Then obviously they didn't teach themselves what they needed to. This doesn't speak for everyone. The concept of self teaching is actually quite efficient if you have the means to do it, and many times (not all, of course, it depends on the person), faster.
Sorry, but there are insights that are just not published in books. I used to think that I could teach myself certain subjects, but without the guidance of someone with years of experience, I missed things, even after reading every word of multiple textbooks. Getting by without a good teacher is not something I would expect anyone to be able to do, except for the absolute basics of a given topic.
There's no need. Willful parents are all you need. If they don't have time for that, then your parents homeschooling you obviously isn't an option.
Are your parents expert enough in abstract math to teach that to you? How about world history? How about computer science? Again, when you go beyond the absolute basics, a teacher with experience in a given subject is indispensable.
I know, in the 21st century, everyone is supposed to be some sort of businessman, and we are supposed to seek returns on anything we spend money on. Really though, people (in theory) go to college to be educated, not just to get vocational training. If you want vocational training -- and there is nothing wrong with that -- then you should go to a trade school, get a 2 year degree, and wind up with the same job you would have had if you spent four years getting a bachelor's.
The sooner the "college is an investment" crowd gets out of our universities, the better.
Too many useless classes (as in, something that some people may use, but others won't, due to their career choices)
School is not just vocational training, and the sooner people stop acting like it is, the better things will be for all of us. Even private schools have required classes that have nothing to do with the majority of their graduates' careers, yet somehow you are not calling private schools "trash."
self teaching, homeschooling
I have met people who are "self taught," and I am sorry to say that in all but a few cases, they lacked certain insights or failed to understand concepts that seem elementary to someone with a more formal education. As for homeschooling, I have no problem with that...if you can afford private tutors in each subject you are learning. Or in other words, if you are wealthy, and most people simply are not.
No, that includes the student's own device. Students who violate license agreements are in violation of university policies, regardless of who paid for what.
No, I think that the US government does what is best for businesses, and the free and open Internet is not best for business anymore -- too many people are using it to communicate in ways that don't put money in the pockets of corporate directors and shareholders.
The point is that the majority of people will be using the new network, and eventually the Internet will become forgotten or even fractured and unusable. Look at how ISPs have stopped carrying Usenet -- and that is on the Internet -- and how few Fidonet nodes are left (how many are even in your area?), or how BITNet is gone. The secure network may only allow "certified" protocols to be used, no BitTorrent or P2P.
The public statement is just a political maneuver, to help with the real goal: killing the open Internet. The free and open Internet is a nightmare for them, because it allows all sorts of people to communicate and do things without being monitored. It is bad for business (which is what the US Government is really interested in protecting) and bad for the politicians who bankroll the NSA.
First they'll set up a new network for "critical infrastructure," which you can only connect "certified" devices to, and then you'll start to see things...like suddenly your bank will require you to use that new, secure, not-open network. Then new and popular music will only be made available on that network. Then videos, games, books, and so forth, until eventually the Internet falls by the wayside, as forgotten as Fidonet, even if it even remains in existence. You will only be allowed to connect certain computers to that network, running certain software, and of course, you will not have any sort of root access to your system.
At my institution, a student who jailbreaks an iPad would be in violation of university policies, and could face disciplinary action -- in some cases, that might even mean expulsion. Some places take licenses very seriously, and this is one of them. If the iPads were provided by the university, there would likely be at least some level of enforcement of the policy.
Sorry, but your scenario does not pass that conceivability test. Most truly revolutionary software gets its start in research labs, and is presented at conferences or published in academic journals.
Selling software is a business model that does not make sense anymore, not when so many people have broadband Internet access. There is simply no scarcity on which to base a business which sells software. You might sell services related to software, and that will be successful, but without the sort of government crack-downs that TFA describes, you will not have much luck. Here is an idea though: if you really want some software developed, find a bunch of other people who want it, pool your money, and pay someone or some company to write it and release it to the world (GPL).
Considering what sort of advertisements you see on "children's" TV stations, is this any surprise? Children are targets for marketing firms, since they can whine and nag their parents in ways that the firms cannot.
More likely, Apple will sell an "upgrade" with "improved performance," and once again take advantage of their customers' general ignorance about computers. After all, a lot of people still do not think of the iPad as a "tablet," so why would they think anything is unusual with the "improvement?"
