internet revolution: We have all seen how the internet has profoundly changed our lives. Perhaps the most amazing thing is how little you need to contribute or participate (set up a website and you have a business, set up a blog and you are an activist,...). The $100 laptop will hopefully bring this revolution to these people too.
I would like to know what do believers in Genesis think when they see a monkey? It is obvious that apes quite closely resemble man - so if man was made in the image of God, is the creation of apes a huge joke? A similar problem with the discovery of fossils (or "bones" since the world is less than 10,000 years old) that are obviously not from an existing species. Did God just hide these bones? But seriously, even kids can see this and so how do parents who interpret the bible literally answer such questions?
I would say your second problem (focus on immediate profitability) is more severe than the first (education). While there is no doubt that the quality of K-12 science and math education needs to be improved, this will follow after economic priorities are set right. We only need to look at the true state of education in countries like India. Schools are not particularly well-funded, teachers are not exceptionally motivated, science teaching is largely pedantic, and religion/superstition does play an important role in society and politics. The reason why so many engineers come out of India is because science and engineering pay well compared to other professions. This is not true in the US. After having to work harder than the average student right from elementary school to college, an engineer/scientist is faced with the reality of volatile job markets and mediocre salaries (and taking orders from their liberal arts educated bosses until they switch over to management).
I do not know how to set this right. Perhaps the US is just paying the legitimate price of consumerism going global. A scientist is just a tool to generate products that can be sold and if the tool is cheaper in Asia then so be it. The concept of employment as a source of personal satisfaction (as I believe many jobs in science can be) just does not fit this model.
Slashdot Mirror
Just reinforcing the computer science is not programming/software engineering idea. I believe that there *is* a shortage of good computer scientists in the US. There is much less demand for programmers because the talent pool is worldwide, it is not that difficult (it is not unusual to start programming in high school), and the salaries are fundamentally driven by the global market. Innovators will require a solid math/CS/EE background. For instance, there are lots of difficult problems to solve in these areas with commercial potential: networking (wireless, ad hoc), embedded systems, large databases, robotics. The required skills would be an understanding of operating systems, fundamental limits of wireless transmission, mathematical modeling (probability theory, optimization), etc. This is a much more difficult skillset to acquire (typically start in high school, followed by a "hard" major) and hence this shortage is particularly worrying. The coming together of EE and CS in several major US universities is not without purpose - it is one thing to code using existing APIs for a well-defined application ("programming"), but another to design an efficient API for a radically different system.
We might be closer than we think to complex hands at least. Here is a project at CMU that is building an anatomically correct hand. As we move towards making anatomically correct body parts, we will also learn more about making anatomically correct brain parts. From there, it might not be too far to get to a human-like "brain".
The effects of environmental change are already being felt in a strong way in many third world countries. It is common to see commuters wearing face masks to protect themselves against air pollution (stuff of sci-fi a few decades back), ground water has practically disappeared, and efforts to protect endangered species are all spectacular failures.
The cornerstone of ethical research concerning human subjects research is "free and informed consent". A subordinate agreeing to participate is not "free" consent (for the reasons mentioned in the earlier posts). These guidelines are part of a worldwide norm for human subjects research (so that a rich company cannot just go to Africa and pay people to be subjects) and every researcher is expected to know them. It really is shameful that such high profile research was carried out by violating these basic safeguards.
1. Governments have set up websites where people can anonymously post instances of corruption. Just the fact that a politician's name could be displayed in a public place along with his/her crimes is often scary enough to stop some corruption. Without the internet, there would be no such forum. This is often the only real "free speech" that exists in these places.
2. Access to the source: Most corruption is from middlemen. People will realize that they can directly apply to government loans without having the "permission" of the local bureaucrat. They can learn of their rights without just accepting whatever the local leader tells them.
3. Taking advantage of globalization: People will realize that there is a market for their skills outside their immediate environments. And often they can expect a higher price for their services than what the local market will provide.
4. Protection from globalization: The rate of change in the economic systems in many third world countries is extremely rapid. If the people do not learn the rules of the new reality, they will be taken for a ride (they should learn that "free markets" also means fewer government subsidies and no fixed prices, how large multinationals can change their way of life, ...).
5. Internet revolution: We have all seen how the internet has profoundly changed our lives. Perhaps the most amazing thing is how little you need to contribute or participate (set up a website and you have a business, set up a blog and you are an activist, ...). The $100 laptop will hopefully bring this revolution to these people too.
I would like to know what do believers in Genesis think when they see a monkey? It is obvious that apes quite closely resemble man - so if man was made in the image of God, is the creation of apes a huge joke? A similar problem with the discovery of fossils (or "bones" since the world is less than 10,000 years old) that are obviously not from an existing species. Did God just hide these bones? But seriously, even kids can see this and so how do parents who interpret the bible literally answer such questions?
I would say your second problem (focus on immediate profitability) is more severe than the first (education). While there is no doubt that the quality of K-12 science and math education needs to be improved, this will follow after economic priorities are set right. We only need to look at the true state of education in countries like India. Schools are not particularly well-funded, teachers are not exceptionally motivated, science teaching is largely pedantic, and religion/superstition does play an important role in society and politics. The reason why so many engineers come out of India is because science and engineering pay well compared to other professions. This is not true in the US. After having to work harder than the average student right from elementary school to college, an engineer/scientist is faced with the reality of volatile job markets and mediocre salaries (and taking orders from their liberal arts educated bosses until they switch over to management). I do not know how to set this right. Perhaps the US is just paying the legitimate price of consumerism going global. A scientist is just a tool to generate products that can be sold and if the tool is cheaper in Asia then so be it. The concept of employment as a source of personal satisfaction (as I believe many jobs in science can be) just does not fit this model.