Since the sole beneficiary of a college degree is the employers, I categorically refuse to send my kid to college, and have advised him not to waste his time on it,
Of course the employers benefit, but so does the person attending, and society as a whole. Everyone should benefit. But it also depends on how you use the education you received. Some use it more wisely than others.
College isn't for everyone. It is a place to learn and discourse. It is not a place to learn how to do a job, although you can learn skills that will be useful down the road. Should your child go to college? That depends. There are a lot of things to do in life that don't require college, and like I said it isn't for everyone. Some people are better at hands on learning than book learning.
But college is about broadening your horizons. It doesn't sound like you broadened yours very well. And make sure you give you child enough information so they can make a well informed decision. And not just based on your cynical views on life.
This is true. I've found a lot of people who are really interested in "getting into coding/computers/whatever". I then offer to teach them what they need to know. That weeds out 90% of them when their eyes glaze over after I try and teach them 'vi'.
I've been programming for 30 years, and my eyes would glaze over, and I would think you were a masochistic evil person if you tried to teach me 'vi.' Why don't you teach them to pole their eye out with a sharp stick while they are at it? Do you also had them a stack of punch cards too?
You mean like the 300 guys that held off 100,000?
Comparing TV networks (actually Cable really) to Netflix is like comparing apples to oranges. While both provide entertainment, they provide different types of content.
How about all those would-be terrorists who can now print their very own pistols that will fail to show up on airport scanners if they (unaccountably) fail to put a big steel x-ray reflector inside the gun?
How's that for 'clear and present danger? Feel good about sticking it to 'the man' and spreading 100,000 copies of those gun CAD files, do you? Irresponsible is the least one can say about it.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that I need to think about everything I say, and consider whether someone might use what I say in an illegal manner? I'm not directly responsible for others actions. As long as I am not inciting them, I am not going to worry about what I say.
Can some things I say be used for evil rather than good? You bet, but that doesn't mean I should stop speaking.
And if you think me not saying something is going to stop the boogey man from printing a plastic gun...
I'm pretty sure many libraries have books that talk about how to make nuclear weapons.
Free speech might have some limits... but this isn't wear the line is drawn.
You know if you mentioned HALF of what you said, the interview will say "awesome" and move on to the next question.
The other 90% of the candidates, who can't even answer 10% of what you just said, will spend the next half hour of the interview trying to figure out what a loop is, or how to add instead of multiply, or some other stupid thing.
It is a simple question, to see if you have a clue what you might be talking about. Some people can BS there way past it, most good candidates will be able to answer enough of the issue to satisfy the interviewer. Everyone else will flounder. If you can have a good enough discourse about this question to satisfy the interviewer, you don't deserve to be interviewed.
I used to ask people coming out of college to write strcmp. I am still amazed at how many people didn't understand how to sort strings and they were getting a CSc degree.
Other than the fact that it takes place in the future (like many science fiction stories) and the main characters are children, it pretty much bears no resemblance to hunger games.
But the actual process was one that was so illogical that the only statistically likely way to discover it would be with inside information or via hacking.
Really?
How about the guy is playing for pennies... Wins. But its only pennies. Decides to play another game, also wins. Figures may as well raise the stakes, since he keeps winning. Raises his bet, then remembers he didn't cash out his first win.
It isn't as convoluted as it sounds.
eh?
it doesn't matter whether you agree with it, or not. It doesn't matter who posted in on slashdot. The fact remains a former FBI official made this statement, not once, but twice, to CNN. Is it true? who knows, but don't go and blame the messenger.
short of being able to meet current web standards.
And that is essentially the problem. When the web pages were first created, IE6 was the de facto standard. And they just essentially refuse to upgrade.
They can change the code today, to meet the current standards. Will it still work a dozen years from now? I'm sure the standards will have been updated by then.
Filing a law suit should at an absolute minimum require the plaintiff to pay some costs to the defendant (perhaps the smaller of the legal costs incurred by either side) should the plaintiff lose.
So you are saying only rich people should be allowed to file lawsuits? Sometimes even the people who are in the right still manage to lose.
So... what you are saying is, if someone creates an image (of a character) it is ok for someone to COPY that image, as long as it isn't an identical copy?
Why this exception for just characters then? And why would anyone then create a new character?
Actually I think it is more about being "explosion" related. Because, you know, that is "bad." And we should ruin the lives of anyone who even considers making an explosion.
Suppose that she had been a he, had been white, had been the star quarterback and was expelled and charged as an adult for exactly the same act.
No one would say it was about race or anything else of that sort. Would that make it any less outrageous?
It would still be outrageous. But the believe is that if the student was white (and male and...) then the student would not have been expelled or charged as an adult.
, but she's under 18, so her record will be sealed, and it won't affect her chances in life.
Except they want to try her as an adult.
Do you think someone with a bottle of coke, that shakes it up, and then squeezes it, so the top pops off should be punished? Expelled? Charged for any sort of crime (let alone two felonies?) Because that is essentially what she did.
In the real world you need permission to do things that will explode.
In what world do you live in that you need permission to "do things that will explode?" So who do you ask permission to shake up a bottle of coke, or a bottle of champagne before popping the cork. Is there a "popping the cork commission" you have to apply to permission for?
What if you were doing something that you didn't think would cause an explosion? I'm sure no one has EVER done that.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the sole beneficiary of a college degree is the employers, I categorically refuse to send my kid to college, and have advised him not to waste his time on it,
Of course the employers benefit, but so does the person attending, and society as a whole. Everyone should benefit. But it also depends on how you use the education you received. Some use it more wisely than others.
