That adage is complete crap. Effectively passing knowledge on to students in a way that results in them actually learning something is nontrivial. No one ever said they were any good at teaching. I've had plenty of crap teachers, it's just that often times the barrier to entry for a teaching position is less than that of a position in the workforce. Aside from occasional audits (still don't know how the crap teachers pass those), they don't actually have much oversight, but in the workforce they're expected to have working deliverables and poor performance will get noticed at some point.
I once had an instructor at an introductory level programming class (which I was required to take and they refused to let me test out of) try to insist that in C and C++ the int in the line:
int main()
stands for initialize. No amount of arguing with the instructor could convince him that it was declaring the return type of the main function as an integer. As it happens the instructor was also head of the computer science department. I spent the rest of that semester teaching the entire class after the instructor left because I felt bad for them. They all agreed I did a much better job than the instructor. I would have gotten a job as a teacher there, but they couldn't afford my rate.
I tend to agree but I would just like to point out that there is some logic to the "protecting our IP" defense, although it's still underhanded and misleading. Typically they try to make it sound like they're protecting their copyright with that defense as that bolsters the arguments for copyright infringement based lawsuits and laws, but in actuality what they're defending is trademark and patents (not that software should even be patentable, but that's another rant entirely). Technically if they fail to raise a stink about someone using a trademark or patent it could be declared void and turned public domain. For example see what happened to Kleenex, which started as a trademark but entered common usage as a name for a tissue and thus the trademark was lost. They are technically protecting their IP (in a roundabout fashion), but they're also promoting confusion over which specific "IP" their trying to protect. As for the cases where they try to claim this for infringements not dealing with anything patented or trademarked, yeah, that's total BS.
.In other cases, we negotiated to REMOVE some security burdens because the customer was wasting their money, shooting off big words that didn't pertain to their industry.
You mean management makes decisions about technical issues based solely on buzzwords without understanding what they mean? Nah, that could never happen</sarcasm>
There are really three possibilities for who is going to interview you, and only one of them is likely to do a good job. The first, and worst case as some middle manager with no clue about what your job is actually going to entail. Not sure how they can possibly hope to do a good job interviewing, but presumably they're just scoping out your attitude and basing their decision on if they like you and if your resume has all the correct buzzwords (and the proper length to satisfy their sensibilities). The second possibility is a co-worker or direct manager, but one who is hopelessly clueless. This is depressing in that not only will they be a poor judge of candidates, but if you do get hired you'll most likely have to work with this moron, and odds are he's an indication of the type of environment you're getting into. The last and final possibility is a co-worker or direct manager who actually knows what they're doing. This is the only one of the three that can do a good job interviewing candidates. You can usually tell if you've got someone like this because you can ask questions during the interview and get intelligent responses in addition to further questions based on your answers. Sometimes it can be difficult to determine if you have someone who knows what they're talking about because often times the clueless and middle managers simply have a list of standard questions they run down, but a good indication is if they deviate from the list when you ask them questions about it, or if some of the questions don't necessarily make sense in the context they're being used.
The best system of course is one in which management sits in on the interview and observes, but the technical people conduct the interview. After the interview management can receive a review of the candidates technical merits from the interviewer(s), and base their decision on that as well as any non-technical observations they made during the interview. If the potential hire is also being interviewed by potential co-workers this can also offer some insight into how well they'll interact in the future.
I think maybe you misunderstood my point, although your post is entirely accurate. I wasn't trying to say any of the current RIAA or MPAA cases were over things covered by fair use (although some may be, I haven't followed them too closely), rather that the RIAA is working to eliminate the fair use doctrine, and that if they did try to sue you over something covered by fair use it would still be incredibly costly to defend against.
The real issue of course is that it's technologically impossible to enforce copyright protection without taking all control out of the hands of consumers. Even then you're merely making it more illegal to commit an already illegal act (copyright infringement) while eliminating a whole swath of rights, and still not guaranteeing that copyright violation won't happen. Ultimately it just needs to come down to an issue of personal responsibility. The current approach everyone is taking would be like trying to design some sort of system that prevents people from littering, it's effectively doomed to failure. A much more sensible approach is to just ask people not to do it while making it more convenient for them to follow the law than break it.
