I'm a software engineer with a MS in CompSci. I don't think programming should be required in K12 programs. I'd be happy with schools having survey of computation type class which imparts a high level understanding of how networking, computers, handheld devices, gaming systems, web technology, etc work. Include a small unit with basic programming in it, sure. One should not be clueless about how technology works in our world, but most people don't and won't ever write code. Of course, programming should be around as an elective for anyone so inclined.
IMO, the push behind this effort by the big tech companies is because of the difficulty hiring good programmers/software engineers and because they can't hire enough women or minorities because few women and minorities enter this field. The thought behind this first is that not enough people go into computer science programs in college (or STEM more broadly) because they weren't exposed enough to it. "If we could only get more kids to think programming is fun, then more of them would pursue it as a career and we'd have a bigger/better talent pool to recruit from" is the corporate thought. Same thing with diversity: "If only more girls or more people of minority group X studied CS/STEM, we'd be able to have our company's diversity match the diversity of the general population." This though then leads to "lets make kids take programming classes in school so they will be exposed to programming.
I'm all for giving people opportunity and there is much room for improvement in that area. But I think we do a disservice to individual people when we push someone to do or not do something because a group is over or under represented somewhere (saying to a girl, go into field X because the population is 51% women therefore the population of graduates in field X should be 51% women). Give people opportunity and then let them make their own choices.
This is biased toward non intelligent design right off the bat. A creator would only need to optimize for life the planet or planets that he intended to deposit life upon. The fact that the universe at large is biased against life makes life here on earth all that more special.
I work for a big tech company from a small city in Wisconsin. It is great. For the company, office space is cheap, internet access is cheap, energy is cheap, salaries are less than in big cities and employees are still happy. As an employee, I'm happy since I don't have traffic nightmares getting to work and home (I have a whole 5 minute commute), the cost of living is low (I live in a remodeled 3 bedroom home that is worth $120K) and in a small office (200 people) you can know everyone by name. It is a win-win deal for a tech company to locate outside the major tech areas.
I agree. When UTM isn't a buzzword and vendors have had a couple of release cycles to get their act together, get quality pieces put together and design a reasonable user interface, then these things may well be better than a mish mash of various components. There may be great benefits in time from gathering these things together, but we aren't there yet! And hopefully the vendors won't reduce the 1000 different options you had in the mish mash that perfectly served your business's needs with 10 pre configured scenarios which don't do the job.
Is it possible that single purpose security applications and appliances do a better job? In combining make various technologies in one device, how watered down was each individual component?
I think the author is making a large mistake based on not understanding the difference between free people freely acting and government enforcing of behavior.
The government forcing me to 'share' my money with others via taxation and redistribution is very different than my voluntary donation to another person. Likewise, free people may decide that it in their best interests to cooperate on certain development (technological or otherwise) and share the results. That cooperation and sharing doesn't become socialism or communism until the government says that people MUST cooperate and share.
The difference between cooperation and socialism then is law. Being coerced is much different than voluntary participation.
News organizations need to differentiate themselves and then people will be willing to pay. The Wall Street Journal web site has thrived a a for pay site. But it provides value to people. So much free news isn't particularly well written or investigative.
An article about this was just posted at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123534987719744781.html which sums up the argument for paying for quality information.
The Wisconsin Income tax form has a spot on it for WI residents to report "use" tax for items they purchased which should be subject to sales tax. A WI resident is supposed to pay the "use" (really sales) tax on any items purchased online which would have been subject to sales tax in a WI store. So this bill just expands that to the digital downloads. For the most part this is just an "on your honor" tax. Most of us will never pay it given we don't like it and they really can't figure out that we owe it.
When I graduated from high school, I was into computers 100%. So I picked an engineering school and got a technical degree. I continued and did several semesters of graduate study before getting a job and settling into the real world.
Now that I am out of school, working and married it is quite apparent that there is much more to life then science and technology. You might be able to code the fastest algorithm, but if you can't understand economic and business conditions, get along with coworkers and talk about sports or politics at a social event, your education has failed you. I do a lot of reading to catch me up to what I ought to know about other fields. It is amazing how much ties together, even from those social sciences and even the arts. If you do any UI work, having a few psych and art courses behind you can be a great thing. Being able to tell your boss why programming this was will not allow you to meet the need of the business condition you can foresee makes you a much more valuable employee (those economics and marketing classes do have value).
So as you make this decision, ask yourself, "Do I want to be the code monkey working 80 hours a week having more tech knowledge then everyone else, or do I want to climb the corporate latter, work 45 hours a week and have a life?"
