Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #26457 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-02-16 16:55 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-02-26 21:21 -0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> - 2025-02-16 16:55 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-16 21:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-16 23:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 11:40 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 09:26 -0800
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 22:42 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-17 22:23 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:20 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-19 07:32 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-02-18 23:47 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:42 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:10 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:44 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:23 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:55 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 17:59 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:01 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:51 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:01 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:29 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 22:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 05:19 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:28 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 10:55 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:34 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:06 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:10 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 10:08 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 23:12 +0100
OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:31 -0300
Re: OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:52 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-27 21:40 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:48 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 06:40 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 13:39 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 22:12 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 17:54 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:41 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:19 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:16 +0100
education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:55 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 22:00 -0300
Re: education Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-08 03:47 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 18:27 -0300
Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-09 02:08 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 02:58 -0300
Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-10 18:38 +0000
Re: education cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 19:13 +0000
Re: education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 13:30 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:17 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-25 19:12 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 02:08 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-26 09:06 -0600
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-26 18:09 -0400
the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:46 -0300
Re: the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-27 03:31 -0400
Re: the command line is language Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:10 -0300
Re: the command line is language D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:41 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:47 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:38 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 22:34 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 18:50 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:11 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:18 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:04 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 18:53 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:41 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:03 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:29 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:16 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 12:36 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:07 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:05 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 15:06 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:47 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:31 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:52 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-01 17:15 -0400
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-02 12:34 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-02-26 12:29 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:38 -0300
Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 19:47 -0500
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:55 -0300
Re: more on broken schools kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:00 -0500
OT: a personal note to Stefan Ram (Was: Re: more on broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 09:31 -0300
Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:03 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:30 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:43 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:33 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:30 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:00 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:50 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:46 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:05 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:31 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-14 23:46 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:43 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-17 23:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:50 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 17:06 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:28 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:12 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 14:08 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:32 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:34 +0100
fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 13:18 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:53 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:23 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:31 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:10 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:09 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:41 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:32 +0100
UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:10 -0300
Re: UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:54 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 09:08 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:09 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:17 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-16 00:03 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:41 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 10:50 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 16:26 -0300