Just a quick correction, in America you do have the right to do the first two. They fall under fair use, and if anyone tries to tell you different, shoot em. Yeah currently you can argue fair use, although the RIAA is campaigning hard to eliminate the fair use doctrine. It's also expensive to defend yourself against the kind of shotgun lawsuits the RIAA is so fond of, so even if you haven't actually broken the law it's still entirely likely that the RIAA can have you over a barrel, fair use be damned. Sad about the state of affairs over in Britain though, if it weren't for the fact it's heading towards being a police state even faster than the US is I might have considered moving there.
I just hope it's apparent that this ruling was handed down because they destroyed evidence and not because the case against them necessarily had any credibility (not saying that it didn't, just that it was never ruled on). I'd just hate for this win for the MPAA to be used as precedence in others cases.
I think definitely on a small scale at least. I live in the US but regularly violate copyright and the DMCA by burning copies of my CDs, ripping them to MP3, and downloading and installing codecs and DeCSS for viewing DVDs. Legally I don't have the right to bypass the CSS encryption on the DVDs I purchased by using DeCSS, but I do it anyway because the laws that make it illegal are unjust in my opinion. As to the sort of whole sale violation you see at places like TorrentSpy, well, that's a whole other ball game, sort of a Apples and Oranges thing. There may be some argument that it's only fair because of the way the media cartels have trampled our rights that we stick it to them so to speak, and the damages handed out for these things are definitely out of line, but whether that justifies the behavior I don't know.
To the best of our knowledge, all of them. That's what makes them constants. If we believed or had reason to believe that they changed we'd call them variables instead. Of course, we may discover that some or all of them have changed or will change, in which case they'll no longer be considered constants, but that's sort of how the process works.
They would also never dream of calling something untestable a law. Until it's tested it's a theory, which is perfectly fine. This is why Evolution theory, Big Bang theory, and String theory, are theories instead of laws. Once a theory has "matures" into a "real testable thing", then it can make the jump from theory to law. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the point you're trying to make though, and if so let me know.
If all scientists do is work out useful estimation techniques, aren't they just engineers? No, engineers don't create useful estimation techniques, they apply them. The engineers use what the scientists discover to make products and solve problems.
Slight correction there, it was the distribution server that got compromised, not the source repository. If you had downloaded the source from the source repository you'd be fine as it wasn't compromised. In theory this could have happened to anyone that provided an alternative download location, including any other open or proprietary products. To bring a discussion of proprietary applications into this is really a red herring so the GP was probably a bit off base with that, but you're not really helping either.
Hmmm... I'm envisioning a whole new twist on the time cube thing. Picture it, Fractal Universe! Simulations within simulations, turtles all the way down (and up!).
From a scientific standpoint it doesn't matter. All the "laws" we have now are essentially just best guesses made on available data. If in the future we discover circumstances under which those laws no longer apply the laws will be amended to reflect those conditions under which they don't apply. The original laws of Newtonian mechanics were quite sufficient to describe the behaviors that Newton was observing, but were later found to be insufficient and were updated. This is the scientific process, it's a gradual refinement of understanding in an attempt to approach a set of laws that can used to accurately describe and calculate the universe (and possibly beyond).
The issue here is that there is a very big difference between being told to do something by a cop, and being told to do something by a teacher. Of course we know this didn't happen at this point, but had it happened, depending on how the teacher and the student react completely changes who is at fault. If the teacher told the student to close the program and open the web browser and the student tried to explain that Firefox is a web browser and got detention, then the teacher is in the wrong. If the teacher told the kid that Firefox wasn't approved and that he has to use IE but he continued to argue over it, or started yelling, then the student is wrong. Teachers do not get a free pass on something just because they're ignorant of it. If the teacher doesn't understand something and a student attempts to explain it, it's the duty of that teacher to listen to the student and learn, just as it's the duty of the student to listen and learn from the teacher. The critical distinction here is that the student should listen and learn, not listen and obey, they aren't there to be commanded. Learning is about the free exchange of ideas, and just because the knowledge is trying to pass from the student to the teacher doesn't change that.
Had this actually happened I would have pulled my kid from that school. I think school is a place children go to learn, not to be instructed. It's a subtle but very important point. Unfortunately there are very few schools left that are places of learning. I understand your point, but it's one I disagree on. As this is a matter of opinion concerning learning style and the position the school institution plays in society I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the theoretical outcome of this situation.