College isn't for everyone. It is a place to learn and discourse. It is not a place to learn how to do a job, although you can learn skills that will be useful down the road. Should your child go to college? That depends. There are a lot of things to do in life that don't require college, and like I said it isn't for everyone. Some people are better at hands on learning than book learning.
But college is about broadening your horizons. It doesn't sound like you broadened yours very well. And make sure you give you child enough information so they can make a well informed decision. And not just based on your cynical views on life.
I'm wondering what the OP means about "current" Revision control systems and code reviews aren't exactly technologies from this century.
This is true. I've found a lot of people who are really interested in "getting into coding/computers/whatever". I then offer to teach them what they need to know. That weeds out 90% of them when their eyes glaze over after I try and teach them 'vi'.
I've been programming for 30 years, and my eyes would glaze over, and I would think you were a masochistic evil person if you tried to teach me 'vi.' Why don't you teach them to pole their eye out with a sharp stick while they are at it? Do you also had them a stack of punch cards too?
What do you think ratings are?
You mean like the 300 guys that held off 100,000?
Comparing TV networks (actually Cable really) to Netflix is like comparing apples to oranges. While both provide entertainment, they provide different types of content.
The same way you take advantage of the roads that you didn't really pay for.
How about all those would-be terrorists who can now print their very own pistols that will fail to show up on airport scanners if they (unaccountably) fail to put a big steel x-ray reflector inside the gun? How's that for 'clear and present danger? Feel good about sticking it to 'the man' and spreading 100,000 copies of those gun CAD files, do you? Irresponsible is the least one can say about it.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that I need to think about everything I say, and consider whether someone might use what I say in an illegal manner? I'm not directly responsible for others actions. As long as I am not inciting them, I am not going to worry about what I say.
Can some things I say be used for evil rather than good? You bet, but that doesn't mean I should stop speaking.
And if you think me not saying something is going to stop the boogey man from printing a plastic gun...
I'm pretty sure many libraries have books that talk about how to make nuclear weapons.
Free speech might have some limits... but this isn't wear the line is drawn.
You know if you mentioned HALF of what you said, the interview will say "awesome" and move on to the next question.
The other 90% of the candidates, who can't even answer 10% of what you just said, will spend the next half hour of the interview trying to figure out what a loop is, or how to add instead of multiply, or some other stupid thing.
It is a simple question, to see if you have a clue what you might be talking about. Some people can BS there way past it, most good candidates will be able to answer enough of the issue to satisfy the interviewer. Everyone else will flounder. If you can have a good enough discourse about this question to satisfy the interviewer, you don't deserve to be interviewed.
I used to ask people coming out of college to write strcmp. I am still amazed at how many people didn't understand how to sort strings and they were getting a CSc degree.
Just because someone applies, does not mean they are qualified for the job.
because my work is published and open source.
Because the potential employer knows for a fact that you wrote every single line of that open source code?
So considering a scenario like a student posting Iron Man 3,.... Who would be responsible for this copyright infringement?
I think you've already answered your own question. The student posted the movie, and the key, to a public forum. He is responsible.
So you are saying "COULD it be alIENS?"
Other than the fact that it takes place in the future (like many science fiction stories) and the main characters are children, it pretty much bears no resemblance to hunger games.
But the actual process was one that was so illogical that the only statistically likely way to discover it would be with inside information or via hacking.
Really?
How about the guy is playing for pennies... Wins. But its only pennies. Decides to play another game, also wins. Figures may as well raise the stakes, since he keeps winning. Raises his bet, then remembers he didn't cash out his first win.
It isn't as convoluted as it sounds.
No one else would post such obvious crap.
eh?
it doesn't matter whether you agree with it, or not. It doesn't matter who posted in on slashdot. The fact remains a former FBI official made this statement, not once, but twice, to CNN. Is it true? who knows, but don't go and blame the messenger.
short of being able to meet current web standards.
And that is essentially the problem. When the web pages were first created, IE6 was the de facto standard. And they just essentially refuse to upgrade.
They can change the code today, to meet the current standards. Will it still work a dozen years from now? I'm sure the standards will have been updated by then.
Filing a law suit should at an absolute minimum require the plaintiff to pay some costs to the defendant (perhaps the smaller of the legal costs incurred by either side) should the plaintiff lose.
So you are saying only rich people should be allowed to file lawsuits? Sometimes even the people who are in the right still manage to lose.
Who says they aren't? Are are you saying they can only do one thing at a time?
It matters because it shows that alleged free market companies cannot really survive in a free market.
How does it show this? Are you saying a company that gives bad service should thrive in a free market?
So... what you are saying is, if someone creates an image (of a character) it is ok for someone to COPY that image, as long as it isn't an identical copy?
Why this exception for just characters then? And why would anyone then create a new character?
and the other science related.
Actually I think it is more about being "explosion" related. Because, you know, that is "bad." And we should ruin the lives of anyone who even considers making an explosion.
Suppose that she had been a he, had been white, had been the star quarterback and was expelled and charged as an adult for exactly the same act.
No one would say it was about race or anything else of that sort. Would that make it any less outrageous?
It would still be outrageous. But the believe is that if the student was white (and male and...) then the student would not have been expelled or charged as an adult.
, but she's under 18, so her record will be sealed, and it won't affect her chances in life.
Except they want to try her as an adult.
Do you think someone with a bottle of coke, that shakes it up, and then squeezes it, so the top pops off should be punished? Expelled? Charged for any sort of crime (let alone two felonies?) Because that is essentially what she did.
In the real world you need permission to do things that will explode.
In what world do you live in that you need permission to "do things that will explode?" So who do you ask permission to shake up a bottle of coke, or a bottle of champagne before popping the cork. Is there a "popping the cork commission" you have to apply to permission for?
What if you were doing something that you didn't think would cause an explosion? I'm sure no one has EVER done that.