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 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-24 17:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpibp6$19inr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26634 |
D <nospam@example.net> wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >>> This is very interesting! What was it that the student thought was >>> crazy complicated compared with git? >> >> Not compared to git. They did not get to see git. They just hated >> fossil to the point of almost giving up on the whole course >> altogether. Very likely they knew that other courses would give >> them the same credits and they could try it afresh on the next >> semester. > > Ahh, got it! Yes, sadly this happens to me as well. At the > slightest hint of difficulty or effort, about 20% of the class riots, > complains to the school that the teacher is evil, that the difficulty > level should be lowered etc. The result of 20+ years of "everyone gets a participation trophy, and no winners are declared" parenting..... > They do not realize, that the only ones they are cheating by doing > that are themselves. They lack the wisdom that comes with age to recognize this fact. Some of them will wise up early enough to be able to succeed. The rest will be set for "table waitress with master's degree" careers. > The sad thing is that business owners (including myself) have noted a > dramatic drop in skill from graduates over the past 3-4 years. One > reason is that the government has changed the funding of the schools, > rewarding schools that pass all students. So of course, the schools > pass all students, since it means more money for them (they are paid > by the government upon graduation) and you get the situation where > awful students graduate, and now, where companies no longer hire > them. Pass them all along has been more the norm here in the US for a quite long time, as it is easier to just push them up (then out) than it is to actually try to devote the time to find out how to educate them. The result is huge numbers of table waitresses with master's degrees. > Usually in order to buck the trend somewhat, I make my first course > more difficult in order to get rid of the unmotivated ones. If I > don't have the first course of the semester, the following 1-2 are > pure hell, since the bad ones remain and complain about everything, > but after 1-2 semesters they usually quit. It is just sad that I > could not make them realize this after 3 weeks, and instead they > waste 1-2 semesters. But such is life. Provided you can withstand the heat, this is the best option. Clear out the ones unfit as early as possible. I still remember the carnage of the freshman Engineering courses when I went through. Began with 120+ students per lecture. End of each of both semeters could see the shrinkage. Start of second year and more than half were no longer anywhere to be seen in the courses. Sadly, I can only imagine what kind of complaints would be going to the dean's office now 40 years later for such carniage in the first year. >> This experience gave me the following feeling---they ask for >> real-world, pratical experience, but they're not up to an >> introduction to the tools used in the real-world. > > True. But from time to time it is fun to see when they really "get" > the terminal. It's such an eye opening experience for them, and > they, themselves become completely amazed at what they can do with a > computer all of a sudden! One guy told me he had no idea and it was > amazing the day he understood the terminal concept. He went on to > become a rock star! Those students are what makes it worth it for > me. And he was someone who *should* have been in that course. Many of the others were likely only present because they had been told the degree was a magic paper towards a big salary (while omitting that they have to know what the F they are doing for the magic paper to gain them the big salary).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-24 23:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9bcfb2ac-e6a8-5beb-ee92-4db31542107e@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26645 |
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025, Rich wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 23 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> >>>> This is very interesting! What was it that the student thought was >>>> crazy complicated compared with git? >>> >>> Not compared to git. They did not get to see git. They just hated >>> fossil to the point of almost giving up on the whole course >>> altogether. Very likely they knew that other courses would give >>> them the same credits and they could try it afresh on the next >>> semester. >> >> Ahh, got it! Yes, sadly this happens to me as well. At the >> slightest hint of difficulty or effort, about 20% of the class riots, >> complains to the school that the teacher is evil, that the difficulty >> level should be lowered etc. > > The result of 20+ years of "everyone gets a participation trophy, and > no winners are declared" parenting..... This is the truth! You are a philosopher king! In sweden, they stopped scoring goals in football for children. When I was a child, and you were bad at foot ball, you sat on the bench. Then you found another sport that you actually had some aptitude for. Much better system if you ask me, and also an experience that teaches valuable life lessons early! >> They do not realize, that the only ones they are cheating by doing >> that are themselves. > > They lack the wisdom that comes with age to recognize this fact. Some > of them will wise up early enough to be able to succeed. The rest will > be set for "table waitress with master's degree" careers. True! >> The sad thing is that business owners (including myself) have noted a >> dramatic