Re: UNIX systems Matto Fransen <mattof@sdf.org> - 2025-03-21 19:53 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:11 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-21 23:37 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:34 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 21:49 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-26 23:24 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-29 22:31 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:40 -0300
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-22 10:11 -0300
Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-25 17:40 -0400
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 23:04 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Charles Dagny <1800@DEV.NULL> - 2025-03-28 21:41 -0300
Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-10 15:06 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-11 11:58 -0300
Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-11 15:49 +0042
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 15:25 +0000
Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-11 16:24 +0000
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 17:30 +0000
Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-12 22:30 +0000
Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-12 23:23 +0042
Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-13 20:40 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:04 -0300
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 21:26 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:23 -0300
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 01:24 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-12 01:38 -0300
Re: UNIX systems snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-03-12 14:03 +0000
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-12 22:19 +0100
Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-11 19:09 -0400
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-04 02:44 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2025-03-04 17:50 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:40 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:29 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:56 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:45 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:01 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:02 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:44 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:01 +0100
broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:46 -0300
Re: broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:18 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:34 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:38 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:45 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 14:05 +0100
Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0000
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:10 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:49 -0300
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 07:41 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 19:52 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:41 -0300
Re: broken schools yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 02:59 +0042
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:14 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 22:26 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 22:52 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:39 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 22:59 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:10 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-15 23:58 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-17 00:02 -0300
Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-18 03:00 +0000
Re: broken schools Eva Lu <evalu@tor.soy> - 2025-03-18 21:20 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 11:17 +0100
OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-19 13:51 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-19 23:20 +0100
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 11:52 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-23 00:31 +0100
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:50 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-01 16:43 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-04 11:20 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-06 23:17 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-10 15:19 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-12 21:05 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-13 13:10 -0300
lifestyles Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 20:20 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:40 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:57 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-17 18:30 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 22:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 00:08 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-18 00:30 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:52 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-20 01:09 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:27 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-20 21:51 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:07 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:35 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:31 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:06 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:01 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 13:48 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:56 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:22 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 14:05 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:03 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:14 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:47 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-20 22:12 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:15 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:04 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:21 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 22:46 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 10:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-02-25 14:20 +0300
small communities, nntp server (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:20 -0300
Re: small communities, nntp server (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:57 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:20 -0300
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:49 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-02-26 13:50 +0042