Nobody is free to roam all streets, at least not in any major city. Nor are we free to speak to cops the same way we can speak to civilians. Nor are people with handicaps free to obtain drugs that can help them, for fear that the cops might arrest them.
Anyone who becomes a cop has suspect morals in my book, at least given the state of our laws and the way police departments operate.
Solution (perhaps impractical, but ethical) is to charge users, and prosecute pirates.
It is neither ethical or practical to do that. Instead, what needs to be set up is a new way to compensate artists -- not the RIAA or MPAA, but the artists who actually give us entertainment -- that is compatible with the Internet age. That means a system that is not based on people being unable to copy music and movies.
Perhaps instead of paying for enforcement, ISPs should pay into a fund for artists, and entirely cut the RIAA and MPAA out of the picture. That fund should be managed in a way that legally requires nondiscriminatory access for artists, perhaps with some sort of review process to decide who receives how much funding (e.g. to prevent abuses or outlandish requests).
How is it spoiled? There are a few mainstream distros that everyone knows about, and people interested in running GNU/Linux usually choose one of those, and are not intimidated by the choice. The rest of the distros are either special purpose, novelty, or the product of small communities; most new users never hear of them anyway. What is the problem, exactly? Why blame choice for the lack of success on the desktop, when there are so many other reasons (poor cooperation from hardware makers, intense anti-GNU/Linux campaigns on the part of large companies, etc.)?
And anyway, I wouldn't be so sure that you don't break the law. The fact that you don't know that you break the law does not mean you don't actually break it.
And this is perhaps the biggest problem facing America right now: we have so many laws, it is hard to know whether or not you are actually breaking one. What we need is a wave of repeals, but no politician is brave enough to initiate such an action.
Slashdot Mirror
Then obviously they didn't teach themselves what they needed to. This doesn't speak for everyone. The concept of self teaching is actually quite efficient if you have the means to do it, and many times (not all, of course, it depends on the person), faster.
Sorry, but there are insights that are just not published in books. I used to think that I could teach myself certain subjects, but without the guidance of someone with years of experience, I missed things, even after reading every word of multiple textbooks. Getting by without a good teacher is not something I would expect anyone to be able to do, except for the absolute basics of a given topic.
There's no need. Willful parents are all you need. If they don't have time for that, then your parents homeschooling you obviously isn't an option.
Are your parents expert enough in abstract math to teach that to you? How about world history? How about computer science? Again, when you go beyond the absolute basics, a teacher with experience in a given subject is indispensable.
You learn most of the useful stuff in the first year or 2 of any CS degree anyway.
Wow, this is what gets modded insightful these days?
Since when is "not being a billionaire" the definition of "failure?"
I know, in the 21st century, everyone is supposed to be some sort of businessman, and we are supposed to seek returns on anything we spend money on. Really though, people (in theory) go to college to be educated, not just to get vocational training. If you want vocational training -- and there is nothing wrong with that -- then you should go to a trade school, get a 2 year degree, and wind up with the same job you would have had if you spent four years getting a bachelor's.
The sooner the "college is an investment" crowd gets out of our universities, the better.
Public schools are absolute trash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Ivy
Too many useless classes (as in, something that some people may use, but others won't, due to their career choices)
School is not just vocational training, and the sooner people stop acting like it is, the better things will be for all of us. Even private schools have required classes that have nothing to do with the majority of their graduates' careers, yet somehow you are not calling private schools "trash."
self teaching, homeschooling
I have met people who are "self taught," and I am sorry to say that in all but a few cases, they lacked certain insights or failed to understand concepts that seem elementary to someone with a more formal education. As for homeschooling, I have no problem with that...if you can afford private tutors in each subject you are learning. Or in other words, if you are wealthy, and most people simply are not.
http://gnupg.org/
No, that includes the student's own device. Students who violate license agreements are in violation of university policies, regardless of who paid for what.
No, I think that the US government does what is best for businesses, and the free and open Internet is not best for business anymore -- too many people are using it to communicate in ways that don't put money in the pockets of corporate directors and shareholders.
