Thanks! I'd heard that one not too too long ago. There's an excellent documentary on Eisenhower. I forget the name but I happened to bump into it not that long ago. It was since I was on the road, so since last September. I want to say it was before I got here in Florida. It's hard telling. I think I watched it at a site other than YouTube so I can't just go through my history and find it. It turns out that he and his wife were rather popular long before he had any power/rank.
I'm not sure if I'm conflating him with someone else? I think, if I remember correctly, he also had access to a great general and that general's library. They had some sort of falling out and he was fired while he was away on leave, or pretty much like that. He returned to the base and his role as an aide had been filled by someone else. I'm thinking it was Eisenhower but, as I've explained, these are entertainment pursuits and not scholarly in nature. If the goal was learning, I'd not necessarily enjoy it as much. Learning (and remembering) is incidental.;-)
Even if they'd taken the entire group prisoner, Germany would still have not invaded the UK. Also, the Expeditionary Force was *not* almost all of the Army. They were still very much an empire at that point. Saying that the BEF was the entirety of the army is, well... Let's just say that it's rather disrespectful to the many, many others from India, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. As I recall, they were a part of the "UK" at the time.
I'm really not sure what to say... That's a rarity... However, it's rather disrespectful unless I'm missing something. I'm also pretty sure that there were troops, from Britain - and the Isles in general, all over the place. As in, all over the place - the Sun never set on the UK at that point. The colonies (or whatever they were calling them then) were still in existence and some of those people dedicated a lot of lives to WWII.
Yup. In Rome's case, the roads were built by the Legion. It's amusing, sad really, that they're "insightful" for the post. No... No, that's not right. That we benefit is a good thing but it sure as hell is not a priority. The FHS/NHS (Federal Highway System/National Highway System) was quite specifically created for military use. The reason that they spend so much money on them (and they do spend a ton of money) is because of the military value.
Yes, there are side benefits and they're considered. However, if we didn't need to move military equipment then they'd be paying a lot less. I can also speak first-hand to the results of interfering with a military convoy on the FHS. It will end badly for you. Do not do this. We have rovers with flashing lights, we have signs mounted on the lead and rear vehicles. When we say "DO NOT INTERFERE WITH CONVOY" or "CONVOY DOES NOT STOP" we mean it. If you put your little red Honda in the way, slow down, and take a picture - we will not slow down. We will, maybe, slow a little so that we can push your vehicle off the edge of the road, watch it flip on its side, and laugh hysterically while we drive by.
And the resulting phone calls will be funny. The paperwork is a bit much, so it appears - I was behind them and driving a different vehicle. We are told, "Do not stop unless you're given orders to do. If someone pulls in front of you, hit them. You will not stop." We don't stop. We were, by then, on a limited access highway. On the regular routes, we've got spotters and rovers. We pull up, stop access and feeder routes, and stop traffic until we've gone through. You will not interrupt the convoy. Even on closed access, we drive where we want. We pull off, up, and on. We drive backwards down the on-ramp and stop traffic. We've got like 50 extra vehicles out there. We occupy one lane plus the rover's in the second lane. We stay to the right. Do not interfere with convoy!
I can definitely state, with some authority, that this is NOT correct:
Just like the interstate's sole intention is to let US citizens travel safely across the country.
There is no way that's right. In fact, that's so far wrong that it's as opposite to of correct as it can possibly be. A more accurate statement would be that the highway's sole intention is purple. It would make more sense.
As an aside, I'm kind of partial to highways... The reason that none of the original Roman roads have curves and only have right angles is because they lacked the math to make the roads curve. So, Rome's original roads are all straight and have right angles. I forget the name of the documentary but it goes into that as well as how the roads were made. They go out and actually do some experimental archeology, use the correct tools, and even speak in Latin (as I recall - not sure if I'm conflating it with others).
At any rate, it's laughable to think the interstate highways are made for letting US citizens travel safely across the country. No, we've got plans to shut 'em all down if there's a crisis. The civilian use is secondary. As I'm sure you know, see the width of the lanes and the size of an HMMWV or even an Abram and all will become clear.
That is impressive, though it's 10.10. I'm not sure how well 15.10 would do. Unfortunately, they seem hell bent on eating as many resources as you throw at it. I can see that as a problem for those who only have access to slower hardware. I've got fine hardware but it's unfortunate if it ends up being too bulky for older PCs.
I think Ubuntu might want to consider a super-light, but fully configured and functional, version. Take Lubuntu, strip it down a bit more, optimize it a bit more, trim out the things that don't actually get used on older hardware. Find a VERY light (but functional) graphic browser (I'm still looking for one) and run with it. Find a good, but light, email and whatnot.
I am curious as to what LXQt is going to look like in terms of resource usage. I'm sort of excited but, at the same time, visuals is not an element that I'm horribly concerned with. I *like* LXDE and I think I've made it look just fine. Here's an old image of it running on the aforementioned computer or one of similar vintage: http://i.imgur.com/VSsDyU0.png
Hmm... Maybe I can roll my own and just make it available for people? Or at least give a list and a methodology to enable them to do so on their own. It seems like a worthy goal. DSL and Tiny Linux are both not robust enough. Something between the two might be of interest. With so many choices, the closest I've come is actually LXDE.
Someone else mentioned putting Lubuntu on a bunch of spectography machines a while back. They linked me to them but I don't appear to have saved the URL. I'm thinking something a bit lighter might actually be a decent idea for some people but I'm not sure that I'm the appropriate choice to start and maintain such a project. I'd probably build up from core and run with it from there. I'm not entirely sure how to wrap it back up but I can figure that out via Google.
Hmm... I need to get motivated. Hell, if you've got any ideas for software, let me know.;-) Email is always an option.
It's too bad that you mentioned that so late. That's an absolutely brilliant idea. Seriously, that's brilliant.
If you've ever been, it's a game of "Spot the Feds!" I'd honestly not be surprised if people were already doing this - though not necessarily for the same reasons.
Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to expand your idea... Do it at Def Con but let's flesh that out.
Don't just do it at the various halls, booths, and in the buildings but do it *everywhere.* Do it in the airport, do it in the hotels, do it in the lobbies of the hotels, and things like that. Make them fit, look normal, give them a variety of names (some less fitting than others like a Starbucks where there is none within visual range), and do nothing BUT log their entrance and any attempts they might make at accessing other computers on the network(s).
Maybe throw some honey pots up - to see who goes poking at what... Maybe put some in the parking garage at the airport. Hell, even create a fake web page, use the authorization, and see about some social engineering. In the hotel lobbies, include a piece of paper as a flier that says "Free Municipal Wireless, use code XXXXXX-HotelName to access!" Things like that... I'm sure it can be expanded much more.
I bet we'd get some meaningful data from it. I'd be *very* interested in seeing how that goes. The problem is, rolling it out would have to be done in a very hush-hush manner. It'd not be really all that easy to keep secret but once cover is blown, it's blown. After that, the experiment is basically ruined or, at the least, any conclusions drawn from it, based on the original premises, are not likely to be valid with the same level of confidence. So, keeping it hush-hush would be imperative.
Also, for fun, it might be worth it if the access point list were all disclosed on the last day. Even better if, at that point, there's a bunch of extra access points and it has been ramped up for a "big announcement to be made at the close of the event" while encouraging the journalists to all attend. Oh my, oh my... Logging any/all internal actions would be good 'cause you know someone's gonna see if they've got default passwords set and things like that. Check to see, leave LAN enabled, who connects to what, or tries to. Check to see who tries to make changes to router settings - and what changes they made. Leave some with older firmware installed, see if someone notices and upgrades it, things like that...
As an aside, I can't admit to this so you'll have to read between the lines. If I were to access someone's router and find that it had the defaults still enabled then I might consider looking. If I looked and, after a thorough investigation, determine that they'd benefit from an upgrade then I might even install the security fixes. If I were going to do that then I'd potentially consider checking to ensure that it's secured, there are some settings that can be changed to tighten it up a bit, and then I'd leave it better than I found it. If there's a networked printer then I might print something out and let them know that they were insecure, that it has been fixed, that I'm now locked out, and that the new password is what it is. But, you know, I can't actually admit to doing anything of the sort.
