It shows the problem the original poster was talking about. Something that is relatively simple and widely used in the real world is ignored in formal academics. Personally, I think there should be more time allotted for apprenticeships in college. The semester I missed to take an 8-month internship greatly complimented all the information I learned in school.
No, no, and a thousand times no!
A university (some colleges included) is not a vocational school. Its job is to create researchers, not tradesmen -- there are other educational options for those wishing to go that route.
Except that they screwed up in "War Without End". Ivanova's message from the future could not have been sent since that future was averted by them acting on the message...
I will pay u (sic) a dime for every system that currently has 4t&q for password, if u (sic) pay me a penny for those with 1234 password. -- I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You seem to prefer the "u" in other places as well.
I'd expect somebody in the computer field to tinker around with machines
And herein lies the problem: CS is not "in the computer field", it is a branch of mathematics. The confusion stems from the unfortunate naming we use (in other languages it is more appropriately called something like "Computational Science" or "Informatics"). Or, in the words of Michael R. Fellows, "Computer science is not about machines, in the same way that astronomy is not about telescopes. There is an essential unity of mathematics and computer science".
A computer is a tool that a CS may use, not the subject of the field.
That said, most CS undergrads set out to become programmers, "software developers" or suchlike. They may use the knowledge from the CS program but their focus will often be the computers, not the math. Therefore, to be well-rounded professionals in their field of work, they will need knowledge and experience from several areas of study -- both abstract and concrete.
it's not like IRQs are windows 98 specific and are never used anymore.
They are pretty much specific to the PC-compatible architecture.
But that aside, such hardware-related topics are the domain of "Computer Engineering" field, a branch of EE. I am pretty sure that Donald Knuth, arguably the most influential "Computer Scientist" alive, has no idea about IRQs.
I might not expect a biologist to be able to milk a cow, but they should at least have an idea where the milk comes from.
That is because the source of milk is general knowledge known by every child over the age of 3.
Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love" notwithstanding, math and science are getting more and more specialized. A molecular biologist, for example, doesn't even need to know what a cow is.
But even if your analogy was valid, I bet that your "CS guy" knew what an interrupt is, but was not familiar with the specific implementation of the cascaded 8259A PICs used in the PC/AT architecture at the time.
Seems like google wants to be Big Brother in all aspects of the term. Snoop, spy and record every facet of you life, while simultaneously protecting you from other bullies.
There's a jurisdictional question: can the French government punish a French citizen for simply being part of the same organization as a non-Frenchman who breaks French law?
If the question is "Can the government do <something>?", the answer is always "yes, if they have the means to do it".
If the question is "Is it permitted/legal/moral/ethical/right for the government do <something>?", I humbly submit that it is irrelevant.
Don't mind me, I was just making fun of the format.
And speaking of funny verses, having the Hebrew Bible as a mandatory subject during my school years, provided me with many opportunities for finding funny stuff in the scriptures. Granted, my interpretation of the text was somewhat unorthodox...
(4) EXCEEDS AUTHORIZED ACCESS.—In sub-section (a), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: ‘‘(2) intentionally— ‘‘(A) accesses a computer without authorization, and thereby obtains— ‘‘(i) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.); ‘‘(ii) information from any department or agency of the United States; or ‘‘(iii) information from any protected computer; or ‘‘(B) exceeds authorized access, and— ‘‘(i) thereby obtains from a computer information defined in paragraph (A)(i) through (iii); and ‘‘(ii) the offense— ‘‘(I) involves information that exceeds $5,000 in value; ‘‘(II) was committed for purposes of obtaining sensitive or non-public information of an entity or another individual (including such information in the possession of a third party), including medical records, wills, diaries, private correspondence, financial records, photographs of a sensitive or private nature, trade secrets, or sensitive or non-public commercial business information; ‘‘(III) was committed in furtherance of any criminal act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, unless such state violation would be based solely on the obtaining of information without authorization or in excess of authorization; or ‘‘(IV) involves information obtained from a computer used by or for a government entity; or’’.
The next section, dealing with forfeiture, is even more fun to read...
Anyway, I suggest everyone with a web site sets up a honeypot, as follows: - Require an account to log in ("protected computer"). - On registration, displays a long and convoluted (but not whimsical) TOS, preferably copied verbatim from some big site, in a small, non-resizeable box, in all caps, and requires to hit an "I agree" button. - Somewhere in that TOS, insert a statement like "ENTERING OR ATTEMPTING TO ENTER THE PRIVATE SECTIONS OF THIS SITE IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN AND IS A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF USC TITLE 18." or suchlike. - Add a couple of links marked "private". Protect access to those pages by asking for a password. Accept all passwords except "324fc@#$!ED" (hey, a programming error, I meant to write "==", not "!="). - On those pages, put something that can be constituted as a "diary", some pictures that can be considered "private", copies of some email messages and a half-assed plan to form a start-up. - Log all access.