drop in skill from graduates over the past 3-4 years. One >> reason is that the government has changed the funding of the schools, >> rewarding schools that pass all students. So of course, the schools >> pass all students, since it means more money for them (they are paid >> by the government upon graduation) and you get the situation where >> awful students graduate, and now, where companies no longer hire >> them. > > Pass them all along has been more the norm here in the US for a quite > long time, as it is easier to just push them up (then out) than it is > to actually try to devote the time to find out how to educate them. > The result is huge numbers of table waitresses with master's degrees. Again, this is the truth! >> Usually in order to buck the trend somewhat, I make my first course >> more difficult in order to get rid of the unmotivated ones. If I >> don't have the first course of the semester, the following 1-2 are >> pure hell, since the bad ones remain and complain about everything, >> but after 1-2 semesters they usually quit. It is just sad that I >> could not make them realize this after 3 weeks, and instead they >> waste 1-2 semesters. But such is life. > > Provided you can withstand the heat, this is the best option. Clear Amen! I started to study engineering, and I could not stand the heat. I discovered that physics and math was extremely boring. I could push through by sheer force of will, but after 1 years I realized... why? Wouldn't it be better to study something I actually enjoyed? So I switched to IT and philosophy, and lo and behold! Since I was interested in it, it didn't even feel like it was hard. I just sailed through! I feel sorry for the ones who suffered through 2.5 years of math to get 1 year of computer science at the end. > out the ones unfit as early as possible. I still remember the carnage > of the freshman Engineering courses when I went through. Began with > 120+ students per lecture. End of each of both semeters could see the > shrinkage. Start of second year and more than half were no longer > anywhere to be seen in the courses. Sadly, I can only imagine what > kind of complaints would be going to the dean's office now 40 years > later for such carniage in the first year. Severe complaints! The cruel irony is... do a good job at a school, and you'll be kicked out for failing too many students. This has happened to me. My revenge was when the school told me... you know, there is something very strange with your program. I said... what? The students who graduate from your program, all have jobs in IT, and their salaries are all way above the average starting salary. But your program is the program where 40% drop out. In our other programs, 100% graudate. But only 50% work in IT, and they have very low salaries. I cannot understand how they could not see cause an effect. >>> This experience gave me the following feeling---they ask for >>> real-world, pratical experience, but they're not up to an >>> introduction to the tools used in the real-world. >> >> True. But from time to time it is fun to see when they really "get" >> the terminal. It's such an eye opening experience for them, and >> they, themselves become completely amazed at what they can do with a >> computer all of a sudden! One guy told me he had no idea and it was >> amazing the day he understood the terminal concept. He went on to >> become a rock star! Those students are what makes it worth it for >> me. > > And he was someone who *should* have been in that course. Many of the > others were likely only present because they had been told the degree > was a magic paper towards a big salary (while omitting that they have > to know what the F they are doing for the magic paper to gain them the > big salary). Haha... yes, reminds me of one of my teachers at a school, and on the first day they had an open question session. One arabian gentleman asked... "Hey you... what's the salary? Will I be rich when I'm done?" The teacher: I'm X, you can call me X, that's perfectly fine." He: "What ever... what's the money?" The teacker: Sigh.... "if you are good, you earn well, if you are bad, find another program." The student looked dissatisfied with the answer. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-24 23:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpiup6$1g0vt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26653 |
D <nospam@example.net> wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2025, Rich wrote: > >> D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 23 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> >>>>> This is very interesting! What was it that the student thought was >>>>> crazy complicated compared with git? >>>> >>>> Not compared to git. They did not get to see git. They just hated >>>> fossil to the point of almost giving up on the whole course >>>> altogether. Very likely they knew that other courses would give >>>> them the same credits and they could try it afresh on the next >>>> semester. >>> >>> Ahh, got it! Yes, sadly this happens to me as well. At the >>> slightest hint of difficulty or effort, about 20% of the class riots, >>> complains to the school that the teacher is evil, that the difficulty >>> level should be lowered etc. >> >> The result of 20+ years of "everyone gets a participation trophy, and >> no winners are declared" parenting..... > > This is the truth! You are a philosopher king! In sweden, they stopped > scoring goals in football for children. When I was a child, and you were > bad at foot ball, you sat on the bench. Then you found another sport that > you actually had some aptitude for. Much better system if you ask me, and > also an experience that teaches valuable life lessons early! Fail to learn that the real world is an unforgiving mistress, and you will be constantly at odds with