At any rate, that's a brilliant idea. We're far enough back in time (this thread's a few days old now) so nobody will notice. You and I are probably the last two to participate. I wonder who we can send this to as a suggestion? I wonder if it has been done before and the results just not released? I dare say, you've got a brilliant idea there and one that should be looked into, albeit looked into quietly so as to not bias the results.
Oh, it's not that fragile. It was when it was first released. They're very reliable now and have been since about six months after the problems. And no, as far as I understand, you probably really can't rely on even an AK-47 after it's been in the mud. The M16 is very reliable. The AK-47 is not nearly as reliable as the claim is.
This is going to be a bit long. You can skim, read, ignore, whatever... It's not just written for you. It's written for those who might read your post and end up with some strange, probably erroneous, beliefs. I think it important to clarify.
I can, literally, speak of both of these things firsthand. I do not have access to it but I've posted pictures of me with a fully licensed AK-47. Well, you'd think it's an AK-47. It's an M22, from China. It's select fire, fully licensed, and perfectly legal for me to own it. It's fairly reliable but I'd not trust its accuracy out past 100 yards, realistically. Yeah, I'm probably good out to about double that but I'd not rely on that. Depending on the situation, that's more than adequate.
At the same time, I've multiple configurations of an AR15 and served and was issued an M16. The M16 is much the same as the M4 and AR15, some parts are interchangeable. They're not difficult to keep reasonably clean - even when you're out in the middle of nowhere, slogging through the environment, and things of that nature. If you wanted to be mentally retarded, and maybe injured, you could possibly drag it through mud, shake the barrel out, and fire it. I'm going to suggest that the failure rate would probably not be all that much different with favor going to the AK.
What I can do, more reliably, is hit my target at a distance with an M16. And yes, yes it *is* going to fire because I know how to keep my weapon clean, maintain it properly, and ensure functionality on a regular basis. I know, because I have done it. I know how reliable the M16 is. I know how reliable the AK-47 is. I even own a couple of semi-automatic SKS variants.
The current incarnation is fine. Hell, the current incarnation is fantastic. The current incarnation is absolutely something I will rely on to protect my life. Hands down, no questions asked. That doesn't mean that the AK isn't a fine weapon, it is. However, no weapon is reliable after you've jammed it in the mud. None, and that includes the AK. No, they don't go retrieve one that was buried, unprotected, in the ground 20 years ago and slap a magazine in it and expect it to fire. That's a myth.
It's not just a myth, it's a myth that's probably going to end up in someone getting hurt. The idea that the M16 is unreliable is laughable. It was, that's true. It is not. That is not true. That's a myth. It's a myth that needs to be put to bed. You don't need to give it constant care and attention for it to be reliable. You do need to maintain it properly. There's no extra effort that goes into it that you don't experience with any other firearm of its type. You put, squeeze the trigger, and it goes bang. This happens time and time again.
The absolute worst thing I've faced... Actually, let me be more clear. After sliding through the mud, water, dirt, crawling under barbed wire, low-crawling with live fire over my head, "crawlin' on my belly like a rep-i-tile," getting sand, muck, mud, water, blood, sweat, sticks, and more into my rifle - I've fired it, reliably. The absolute worst thing I have faced, ever, was needing to manually cycle a round or spent cartridge that failed to eject properly and I'm gonna guess that's maybe 1:2500 rounds.
That's pretty damned reliable. It has also been quick and easy to clear. I'm not sure *why* this myth persists. And it is a myth, a surprisingly oft-repeated myth. If you don't believe me, I'll be back in Maine in the spring. If you don't mind the non select-fire version, the AR15, then I'll have access to a whole slew of 'em (four, five if you want to count my son's). You can come, free of charge, and test them for yourself. Seriously, you're more than welcome. I'll e
I'm gonna save my post count because repeating myself is an exercise in futility.
Reread the summary. Seriously. Put your big-boy britches on, read the summary anew, and apply some critical thinking. This isn't even enabled by default. It's not even the solitary option. You have to turn it on AND make sure to leave it (this is the default "on" setting - at least it is on 8) at that setting. If you don't like it, you can pick one of a few different settings.
So, to be clear. There is NO lock-screen by default. If you enable the lock screen, this is the default setting (on Windows Phone 8). If you do not like this setting, you can pick others - they do not have ads. If you do not like any of the settings, you can disable them entirely. If you want to control it even further, and have the tech chops to do so, there's an API and you can write your own lock-screen.
You don't even fucking use a Windows phone. You've never even SEEN a Windows phone. You're never going to BUY a Windows phone. YOU are not the target audience for a Windows phone. Joe Average doesn't give a shit. Joe Average doesn't even have a lock screen. Joe Average sure as hell doesn't even get confused about it - he can figure out how to change it.
This is NOT some sort of major issue and the concern trolling is absurd. There's a million legit reasons to be annoyed with Microsoft. Contrary to popular opinion (though the moderators have since fixed it), there is no outrage here. Read carefully what I've written. If you have a problem understanding it, try again.
It's not on by default. If you turn on the lock screen, this is one of the choices. It is the default choice when you enable the lock screen. If you don't like it, you can use one of a number of other optional screens. Those screens are built in and the options are available to anyone wanting to use them. If you don't like any of the screens, you can even go so far as to make your own. I'm pretty sure there are alternatives right in the App Store.
This is not complicated, this is not a justifiable reason to be outraged. There's no problem here. Nothing... If I were wrong, I'd admit it. I'm *good* at that. If this were sleazy, I'd admit that too. If there were any reason to be pissed, I'd be pissed - I like being pissed off about stuff. I like ranting and raving. I like pitchforks and torches. I like tearing up bad choices and making people realize that they've done stupid things. This? This is not that time. Doing so just makes you look like an ignorant fool who's frothing at the mouth about unseen enemies. You're about a half a step away from standing on the street corner screaming about Jesus and aliens at this point.
Actually, screw it. I'll post this as logged in. Then the rest can see it. I'm not gonna repeat it over and over.
Unless I'm missing something (and I do not believe I am) this is about as much a non-issue as was Google changing their font and favico.ico file. There's a lot of legitimate complaints. This is not one of them.
I'm not sure? I'm pretty sure they can do anything with it they want - the owners are still very much alive and have granted unfettered access to the device. They could, if they wanted, smash it with a hammer, set it on fire, or hire someone to look at it all with an electron microscope and try to reverse engineer it. They can JTAG, scope, and move the hardware as desired.
At least I'm pretty sure of that? I am not a lawyer so I am not going to claim that I'm certain but I'm pretty damned certain that they're entitled to do anything they want with that specific device. I'm not sure what all will be admissible in court, be eligible for supporting evidence to be granted additional warrants, or things like that. But, I'm pretty sure they can do anything with the device they want - up to and including blowing it up with C4 out on the demo field at Quantico.
Excellent! And thank you! At any rate, one good reply deserves another. I'll see what I can do. No promises. I'll try to make it interesting, however.
As an aside; That, the AC above, is what ACs everywhere should strive to be. Err... Except when trolling, that's kind of mandatory.
Unfortunately, because of the moderation system, your post may well be ignored and missed. That's the negative of being an Anonymous Coward. For better worse, it is what it is and understandably so. A handy pseudonym and an account (you can even use a VPN) is something I'd recommend you consider. I, for one, welcome good, articulate, and thoughtful additions to the comments.
Err... I also don't mind being 'wrong' or having someone fill in things that I don't know. I actually sort of value it. It means I'm continuing to step out of my comfort zone and will (ideally) learn something new. I don't even recollect Ginsburg. The name's vaguely familiar but I'm thinking the name's attached to someone else in my recollection - the first name's different though I can't think of the other person's first name either.
I am not a historian nor do I do well at remembering names, dates, figures, trivia, or things like that. With enough repetition I can remember it. I can cram it into me and store it for a year or so - if I want to go through that process. I can retain it long enough to do well on a test but that fades quickly once I no longer need it. I'm not being humble or self-depreciating when I say that I'm not that smart. I'm really not.