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:08 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:08 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:59 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:13 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:41 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:33 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:12 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:03 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:51 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-20 21:49 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:22 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-22 17:09 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-23 00:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:49 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:05 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:24 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:05 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:56 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:51 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:10 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 14:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:28 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 21:58 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:26 +0100
OT: personal stories (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 11:58 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:21 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:04 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:21 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:49 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 00:43 +0042
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:46 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:45 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:37 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:30 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-25 13:17 -0600
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:21 -0300
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 08:10 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: the command line is language |
| Message-ID | <8734fzfxsx.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26744 |
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes: > Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> writes: [...] >> If you're thinking, you're using language....Anyway, this lack of >> intellectual abilities, which boils down to language, grammar skills >> has crept up even in the computer science graduate group, which is >> appalling. > > The other side of the coin is people with the skill (or learned, > calculated ability) to persuade millions of others to do stupid stuff > using semantically vacuous language. Now (YADATROT) you can devise > by trial and error algorithms or neural net constructs to do it for > you. > > Thirty years ago, I made jokes about "epistemogical engineering". Now > epistemological engineering has probably doomed the world's most > powerful nation to chaos. *Very* well observed. My intuition for these text generators is that they will be pretty good for education in general precisely because they equate the average educated person. It will finally make the crisis pretty obvious to the average educated person. In other words, if all you can do is produce trivial expressions by permutating or rearranging the typical expression given to you by mainstream media, then you can now be easily replaced by a machine. For many years already, people talk about the concern with technology replacing the human hand in the labor market. ``Machines will replace humans.'' Machines have already replaced humans a long time ago; the reason you still find humans in manual labor is merely because humans are still the cheapest machines around. When the robot becomes cheaper, humans will need to find new means of survival. But let me clarify the previous paragraph. (I often say I'm obsessed with clarity, though I don't mean it seriously.) I'm being a little charming above by implying that even if you keep human beings at work, the fact is that we've been treated like machines for a very, very long time already. Sarcastically speaking, it would be better protection for us to talk about how to get rights and guarantees for machines (equating ourselves with them) than to see us in competition against them. Non-sarcastically speaking now, what we should concern ourselves with is how to live a dignifying life, an objective that seems impossible to achieve by any method whatsoever: it is precisely by confining life in methods (as if we were scientific problems to be solved) that we become indistinguishable from machines. Methods are useful to solve equations, but they will not quite help us in *living* in its deep sense. I apologize for not defining ``dignifying life'': it would take a master's thesis. The meaning I put in the expression goes beyond the already wide sense used by experts in constitucional law. For instance, in my master's thesis, there would be a major theorem stating that human beings are not subjects to which a /function/ can be attributed. The result would be painstakingly built from first principles, Thomas Hobbes-style.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 15:41 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: the command line is language |
| Message-ID | <6ceaa27d-968d-9b96-958a-4ab8f55e1037@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26753 |
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > For many years already, people talk about the concern with technology > replacing the human hand in the labor market. ``Machines will replace This has been discussed since... the 1700s? 1800s? And every time people were wrong. I do not believe that it will be any difference this time. Humans needs and desires are infinite, so machines automating stuff, just pushes humans further up the value chain. Should everything be automated, there are still many fields that will remain such as... * Literature * Science * Politics * Sports * Religion * Philosophy * Services (human service will command a premium price= * Artisanship * Food/restaurants * Space exploration and the list just continues. More automation will bring us closer to a post scarcity future. The only problem is, how do we deal with that? People with built in motivation, interest and joy of life will thrive.... BUT... people who have been brought up as machines will have a huge problem with motivation! > humans.'' Machines have already replaced humans a long time ago; the > reason you still find humans in manual labor is merely because humans > are still the cheapest machines around. When the robot becomes cheaper, > humans will need to find new means of survival. True! > Non-sarcastically speaking now, what we should concern ourselves with is > how to live a dignifying life, an objective that seems impossible to > achieve by any method whatsoever: it is precisely by confining life in > methods (as if we were scientific problems to be solved) that we become > indistinguishable from machines. Methods are useful to solve equations, > but they will not quite help us in *living* in its deep sense. I study positive psychology and transpersonal psychology. I think those two disciplines will be very valuable in helping us to understand how human beings can thrive and become happy in an ideal world, where everything is automated. We would have to re-think education, community building, spirituality, healthcare etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 14:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <57e39a05-e8a1-e5af-5d0c-63a17e1bb0f2@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26726 |