reality forever. The "no score, everybody wins" method just breeds an enormous amount of snowflakes that expect everything handled to them on a silver platter. Sadly, life hands you nothing unless you work to get it. >>> Usually in order to buck the trend somewhat, I make my first course >>> more difficult in order to get rid of the unmotivated ones. If I >>> don't have the first course of the semester, the following 1-2 are >>> pure hell, since the bad ones remain and complain about everything, >>> but after 1-2 semesters they usually quit. It is just sad that I >>> could not make them realize this after 3 weeks, and instead they >>> waste 1-2 semesters. But such is life. >> >> Provided you can withstand the heat, this is the best option. Clear > > Amen! I started to study engineering, and I could not stand the heat. I > discovered that physics and math was extremely boring. I could push > through by sheer force of will, but after 1 years I realized... why? > Wouldn't it be better to study something I actually enjoyed? I enjoyed Engineering, so most of the classes were /easy/ (relative measure, University Physics was significantly harder than high school Physics -- we covered all year from HS in the first month, then set off into uncharted territory) from my perspective. Calculus classes were terrible, largely due to awful professors (Indian, thick accents, spoke 250wpm, wrote on board at 400wpm, skipped writing the 13 critically important intermediate steps in between each line that did get written on the board because they were trivially obvious *to the professor*). Electromagnetic Theory was the other one that was 'ugh', but a lot of that was that it was almost "calculus 4" in disguise. >> out the ones unfit as early as possible. I still remember the carnage >> of the freshman Engineering courses when I went through. Began with >> 120+ students per lecture. End of each of both semeters could see the >> shrinkage. Start of second year and more than half were no longer >> anywhere to be seen in the courses. Sadly, I can only imagine what >> kind of complaints would be going to the dean's office now 40 years >> later for such carniage in the first year. > > Severe complaints! The cruel irony is... do a good job at a school, and > you'll be kicked out for failing too many students. This has happened to > me. > > My revenge was when the school told me... you know, there is something > very strange with your program. I said... what? > > The students who graduate from your program, all have jobs in IT, and > their salaries are all way above the average starting salary. > > But your program is the program where 40% drop out. > > In our other programs, 100% graudate. But only 50% work in IT, and they > have very low salaries. > > I cannot understand how they could not see cause an effect. It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Their (the admin's) performance measure was "number passed out", not "percent earning above average salary in job related to degree". >>> True. But from time to time it is fun to see when they really >>> "get" the terminal. It's such an eye opening experience for them, >>> and they, themselves become completely amazed at what they can do >>> with a computer all of a sudden! One guy told me he had no idea >>> and it was amazing the day he understood the terminal concept. He >>> went on to become a rock star! Those students are what makes it >>> worth it for me. >> >> And he was someone who *should* have been in that course. Many of >> the others were likely only present because they had been told the >> degree was a magic paper towards a big salary (while omitting that >> they have to know what the F they are doing for the magic paper to >> gain them the big salary). > > Haha... yes, reminds me of one of my teachers at a school, and on > the first day they had an open question session. One arabian > gentleman asked... > > "Hey you... what's the salary? Will I be rich when I'm done?" > > The teacher: I'm X, you can call me X, that's perfectly fine." > > He: "What ever... what's the money?" > > The teacker: Sigh.... "if you are good, you earn well, if you are > bad, find another program." > > The student looked dissatisfied with the answer. ;) Likely a royal prince or duke or some other such 'secondary royal family member' who's been pampered and such his entire life, and so has no basis for understanding how the world really works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-25 11:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <abf647e9-0790-6f09-e48c-5456fd3ef847@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26655 |
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025, Rich wrote: >> >> This is the truth! You are a philosopher king! In sweden, they stopped >> scoring goals in football for children. When I was a child, and you were >> bad at foot ball, you sat on the bench. Then you found another sport that >> you actually had some aptitude for. Much better system if you ask me, and >> also an experience that teaches valuable life lessons early! > > Fail to learn that the real world is an unforgiving mistress, and you > will be constantly at odds with reality forever. The "no score, > everybody wins" method just breeds an enormous amount of snowflakes > that expect everything handled to them on a silver platter. Sadly, > life hands you nothing unless you work to get it. This is the truth! I try to impart this lesson to my students, but sadly I don't see them often enough or long enough to make the lesson stick. They are also a bit too old, 20-40 (it's a vocational school so in quality probably similar to a US community college or something) so that makes it difficult to impart those important life lessons and make sure they are deeply engrained. >> Amen! I started to study engineering, and I could not stand