Saying that Ron Paul is very weak on national defense it flat out wrong. True, he doesn't believe that U.S. troops belong in Iraq. But he stands for strong national defense: having a strong military with the best technology defending United States territory. The libertarian view of government is that it exists to provide military defense. Just because he won't run our military all over the world trying to defend individuals or companies that get themselves into trouble somewhere out there doesn't mean he won't make sure no enemy comes over here.
Last I checked Ron Paul was the one candidate who has a long history of standing on principle. Fred Thompson certainly doesn't hold anything over Ron Paul in this category.
This has been one of my favorite shows for years. I had hoped for a couple more seasons, but all good things must come to an end. It is good that they are keeping Atlantis going.
I think that to understand this discussion we need to define some terms better.
Macro Evolution - the theory that once species changes into another. (ie fish becomes reptile, reptile bird, etc.)
Micro Evolution - the theory that members of a species show variance from one another but can still interbreed (they become micro species). (ie dog becomes wolf, fox, poodle, collie, great dane, etc.)
Natural Selection - the theory that micro species survive in the environment that they are best suited for and the stronger members of the species survive and thus influence the local (at least) genetic pool with their traits. (ie a chiwawa won't survive in Arctic but wolf will)
I don't know of any educated person, Creationist or Evolutionist, who disagrees with the theories of Micro Evolution and Natural Selection. Macro Evolution is issue. Macro is also what almost everyone things of when asked about "evolution." So it is no wonder that many believe evolution is wrong when asked a broad question like this survey did. But that doesn't mean those who disagree are dogmatically religious or scientifically ignorant. You or I can see both Micro Evolution and Natural Selection at work in the world around us. We can use the scientific method to study them. But macro evolution isn't something demonstrable via the scientific method. Sure there are pieces of evidence for it (and against it) but since we can't see it in a lab, it doesn't meet the requirements of the scientific method and thus isn't science. Because of this, it should exist in the realm of scientific philosophy. It is natural that those who presume there isn't a god (and thus that there must be a natural explanation for material world) and those who presume there is a god (and thus that there could be supernatural explanations for the material world) would look that his philosophical issue from opposite perspectives. But it doesn't mean that either side is unscientific.
I don't find it surprising that our language constructs limit or expand our perceptions of reality. What worries me though is how little language an average American knows. Having worked many jobs over the years, I have been repeatedly struck by how limited in linguistical skills and vocabulary most people are. The average English speaking American seems to use the same words over and over to mean different things.
I wonder how many discoveries we have missed because our language constrains us away from thinking about certain things. If we had more words and thus more distinctions for fundamental ideas and objects, we would very likely have greater understanding and regard for those things. I am reminded of how the Greek language differentiated between several types of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love love and whereas the English language does not. Because of the linguistic distinctions, the Greeks appeared to have a greater understanding of the concept of love than we do in America. Mix this limitation of the English language with the generally minuscule vocabulary of individuals and it isn't surprising that we Americans are so simple minded.
Why is it considered the death of democracy for the government to do exactly what the majority of the American people want? Last I checked, the idea of democracy was rule by the majority. This is it! The Bush administration is doing exactly what the majority of Americans want them to do.
The two parts I find troubling is that the general population feel security is more important than liberty and that democracy and not republic is viewed as our governmental form. A quote, possibly by Benjamin Franklin says this, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The main idea of democracy is rule of the majority. Whatever 51% wants, it gets - even to the detriment of the other 49%. If 51% of the people decide that you don't have the right to private communications, then 51% have the power to take that 'right' away. But nothing is really a "right" if it is granted by another human or a human institution. That is why the authors of the Declaration of Independence invoked self evidence and divine revelation ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.") as the basis of rights for if God or Nature gave those rights then no other human can "rightly" take them away. I saw "rightly" because they are removed all the time by governments of the world today.
Because of this issue with democracy (which our Founding Fathers feared having understood the Athenian democracy's problems) we were given a Republic. So what diferentiates a democracy from a republic? A foundation of rights. The most fundemental idea of a republic is that these rights must be preserved. Thus a republic form of government attempts to prevent any distortion or removal of those rights by the general populas (the voter), or by the government itself (whether judicial, executive or legislative). Generally the foundation of law under a republic can be summed up in two statements: "Perform all agreements you make" and "Do not encroach on other people or on other people's property." These statements implicitly imply the right to truth (holding others accountable for their words) and the right to be free from encroachment (ie to be secure in person and property).