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Mike Spencer wrote: > All well. There are differing kinds of intelligence and his strength > lay in spatial relations and tangible physical forms, not language. True, but it seems to me that the general trend is downwards, and that it will have negative implication for the innovation in the future. Even implications for maintenance, if the horror stories here are to believed. =( > But people taking a university-level Great Books course are a > different matter. So are people studying how computers operate. > Language is a fundamental intellectual tool. Shopping, stichomythia, > ideas reduced to 168-char squibs and, yes, shopping look to me like > degenerate forms of disciplined thinking. > > As a digression, an assignment left for the reader, consider the > command line, even one as intimidating as that for gcc. After decades > of change, with the accretion of a multitude of options, it retains > the same linguistic form of a command. > > But how do you get along with a GUI for something of similar > complexity when someone 20 or 30 or 40 years your junior, decides that > a complete redesign of of the GUI is a desirable and necessary > improvement? He grew up in a mental Manhattan or a Mental Tokyo, > demolishes the graphical Boston of your favorite tool and rebuilds it > to match his visual head-space. True! I enjoy the fact that my bash scripts have worked for several decades! =) > So you can learn it all over again. Life-long learning is supposed to > be about learning new stuff, but about learning the same stuff over > and over. I tell my students that a career in IT is life-long learning, and if they don't enjoy learning new things, they should find another career. A bit over the top perhaps, but I do try to scare the ones who do not enjoy learning new things at the start of the program. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 13:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <81cafbfb-18b8-8898-4d91-13ba43f9703c@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26697 |
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote: > Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >> I don't have much information. The command line seemed an awful >> experience to them. I suspect that they thought that the command line >> was archaic means of system interface and that perhaps it was just a >> teacher idiosyncrasy. > > This is something I see a lot of... we get interns who are engineering > students or computer science students and they have never seen a command > line of any sort before. Not bash, not powershell, not anything. They > first of all don't get the command line concept and secondly they don't > get the concept of the heirarchical filesystem. "The file is on the > computer!" "But where on the computer?" "It's on the computer!" Please scott, you are breaking my heart! =( > We even got a guy with a PhD in CS from a university that I had previously > thought reputable who had never used a command line and who just could > not understand how make works in spite of the O'Reilly book. Stop, please, for the love of god! > I think some of these concepts have to be introduced early on, but they > NEED to be introduced early on in order to get any kind of basic computer > literacy. > --scott This was a painful read. =( I thought I saw this due to the fact that I teach at the vocational school level and not university level. Are yo useriously telling me that this b.s. goes one (and comes out of) the university level? If so... we'll soon enter a period of decline, if even universities turn out CS student so ill equipped to develop new brilliant services in todays world. =(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vpo1cg$qcm$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26702 |
D <nospam@example.net> wrote: > >This was a painful read. =( I thought I saw this due to the fact that I >teach at the vocational school level and not university level. Are yo >useriously telling me that this b.s. goes one (and comes out of) the >university level? In the US there is not so much of a clear distinction between college, university, and trade school. We have for-profit trade schools that now call themselves universities, and colleges with full university programs. I can think of a number of places that call themselves universities that have CS programs that are basically programming programs... they exist to teach kids to write code so they can get a job and only teach the currently popular buzzwords and have no actual CS anywhere. I can think of one place that calls itself a college which has a CS program that is almost entirely theoretical... lots of proofs and lots of algorithm analysis. Enough programming to be useful but it's expected students will learn that on their own. A full year of graph theory, two years of continuous mathematics. And there is a standard ACM curriculum and there are places that follow it, but there are a whole lot of places that don't. I think the ACM curriculum is very balanced between theory and practice and includes things like an assembler class and a digital logic class which are not themselves useful but which need to be taught in order to explain just what a computer actually is. But all of these places call themselves CS programs even though they have a huge diversity in what they actually teach. We also have a bunch of IT programs which are really business school programs with some computing added. I think those are pretty much worthless, but they get a lot of students. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 16:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vpo1k4$h6h$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26719 |
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: > >We also have a bunch of IT programs which are really business school programs >with some computing added. I think those are pretty much worthless, but they >get a lot of students. Oh, and I will say that most of the students that I deal with personally are not CS students at all but engineering students. They get one programming class, usually in Matlab, and no basic computer literacy stuff at all. This is really no worse than it was when I was in engineering school, when students got one programming class in Fortran. But it's not good, because so many things are done with computers today. They do teach mechanical drawing with cad/cam systems now instead of making kids use those goddamn rapidographs like we had to use. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 22:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpo4uc$2omvt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26721 |
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: > Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: >> >>We also have a bunch of IT programs which are really business school >>programs with some computing added. I think those are pretty much >>worthless, but they get a lot of students. > > Oh, and I will say that most of the students that I deal with > personally are not CS students at all but engineering students. They > get one programming class, usually in Matlab, and no basic computer > literacy stuff at all. Just one programming class..... in Matlab??? For Engineering. Ugh. I had (if memory serves) at least one Pascal class, one Fortran class, and an assembler (CDC Cyber 7000 - a really weird CPU on the inside) class, all required classes for Engineering. Pascal class was trivial (had already done plenty of UCSD Pascal on Apple II in high-school) so just had to adjust to the small difference in the CDC Cyber Pascal we were using. Fortran was similarly trivial, but oh did I come to hate Fortran in the end. Just had to learn the "fortranisms", as I already understood the over-arching "how to program" aspects. The assembler class was also itself trivial (had done loads of 6502 assembler by this point, and some 8086 assembler, provided one considered DOS's debug an 'assembler' of sorts). Just had to "learn the language" rather than the "how to program" part. But, /just/ matlab. That is so wrong on so many levels.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 18:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vpo9bj$r6t$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26728 |