If you looked at the numbers, you'd think I'm a genius and I'm not. I just test *really* well and my brain has a trick where it can hold things until no longer needed. Until something "clicks" there's a good chance that I'm relying on rote as opposed to comprehension. I also can follow directions and listen well. One might say that's intelligence in and of itself but I'm more inclined to think it's just my pragmatic (perhaps wise) approach to my brain's particular mechanisms.
So, thank you. I'm gonna forget that but I appreciate the correction/additional information.
Over the years, I've had the chance to interact with many blue-collar workers with little formal training and/or secondary education. The hubris demonstrated by some of my peers is amusing. The ego is a frail thing. Doing on-site data collection and actually taking the time to listen to those who do, as opposed to those who opine, has been one of my greatest assets and, I'm pretty sure, is why I'm retired today.
To give an example, if you can get away from municipal management and office-dwelling people long enough to drive the route. with one of the actual people who are in the highway department, and ask them about problems then you'll learn more about the area than you will from reading all the accident statistics, throughput numbers, or grade and visibility metrics. That's a very unwieldy sentence, sorry. But, if you can get someone who drives and works that stretch of highway to ride with you while you listen (and then you ride with them while you question) then you'll get more meaningful data than you will otherwise.
Oddly enough, that's actually difficult to do. They don't seem keen on letting you meet with and work with them. They don't seem to value their opinions or want them to have input. They don't care about the opinions of the guy who maintains it. They don't want you to talk to the guy who works there every day. They don't want you to talk with the person who's not only doing the job but will be working on the resulting product. It's actually difficult and they'll balk, almost every single time, when you request to spend some time and to be able to pick your assignee.
At best, absolute best - and with almost no exceptions, your first assignee will be a supervisor. I value their input too. However, if I wanted to work with a supervisor, I'd have requested on. I asked specifically for a machine operator, driver, and a general laborer. I asked for them for a reason. Do you want me to do my job properly and get your money's worth or do you want it to look good come reelection or review time? In almost every single instance, it was difficult to get the interaction I'd requested.
Also, after you're done, take them out and take a few of their co-workers to dinner and feed 'em a few beers. Go ahead, you can buy 'em dinner and some beers. It doesn't even need to be recorded but you might want to, you can even write it off as a business expense. That's only tangentially related but it's amazing the information that you can get. Having a good understanding of the how is a valuable asset and it's actually not difficult to get that understanding so long as there's little impediment to the process.
No, I do not understand why they don't want you to contact and communicate with the workers. No, I don't know why they don't want you to actually talk to "Tom over in the Maintenance Department." No, I don't know why it's generally taboo to talk to, "Dick the Dump Driver." It's damned near impossible to talk to "Harry the guy that's going to drive the paving machine at the contracted construction crew." Seriously, I do not understand why they don't want you to talk to them. 'Snot like I know everything by default and I sure as hell know the person I'm talking to doesn't know either. Finding out, by directly communicating with those who *do* as opposed to those who *opine* or *order* is a hell of a lot more beneficial than people seem to think.
That said, I'd probably have liked your father. I'm sure the architect's consternation was palpable, if not expressed outright, and I hope it led to great tales, memories, and educated a few of those architects in more than one way. I am not smarter than the guys who take care of my lawn. I am just more fortunate. However, there's almost certainly something that they can teach me - or have taught me. Yeah, without further information, there's a good chance that I'd have enjoyed conversing with him.
One of my favorite people actually has built houses, camps, and even a barn - without a tape measure or normal "tools." He uses a plumb-bob, a s
Thank you. I was kind of curious. Well, more than kind of curious, I was curious enough to ask. I'd never heard it referred to as such. Hopefully it was clear that it wasn't me doubting you? Just that I was confused. I didn't even find much via the almighty Google. It makes more sense now. They had a number of different majors under the Comp Sci majors. I had some association with them and interaction with them. My major, and degree, is in Applied Mathematics.
As an aside; I didn't really like computers. I didn't mind "big iron." I didn't like 'em, I dare say I hated 'em, at home. I saw no value in them at first. I only learned to program because I had to. I was (and am) okay with a calculator. I just didn't see, I didn't envision, a future like we have - even though I knew of connectivity, micro, and had even accessed the "internet." I just really didn't like 'em and didn't want one. My, how much it has changed.
I had a computer. I didn't want my computer. The damned things were expensive and damned near useless unless you made 'em do something. I had no idea how to make them do anything useful. I learned some BASIC. I used a Trash 80 and owned one for a while. Had a VIC 20. Had some Amiga thing - I think it might have been a C64. I used Unix at school, eventually I had a Sun workstation at home. That was absurdly expensive. I couldn't get Zork for it - or if I could, I never figured out how to make it run. I did really like Zork.
Ah well... Again, thanks for clarification. I was quite confuzzled and the all-knowing Google wasn't very helpful.
I think that largely depends on what the program ends up like. I could see this having value - if done properly. I confess, I've not actually looked to see what the plan is and I'm assuming that I'd actually be disturbed by it. I think that's a fair assumption to make.
But... But... Let me be clear! I absolutely feel that computer science should be mandatory. At risk of causing offense, programming is not computer science - but an element of computer science in that it is a way to send instructions. I could (and would) get behind a decent computer science education being mandatory, with varied levels of complexity and depth as well as tracks through the system for preparatory purposes. I can get behind that.
Again, seeing as I'm pounding the pulpit (but probably preaching to the choir), programming is not (in and of itself) computer science. Nor is learning to email. Nor is learning to use Excel. Nor is learning to use LibreOffice. Nor is learning to use a web-browser. Nor is it even physical assembly of a computer. Nor is it pushing pixels. Nor is it graphic design. Nor is it learning to make a web page. Nor is it things of that nature.
I'd be very interested in having the discussion about what it should look like but they're not going to listen to me and I am not the appropriate expert. I can not hand down authoritative answers or suggestions. I am not qualified to do so. What I can say is that I've been able to set aside my ego, shut the hell up, and listen to those who are experts in their field. (Namely, a few of you guys are a good example.) What I can say is that what they've said makes sense - and I remember what they have said. This is not, from the summary and other reading, not computer science.
Learning to use Microsoft Office or program in Python, Java, or even C++ is not computer science. Teach basic concepts, teach history, teach principles, teach protocols, teach function, teach even basic security processes. I'd submit that there shouldn't even be a computer in the classroom for at least the first year. How do I know? I've asked questions and the shut up long enough to listen to the answers and then ask for more details when I get to the confusing parts and it makes sense to me.
If the above sounds reasonable, enlightened, or correct - then it's a good idea to realize that it's not my voice you hear but my echoing the many voices I've heard. I've been listening/reading for a long time now. The people that I've listened to have demonstrated a clear understanding and been able to provide reasoning for their claims that were logical. I've thrown some refinement on it but, for the most part, that's just a collection of the things you, yourself and your peers, have said to me over the past however many years. So, if it's right, that's your doing. If it's not then, well... I guess you can just blame me. However, I've been listening to and asking for answers from the best of the best of you - for a very long time.
I suggest that a proactive stance might have been for some of you to have been helping to ensure that a good program was formed. As near as I can tell, teaching everyone to 'code' is plain stupid.
True, but has the underlying principle changed? At the root of it, it's still just bits of ones and zeros, yes?
I'm not positive but I think that's the assertion being made. I'm not quite the historian nor the expert to ask, given that I programmed as a matter of necessity and not a matter of desire and have absolutely zero formal training. So, I'm open to correction and more in-depth elaboration but, as near as I can tell, it's principally the same now as it has "always" been.
At the very root, we're still sending instructions to be processed and interpreted. We're still inputting zeros and ones and interpreting the results, be it with a screen or a line printer - or even one of those teletype machines thingies. (I did mention that I'm not an expert.) I suppose, there's the difference in that it's not analogue but I'm not sure many of us here have ever worked an analogue computer beyond an abacus or a slide rule - and many of us haven't even done that.
I am not sure but I think they're trying to speak to that and, unless I'm missing something - which I could be and probably am, then it's much the same as it has always been and, even at its core, not much different than some analogue computing that was done years ago. From Babbage's Difference Engine, to ENIAC, to COLOSSUS, to the cell phone in your hand, aren't they all the same in principle? Their computational abilities, speeds, and our interaction and input methods may have changed but, at the very root of it, isn't it much the same as it has "always" been? There's on and off. Or at least on and not on.