the heat. I >> discovered that physics and math was extremely boring. I could push >> through by sheer force of will, but after 1 years I realized... why? >> Wouldn't it be better to study something I actually enjoyed? > > I enjoyed Engineering, so most of the classes were /easy/ (relative > measure, University Physics was significantly harder than high school > Physics -- we covered all year from HS in the first month, then set off > into uncharted territory) from my perspective. Calculus classes were > terrible, largely due to awful professors (Indian, thick accents, spoke > 250wpm, wrote on board at 400wpm, skipped writing the 13 critically important > intermediate steps in between each line that did get written on the > board because they were trivially obvious *to the professor*). > Electromagnetic Theory was the other one that was 'ugh', but a lot of > that was that it was almost "calculus 4" in disguise. I still get nightmares when I think about electromagnetic theory! Some people who refused to give up, found a way to game the system. They took an exchange year abroad in the US and took the equivalent class there. The good thing was that you could pass that course in the US by doing multiple-choice exams, so given enough attempts eventually they would pass it. In sweden, at the time, there were no multiple choice exams. You got a problem, did your calculations and then handed in the result + your calculations. If you took too big steps, so the teacher could not follow your logic, they could fail you on the question even if you arrived at the right answer. >> In our other programs, 100% graudate. But only 50% work in IT, and they >> have very low salaries. >> >> I cannot understand how they could not see cause an effect. > > It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary > depends upon his not understanding it. > > Their (the admin's) performance measure was "number passed out", not > "percent earning above average salary in job related to degree". Amen! >> Haha... yes, reminds me of one of my teachers at a school, and on >> the first day they had an open question session. One arabian >> gentleman asked... >> >> "Hey you... what's the salary? Will I be rich when I'm done?" >> >> The teacher: I'm X, you can call me X, that's perfectly fine." >> >> He: "What ever... what's the money?" >> >> The teacker: Sigh.... "if you are good, you earn well, if you are >> bad, find another program." >> >> The student looked dissatisfied with the answer. ;) > > Likely a royal prince or duke or some other such 'secondary royal > family member' who's been pampered and such his entire life, and so has > no basis for understanding how the world really works. Nah... more likely the son of the local al qaida terrorist. Sweden doesn't import educated arabians. Only extremist moslems are allowed to immigrate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-06 07:55 +0000 |
| Subject | education |
| Message-ID | <M7PiN8g2s4kjn2Uy@violet.siamics.net> |
| In reply to | #26645 |
>>>>> On 2025-02-24, Rich wrote: >>>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 23 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> Not compared to git. They did not get to see git. They just hated >>> fossil to the point of almost giving up on the whole course altogether. >>> Very likely they knew that other courses would give them the same >>> credits and they could try it afresh on the next semester. >> Ahh, got it! Yes, sadly this happens to me as well. At the slightest >> hint of difficulty or effort, about 20% of the class riots, complains >> to the school that the teacher is evil, that the difficulty level >> should be lowered etc. > The result of 20+ years of "everyone gets a participation trophy, and > no winners are declared" parenting..... Reminds me of our "technique of speech" (i. e., standard pronunciation and the physiology of speech; little if anything to do with, say, writing speeches) professor who just plain declared "everyone gets a credit, those not interested - out!" right at the start. So, everyone's got a credit as their "participation trophy"; those who were interested, got skills on top of that; and the professor was spared the ire of the administration. Who were the winners is, I suppose, up to debate. >> They do not realize, that the only ones they are cheating by doing >> that are themselves. > They lack the wisdom that comes with age to recognize this fact. > Some of them will wise up early enough to be able to succeed. The > rest will be set for "table waitress with master's degree" careers. And this, in turn reminds me of the decades-old "two mathematicians and a waitress" joke; see, e. g. (URI split for readability): http://web.archive.org/web/20190622112330/ http://www.math.ttu.edu/~pearce/jokes1/joke-086.html And of "My Contribution to Society" by Icicle (probably NSFW.) But the thing is, I did a number of jobs; a lecturer, a remote sensing specialist, a junior researcher, an engineer. I can imagine myself sweeping floors, though perhaps not for too long. Being a table waiter is a job that I don't find in myself the ability to do. So one of the factors that pushed me through the university was indeed the desire not to be forced to try (and likely fail) doing waiter's job for a living. Waiter's job isn't useless in my book, however, so I can admire those who /can/ do it. >> One guy told me he had no idea and it was amazing the day he >> understood the terminal concept. He went on to become a rock star! >> Those students are what makes it worth it for me. > And he was someone who *should* have been in that course. Many of the > others were likely only present because they had been told the degree > was a magic paper towards a big salary (while omitting that they have > to know what the F they are doing for the magic paper to gain them the > big salary). My impression so far has been that a lot of them were told that the degree is a magic paper towards /any/ salary at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-07 22:00 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: education |