In article <vpo4uc$2omvt$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >I had (if memory serves) at least one Pascal class, one Fortran class, >and an assembler (CDC Cyber 7000 - a really weird CPU on the inside) >class, all required classes for Engineering. Pascal class was trivial >(had already done plenty of UCSD Pascal on Apple II in high-school) so >just had to adjust to the small difference in the CDC Cyber Pascal we >were using. Fortran was similarly trivial, but oh did I come to hate >Fortran in the end. Just had to learn the "fortranisms", as I already >understood the over-arching "how to program" aspects. The assembler >class was also itself trivial (had done loads of 6502 assembler by this >point, and some 8086 assembler, provided one considered DOS's debug an >'assembler' of sorts). Just had to "learn the language" rather than >the "how to program" part. That's pretty unusual. The reason why Fortran is a good thing is because engineers can't be trusted with pointers. And COMPASS? That's a very very strange assembler to teach.... I went to gatech which had Cyber machines which the CS folks avoided like the plague. COMPASS is not exactly a normal assembler and has a lot of fast-float-performance craziness... it is not something I'd really teach anyone whom I was trying to teach about the principles of computing or how systems work. And the PPUs code? That's worse than IBM channel controller stuff. I'm sorry you had to do that. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 03:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpol5t$2r3ql$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26729 |
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: > In article <vpo4uc$2omvt$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >>I had (if memory serves) at least one Pascal class, one Fortran class, >>and an assembler (CDC Cyber 7000 - a really weird CPU on the inside) >>class, all required classes for Engineering. Pascal class was trivial >>(had already done plenty of UCSD Pascal on Apple II in high-school) so >>just had to adjust to the small difference in the CDC Cyber Pascal we >>were using. Fortran was similarly trivial, but oh did I come to hate >>Fortran in the end. Just had to learn the "fortranisms", as I already >>understood the over-arching "how to program" aspects. The assembler >>class was also itself trivial (had done loads of 6502 assembler by this >>point, and some 8086 assembler, provided one considered DOS's debug an >>'assembler' of sorts). Just had to "learn the language" rather than >>the "how to program" part. > > That's pretty unusual. The reason why Fortran is a good thing is because > engineers can't be trusted with pointers. There might be that. I was there before the rise of C as the "be all" language, which is how I had the Pascal and Fortran classes. Five years later and it was all C. > And COMPASS? That's a very very strange assembler to teach.... It was the timeshare system the university had for students. They had a Cyber 7600 and a Cyber 8600, I only ever had accounts on the 7600. But since it was the system they used, Compass (I'd forgotten that name, but that was it) was the assembler. > I went to gatech which had Cyber machines which the CS folks avoided > like the plague. COMPASS is not exactly a normal assembler and has a > lot of fast-float-performance craziness... it is not something I'd > really teach anyone whom I was trying to teach about the principles > of computing or how systems work. Well, the assembly class did come after two semesters of the other languages, and it did begin by presuming you "knew how to program" in the general sense. But yes, indeed, a weird CPU and assembler as compared to other microprocessors that I was used to at the time. > And the PPUs code? That's worse than IBM channel controller stuff. > I'm sorry you had to do that. --scott Thankfully they didn't expect us to make use of the PPU stuff. They just had us essentially cause an abort and effectively a Cyber core dump and that was what we turned in for our "execution runs", with circles around the hex (or was it octal?) digits in the dump that were the "answers". I didn't question the "logic" of it, I just turned in what they wanted to see. And although a 'weird' CPU to program, actually making the code perform whatever the assigned task they wanted wasn't hard, provided one knew how to program in the first place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 08:18 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87senzeiv1.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26742 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: >> In article <vpo4uc$2omvt$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >>>I had (if memory serves) at least one Pascal class, one Fortran class, >>>and an assembler (CDC Cyber 7000 - a really weird CPU on the inside) >>>class, all required classes for Engineering. Pascal class was trivial >>>(had already done plenty of UCSD Pascal on Apple II in high-school) so >>>just had to adjust to the small difference in the CDC Cyber Pascal we >>>were using. Fortran was similarly trivial, but oh did I come to hate >>>Fortran in the end. Just had to learn the "fortranisms", as I already >>>understood the over-arching "how to program" aspects. The assembler >>>class was also itself trivial (had done loads of 6502 assembler by this >>>point, and some 8086 assembler, provided one considered DOS's debug an >>>'assembler' of sorts). Just had to "learn the language" rather than >>>the "how to program" part. >> >> That's pretty unusual. The reason why Fortran is a good thing is because >> engineers can't be trusted with pointers. > > There might be that. I was there before the rise of C as the "be all" > language, which is how I had the Pascal and Fortran classes. Five > years later and it was all C. > >> And COMPASS? That's a very very strange assembler to teach.... > > It was the timeshare system the university had for students. They had > a Cyber 7600 and a Cyber 8600, I only ever had accounts on the 7600. > But since it was the system they used, Compass (I'd forgotten that > name, but that was it) was the assembler. > >> I went to gatech which had Cyber machines which the CS folks avoided >> like the plague. COMPASS is not exactly a normal assembler and has a >> lot of fast-float-performance craziness... it is not something I'd >> really teach anyone whom I was trying to teach about the principles >> of computing or how systems work. > > Well, the assembly class did come after two semesters of the other > languages, and it did begin by presuming you "knew how to program" in > the general sense. But yes, indeed, a weird CPU and assembler as > compared to other microprocessors that I was used to at the time. > >> And the PPUs code? That's worse than IBM channel controller stuff. >> I'm sorry you had to do that. --scott > > Thankfully they didn't expect us to make use of the PPU stuff. They > just had us essentially cause an abort and effectively a Cyber core > dump and that was what we turned in for our "execution runs", with > circles around the hex (or was it octal?) digits in the dump that were > the "answers". I didn't question the "logic" of it, I just turned in > what they wanted to see. And although a 'weird' CPU to program, > actually making the code perform whatever the assigned task they wanted > wasn't hard, provided one knew how to program in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but despite all the idiosyncrasy of the tools and equipment you worked with, I would say---as it seems pretty clear from your very posts here---that the educational opportunities you got did their job pretty well. And the fact that you had to know how to program is still an unsolved problem today, not any failure from the institution you were at the time. When I look at almost any programming textbook, I see the problem is still open. Perhaps the book How to Design Programs Matthias Felleisen, Robert Bruce Findler, Matthew Flatt and Shriram Krishnamurthi MIT Press, 2014, URL https://htdp.org is the only meaningful candidate to a solution---as far as I have looked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 17:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpq5ui$36lja$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26754 |
Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: > Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > >> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: >>> In article <vpo4uc$2omvt$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >>>>I had (if memory serves) at least one Pascal class, one Fortran class, >>>>and an assembler (CDC Cyber 7000 - a really weird CPU on the inside) >>>>class, all required classes for Engineering. Pascal class was trivial >>>>(had already done plenty of UCSD Pascal on Apple II in high-school) so >>>>just had to adjust to the small difference in the CDC Cyber Pascal we >>>>were using. Fortran was similarly trivial, but oh did I come to hate >>>>Fortran in the end. Just had to learn the "fortranisms", as I already >>>>understood the over-arching "how to program" aspects. The assembler >>>>class was also itself trivial (had done loads of 6502 assembler by this >>>>point, and some 8086 assembler, provided one considered DOS's debug an >>>>'assembler' of sorts). Just had to "learn the language" rather than >>>>the "how to program" part. >>> >>> That's pretty unusual. The reason why Fortran is a good thing is because >>> engineers can't be trusted with pointers. >> >> There might be that. I was there before the rise of C as the "be all" >> language, which is how I had the Pascal and Fortran classes. Five >> years later and it was all C. >> >>> And COMPASS? That's a very very strange assembler to teach.... >> >> It was the timeshare system the university had for students. They had >> a Cyber 7600 and a Cyber 8600, I only ever had accounts on the 7600. >> But since it was the system they used, Compass (I'd forgotten that >> name, but that was it) was the assembler. >> >>> I went to gatech which had Cyber machines which the CS folks avoided >>> like the plague. COMPASS is not exactly a normal assembler and has a >>> lot of fast-float-performance craziness... it is not something I'd >>> really teach anyone whom I was trying to teach about the principles >>> of computing or how systems work. >> >> Well, the assembly class did come after two semesters of the other >> languages, and it did begin by presuming you "knew how to program" in >> the general sense. But yes, indeed, a weird CPU and assembler as >> compared to other microprocessors that I was used to at the time. >> >>> And the PPUs code? That's worse than IBM channel controller stuff. >>> I'm sorry you had to do that. --scott >> >> Thankfully they didn't expect us to make use of the PPU stuff. They >> just had us essentially cause an abort and effectively a Cyber core >> dump and that was what we turned in for our "execution runs", with >> circles around the hex (or was it octal?) digits in the dump that were >> the "answers". I didn't question the "logic" of it, I just turned in >> what they wanted to see. And although a 'weird' CPU to program, >> actually making the code perform whatever the assigned task they wanted >> wasn't hard, provided one knew how to program in the first place. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but despite all the idiosyncrasy of the tools > and equipment you worked with, I would say---as it seems pretty clear > from your very posts here---that the educational opportunities you got > did their job pretty well. Yes, that is a correct statement. > And the fact that you had to know how to program is still an unsolved > problem today, not any failure from the institution you were at the > time. Yes, very much indeed. And I wasn't saying so to downplay the university. The courses had prerequisites, you *were* presumed to have the necessary prerequisites before starting the current course, which is as it should be. And, indeed, for those of us who entered the course with the proper prerequisite knowledge, the actual course was not in and of itself difficult. One had to adjust to the new idiosyncrasies of the 'thing' used by that course, but that's just true for everything. > When I look at almost any programming textbook, I see the problem > is still open. Perhaps the book > > How to Design Programs > Matthias Felleisen, Robert Bruce Findler, > Matthew Flatt and Shriram Krishnamurthi > MIT Press, 2014, URL https://htdp.org > > is the only meaningful candidate to a solution---as far as I have > looked. Am not familiar with this book, but I do agree with your assessment that the problem is still open (and, honestly, may just be getting worse for newer students). By far too many "programming" classes amount to "learn the nouns and verbs of language X plus learn the 'word ordering' for that language X". But they simply don't touch on the underlying concept of "how to program". Which is quite a different problem from "how to express known algorithm X in language Y", which is what far too many programming classes turn into. The fact that most programming classes are the equivalent of "how to use msword to format an already written book" vs. "how to actually write a new never before written novel" is a big part of the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 18:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vpqtu0$cv5$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26742 |
In article <vpol5t$2r3ql$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: > >> And COMPASS? That's a very very strange assembler to teach.... > >It was the timeshare system the university had for students. They had >a Cyber 7600 and a Cyber 8600, I only ever had accounts on the 7600. >But since it was the system they used, Compass (I'd forgotten that >name, but that was it) was the assembler. gatech used the Cybers to teach an emulated assembler... first they used Donald Knuth's idealized machine, then later an 8080 emulator. Much easier to teach than a 60-bit assembler with pipeline issues. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-28 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vptain$3rkvs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26778 |