Possible refinements: - Put some phrases like "download Avatar 3D", "All Lady Gaga songs" or "Windows 8 no activation ISO". SEO to hell and back. Wait for the RIAA/MPAA/BSA to visit. - Send concerned emails to congresscritters/government agents/well known businessmen stating that <your site> has compromising information, or is libeling them. Use an anonymous service (onion router?). Wait for a visit.
When you catch somebody, try to get the case prosecuted. When the prosecutor refuses, raise a big stink in the media.
Yes, I know that it is completely off-topic, and I don't usually comment on people's signatures, but yours got me intrigued. Can you at least tell me who they were playing against?
You know, the one common thing that I observed in all religious people that I have met, regardless of their chosen religion, is their fervent insistence that they are right. They could not accept the possibility that their beliefs were not the absolute truth.
So I guess you're right, you're not an atheist after all.
Agnostics and atheists both lack belief in religion
Not so.
Agnostics lack knowledge, they may still choose to believe. Atheists lack belief, whether they feel their approach is based on knowledge or the absence of it is orthogonal.
You will do better if you don't accept that people who call themselves "atheists" may have a different definition than yours in mind. Even if yours was the only true one, it still boils down to bickering over labels instead of understanding the world-views.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the legality of keeping them without trial indefinitely ?
Who cares?
The right to a fair trial is one of the inalienable fundamental rights, to which the USA is a signatory.
So fucking what?
If they can't prove it, then the guys must be let go.
Who's going to make them release them? You?
Pragmatically speaking: how many of these still incarcerated are a real risk ?
To the national security of the country? None.
To the corrupt people that run it? All of them.
So what is the purpose of continuing detention?
To protect the guilty.
I suspect some notion of revenge
Sure, why not...
the concept of the USA being a humane and moral nation.
PPPFFFFFFTTTTTTT.....
You, sir, owe me a new keyboard!
Citizens of the USA: what is being done in your name ?
You might as well asked the USSR the same question.
Way to go 'Chief Justices' - reassign what is God's, to man...
When God shows up with proof of ownership, I am sure that it would be duly considered.
The right to marry the person (emphasis mine) of their choice just like a heterosexual can
Question:
I am a heterosexual. Does it mean that, in view of recent court rulings, i can marry a corporation?
Why shouldn't socialism be an insult? Do we even *know* the atrocities that socialists committed in the name of socialism?
Why shouldn't christianity be an insult? Do we even *know* the atrocities that christians committed in the name of christianity?
Finding the name of that fallacy is left as an exercise to the reader.
It shows the problem the original poster was talking about. Something that is relatively simple and widely used in the real world is ignored in formal academics.
Personally, I think there should be more time allotted for apprenticeships in college. The semester I missed to take an 8-month internship greatly complimented all the information I learned in school.
No, no, and a thousand times no!
A university (some colleges included) is not a vocational school. Its job is to create researchers, not tradesmen -- there are other educational options for those wishing to go that route.
Tracy Scoggins is hot but that was not enough to carry me through the whole season
It was enough to carry me through "A Tragedy of Telepaths".
My most vivid memory from that episode is of Scoggins doing calisthenics.
Except that they screwed up in "War Without End".
Ivanova's message from the future could not have been sent since that future was averted by them acting on the message...
I will pay u (sic) a dime for every system that currently has 4t&q for password, if u (sic) pay me a penny for those with 1234 password.
--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You seem to prefer the "u" in other places as well.
Any law that does not prescribe personal sanctions for non-compliance isn't worth the paper it is written on.
I'd expect somebody in the computer field to tinker around with machines
And herein lies the problem: CS is not "in the computer field", it is a branch of mathematics. The confusion stems from the unfortunate naming we use (in other languages it is more appropriately called something like "Computational Science" or "Informatics").
Or, in the words of Michael R. Fellows, "Computer science is not about machines, in the same way that astronomy is not about telescopes. There is an essential unity of mathematics and computer science".
A computer is a tool that a CS may use, not the subject of the field.
That said, most CS undergrads set out to become programmers, "software developers" or suchlike. They may use the knowledge from the CS program but their focus will often be the computers, not the math. Therefore, to be well-rounded professionals in their field of work, they will need knowledge and experience from several areas of study -- both abstract and concrete.
it's not like IRQs are windows 98 specific and are never used anymore.
They are pretty much specific to the PC-compatible architecture.
But that aside, such hardware-related topics are the domain of "Computer Engineering" field, a branch of EE.
I am pretty sure that Donald Knuth, arguably the most influential "Computer Scientist" alive, has no idea about IRQs.
I might not expect a biologist to be able to milk a cow, but they should at least have an idea where the milk comes from.
That is because the source of milk is general knowledge known by every child over the age of 3.
Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love" notwithstanding, math and science are getting more and more specialized. A molecular biologist, for example, doesn't even need to know what a cow is.