And after preview... Those are actually questions and observations. As near as I know, that's the case. However, a good portion of my education actually comes from Slashdot in these regards. There was a time, not that many years ago, where I actually hated computers and felt they were more effort than they were worth. Also, for a reasonable definition of "always." Namely, since the advent of digital computational devices. Thus it is in quotes for the sake of brevity.
Err... I can't say that I've ever heard of that as a major. Hell, I can't even think of a time when I've heard of it as a minor. I'm not even sure I've heard of it as a specific course name? As I sit here and ponder this, I could see it as a major. Hell, I could even see it as a potentially good major. I'm just not sure I've ever seen it before and I've spent some time in academia.
Did I just miss it? Was I there are the wrong time? Micros were early, at least the terminology, and that's a pretty big group of computers and a whole bunch of companies. I'd not be surprised to find a micro that was able to be purchased at a discount with UPC/PoP and branded with Corn Flakes.
Hmm... My time spent in academia was during the revolution. I went in for four years from about 79 to 83. I ran out of funds and reenlisted. While I was in, I got some more courses into me. I came home, was there for a bit of a second-wave in the revolution, from about 88 to 91. I seem to recall that things were moving pretty quick in that time-frame. Advances were from the 8086 to the 286 at about that time, no? Then the 386 to the 486 not long after. Some Ti, RISC, and I want to say ARM? I think AMD was around at that time - I didn't personally bump into 'em until much later, as I recall. My first exposure was the K6-II (350 MHz, OCed to ~500 MHz and it was as awesome as it sounds).
At any rate, during all of that, I don't recollect hearing about a major in "micro computers." It might have made an awesome major and I can envision a pretty decent syllabus. I can even think of some reasons why it might be a separate major even though the principles are much the same.
I don't suppose you've got a minute to flesh that out and describe what that looked like? If you don't then it's all good but my curiosity is piqued.
You're being sarcastic but some sort of life-skills class that taught things like basic plumbing, electrical, carpentry, power and hand tools, painting, and whatnot might not actually be a bad idea as a mandatory course. I'd reason that such would be a benefit to most. I'd further reason that those are basic skills that are of such value that placing them into the public education curricula is a step that should have already been taken.
Come to think of it, it's not a bad idea to consider adding basic automobile maintenance to that list. However, that tech is in a bit of a flux so I'm not really sure if that's easily covered. For now, I'd suggest that they teach the basics for an ICE and prepare to offer education about EVs as well. With the EV and hybrids, it's imperative to give instruction about electrical safety.
Add to that some financial, budgeting, organizational, investing, basic business and business terminology, as well as some skills for food preparation, household repairs like sewing, food preservation, nutrition, and things of that nature. I'd think those are fine subjects and are actually something that should be mandatory. We could even throw some soldering skills and basic appliance repair and electronics repair training.
I'm not sure why you'd think a well-rounded education is a thing to sneer at. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you wrote, I'm all for inserting some vocational types of classes into the mandatory list. I'd absolutely suggest that they be mandatory even for those on a college prep track. Hell, I'd doubly stress their importance for that group of people.
There is no reason for an accountant or sociologist or teacher to be confused when they look under the hood of their car, not know how to safely operate a circular saw, or not know how to replace a leaky faucet. If anyone should be taught those types of skills, it should be that group. The folks in the trades and blue-collar are far more likely to know those things - in my observations, than those who are white collar workers. I submit that a well-rounded, useful, education has utility and value all its own.
Don't laugh. I have a brother who's as much a geek as I and actually has two years of CS under his belt. He *is* a plumber and lots of what he does is computerized these days. He often does the systems on larger buildings, not just residential but also commercial, and those things are pretty complicated - or can be. He actually makes pretty decent money at it. 'Snot a bad choice.
I wonder if it's just going to be much more than how to turn one on, use a browser, and then maybe figure out email and an office suite? I could get behind the idea of a real CS requirement, albeit a basic-ish one, where they learn about computers including the history of computers.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this particular CS should also include some ideas about security and things like protocols, the history of the web, and things of that nature. I've typed out a longer list but I'm not gonna go dig it out.
That doesn't surprise me. Was McNamara involved? I am not a historian - my brain just doesn't work like that. As an example, I own an obscene number of firearms - truly obscene. I've a friend who's retired but still a licensed dealer and collector. He's been retiring off my impulse buys as I assimilate his collection. It's quite literally an obscene number - many, many dollars worth in a special room in my basement. The room is 8" of concrete, all the way around and has a door that's made of steel with the frame embedded into the concrete. The top of that room is reinforced concrete with a ¼" thick plate of steel lining the top (actually several sheets of it). As in, I'm not kidding - it's an obscene number and is one of my retirement joys.
So, embarrassing though it might be, I am not a historian. Collector? In part, sure. Fact book? Absolutely not. There are books, index cards attached with zip ties, and even a laptop on a bench. My brain just doesn't do the absorb facts thing. I need reference materials, most of the time, if I want to actually get into being able to point out stuff and be sure of it. I really don't mind, some day I will be able to hide my own Easter Eggs. It may seem like it's frustrating and, indeed, it can be but I seem to have some sort of switch that I can turn on where if I actually write something down, or make an effort to keep it, then I can store it for quite a while. It's handy for test taking but I'm honestly not that smart.
Yeah, that was kind of odd and disappointing but things were a bit different back then. I want to say the guy's name was "Bork." Heh... That was a long time ago. I was doing my first four years and would reenlist not long after.
I'm not sure how to articulate this but I beg to differ.
I do not think we're more intelligent today than we were "back then." We have access to more information, that is true. If you think you're more intelligent, how about we take away your modern amenities, strip you naked, and put you into the woods fifty miles from civilization - and you stay there for a year. We'll even give you some flint. Hell, you can even take up to six more mature adults but for every adult you must bring.5 (rounded up) children and for every 3 mature adults you must bring one elderly person (rounded up, of course).
You're not one of those folks who are egotistical enough to think we're at the apex of understanding, correct, or at the pinnacle of morality, or are you? If so, I'd encourage you to look at history and note that we've pretty much always thought we were at that pinnacle. At some point, and for a long time, our best and brightest - our dedicated scientists, believed in the four humors or phlogiston. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're not so naive as to think we're certainly correct with our current understanding. It's a little rough on the ego but all, literally all, of history tells us that we're probably still just as incorrect as they were.
At any rate, it's difficult to articulate for me. I'm thinking the word hubris belongs in there somewhere. I've no pithy sayings, good analogies, or even a few concise terms to use as descriptors.
I know this is off-topic but is that correct English? Err... I'm a bit unusual in that I actually enjoy the grammar tweakers (though I think they may want to lay off the meth) so... If one of you happen to have an opinion on this, that'd be awesome.
I'm thinking it's 'species' but then I realize that this mix of Latin and English is gonna only end up hurting my brain. So, my brain is old and feeble and avoiding damage is good and I'll just defer to someone else on this.
And, seeing as I'm off-topic enough already, it'd be damned nice if we could just defrag our brain. It appears to be a proprietary file system. It's non-journaled and has no reliable error correction. It does have an interesting hierarchy but I think it's difficult to index so the resulting search is a mess. I could almost go for a low-level reformat and then re-imaging from backups. Try as I might, I'm looking at the word and thinking it's right but horribly wrong at the same time - I can find no help with that Google thing.
You do. You have to turn on lock screen with that setting or leave it on if it's already on - I think it was disabled by default in 8. Reading the summary, it looks like you still do. Not only that, when you turn it on - you've got multiple choices, this is one of them. This is *not* some outrage to go burn the campus down. I mean, yeah, I like rioting and burning down buildings as much as the next guy but it kind of starts to lose its meaning when you'll just burn down any ol' building.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks! I'd heard that one not too too long ago. There's an excellent documentary on Eisenhower. I forget the name but I happened to bump into it not that long ago. It was since I was on the road, so since last September. I want to say it was before I got here in Florida. It's hard telling. I think I watched it at a site other than YouTube so I can't just go through my history and find it. It turns out that he and his wife were rather popular long before he had any power/rank.