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: > In article <vpol5t$2r3ql$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: >> >>> And COMPASS? That's a very very strange assembler to teach.... >> >>It was the timeshare system the university had for students. They had >>a Cyber 7600 and a Cyber 8600, I only ever had accounts on the 7600. >>But since it was the system they used, Compass (I'd forgotten that >>name, but that was it) was the assembler. > > gatech used the Cybers to teach an emulated assembler... first they used > Donald Knuth's idealized machine, then later an 8080 emulator. Much easier > to teach than a 60-bit assembler with pipeline issues. Indeed yes. I, however, was not so lucky. I got the full 60-bit experience with the official assembler. And it was a weird CPU as compared to writing 6502 code. Move addresses to an address register, wait the requisite number of cycles, and a data fetch from memory at that address magically appears in the corresponding data register. Quite oddball vs. lda $0602. I acclimated to the oddness and got an A from the course, but damn if that CPU wasn't weird six ways from Sunday.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 22:03 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87h64gi4gu.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26728 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: >> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: >>> >>>We also have a bunch of IT programs which are really business school >>>programs with some computing added. I think those are pretty much >>>worthless, but they get a lot of students. >> >> Oh, and I will say that most of the students that I deal with >> personally are not CS students at all but engineering students. They >> get one programming class, usually in Matlab, and no basic computer >> literacy stuff at all. > > Just one programming class..... in Matlab??? For Engineering. Ugh. > > I had (if memory serves) at least one Pascal class, one Fortran class, > and an assembler (CDC Cyber 7000 - a really weird CPU on the inside) > class, all required classes for Engineering. Pascal class was trivial > (had already done plenty of UCSD Pascal on Apple II in high-school) so > just had to adjust to the small difference in the CDC Cyber Pascal we > were using. Fortran was similarly trivial, but oh did I come to hate > Fortran in the end. Just had to learn the "fortranisms", as I already > understood the over-arching "how to program" aspects. The assembler > class was also itself trivial (had done loads of 6502 assembler by this > point, and some 8086 assembler, provided one considered DOS's debug an > 'assembler' of sorts). Just had to "learn the language" rather than > the "how to program" part. > > But, /just/ matlab. That is so wrong on so many levels. I know of a leading university that gives all engineering students (all of them), two courses on Python. The first course is just so students get a minimum of the Python syntax---of course, the course design calls it ``how to program''. The second half of the year is to learn the very basics of the so-called OOP and then some packages such as numpy, scipy and matplotlib are *introduced*. And what do we see in these courses? Nearly all engineering students consider them accessory to their degrees and so they try to ignore these courses to the maximum because they need to work on calculus and physics. And I can't blame them: these courses are totally uninteresting. I would have done the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 03:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpom6p$2r3ql$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26740 |
Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: > Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > >> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: >>> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>We also have a bunch of IT programs which are really business school >>>>programs with some computing added. I think those are pretty much >>>>worthless, but they get a lot of students. >>> >>> Oh, and I will say that most of the students that I deal with >>> personally are not CS students at all but engineering students. They >>> get one programming class, usually in Matlab, and no basic computer >>> literacy stuff at all. >> >> Just one programming class..... in Matlab??? For Engineering. Ugh. >> >> I had (if memory serves) at least one Pascal class, one Fortran class, >> and an assembler (CDC Cyber 7000 - a really weird CPU on the inside) >> class, all required classes for Engineering. Pascal class was trivial >> (had already done plenty of UCSD Pascal on Apple II in high-school) so >> just had to adjust to the small difference in the CDC Cyber Pascal we >> were using. Fortran was similarly trivial, but oh did I come to hate >> Fortran in the end. Just had to learn the "fortranisms", as I already >> understood the over-arching "how to program" aspects. The assembler >> class was also itself trivial (had done loads of 6502 assembler by this >> point, and some 8086 assembler, provided one considered DOS's debug an >> 'assembler' of sorts). Just had to "learn the language" rather than >> the "how to program" part. >> >> But, /just/ matlab. That is so wrong on so many levels. > > I know of a leading university that gives all engineering students (all > of them), two courses on Python. The first course is just so students > get a minimum of the Python syntax---of course, the course design calls > it ``how to program''. The second half of the year is to learn the very > basics of the so-called OOP and then some packages such as numpy, scipy > and matplotlib are *introduced*. Sigh, no wonder the 'newer grads' all seem to either be unable to program, or can /only/ program by barely stringin existing libraries together. If there isn't a library to do "x", don't bother asking them to write a program to do "x" (no matter how simple "x" might actually be). > And what do we see in these courses? Nearly all engineering students > consider them accessory to their degrees and so they try to ignore these > courses to the maximum because they need to work on calculus and physics. > > And I can't blame them: these courses are totally uninteresting. I > would have done the same. I treated the programming classes as my variant of the "basket weaving" class. The easy A where one got to relax vs. the other engineering classes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 15:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7e42f157-3281-55b7-8c6a-44d3f0c67f99@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26740 |