I don't necessarily disagree with some of your sentiment, but you're borderline flaming in that post, and probably going to get moded either troll or flaimbait. Also your post is kind of hard to read and seems to wander all over the place. You're suggestion that the school or teachers are being paid by Microsoft to push IE or ads seems unfounded. It's far more likely that their staff are clueless and just don't realize that there are non-Microsoft ways to do things. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
The teacher needs instruction. Agreed. But that is the kind of thing to take up with the principal. That doesn't make it OK for the kid to disobey the teacher. Well, based on what's provided in TFA it's impossible to determine if the student disobeyed the teacher or not. Suppose that the following conversation had happened:
Teacher: Open the internet and go to www.somesite.com and do the assignment there.
Student opens Firefox, goes to the site, and starts the assignment.
Teacher: What are you doing, I told you to go to the internet and do the assignment, now close that game and do it.
Student: This isn't a game, it's a web browser, and I did go to the site. I'm doing the assignment now.
Teacher: Shut that game down right now or you get detention.
Student: It's not a game. I told you, this is a web browser like IE.
Teacher: That's it, you have detention. Now, I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's possible. Until we get some more information we don't know whether the student did anything wrong or not.
The story is rather lacking on some important details which could totally change the way this story is interpreted. The way the detention report in TFA is written it seems like the teacher instructed the students to open their web browser and do an assignment, but didn't understand that Firefox is a web browser. Most likely this teacher is the kind of person that refers to IE as "The internet" and thinks that a PC and Windows are the same thing. Yeah, maybe the student was disobeying and deserved detention, but at the same time the teacher probably needs a remedial tech course before he or she should be allowed to teach a course that has a tech component to it.
Odds are using Firefox didn't make any difference in how the kid did his assignment. He was most likely using it because "M$ sux!" This is a case of making waves just to make waves, or the tech savvy kid wanting to show off that he knew something other kids didn't. Firefox + AdBlockPlus + NoScript wins against IE hands down if for no other reason than performance on a constrained bandwidth and processing environment. I've attempted to find comparable addons or plugins for IE but so far I've had no luck. In addition the simple and efficient layout of the Firefox extension page beats the pants of the windows marketplace which uses CNET as the actual download host and merely links to it in search results.
I regularly use Firefox for lab assignments rather than IE7 because it allows pages to load faster on the congested school network by eliminating ads and useless scripts, as well as reducing security risks. If necessary I'll bring Firefox on a USB stick, but most schools have at least one person on staff with the smarts to have installed Firefox on the lab computers.
Don't know about the original vi, but vim doesn't have that problem. You'll get a message warning about calculating line numbers or something like that, but it will still open and you can edit it while it's doing that.
Well, there are some, just look at the sort of things that popup on youtube from time to time. Every now and then there will be something independent that makes a splash on the internet, but there are a number of barriers to mass popularity. The most important is probably one of advertising. Without at the very minimum a central channel or resource to promote the show people simple won't know about it. Relying entirely on word of mouth a show can still be popular, but it won't get the kinds of numbers most mainstream cable shows can pull in. The second smaller hurdle is one of quality. It still takes some money and talent to produce a good show, and results are all over the board for most of the independents that are running on shoestring budgets.
Slashdot Mirror
I once had an instructor at an introductory level programming class (which I was required to take and they refused to let me test out of) try to insist that in C and C++ the int in the line:
int main()
stands for initialize. No amount of arguing with the instructor could convince him that it was declaring the return type of the main function as an integer. As it happens the instructor was also head of the computer science department. I spent the rest of that semester teaching the entire class after the instructor left because I felt bad for them. They all agreed I did a much better job than the instructor. I would have gotten a job as a teacher there, but they couldn't afford my rate.
I tend to agree but I would just like to point out that there is some logic to the "protecting our IP" defense, although it's still underhanded and misleading. Typically they try to make it sound like they're protecting their copyright with that defense as that bolsters the arguments for copyright infringement based lawsuits and laws, but in actuality what they're defending is trademark and patents (not that software should even be patentable, but that's another rant entirely). Technically if they fail to raise a stink about someone using a trademark or patent it could be declared void and turned public domain. For example see what happened to Kleenex, which started as a trademark but entered common usage as a name for a tissue and thus the trademark was lost. They are technically protecting their IP (in a roundabout fashion), but they're also promoting confusion over which specific "IP" their trying to protect. As for the cases where they try to claim this for infringements not dealing with anything patented or trademarked, yeah, that's total BS.