I'm not sure if I'm conflating him with someone else? I think, if I remember correctly, he also had access to a great general and that general's library. They had some sort of falling out and he was fired while he was away on leave, or pretty much like that. He returned to the base and his role as an aide had been filled by someone else. I'm thinking it was Eisenhower but, as I've explained, these are entertainment pursuits and not scholarly in nature. If the goal was learning, I'd not necessarily enjoy it as much. Learning (and remembering) is incidental. ;-)
Yup... We Davids know. *nods*
Even if they'd taken the entire group prisoner, Germany would still have not invaded the UK. Also, the Expeditionary Force was *not* almost all of the Army. They were still very much an empire at that point. Saying that the BEF was the entirety of the army is, well... Let's just say that it's rather disrespectful to the many, many others from India, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. As I recall, they were a part of the "UK" at the time.
I'm really not sure what to say... That's a rarity... However, it's rather disrespectful unless I'm missing something. I'm also pretty sure that there were troops, from Britain - and the Isles in general, all over the place. As in, all over the place - the Sun never set on the UK at that point. The colonies (or whatever they were calling them then) were still in existence and some of those people dedicated a lot of lives to WWII.
I really don't know what to say...
Yup. In Rome's case, the roads were built by the Legion. It's amusing, sad really, that they're "insightful" for the post. No... No, that's not right. That we benefit is a good thing but it sure as hell is not a priority. The FHS/NHS (Federal Highway System/National Highway System) was quite specifically created for military use. The reason that they spend so much money on them (and they do spend a ton of money) is because of the military value.
Yes, there are side benefits and they're considered. However, if we didn't need to move military equipment then they'd be paying a lot less. I can also speak first-hand to the results of interfering with a military convoy on the FHS. It will end badly for you. Do not do this. We have rovers with flashing lights, we have signs mounted on the lead and rear vehicles. When we say "DO NOT INTERFERE WITH CONVOY" or "CONVOY DOES NOT STOP" we mean it. If you put your little red Honda in the way, slow down, and take a picture - we will not slow down. We will, maybe, slow a little so that we can push your vehicle off the edge of the road, watch it flip on its side, and laugh hysterically while we drive by.
And the resulting phone calls will be funny. The paperwork is a bit much, so it appears - I was behind them and driving a different vehicle. We are told, "Do not stop unless you're given orders to do. If someone pulls in front of you, hit them. You will not stop." We don't stop. We were, by then, on a limited access highway. On the regular routes, we've got spotters and rovers. We pull up, stop access and feeder routes, and stop traffic until we've gone through. You will not interrupt the convoy. Even on closed access, we drive where we want. We pull off, up, and on. We drive backwards down the on-ramp and stop traffic. We've got like 50 extra vehicles out there. We occupy one lane plus the rover's in the second lane. We stay to the right. Do not interfere with convoy!
I can definitely state, with some authority, that this is NOT correct:
Just like the interstate's sole intention is to let US citizens travel safely across the country.
There is no way that's right. In fact, that's so far wrong that it's as opposite to of correct as it can possibly be. A more accurate statement would be that the highway's sole intention is purple. It would make more sense.
As an aside, I'm kind of partial to highways... The reason that none of the original Roman roads have curves and only have right angles is because they lacked the math to make the roads curve. So, Rome's original roads are all straight and have right angles. I forget the name of the documentary but it goes into that as well as how the roads were made. They go out and actually do some experimental archeology, use the correct tools, and even speak in Latin (as I recall - not sure if I'm conflating it with others).
At any rate, it's laughable to think the interstate highways are made for letting US citizens travel safely across the country. No, we've got plans to shut 'em all down if there's a crisis. The civilian use is secondary. As I'm sure you know, see the width of the lanes and the size of an HMMWV or even an Abram and all will become clear.
That is impressive, though it's 10.10. I'm not sure how well 15.10 would do. Unfortunately, they seem hell bent on eating as many resources as you throw at it. I can see that as a problem for those who only have access to slower hardware. I've got fine hardware but it's unfortunate if it ends up being too bulky for older PCs.
I think Ubuntu might want to consider a super-light, but fully configured and functional, version. Take Lubuntu, strip it down a bit more, optimize it a bit more, trim out the things that don't actually get used on older hardware. Find a VERY light (but functional) graphic browser (I'm still looking for one) and run with it. Find a good, but light, email and whatnot.
I am curious as to what LXQt is going to look like in terms of resource usage. I'm sort of excited but, at the same time, visuals is not an element that I'm horribly concerned with. I *like* LXDE and I think I've made it look just fine. Here's an old image of it running on the aforementioned computer or one of similar vintage:
http://i.imgur.com/VSsDyU0.png
Hmm... Maybe I can roll my own and just make it available for people? Or at least give a list and a methodology to enable them to do so on their own. It seems like a worthy goal. DSL and Tiny Linux are both not robust enough. Something between the two might be of interest. With so many choices, the closest I've come is actually LXDE.
Someone else mentioned putting Lubuntu on a bunch of spectography machines a while back. They linked me to them but I don't appear to have saved the URL. I'm thinking something a bit lighter might actually be a decent idea for some people but I'm not sure that I'm the appropriate choice to start and maintain such a project. I'd probably build up from core and run with it from there. I'm not entirely sure how to wrap it back up but I can figure that out via Google.
Hmm... I need to get motivated. Hell, if you've got any ideas for software, let me know. ;-) Email is always an option.
It's too bad that you mentioned that so late. That's an absolutely brilliant idea. Seriously, that's brilliant.
If you've ever been, it's a game of "Spot the Feds!" I'd honestly not be surprised if people were already doing this - though not necessarily for the same reasons.
Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to expand your idea... Do it at Def Con but let's flesh that out.
Don't just do it at the various halls, booths, and in the buildings but do it *everywhere.* Do it in the airport, do it in the hotels, do it in the lobbies of the hotels, and things like that. Make them fit, look normal, give them a variety of names (some less fitting than others like a Starbucks where there is none within visual range), and do nothing BUT log their entrance and any attempts they might make at accessing other computers on the network(s).
Maybe throw some honey pots up - to see who goes poking at what... Maybe put some in the parking garage at the airport. Hell, even create a fake web page, use the authorization, and see about some social engineering. In the hotel lobbies, include a piece of paper as a flier that says "Free Municipal Wireless, use code XXXXXX-HotelName to access!" Things like that... I'm sure it can be expanded much more.
I bet we'd get some meaningful data from it. I'd be *very* interested in seeing how that goes. The problem is, rolling it out would have to be done in a very hush-hush manner. It'd not be really all that easy to keep secret but once cover is blown, it's blown. After that, the experiment is basically ruined or, at the least, any conclusions drawn from it, based on the original premises, are not likely to be valid with the same level of confidence. So, keeping it hush-hush would be imperative.
Also, for fun, it might be worth it if the access point list were all disclosed on the last day. Even better if, at that point, there's a bunch of extra access points and it has been ramped up for a "big announcement to be made at the close of the event" while encouraging the journalists to all attend. Oh my, oh my... Logging any/all internal actions would be good 'cause you know someone's gonna see if they've got default passwords set and things like that. Check to see, leave LAN enabled, who connects to what, or tries to. Check to see who tries to make changes to router settings - and what changes they made. Leave some with older firmware installed, see if someone notices and upgrades it, things like that...
As an aside, I can't admit to this so you'll have to read between the lines. If I were to access someone's router and find that it had the defaults still enabled then I might consider looking. If I looked and, after a thorough investigation, determine that they'd benefit from an upgrade then I might even install the security fixes. If I were going to do that then I'd potentially consider checking to ensure that it's secured, there are some settings that can be changed to tighten it up a bit, and then I'd leave it better than I found it. If there's a networked printer then I might print something out and let them know that they were insecure, that it has been fixed, that I'm now locked out, and that the new password is what it is. But, you know, I can't actually admit to doing anything of the sort.
At any rate, that's a brilliant idea. We're far enough back in time (this thread's a few days old now) so nobody will notice. You and I are probably the last two to participate. I wonder who we can send this to as a suggestion? I wonder if it has been done before and the results just not released? I dare say, you've got a brilliant idea there and one that should be looked into, albeit looked into quietly so as to not bias the results.