But even if your analogy was valid, I bet that your "CS guy" knew what an interrupt is, but was not familiar with the specific implementation of the cascaded 8259A PICs used in the PC/AT architecture at the time.
Why should they teach IRQ settings of Windows 98 in a CS program?
Does a degree in biology imply that you can milk a cow?
Seems like google wants to be Big Brother in all aspects of the term. Snoop, spy and record every facet of you life, while simultaneously protecting you from other bullies.
FTFY.
Fuck and Ass. There, no one died.
I beg to differ.
There's a jurisdictional question: can the French government punish a French citizen for simply being part of the same organization as a non-Frenchman who breaks French law?
If the question is "Can the government do <something>?", the answer is always "yes, if they have the means to do it".
If the question is "Is it permitted/legal/moral/ethical/right for the government do <something>?", I humbly submit that it is irrelevant.
I will always hold this knowledge in a special place in my heart.
Left ventricle?
Don't mind me, I was just making fun of the format.
And speaking of funny verses, having the Hebrew Bible as a mandatory subject during my school years, provided me with many opportunities for finding funny stuff in the scriptures. Granted, my interpretation of the text was somewhat unorthodox...
I was against every single action that has sent a single pair of boots overseas.
Do you have anything against the American footwear export business?
That's what the lawyers want you to think.
Quoted from the document:
(4) EXCEEDS AUTHORIZED ACCESS .—In sub-section (a), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
‘‘(2) intentionally—
‘‘(A) accesses a computer without authorization, and thereby obtains—
‘‘(i) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
‘‘(ii) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
‘‘(iii) information from any protected computer; or
‘‘(B) exceeds authorized access, and—
‘‘(i) thereby obtains from a computer information defined in paragraph (A)(i) through (iii); and
‘‘(ii) the offense—
‘‘(I) involves information that exceeds $5,000 in value;
‘‘(II) was committed for purposes of obtaining sensitive or non-public information of an entity or another individual (including such information in the possession of a third party), including medical records, wills, diaries, private correspondence, financial records, photographs of a sensitive or private nature, trade secrets, or sensitive or non-public commercial business information;
‘‘(III) was committed in furtherance of any criminal act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, unless such state violation would be based solely on the obtaining of information without authorization or in excess of authorization; or
‘‘(IV) involves information obtained from a computer used by or for a government entity; or’’.
The next section, dealing with forfeiture, is even more fun to read...
Anyway, I suggest everyone with a web site sets up a honeypot, as follows:
- Require an account to log in ("protected computer").
- On registration, displays a long and convoluted (but not whimsical) TOS, preferably copied verbatim from some big site, in a small, non-resizeable box, in all caps, and requires to hit an "I agree" button.
- Somewhere in that TOS, insert a statement like "ENTERING OR ATTEMPTING TO ENTER THE PRIVATE SECTIONS OF THIS SITE IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN AND IS A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF USC TITLE 18." or suchlike.
- Add a couple of links marked "private". Protect access to those pages by asking for a password. Accept all passwords except "324fc@#$!ED" (hey, a programming error, I meant to write "==", not "!=").
- On those pages, put something that can be constituted as a "diary", some pictures that can be considered "private", copies of some email messages and a half-assed plan to form a start-up.
- Log all access.
Possible refinements:
- Put some phrases like "download Avatar 3D", "All Lady Gaga songs" or "Windows 8 no activation ISO". SEO to hell and back. Wait for the RIAA/MPAA/BSA to visit.
- Send concerned emails to congresscritters/government agents/well known businessmen stating that <your site> has compromising information, or is libeling them. Use an anonymous service (onion router?). Wait for a visit.
When you catch somebody, try to get the case prosecuted. When the prosecutor refuses, raise a big stink in the media.
The possibilities for fun are endless...
Period. End of fucking discussion. Anything further is apologist bullshit likely typed out by some jackass in a TSA uniform.
Even if your point is valid, there are ways of making it without trying to break the record for most fallacies in a single line.
Proverbs 21:19
Yes, I know that it is completely off-topic, and I don't usually comment on people's signatures, but yours got me intrigued.
Can you at least tell me who they were playing against?
The amendment was alive for less than 24 hours, but many news sites seems to have shat their pants over it still
Which may have been the main reason for the amendment's quick demise.
You know, the one common thing that I observed in all religious people that I have met, regardless of their chosen religion, is their fervent insistence that they are right. They could not accept the possibility that their beliefs were not the absolute truth.
So I guess you're right, you're not an atheist after all.
Agnostics and atheists both lack belief in religion
Not so.
Agnostics lack knowledge, they may still choose to believe.
Atheists lack belief, whether they feel their approach is based on knowledge or the absence of it is orthogonal.
Oxford: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
You will do better if you don't accept that people who call themselves "atheists" may have a different definition than yours in mind.
Even if yours was the only true one, it still boils down to bickering over labels instead of understanding the world-views.