.In other cases, we negotiated to REMOVE some security burdens because the customer was wasting their money, shooting off big words that didn't pertain to their industry.You mean management makes decisions about technical issues based solely on buzzwords without understanding what they mean? Nah, that could never happen</sarcasm>
There are really three possibilities for who is going to interview you, and only one of them is likely to do a good job. The first, and worst case as some middle manager with no clue about what your job is actually going to entail. Not sure how they can possibly hope to do a good job interviewing, but presumably they're just scoping out your attitude and basing their decision on if they like you and if your resume has all the correct buzzwords (and the proper length to satisfy their sensibilities). The second possibility is a co-worker or direct manager, but one who is hopelessly clueless. This is depressing in that not only will they be a poor judge of candidates, but if you do get hired you'll most likely have to work with this moron, and odds are he's an indication of the type of environment you're getting into. The last and final possibility is a co-worker or direct manager who actually knows what they're doing. This is the only one of the three that can do a good job interviewing candidates. You can usually tell if you've got someone like this because you can ask questions during the interview and get intelligent responses in addition to further questions based on your answers. Sometimes it can be difficult to determine if you have someone who knows what they're talking about because often times the clueless and middle managers simply have a list of standard questions they run down, but a good indication is if they deviate from the list when you ask them questions about it, or if some of the questions don't necessarily make sense in the context they're being used.
The best system of course is one in which management sits in on the interview and observes, but the technical people conduct the interview. After the interview management can receive a review of the candidates technical merits from the interviewer(s), and base their decision on that as well as any non-technical observations they made during the interview. If the potential hire is also being interviewed by potential co-workers this can also offer some insight into how well they'll interact in the future.
I think maybe you misunderstood my point, although your post is entirely accurate. I wasn't trying to say any of the current RIAA or MPAA cases were over things covered by fair use (although some may be, I haven't followed them too closely), rather that the RIAA is working to eliminate the fair use doctrine, and that if they did try to sue you over something covered by fair use it would still be incredibly costly to defend against.
The real issue of course is that it's technologically impossible to enforce copyright protection without taking all control out of the hands of consumers. Even then you're merely making it more illegal to commit an already illegal act (copyright infringement) while eliminating a whole swath of rights, and still not guaranteeing that copyright violation won't happen. Ultimately it just needs to come down to an issue of personal responsibility. The current approach everyone is taking would be like trying to design some sort of system that prevents people from littering, it's effectively doomed to failure. A much more sensible approach is to just ask people not to do it while making it more convenient for them to follow the law than break it.
I just hope it's apparent that this ruling was handed down because they destroyed evidence and not because the case against them necessarily had any credibility (not saying that it didn't, just that it was never ruled on). I'd just hate for this win for the MPAA to be used as precedence in others cases.
I think definitely on a small scale at least. I live in the US but regularly violate copyright and the DMCA by burning copies of my CDs, ripping them to MP3, and downloading and installing codecs and DeCSS for viewing DVDs. Legally I don't have the right to bypass the CSS encryption on the DVDs I purchased by using DeCSS, but I do it anyway because the laws that make it illegal are unjust in my opinion. As to the sort of whole sale violation you see at places like TorrentSpy, well, that's a whole other ball game, sort of a Apples and Oranges thing. There may be some argument that it's only fair because of the way the media cartels have trampled our rights that we stick it to them so to speak, and the damages handed out for these things are definitely out of line, but whether that justifies the behavior I don't know.
To the best of our knowledge, all of them. That's what makes them constants. If we believed or had reason to believe that they changed we'd call them variables instead. Of course, we may discover that some or all of them have changed or will change, in which case they'll no longer be considered constants, but that's sort of how the process works.
They would also never dream of calling something untestable a law. Until it's tested it's a theory, which is perfectly fine. This is why Evolution theory, Big Bang theory, and String theory, are theories instead of laws. Once a theory has "matures" into a "real testable thing", then it can make the jump from theory to law. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the point you're trying to make though, and if so let me know.
Slight correction there, it was the distribution server that got compromised, not the source repository. If you had downloaded the source from the source repository you'd be fine as it wasn't compromised. In theory this could have happened to anyone that provided an alternative download location, including any other open or proprietary products. To bring a discussion of proprietary applications into this is really a red herring so the GP was probably a bit off base with that, but you're not really helping either.