The point is that the majority of people will be using the new network, and eventually the Internet will become forgotten or even fractured and unusable. Look at how ISPs have stopped carrying Usenet -- and that is on the Internet -- and how few Fidonet nodes are left (how many are even in your area?), or how BITNet is gone. The secure network may only allow "certified" protocols to be used, no BitTorrent or P2P.
The public statement is just a political maneuver, to help with the real goal: killing the open Internet. The free and open Internet is a nightmare for them, because it allows all sorts of people to communicate and do things without being monitored. It is bad for business (which is what the US Government is really interested in protecting) and bad for the politicians who bankroll the NSA.
First they'll set up a new network for "critical infrastructure," which you can only connect "certified" devices to, and then you'll start to see things...like suddenly your bank will require you to use that new, secure, not-open network. Then new and popular music will only be made available on that network. Then videos, games, books, and so forth, until eventually the Internet falls by the wayside, as forgotten as Fidonet, even if it even remains in existence. You will only be allowed to connect certain computers to that network, running certain software, and of course, you will not have any sort of root access to your system.
Fewer people would post the info, since Facebook itself is busy perusing it...
At my institution, a student who jailbreaks an iPad would be in violation of university policies, and could face disciplinary action -- in some cases, that might even mean expulsion. Some places take licenses very seriously, and this is one of them. If the iPads were provided by the university, there would likely be at least some level of enforcement of the policy.
you will not have much luck.
Sorry, but your scenario does not pass that conceivability test. Most truly revolutionary software gets its start in research labs, and is presented at conferences or published in academic journals.
Selling software is a business model that does not make sense anymore, not when so many people have broadband Internet access. There is simply no scarcity on which to base a business which sells software. You might sell services related to software, and that will be successful, but without the sort of government crack-downs that TFA describes, you will not have much luck. Here is an idea though: if you really want some software developed, find a bunch of other people who want it, pool your money, and pay someone or some company to write it and release it to the world (GPL).
Considering what sort of advertisements you see on "children's" TV stations, is this any surprise? Children are targets for marketing firms, since they can whine and nag their parents in ways that the firms cannot.
Real steganography would replace the nearly random least significant bits
Someone should read up on modern steganography and watermarking techniques before making statements like that...
More likely, Apple will sell an "upgrade" with "improved performance," and once again take advantage of their customers' general ignorance about computers. After all, a lot of people still do not think of the iPad as a "tablet," so why would they think anything is unusual with the "improvement?"
Nobody is free to roam all streets, at least not in any major city. Nor are we free to speak to cops the same way we can speak to civilians. Nor are people with handicaps free to obtain drugs that can help them, for fear that the cops might arrest them.
Anyone who becomes a cop has suspect morals in my book, at least given the state of our laws and the way police departments operate.
When did Xenix become decent? It is 21 years out of date...
Solution (perhaps impractical, but ethical) is to charge users, and prosecute pirates.
It is neither ethical or practical to do that. Instead, what needs to be set up is a new way to compensate artists -- not the RIAA or MPAA, but the artists who actually give us entertainment -- that is compatible with the Internet age. That means a system that is not based on people being unable to copy music and movies.
Perhaps instead of paying for enforcement, ISPs should pay into a fund for artists, and entirely cut the RIAA and MPAA out of the picture. That fund should be managed in a way that legally requires nondiscriminatory access for artists, perhaps with some sort of review process to decide who receives how much funding (e.g. to prevent abuses or outlandish requests).
However, corporations should not have rights, even if they do. A corporation is not a person, and should not be treated like a person.
How is it spoiled? There are a few mainstream distros that everyone knows about, and people interested in running GNU/Linux usually choose one of those, and are not intimidated by the choice. The rest of the distros are either special purpose, novelty, or the product of small communities; most new users never hear of them anyway. What is the problem, exactly? Why blame choice for the lack of success on the desktop, when there are so many other reasons (poor cooperation from hardware makers, intense anti-GNU/Linux campaigns on the part of large companies, etc.)?
And anyway, I wouldn't be so sure that you don't break the law. The fact that you don't know that you break the law does not mean you don't actually break it.
And this is perhaps the biggest problem facing America right now: we have so many laws, it is hard to know whether or not you are actually breaking one. What we need is a wave of repeals, but no politician is brave enough to initiate such an action.
I tell you, this is an MPAA plot!
On the planet, there certainly is. In the United States, probably not.