| Message-ID | <874j04fia3.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26821 |
Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> writes: [...] > And this, in turn reminds me of the decades-old "two mathematicians > and a waitress" joke; see, e. g. (URI split for readability): > > http://web.archive.org/web/20190622112330/ > http://www.math.ttu.edu/~pearce/jokes1/joke-086.html Lol. I don't get the joke. What's up with the joke? I'm slow. The waitress has a hard-science college degree but can't get a job in her field? That's not a joke. I don't get the joke. Please explain? :) Lol. I just asked ChatGPT to explain it to me and he's saying that the joke is how academics have so little understanding of anything outside academia? That's kinda funny. If that's what the joke is about, it's even more funny because I didn't get it. Lol! One could make the case that I'm like an academic. However, I believe the reason I didn't get it is that I didn't think the situation made any sense. Although I do think that the joke could be more funny if we adjust its context. The number of college graduates who are not getting a job in their field is increasing, so this waitress could actually be an engineer herself, say. But I think an explanation is needed to why she pretended not to understand the arithmetic expression 1/3 x^3. Anyway, I didn't get the joke at all and I'm not even sure ChatGPT understood it either, but he does have a point. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-08 03:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: education |
| Message-ID | <vqgele$3rr04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26831 |
Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: > Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> writes: > > [...] > >> And this, in turn reminds me of the decades-old "two mathematicians >> and a waitress" joke; see, e. g. (URI split for readability): >> >> http://web.archive.org/web/20190622112330/ >> http://www.math.ttu.edu/~pearce/jokes1/joke-086.html > > Lol. I don't get the joke. What's up with the joke? I'm slow. The > waitress has a hard-science college degree but can't get a job in her > field? That's not a joke. I don't get the joke. Please explain? :) The joke is that the second mathematician, who should know better, gave the waitress the wrong answer to repeat. The waitress pretends to be dumb when he gives her what will be the wrong answer to his question. Then, when he asks the question, she repeats his incorrect answer flawlessly, and adds in the correction he should have known himself. I.e., the joke is that the mathematicians were not quite as "smart" as they thouoght they were.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-08 18:27 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: education |
| Message-ID | <87ikojb4bo.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26833 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >> Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> writes: >> >> [...] >> >>> And this, in turn reminds me of the decades-old "two mathematicians >>> and a waitress" joke; see, e. g. (URI split for readability): >>> >>> http://web.archive.org/web/20190622112330/ >>> http://www.math.ttu.edu/~pearce/jokes1/joke-086.html >> >> Lol. I don't get the joke. What's up with the joke? I'm slow. The >> waitress has a hard-science college degree but can't get a job in her >> field? That's not a joke. I don't get the joke. Please explain? :) > > The joke is that the second mathematician, who should know better, gave > the waitress the wrong answer to repeat. Why was it the wrong answer? Isn't (1/3) x^3 + c the integral of x^2? > The waitress pretends to be dumb when he gives her what will be the > wrong answer to his question. That's a mean waitress. > Then, when he asks the question, she repeats his incorrect answer > flawlessly, and adds in the correction he should have known himself. > > I.e., the joke is that the mathematicians were not quite as "smart" as > they thouoght they were. Then ChatGPT was right. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-09 02:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: education |
| Message-ID | <eli$2503082100@qaz.wtf> |
| In reply to | #26834 |
In comp.misc, Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: > Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: >> Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >>>> http://www.math.ttu.edu/~pearce/jokes1/joke-086.html >>> Lol. I don't get the joke. What's up with the joke? >> The joke is that the second mathematician, who should know >> better, gave the waitress the wrong answer to repeat. > > Why was it the wrong answer? Isn't > > (1/3) x^3 + c > > the integral of x^2? The answer given to the waitress, who pretended not to understand it, didn't include the +c hence was incorrect. I'd say the joke is mathematician incorrectly assumes a blonde woman can't do math. >> The waitress pretends to be dumb when he gives her what will be the >> wrong answer to his question. > That's a mean waitress. I'd say a smart waitress. >> I.e., the joke is that the mathematicians were not quite as >> "smart" as they thouoght they were. Not smart because they fall for tired stereotypes. Elijah ------ but would mathematicians really stoop to doing simple calc?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 02:58 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: education |
| Message-ID | <87a59t5sw0.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26848 |
Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes: > In comp.misc, Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: >>> Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >>>>> http://www.math.ttu.edu/~pearce/jokes1/joke-086.html >>>> Lol. I don't get the joke. What's up with the joke? >>> The joke is that the second mathematician, who should know >>> better, gave the waitress the wrong answer to repeat. >> >> Why was it the wrong answer? Isn't >> >> (1/3) x^3 + c >> >> the integral of x^2? > > The answer given to the waitress, who pretended not to understand it, > didn't include the +c hence was incorrect. > > I'd say the joke is mathematician incorrectly assumes a blonde woman > can't do math. I see. I don't like the joke. It's usual for experts to abuse language when they talk to one another, so the omission of the constant shouldn't be a problem among the two mathematicians. If the joke was to make fun at blondes, then yeah---not very funny. >>> I.e., the joke is that the mathematicians were not quite as >>> "smart" as they thouoght they were. > > Not smart because they fall for tired stereotypes. Very tired. > Elijah > ------ > but would mathematicians really stoop to doing simple calc? Didn't get your question, although I understand every word in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 18:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: education |
| Message-ID | <eli$2503101435@qaz.wtf> |
| In reply to | #26856 |
In comp.misc, Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: > Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes: >> but would mathematicians really stoop to doing simple calc? > Didn't get your question, although I understand every word in it. Calculus is for engineers and physicists, mathematicians want to be doing things that are not Solved Problems. Elijah ------ it's in the same vein as joking mathematicians can't count
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 19:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: education |
| Message-ID | <vqndk4$6tp$3@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26872 |
In article <calculus-20250310200222@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>, Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote or quoted: >>Calculus is for engineers and physicists, mathematicians want to be >>doing things that are not Solved Problems. > > The basics of calculus were hammered out ages ago, but it's still > a big deal for pushing the envelope in pure and applied math. > > These days, researchers often mash up calculus with other fields. > Take the I-functions of Calabi-Yau manifolds, for instance. > There, they're throwing calculus together with differential > equations and algebra to get a handle on geometric structures. > These matter for string theory, but still are mathematics. One should be careful not to conflate calculus with analysis. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 13:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: education |
| Message-ID | <83pEKU9qRrJ2uBIl@violet.siamics.net> |
| In reply to | #26833 |
>>>>> On 2025-03-08, Rich wrote: >>>>> Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >>>>> Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> writes: >>> http://web.archive.org/web/20190622112330/ >>> http://www.math.ttu.edu/~pearce/jokes1/joke-086.html >> Lol. I don’t get the joke. What’s up with the joke? I’m slow. The >> waitress has a hard-science college degree but can’t get a job in her >> field? That’s not a joke. I don’t get the joke. Please explain? :) The joke didn’t seem obscure to any degree to me, TBH, not requiring much context aside basic calculus knowledge, which is something I think anyone interested in CS should posess. Quite unlike, say, “For the umpteenth time, Sam! It’s not Palantír, it’s Pentium!” Or “Lysenko’s own arrogance was his undoing: he climbed a pine tree to gather apples, and was killed when ripe coconuts fell from it.” > The joke is that the second mathematician, who should know better, > gave the waitress the wrong answer to repeat. > The waitress pretends to be dumb when he gives her what will be the > wrong answer to his question. > Then, when he asks the question, she repeats his incorrect answer > flawlessly, and adds in the correction he should have known himself. The way I read it, the waitress doesn’t know the question at first, so cannot decide whether the answer she’s asked to give is correct or not. Once she does, she adds the correction. > I. e., the joke is that the mathematicians were not quite as “smart” > as they thought they were. There’s an added irony that even though the second mathematician insisted that “most people can cope with a reasonable amount of math,” he evidently didn’t quite believe it himself. A while ago, I’ve been told that a story like that happened at the university I’ve graduated from. The students were spending a break between classes outside, and so was one of the professors. Hearing them complain of how hard their (fairly basic) math was, the professor commented something along the lines of “that’s everyone’s knowledge.” So, he called a guy loitering nearby who looked like a common tramp and asked him to solve a simple algebra or calculus problem; thinking for a bit, the guy gave the correct answer. (Or something like that; my recollection of it is rather vague.) What I take from the joke is: do not underestimate average Joe. (Or Jane, as the case might be.) A sentiment that is also at the core of G. K. Chesterton’s “The Trees of Pride”, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Trees_of_Pride .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-14 11:17 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: education |
| Message-ID | <87ikobu25q.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26881 |
Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> writes: >>>>>> On 2025-03-08, Rich wrote: >>>>>> Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> writes: > > >>> http://web.archive.org/web/20190622112330/ > >>> http://www.math.ttu.edu/~pearce/jokes1/joke-086.html > > >> Lol. I don’t get the joke. What’s up with the joke? I’m slow. The > >> waitress has a hard-science college degree but can’t get a job in her > >> field? That’s not a joke. I don’t get the joke. Please explain? :) > > The joke didn’t seem obscure to any degree to me, TBH, not > requiring much context aside basic calculus knowledge, which > is something I think anyone interested in CS should posess. > > Quite unlike, say, “For the umpteenth time, Sam! It’s not > Palantír, it’s Pentium!” Or “Lysenko’s own arrogance was his > undoing: he climbed a pine tree to gather apples, and was killed > when ripe coconuts fell from it.” > > > The joke is that the second mathematician, who should know better, > > gave the waitress the wrong answer to repeat. > > > The waitress pretends to be dumb when he gives her what will be the > > wrong answer to his question. > > > Then, when he asks the question, she repeats his incorrect answer > > flawlessly, and adds in the correction he should have known himself. > > The way I read it, the waitress doesn’t know the question at > first, so cannot decide whether the answer she’s asked to give > is correct or not. Once she does, she adds the correction. > > > I. e., the joke is that the mathematicians were not quite as “smart” > > as they thought they were. > > There’s an added irony that even though the second mathematician > insisted that “most people can cope with a reasonable amount of > math,” he evidently didn’t quite believe it himself. > > A while ago, I’ve been told that a story like that happened at > the university I’ve graduated from. The students were spending > a break between classes outside, and so was one of the professors. > Hearing them complain of how hard their (fairly basic) math was, the > professor commented something along the lines of “that’s everyone’s > knowledge.” So, he called a guy loitering nearby who looked like > a common tramp and asked him to solve a simple algebra or calculus > problem; thinking for a bit, the guy gave the correct answer. > > (Or something like that; my recollection of it is rather vague.) > > What I take from the joke is: do not underestimate average Joe. > (Or Jane, as the case might be.) A sentiment that is also at > the core of G. K. Chesterton’s “The Trees of Pride”, > http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Trees_of_Pride . Thanks---I think that's the more sane interpretation of the joke. Don't underestimate people. Even though one of the mathematicians tacitly considered people more intellectually prepared than the other mathematician claimed, it seems both would be surprised with the answer. But, finally, I think the joke is pretty bad---unless we make the waitress into a joker herself. If she knows the antiderivative of x^2, she surely wouldn't have any trouble understanding the expression 1/3 x^3, violating the facts narrated in the joke. But if she's well-educated in the topic, she could easily come up with a joke herself on the spot. (And there's a statistician joke in here as well about sample size; and another about how fraud and corruption and so on. So, yeah, I think the joke is pretty bad.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-25 19:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vplm9g$bh8$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26619 |
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!" 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. 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 -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 02:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vplt32$291gd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26697 |
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> 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!" You can blame the latter on phones and to some extent the latest MS/Apple GUI's, which go very much out of their way to hide the entire concept of a heirarchial filesystem from users. Phones take it to the next level, your "files" just are, and many phones make it all but impossible to find out where "are" is located on the actual underlying filesystem. The prior can also largely be blamed on modern GUI OS'es. They've reached the point where the unknowing can make use of a computer without ever needing a command line at any point. > 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. Ugh, yeah, that's bad, and one wonders just what their classes were to make it all the way to PhD and yet know so little. > 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. Yes, letting users GUIize themselves for too long and they can be almost hopelessly lost.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 09:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vpnalf$2jup7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26698 |
On 2/25/25 8:08 PM, Rich wrote: > > The prior can also largely be blamed on modern GUI OS'es. They've > reached the point where the unknowing can make use of a computer > without ever needing a command line at any point. Which meant that computer hardware and software vendors could thus market their wares to a much larger consumer audience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 18:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87r03kicin.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #26712 |
D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes:
> On 2/25/25 8:08 PM, Rich wrote:
>
>> The prior can also largely be blamed on modern GUI OS'es. They've
>> reached the point where the unknowing can make use of a computer
>> without ever needing a command line at any point.