Oh, it's not that fragile. It was when it was first released. They're very reliable now and have been since about six months after the problems. And no, as far as I understand, you probably really can't rely on even an AK-47 after it's been in the mud. The M16 is very reliable. The AK-47 is not nearly as reliable as the claim is.
This is going to be a bit long. You can skim, read, ignore, whatever... It's not just written for you. It's written for those who might read your post and end up with some strange, probably erroneous, beliefs. I think it important to clarify.
I can, literally, speak of both of these things firsthand. I do not have access to it but I've posted pictures of me with a fully licensed AK-47. Well, you'd think it's an AK-47. It's an M22, from China. It's select fire, fully licensed, and perfectly legal for me to own it. It's fairly reliable but I'd not trust its accuracy out past 100 yards, realistically. Yeah, I'm probably good out to about double that but I'd not rely on that. Depending on the situation, that's more than adequate.
At the same time, I've multiple configurations of an AR15 and served and was issued an M16. The M16 is much the same as the M4 and AR15, some parts are interchangeable. They're not difficult to keep reasonably clean - even when you're out in the middle of nowhere, slogging through the environment, and things of that nature. If you wanted to be mentally retarded, and maybe injured, you could possibly drag it through mud, shake the barrel out, and fire it. I'm going to suggest that the failure rate would probably not be all that much different with favor going to the AK.
What I can do, more reliably, is hit my target at a distance with an M16. And yes, yes it *is* going to fire because I know how to keep my weapon clean, maintain it properly, and ensure functionality on a regular basis. I know, because I have done it. I know how reliable the M16 is. I know how reliable the AK-47 is. I even own a couple of semi-automatic SKS variants.
The current incarnation is fine. Hell, the current incarnation is fantastic. The current incarnation is absolutely something I will rely on to protect my life. Hands down, no questions asked. That doesn't mean that the AK isn't a fine weapon, it is. However, no weapon is reliable after you've jammed it in the mud. None, and that includes the AK. No, they don't go retrieve one that was buried, unprotected, in the ground 20 years ago and slap a magazine in it and expect it to fire. That's a myth.
It's not just a myth, it's a myth that's probably going to end up in someone getting hurt. The idea that the M16 is unreliable is laughable. It was, that's true. It is not. That is not true. That's a myth. It's a myth that needs to be put to bed. You don't need to give it constant care and attention for it to be reliable. You do need to maintain it properly. There's no extra effort that goes into it that you don't experience with any other firearm of its type. You put, squeeze the trigger, and it goes bang. This happens time and time again.
The absolute worst thing I've faced... Actually, let me be more clear. After sliding through the mud, water, dirt, crawling under barbed wire, low-crawling with live fire over my head, "crawlin' on my belly like a rep-i-tile," getting sand, muck, mud, water, blood, sweat, sticks, and more into my rifle - I've fired it, reliably. The absolute worst thing I have faced, ever, was needing to manually cycle a round or spent cartridge that failed to eject properly and I'm gonna guess that's maybe 1:2500 rounds.
That's pretty damned reliable. It has also been quick and easy to clear. I'm not sure *why* this myth persists. And it is a myth, a surprisingly oft-repeated myth. If you don't believe me, I'll be back in Maine in the spring. If you don't mind the non select-fire version, the AR15, then I'll have access to a whole slew of 'em (four, five if you want to count my son's). You can come, free of charge, and test them for yourself. Seriously, you're more than welcome. I'll e
I'm gonna save my post count because repeating myself is an exercise in futility.
Reread the summary. Seriously. Put your big-boy britches on, read the summary anew, and apply some critical thinking. This isn't even enabled by default. It's not even the solitary option. You have to turn it on AND make sure to leave it (this is the default "on" setting - at least it is on 8) at that setting. If you don't like it, you can pick one of a few different settings.
So, to be clear. There is NO lock-screen by default.
If you enable the lock screen, this is the default setting (on Windows Phone 8).
If you do not like this setting, you can pick others - they do not have ads.
If you do not like any of the settings, you can disable them entirely.
If you want to control it even further, and have the tech chops to do so, there's an API and you can write your own lock-screen.
Here's how for Windows Phone 8:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...
One of these links will help you out with Windows 10:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/lib...
You don't even fucking use a Windows phone. You've never even SEEN a Windows phone. You're never going to BUY a Windows phone. YOU are not the target audience for a Windows phone. Joe Average doesn't give a shit. Joe Average doesn't even have a lock screen. Joe Average sure as hell doesn't even get confused about it - he can figure out how to change it.
This is NOT some sort of major issue and the concern trolling is absurd. There's a million legit reasons to be annoyed with Microsoft. Contrary to popular opinion (though the moderators have since fixed it), there is no outrage here. Read carefully what I've written. If you have a problem understanding it, try again.
It's not on by default. If you turn on the lock screen, this is one of the choices. It is the default choice when you enable the lock screen. If you don't like it, you can use one of a number of other optional screens. Those screens are built in and the options are available to anyone wanting to use them. If you don't like any of the screens, you can even go so far as to make your own. I'm pretty sure there are alternatives right in the App Store.
This is not complicated, this is not a justifiable reason to be outraged. There's no problem here. Nothing... If I were wrong, I'd admit it. I'm *good* at that. If this were sleazy, I'd admit that too. If there were any reason to be pissed, I'd be pissed - I like being pissed off about stuff. I like ranting and raving. I like pitchforks and torches. I like tearing up bad choices and making people realize that they've done stupid things. This? This is not that time. Doing so just makes you look like an ignorant fool who's frothing at the mouth about unseen enemies. You're about a half a step away from standing on the street corner screaming about Jesus and aliens at this point.
Actually, screw it. I'll post this as logged in. Then the rest can see it. I'm not gonna repeat it over and over.
Unless I'm missing something (and I do not believe I am) this is about as much a non-issue as was Google changing their font and favico.ico file. There's a lot of legitimate complaints. This is not one of them.
I'm not sure? I'm pretty sure they can do anything with it they want - the owners are still very much alive and have granted unfettered access to the device. They could, if they wanted, smash it with a hammer, set it on fire, or hire someone to look at it all with an electron microscope and try to reverse engineer it. They can JTAG, scope, and move the hardware as desired.
At least I'm pretty sure of that? I am not a lawyer so I am not going to claim that I'm certain but I'm pretty damned certain that they're entitled to do anything they want with that specific device. I'm not sure what all will be admissible in court, be eligible for supporting evidence to be granted additional warrants, or things like that. But, I'm pretty sure they can do anything with the device they want - up to and including blowing it up with C4 out on the demo field at Quantico.
Excellent! And thank you! At any rate, one good reply deserves another. I'll see what I can do. No promises. I'll try to make it interesting, however.
As an aside; That, the AC above, is what ACs everywhere should strive to be. Err... Except when trolling, that's kind of mandatory.
Unfortunately, because of the moderation system, your post may well be ignored and missed. That's the negative of being an Anonymous Coward. For better worse, it is what it is and understandably so. A handy pseudonym and an account (you can even use a VPN) is something I'd recommend you consider. I, for one, welcome good, articulate, and thoughtful additions to the comments.
Err... I also don't mind being 'wrong' or having someone fill in things that I don't know. I actually sort of value it. It means I'm continuing to step out of my comfort zone and will (ideally) learn something new. I don't even recollect Ginsburg. The name's vaguely familiar but I'm thinking the name's attached to someone else in my recollection - the first name's different though I can't think of the other person's first name either.
I am not a historian nor do I do well at remembering names, dates, figures, trivia, or things like that. With enough repetition I can remember it. I can cram it into me and store it for a year or so - if I want to go through that process. I can retain it long enough to do well on a test but that fades quickly once I no longer need it. I'm not being humble or self-depreciating when I say that I'm not that smart. I'm really not.
If you looked at the numbers, you'd think I'm a genius and I'm not. I just test *really* well and my brain has a trick where it can hold things until no longer needed. Until something "clicks" there's a good chance that I'm relying on rote as opposed to comprehension. I also can follow directions and listen well. One might say that's intelligence in and of itself but I'm more inclined to think it's just my pragmatic (perhaps wise) approach to my brain's particular mechanisms.