Hmmm... I'm envisioning a whole new twist on the time cube thing. Picture it, Fractal Universe! Simulations within simulations, turtles all the way down (and up!).
From a scientific standpoint it doesn't matter. All the "laws" we have now are essentially just best guesses made on available data. If in the future we discover circumstances under which those laws no longer apply the laws will be amended to reflect those conditions under which they don't apply. The original laws of Newtonian mechanics were quite sufficient to describe the behaviors that Newton was observing, but were later found to be insufficient and were updated. This is the scientific process, it's a gradual refinement of understanding in an attempt to approach a set of laws that can used to accurately describe and calculate the universe (and possibly beyond).
The issue here is that there is a very big difference between being told to do something by a cop, and being told to do something by a teacher. Of course we know this didn't happen at this point, but had it happened, depending on how the teacher and the student react completely changes who is at fault. If the teacher told the student to close the program and open the web browser and the student tried to explain that Firefox is a web browser and got detention, then the teacher is in the wrong. If the teacher told the kid that Firefox wasn't approved and that he has to use IE but he continued to argue over it, or started yelling, then the student is wrong. Teachers do not get a free pass on something just because they're ignorant of it. If the teacher doesn't understand something and a student attempts to explain it, it's the duty of that teacher to listen to the student and learn, just as it's the duty of the student to listen and learn from the teacher. The critical distinction here is that the student should listen and learn, not listen and obey, they aren't there to be commanded. Learning is about the free exchange of ideas, and just because the knowledge is trying to pass from the student to the teacher doesn't change that.
Thanks for the link. That looks very interesting.
Had this actually happened I would have pulled my kid from that school. I think school is a place children go to learn, not to be instructed. It's a subtle but very important point. Unfortunately there are very few schools left that are places of learning. I understand your point, but it's one I disagree on. As this is a matter of opinion concerning learning style and the position the school institution plays in society I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the theoretical outcome of this situation.
I don't necessarily disagree with some of your sentiment, but you're borderline flaming in that post, and probably going to get moded either troll or flaimbait. Also your post is kind of hard to read and seems to wander all over the place. You're suggestion that the school or teachers are being paid by Microsoft to push IE or ads seems unfounded. It's far more likely that their staff are clueless and just don't realize that there are non-Microsoft ways to do things. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Student opens Firefox, goes to the site, and starts the assignment.
Teacher: What are you doing, I told you to go to the internet and do the assignment, now close that game and do it.
Student: This isn't a game, it's a web browser, and I did go to the site. I'm doing the assignment now.
Teacher: Shut that game down right now or you get detention.
Student: It's not a game. I told you, this is a web browser like IE.
Teacher: That's it, you have detention.
Now, I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's possible. Until we get some more information we don't know whether the student did anything wrong or not.
The story is rather lacking on some important details which could totally change the way this story is interpreted. The way the detention report in TFA is written it seems like the teacher instructed the students to open their web browser and do an assignment, but didn't understand that Firefox is a web browser. Most likely this teacher is the kind of person that refers to IE as "The internet" and thinks that a PC and Windows are the same thing. Yeah, maybe the student was disobeying and deserved detention, but at the same time the teacher probably needs a remedial tech course before he or she should be allowed to teach a course that has a tech component to it.
I regularly use Firefox for lab assignments rather than IE7 because it allows pages to load faster on the congested school network by eliminating ads and useless scripts, as well as reducing security risks. If necessary I'll bring Firefox on a USB stick, but most schools have at least one person on staff with the smarts to have installed Firefox on the lab computers.
And if the corporations don't screw us, the religious right will.
Don't know about the original vi, but vim doesn't have that problem. You'll get a message warning about calculating line numbers or something like that, but it will still open and you can edit it while it's doing that.
Well, there are some, just look at the sort of things that popup on youtube from time to time. Every now and then there will be something independent that makes a splash on the internet, but there are a number of barriers to mass popularity. The most important is probably one of advertising. Without at the very minimum a central channel or resource to promote the show people simple won't know about it. Relying entirely on word of mouth a show can still be popular, but it won't get the kinds of numbers most mainstream cable shows can pull in. The second smaller hurdle is one of quality. It still takes some money and talent to produce a good show, and results are all over the board for most of the independents that are running on shoestring budgets.