What we are seeing in the actions of the President and in the view of 53% of the population is that humans do not have a fundamental right against being encroached upon. That is very scary thought.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a software engineer with a MS in CompSci. I don't think programming should be required in K12 programs. I'd be happy with schools having survey of computation type class which imparts a high level understanding of how networking, computers, handheld devices, gaming systems, web technology, etc work. Include a small unit with basic programming in it, sure. One should not be clueless about how technology works in our world, but most people don't and won't ever write code. Of course, programming should be around as an elective for anyone so inclined.
IMO, the push behind this effort by the big tech companies is because of the difficulty hiring good programmers/software engineers and because they can't hire enough women or minorities because few women and minorities enter this field. The thought behind this first is that not enough people go into computer science programs in college (or STEM more broadly) because they weren't exposed enough to it. "If we could only get more kids to think programming is fun, then more of them would pursue it as a career and we'd have a bigger/better talent pool to recruit from" is the corporate thought. Same thing with diversity: "If only more girls or more people of minority group X studied CS/STEM, we'd be able to have our company's diversity match the diversity of the general population." This though then leads to "lets make kids take programming classes in school so they will be exposed to programming.
I'm all for giving people opportunity and there is much room for improvement in that area. But I think we do a disservice to individual people when we push someone to do or not do something because a group is over or under represented somewhere (saying to a girl, go into field X because the population is 51% women therefore the population of graduates in field X should be 51% women). Give people opportunity and then let them make their own choices.
This is biased toward non intelligent design right off the bat. A creator would only need to optimize for life the planet or planets that he intended to deposit life upon. The fact that the universe at large is biased against life makes life here on earth all that more special.
SAP actually.
I work for a big tech company from a small city in Wisconsin. It is great. For the company, office space is cheap, internet access is cheap, energy is cheap, salaries are less than in big cities and employees are still happy. As an employee, I'm happy since I don't have traffic nightmares getting to work and home (I have a whole 5 minute commute), the cost of living is low (I live in a remodeled 3 bedroom home that is worth $120K) and in a small office (200 people) you can know everyone by name. It is a win-win deal for a tech company to locate outside the major tech areas.
I agree. When UTM isn't a buzzword and vendors have had a couple of release cycles to get their act together, get quality pieces put together and design a reasonable user interface, then these things may well be better than a mish mash of various components. There may be great benefits in time from gathering these things together, but we aren't there yet! And hopefully the vendors won't reduce the 1000 different options you had in the mish mash that perfectly served your business's needs with 10 pre configured scenarios which don't do the job.
Is it possible that single purpose security applications and appliances do a better job? In combining make various technologies in one device, how watered down was each individual component?
I think the author is making a large mistake based on not understanding the difference between free people freely acting and government enforcing of behavior. The government forcing me to 'share' my money with others via taxation and redistribution is very different than my voluntary donation to another person. Likewise, free people may decide that it in their best interests to cooperate on certain development (technological or otherwise) and share the results. That cooperation and sharing doesn't become socialism or communism until the government says that people MUST cooperate and share. The difference between cooperation and socialism then is law. Being coerced is much different than voluntary participation.
News may be worth paying for. But opinions are a dime a dozen.
News organizations need to differentiate themselves and then people will be willing to pay. The Wall Street Journal web site has thrived a a for pay site. But it provides value to people. So much free news isn't particularly well written or investigative. An article about this was just posted at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123534987719744781.html which sums up the argument for paying for quality information.
The Wisconsin Income tax form has a spot on it for WI residents to report "use" tax for items they purchased which should be subject to sales tax. A WI resident is supposed to pay the "use" (really sales) tax on any items purchased online which would have been subject to sales tax in a WI store. So this bill just expands that to the digital downloads. For the most part this is just an "on your honor" tax. Most of us will never pay it given we don't like it and they really can't figure out that we owe it.
When I graduated from high school, I was into computers 100%. So I picked an engineering school and got a technical degree. I continued and did several semesters of graduate study before getting a job and settling into the real world. Now that I am out of school, working and married it is quite apparent that there is much more to life then science and technology. You might be able to code the fastest algorithm, but if you can't understand economic and business conditions, get along with coworkers and talk about sports or politics at a social event, your education has failed you. I do a lot of reading to catch me up to what I ought to know about other fields. It is amazing how much ties together, even from those social sciences and even the arts. If you do any UI work, having a few psych and art courses behind you can be a great thing. Being able to tell your boss why programming this was will not allow you to meet the need of the business condition you can foresee makes you a much more valuable employee (those economics and marketing classes do have value). So as you make this decision, ask yourself, "Do I want to be the code monkey working 80 hours a week having more tech knowledge then everyone else, or do I want to climb the corporate latter, work 45 hours a week and have a life?"