So, thank you. I'm gonna forget that but I appreciate the correction/additional information.
Over the years, I've had the chance to interact with many blue-collar workers with little formal training and/or secondary education. The hubris demonstrated by some of my peers is amusing. The ego is a frail thing. Doing on-site data collection and actually taking the time to listen to those who do, as opposed to those who opine, has been one of my greatest assets and, I'm pretty sure, is why I'm retired today.
To give an example, if you can get away from municipal management and office-dwelling people long enough to drive the route. with one of the actual people who are in the highway department, and ask them about problems then you'll learn more about the area than you will from reading all the accident statistics, throughput numbers, or grade and visibility metrics. That's a very unwieldy sentence, sorry. But, if you can get someone who drives and works that stretch of highway to ride with you while you listen (and then you ride with them while you question) then you'll get more meaningful data than you will otherwise.
Oddly enough, that's actually difficult to do. They don't seem keen on letting you meet with and work with them. They don't seem to value their opinions or want them to have input. They don't care about the opinions of the guy who maintains it. They don't want you to talk to the guy who works there every day. They don't want you to talk with the person who's not only doing the job but will be working on the resulting product. It's actually difficult and they'll balk, almost every single time, when you request to spend some time and to be able to pick your assignee.
At best, absolute best - and with almost no exceptions, your first assignee will be a supervisor. I value their input too. However, if I wanted to work with a supervisor, I'd have requested on. I asked specifically for a machine operator, driver, and a general laborer. I asked for them for a reason. Do you want me to do my job properly and get your money's worth or do you want it to look good come reelection or review time? In almost every single instance, it was difficult to get the interaction I'd requested.
Also, after you're done, take them out and take a few of their co-workers to dinner and feed 'em a few beers. Go ahead, you can buy 'em dinner and some beers. It doesn't even need to be recorded but you might want to, you can even write it off as a business expense. That's only tangentially related but it's amazing the information that you can get. Having a good understanding of the how is a valuable asset and it's actually not difficult to get that understanding so long as there's little impediment to the process.
No, I do not understand why they don't want you to contact and communicate with the workers. No, I don't know why they don't want you to actually talk to "Tom over in the Maintenance Department." No, I don't know why it's generally taboo to talk to, "Dick the Dump Driver." It's damned near impossible to talk to "Harry the guy that's going to drive the paving machine at the contracted construction crew." Seriously, I do not understand why they don't want you to talk to them. 'Snot like I know everything by default and I sure as hell know the person I'm talking to doesn't know either. Finding out, by directly communicating with those who *do* as opposed to those who *opine* or *order* is a hell of a lot more beneficial than people seem to think.
That said, I'd probably have liked your father. I'm sure the architect's consternation was palpable, if not expressed outright, and I hope it led to great tales, memories, and educated a few of those architects in more than one way. I am not smarter than the guys who take care of my lawn. I am just more fortunate. However, there's almost certainly something that they can teach me - or have taught me. Yeah, without further information, there's a good chance that I'd have enjoyed conversing with him.
One of my favorite people actually has built houses, camps, and even a barn - without a tape measure or normal "tools." He uses a plumb-bob, a s
Thank you. I was kind of curious. Well, more than kind of curious, I was curious enough to ask. I'd never heard it referred to as such. Hopefully it was clear that it wasn't me doubting you? Just that I was confused. I didn't even find much via the almighty Google. It makes more sense now. They had a number of different majors under the Comp Sci majors. I had some association with them and interaction with them. My major, and degree, is in Applied Mathematics.
As an aside; I didn't really like computers. I didn't mind "big iron." I didn't like 'em, I dare say I hated 'em, at home. I saw no value in them at first. I only learned to program because I had to. I was (and am) okay with a calculator. I just didn't see, I didn't envision, a future like we have - even though I knew of connectivity, micro, and had even accessed the "internet." I just really didn't like 'em and didn't want one. My, how much it has changed.
I had a computer. I didn't want my computer. The damned things were expensive and damned near useless unless you made 'em do something. I had no idea how to make them do anything useful. I learned some BASIC. I used a Trash 80 and owned one for a while. Had a VIC 20. Had some Amiga thing - I think it might have been a C64. I used Unix at school, eventually I had a Sun workstation at home. That was absurdly expensive. I couldn't get Zork for it - or if I could, I never figured out how to make it run. I did really like Zork.
Ah well... Again, thanks for clarification. I was quite confuzzled and the all-knowing Google wasn't very helpful.
If they're failing in any of those categories, it's because of obstructionist Republicans!
Yes, yes I am going to hell. Why'd you ask?
I think that largely depends on what the program ends up like. I could see this having value - if done properly. I confess, I've not actually looked to see what the plan is and I'm assuming that I'd actually be disturbed by it. I think that's a fair assumption to make.
But... But... Let me be clear! I absolutely feel that computer science should be mandatory. At risk of causing offense, programming is not computer science - but an element of computer science in that it is a way to send instructions. I could (and would) get behind a decent computer science education being mandatory, with varied levels of complexity and depth as well as tracks through the system for preparatory purposes. I can get behind that.
Again, seeing as I'm pounding the pulpit (but probably preaching to the choir), programming is not (in and of itself) computer science. Nor is learning to email. Nor is learning to use Excel. Nor is learning to use LibreOffice. Nor is learning to use a web-browser. Nor is it even physical assembly of a computer. Nor is it pushing pixels. Nor is it graphic design. Nor is it learning to make a web page. Nor is it things of that nature.
I'd be very interested in having the discussion about what it should look like but they're not going to listen to me and I am not the appropriate expert. I can not hand down authoritative answers or suggestions. I am not qualified to do so. What I can say is that I've been able to set aside my ego, shut the hell up, and listen to those who are experts in their field. (Namely, a few of you guys are a good example.) What I can say is that what they've said makes sense - and I remember what they have said. This is not, from the summary and other reading, not computer science.
Learning to use Microsoft Office or program in Python, Java, or even C++ is not computer science. Teach basic concepts, teach history, teach principles, teach protocols, teach function, teach even basic security processes. I'd submit that there shouldn't even be a computer in the classroom for at least the first year. How do I know? I've asked questions and the shut up long enough to listen to the answers and then ask for more details when I get to the confusing parts and it makes sense to me.
If the above sounds reasonable, enlightened, or correct - then it's a good idea to realize that it's not my voice you hear but my echoing the many voices I've heard. I've been listening/reading for a long time now. The people that I've listened to have demonstrated a clear understanding and been able to provide reasoning for their claims that were logical. I've thrown some refinement on it but, for the most part, that's just a collection of the things you, yourself and your peers, have said to me over the past however many years. So, if it's right, that's your doing. If it's not then, well... I guess you can just blame me. However, I've been listening to and asking for answers from the best of the best of you - for a very long time.
I suggest that a proactive stance might have been for some of you to have been helping to ensure that a good program was formed. As near as I can tell, teaching everyone to 'code' is plain stupid.
True, but has the underlying principle changed? At the root of it, it's still just bits of ones and zeros, yes?
I'm not positive but I think that's the assertion being made. I'm not quite the historian nor the expert to ask, given that I programmed as a matter of necessity and not a matter of desire and have absolutely zero formal training. So, I'm open to correction and more in-depth elaboration but, as near as I can tell, it's principally the same now as it has "always" been.
At the very root, we're still sending instructions to be processed and interpreted. We're still inputting zeros and ones and interpreting the results, be it with a screen or a line printer - or even one of those teletype machines thingies. (I did mention that I'm not an expert.) I suppose, there's the difference in that it's not analogue but I'm not sure many of us here have ever worked an analogue computer beyond an abacus or a slide rule - and many of us haven't even done that.
I am not sure but I think they're trying to speak to that and, unless I'm missing something - which I could be and probably am, then it's much the same as it has always been and, even at its core, not much different than some analogue computing that was done years ago. From Babbage's Difference Engine, to ENIAC, to COLOSSUS, to the cell phone in your hand, aren't they all the same in principle? Their computational abilities, speeds, and our interaction and input methods may have changed but, at the very root of it, isn't it much the same as it has "always" been? There's on and off. Or at least on and not on.