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > >> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: >>> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> We also have a bunch of IT programs which are really business school >>>> programs with some computing added. I think those are pretty much >>>> worthless, but they get a lot of students. >>> >>> Oh, and I will say that most of the students that I deal with >>> personally are not CS students at all but engineering students. They >>> get one programming class, usually in Matlab, and no basic computer >>> literacy stuff at all. >> >> Just one programming class..... in Matlab??? For Engineering. Ugh. >> >> I had (if memory serves) at least one Pascal class, one Fortran class, >> and an assembler (CDC Cyber 7000 - a really weird CPU on the inside) >> class, all required classes for Engineering. Pascal class was trivial >> (had already done plenty of UCSD Pascal on Apple II in high-school) so >> just had to adjust to the small difference in the CDC Cyber Pascal we >> were using. Fortran was similarly trivial, but oh did I come to hate >> Fortran in the end. Just had to learn the "fortranisms", as I already >> understood the over-arching "how to program" aspects. The assembler >> class was also itself trivial (had done loads of 6502 assembler by this >> point, and some 8086 assembler, provided one considered DOS's debug an >> 'assembler' of sorts). Just had to "learn the language" rather than >> the "how to program" part. >> >> But, /just/ matlab. That is so wrong on so many levels. > > I know of a leading university that gives all engineering students (all > of them), two courses on Python. The first course is just so students > get a minimum of the Python syntax---of course, the course design calls > it ``how to program''. The second half of the year is to learn the very > basics of the so-called OOP and then some packages such as numpy, scipy > and matplotlib are *introduced*. > > And what do we see in these courses? Nearly all engineering students > consider them accessory to their degrees and so they try to ignore these > courses to the maximum because they need to work on calculus and physics. > > And I can't blame them: these courses are totally uninteresting. I > would have done the same. > OOP, yuck! It never worked well for me. ;) On the other hand, I never worked as a professional programmer. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 12:36 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87ikov9z89.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26766 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: [...] >> And I can't blame them: these courses are totally uninteresting. I >> would have done the same. > > OOP, yuck! It never worked well for me. ;) On the other hand, I never > worked as a professional programmer. ;) Lucky you. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 21:55 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87plj4i4tc.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26719 |
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: > D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >> >>This was a painful read. =( I thought I saw this due to the fact that I >>teach at the vocational school level and not university level. Are yo >>useriously telling me that this b.s. goes one (and comes out of) the >>university level? > > In the US there is not so much of a clear distinction between college, > university, and trade school. We have for-profit trade schools that > now call themselves universities, and colleges with full university > programs. > > I can think of a number of places that call themselves universities that > have CS programs that are basically programming programs... they exist > to teach kids to write code so they can get a job and only teach the > currently popular buzzwords and have no actual CS anywhere. > > I can think of one place that calls itself a college which has a CS > program that is almost entirely theoretical... lots of proofs and lots > of algorithm analysis. Enough programming to be useful but it's expected > students will learn that on their own. A full year of graph theory, two > years of continuous mathematics. > > And there is a standard ACM curriculum and there are places that follow it, > but there are a whole lot of places that don't. I think the ACM curriculum > is very balanced between theory and practice and includes things like an > assembler class and a digital logic class which are not themselves useful > but which need to be taught in order to explain just what a computer actually > is. > > But all of these places call themselves CS programs even though they have > a huge diversity in what they actually teach. > > We also have a bunch of IT programs which are really business school programs > with some computing added. I think those are pretty much worthless, but they > get a lot of students. There's a lot of truth here. I'm printing your article to show someone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 14:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dfc6bc27-b444-72b8-0e74-ee9fc6551cd6@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26719 |
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >> >> This was a painful read. =( I thought I saw this due to the fact that I >> teach at the vocational school level and not university level. Are yo >> useriously telling me that this b.s. goes one (and comes out of) the >> university level? > > In the US there is not so much of a clear distinction between college, > university, and trade school. We have for-profit trade schools that > now call themselves universities, and colleges with full university > programs. > I can think of a number of places that call themselves universities that > have CS programs that are basically programming programs... they exist > to teach kids to write code so they can get a job and only teach the > currently popular buzzwords and have no actual CS anywhere. Ahh... I did not know that! Sounds very confusing and like you have to be very careful about the school you choose in order not to get tricked with 4 years of B.S. > I can think of one place that calls itself a college which has a CS > program that is almost entirely theoretical... lots of proofs and lots > of algorithm analysis. Enough programming to be useful but it's expected > students will learn that on their own. A full year of graph theory, two > years of continuous mathematics. > > And there is a standard ACM curriculum and there are places that follow it, > but there are a whole lot of places that don't. I think the ACM curriculum > is very balanced between theory and practice and includes things like an > assembler class and a digital logic class which are not themselves useful > but which need to be taught in order to explain just what a computer actually > is. This sounds like my all engineering program. It had physics, math, discrete mathematics, analog and digital electronics, digital logic, assembler, java. The idea was to build from the ground up, learn to string nand gates together, then move to assembler, then to java and algorithms, and after that the specializations started so it depended on if you wanted to continue the low level programming, mid-level, or high level "fluff". > But all of these places call themselves CS programs even though they have > a huge diversity in what they actually teach. > > We also have a bunch of IT programs which are really business school programs > with some computing added. I think those are pretty much worthless, but they > get a lot of students. I think maybe those programs try to sell that you can get a nice FAANG job with 300k starting salary with very little effort. ;) > --scott >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpq63t$36lja$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26759 |
D <nospam@example.net> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote: >> We also have a bunch of IT programs which are really business school >> programs with some computing added. I think those are pretty much >> worthless, but they get a lot of students. > > I think maybe those programs try to sell that you can get a nice > FAANG job with 300k starting salary with very little effort. ;) Those are also the same "puppy farms" that curn out developers who only know how to string together calling already written libraries to do various tasks. But ask them to do something for which they can't find an already created library, and they are hopelessly lost.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web