Saying that Ron Paul is very weak on national defense it flat out wrong. True, he doesn't believe that U.S. troops belong in Iraq. But he stands for strong national defense: having a strong military with the best technology defending United States territory. The libertarian view of government is that it exists to provide military defense. Just because he won't run our military all over the world trying to defend individuals or companies that get themselves into trouble somewhere out there doesn't mean he won't make sure no enemy comes over here.
Last I checked Ron Paul was the one candidate who has a long history of standing on principle. Fred Thompson certainly doesn't hold anything over Ron Paul in this category.
This has been one of my favorite shows for years. I had hoped for a couple more seasons, but all good things must come to an end. It is good that they are keeping Atlantis going.
I think that to understand this discussion we need to define some terms better.
Macro Evolution - the theory that once species changes into another. (ie fish becomes reptile, reptile bird, etc.)
Micro Evolution - the theory that members of a species show variance from one another but can still interbreed (they become micro species). (ie dog becomes wolf, fox, poodle, collie, great dane, etc.)
Natural Selection - the theory that micro species survive in the environment that they are best suited for and the stronger members of the species survive and thus influence the local (at least) genetic pool with their traits. (ie a chiwawa won't survive in Arctic but wolf will)
I don't know of any educated person, Creationist or Evolutionist, who disagrees with the theories of Micro Evolution and Natural Selection. Macro Evolution is issue. Macro is also what almost everyone things of when asked about "evolution." So it is no wonder that many believe evolution is wrong when asked a broad question like this survey did. But that doesn't mean those who disagree are dogmatically religious or scientifically ignorant. You or I can see both Micro Evolution and Natural Selection at work in the world around us. We can use the scientific method to study them. But macro evolution isn't something demonstrable via the scientific method. Sure there are pieces of evidence for it (and against it) but since we can't see it in a lab, it doesn't meet the requirements of the scientific method and thus isn't science. Because of this, it should exist in the realm of scientific philosophy. It is natural that those who presume there isn't a god (and thus that there must be a natural explanation for material world) and those who presume there is a god (and thus that there could be supernatural explanations for the material world) would look that his philosophical issue from opposite perspectives. But it doesn't mean that either side is unscientific.
I don't find it surprising that our language constructs limit or expand our perceptions of reality. What worries me though is how little language an average American knows. Having worked many jobs over the years, I have been repeatedly struck by how limited in linguistical skills and vocabulary most people are. The average English speaking American seems to use the same words over and over to mean different things.
I wonder how many discoveries we have missed because our language constrains us away from thinking about certain things. If we had more words and thus more distinctions for fundamental ideas and objects, we would very likely have greater understanding and regard for those things. I am reminded of how the Greek language differentiated between several types of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love love and whereas the English language does not. Because of the linguistic distinctions, the Greeks appeared to have a greater understanding of the concept of love than we do in America. Mix this limitation of the English language with the generally minuscule vocabulary of individuals and it isn't surprising that we Americans are so simple minded.
Why is it considered the death of democracy for the government to do exactly what the majority of the American people want? Last I checked, the idea of democracy was rule by the majority. This is it! The Bush administration is doing exactly what the majority of Americans want them to do.
The two parts I find troubling is that the general population feel security is more important than liberty and that democracy and not republic is viewed as our governmental form. A quote, possibly by Benjamin Franklin says this, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The main idea of democracy is rule of the majority. Whatever 51% wants, it gets - even to the detriment of the other 49%. If 51% of the people decide that you don't have the right to private communications, then 51% have the power to take that 'right' away. But nothing is really a "right" if it is granted by another human or a human institution. That is why the authors of the Declaration of Independence invoked self evidence and divine revelation ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.") as the basis of rights for if God or Nature gave those rights then no other human can "rightly" take them away. I saw "rightly" because they are removed all the time by governments of the world today.
Because of this issue with democracy (which our Founding Fathers feared having understood the Athenian democracy's problems) we were given a Republic. So what diferentiates a democracy from a republic? A foundation of rights. The most fundemental idea of a republic is that these rights must be preserved. Thus a republic form of government attempts to prevent any distortion or removal of those rights by the general populas (the voter), or by the government itself (whether judicial, executive or legislative). Generally the foundation of law under a republic can be summed up in two statements: "Perform all agreements you make" and "Do not encroach on other people or on other people's property." These statements implicitly imply the right to truth (holding others accountable for their words) and the right to be free from encroachment (ie to be secure in person and property).
What we are seeing in the actions of the President and in the view of 53% of the population is that humans do not have a fundamental right against being encroached upon. That is very scary thought.