And after preview... Those are actually questions and observations. As near as I know, that's the case. However, a good portion of my education actually comes from Slashdot in these regards. There was a time, not that many years ago, where I actually hated computers and felt they were more effort than they were worth. Also, for a reasonable definition of "always." Namely, since the advent of digital computational devices. Thus it is in quotes for the sake of brevity.
Wait, what? You majored in "micro computers?"
Err... I can't say that I've ever heard of that as a major. Hell, I can't even think of a time when I've heard of it as a minor. I'm not even sure I've heard of it as a specific course name? As I sit here and ponder this, I could see it as a major. Hell, I could even see it as a potentially good major. I'm just not sure I've ever seen it before and I've spent some time in academia.
Did I just miss it? Was I there are the wrong time? Micros were early, at least the terminology, and that's a pretty big group of computers and a whole bunch of companies. I'd not be surprised to find a micro that was able to be purchased at a discount with UPC/PoP and branded with Corn Flakes.
Hmm... My time spent in academia was during the revolution. I went in for four years from about 79 to 83. I ran out of funds and reenlisted. While I was in, I got some more courses into me. I came home, was there for a bit of a second-wave in the revolution, from about 88 to 91. I seem to recall that things were moving pretty quick in that time-frame. Advances were from the 8086 to the 286 at about that time, no? Then the 386 to the 486 not long after. Some Ti, RISC, and I want to say ARM? I think AMD was around at that time - I didn't personally bump into 'em until much later, as I recall. My first exposure was the K6-II (350 MHz, OCed to ~500 MHz and it was as awesome as it sounds).
At any rate, during all of that, I don't recollect hearing about a major in "micro computers." It might have made an awesome major and I can envision a pretty decent syllabus. I can even think of some reasons why it might be a separate major even though the principles are much the same.
I don't suppose you've got a minute to flesh that out and describe what that looked like? If you don't then it's all good but my curiosity is piqued.
You're being sarcastic but some sort of life-skills class that taught things like basic plumbing, electrical, carpentry, power and hand tools, painting, and whatnot might not actually be a bad idea as a mandatory course. I'd reason that such would be a benefit to most. I'd further reason that those are basic skills that are of such value that placing them into the public education curricula is a step that should have already been taken.
Come to think of it, it's not a bad idea to consider adding basic automobile maintenance to that list. However, that tech is in a bit of a flux so I'm not really sure if that's easily covered. For now, I'd suggest that they teach the basics for an ICE and prepare to offer education about EVs as well. With the EV and hybrids, it's imperative to give instruction about electrical safety.
Add to that some financial, budgeting, organizational, investing, basic business and business terminology, as well as some skills for food preparation, household repairs like sewing, food preservation, nutrition, and things of that nature. I'd think those are fine subjects and are actually something that should be mandatory. We could even throw some soldering skills and basic appliance repair and electronics repair training.
I'm not sure why you'd think a well-rounded education is a thing to sneer at. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you wrote, I'm all for inserting some vocational types of classes into the mandatory list. I'd absolutely suggest that they be mandatory even for those on a college prep track. Hell, I'd doubly stress their importance for that group of people.
There is no reason for an accountant or sociologist or teacher to be confused when they look under the hood of their car, not know how to safely operate a circular saw, or not know how to replace a leaky faucet. If anyone should be taught those types of skills, it should be that group. The folks in the trades and blue-collar are far more likely to know those things - in my observations, than those who are white collar workers. I submit that a well-rounded, useful, education has utility and value all its own.
Don't laugh. I have a brother who's as much a geek as I and actually has two years of CS under his belt. He *is* a plumber and lots of what he does is computerized these days. He often does the systems on larger buildings, not just residential but also commercial, and those things are pretty complicated - or can be. He actually makes pretty decent money at it. 'Snot a bad choice.
I wonder if it's just going to be much more than how to turn one on, use a browser, and then maybe figure out email and an office suite? I could get behind the idea of a real CS requirement, albeit a basic-ish one, where they learn about computers including the history of computers.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this particular CS should also include some ideas about security and things like protocols, the history of the web, and things of that nature. I've typed out a longer list but I'm not gonna go dig it out.
That doesn't surprise me. Was McNamara involved? I am not a historian - my brain just doesn't work like that. As an example, I own an obscene number of firearms - truly obscene. I've a friend who's retired but still a licensed dealer and collector. He's been retiring off my impulse buys as I assimilate his collection. It's quite literally an obscene number - many, many dollars worth in a special room in my basement. The room is 8" of concrete, all the way around and has a door that's made of steel with the frame embedded into the concrete. The top of that room is reinforced concrete with a ¼" thick plate of steel lining the top (actually several sheets of it). As in, I'm not kidding - it's an obscene number and is one of my retirement joys.
So, embarrassing though it might be, I am not a historian. Collector? In part, sure. Fact book? Absolutely not. There are books, index cards attached with zip ties, and even a laptop on a bench. My brain just doesn't do the absorb facts thing. I need reference materials, most of the time, if I want to actually get into being able to point out stuff and be sure of it. I really don't mind, some day I will be able to hide my own Easter Eggs. It may seem like it's frustrating and, indeed, it can be but I seem to have some sort of switch that I can turn on where if I actually write something down, or make an effort to keep it, then I can store it for quite a while. It's handy for test taking but I'm honestly not that smart.
Yeah, that was kind of odd and disappointing but things were a bit different back then. I want to say the guy's name was "Bork." Heh... That was a long time ago. I was doing my first four years and would reenlist not long after.
I'm not sure how to articulate this but I beg to differ.
I do not think we're more intelligent today than we were "back then." We have access to more information, that is true. If you think you're more intelligent, how about we take away your modern amenities, strip you naked, and put you into the woods fifty miles from civilization - and you stay there for a year. We'll even give you some flint. Hell, you can even take up to six more mature adults but for every adult you must bring .5 (rounded up) children and for every 3 mature adults you must bring one elderly person (rounded up, of course).
You're not one of those folks who are egotistical enough to think we're at the apex of understanding, correct, or at the pinnacle of morality, or are you? If so, I'd encourage you to look at history and note that we've pretty much always thought we were at that pinnacle. At some point, and for a long time, our best and brightest - our dedicated scientists, believed in the four humors or phlogiston. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're not so naive as to think we're certainly correct with our current understanding. It's a little rough on the ego but all, literally all, of history tells us that we're probably still just as incorrect as they were.
At any rate, it's difficult to articulate for me. I'm thinking the word hubris belongs in there somewhere. I've no pithy sayings, good analogies, or even a few concise terms to use as descriptors.
> specie's
I know this is off-topic but is that correct English? Err... I'm a bit unusual in that I actually enjoy the grammar tweakers (though I think they may want to lay off the meth) so... If one of you happen to have an opinion on this, that'd be awesome.
I'm thinking it's 'species' but then I realize that this mix of Latin and English is gonna only end up hurting my brain. So, my brain is old and feeble and avoiding damage is good and I'll just defer to someone else on this.
And, seeing as I'm off-topic enough already, it'd be damned nice if we could just defrag our brain. It appears to be a proprietary file system. It's non-journaled and has no reliable error correction. It does have an interesting hierarchy but I think it's difficult to index so the resulting search is a mess. I could almost go for a low-level reformat and then re-imaging from backups. Try as I might, I'm looking at the word and thinking it's right but horribly wrong at the same time - I can find no help with that Google thing.
I dunno? Is it really any better if it's 2 years away instead of 30? I'm reminded of that song by Annie... "It's always a day away."
Don't say that too often, you'll end up messing up the experiment and the mice will be both mad and get their revenge.
You do. You have to turn on lock screen with that setting or leave it on if it's already on - I think it was disabled by default in 8. Reading the summary, it looks like you still do. Not only that, when you turn it on - you've got multiple choices, this is one of them. This is *not* some outrage to go burn the campus down. I mean, yeah, I like rioting and burning down buildings as much as the next guy but it kind of starts to lose its meaning when you'll just burn down any ol' building.