>
> Which meant that computer hardware and software vendors could thus
> market their wares to a much larger consumer audience.
Just so. But doesn't address the bizarre observation that PhDs in
computer-related domains are utterly unaware of the command line.
The command line is like language.
The GUI is like shopping.
Reports from a very different domain (sorry, I forget the URLs) are
to the effect that university-level teachers of language & literature
find that students are wholly unprepared to read whole, long novels.
They just don't get it. Somehow, despite having reached postsecondary
level, they don't have the attention span -- or can't call up the
intellectual resources to invoke the attention span -- to read
attentively something that goes on for a few hundred pages.
A friend and fellow blacksmith -- sadly now deceased -- was very bright
and very skilled but recounted an experience from high school.
Assigned to read a novel -- I forget but I think it was Count of Monte
Christo -- he just couldn't get through it. So he bought the Coles
Notes (or similar) version and still ran aground. Then he happened
on the comic book version, bought and read that, got a passing grade on
the review he had to write.
All well. There are differing kinds of intelligence and his strength
lay in spatial relations and tangible physical forms, not language.
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.
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.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 21:46 -0300 |
| Subject | the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) |
| Message-ID | <87bjuojjsv.fsf_-_@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26726 |
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes: > D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes: > >> On 2/25/25 8:08 PM, Rich wrote: >> >>> The prior can also largely be blamed on modern GUI OS'es. They've >>> reached the point where the unknowing can make use of a computer >>> without ever needing a command line at any point. >> >> Which meant that computer hardware and software vendors could thus >> market their wares to a much larger consumer audience. > > Just so. But doesn't address the bizarre observation that PhDs in > computer-related domains are utterly unaware of the command line. > > The command line is like language. > > The GUI is like shopping. > > Reports from a very different domain (sorry, I forget the URLs) are > to the effect that university-level teachers of language & literature > find that students are wholly unprepared to read whole, long novels. > They just don't get it. Somehow, despite having reached postsecondary > level, they don't have the attention span -- or can't call up the > intellectual resources to invoke the attention span -- to read > attentively something that goes on for a few hundred pages. > > A friend and fellow blacksmith -- sadly now deceased -- was very bright > and very skilled but recounted an experience from high school. > Assigned to read a novel -- I forget but I think it was Count of Monte > Christo -- he just couldn't get through it. So he bought the Coles > Notes (or similar) version and still ran aground. Then he happened > on the comic book version, bought and read that, got a passing grade on > the review he had to write. > > All well. There are differing kinds of intelligence and his strength > lay in spatial relations and tangible physical forms, not language. > > 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. > > 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'm sorry for a follow-up with very little to add, but you really said everything. The command line is language. And, yes, it turns out we have an entire population who don't master much language at all. And I equate language with thinking. If you're thinking, you're using language. I think of calculational steps, for example, as sentence rewriting. For example, how do we solve the equation x^2 - 3x + 2 = 0? We first rewrite it to (x - 1)(x - 2) = 0. It's as if we're saying---I don't know how to solve the problem, but I know how to rewrite it. And then I do some more rewriting to the point that the rewriting falls under the so-called solution. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 03:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) |
| Message-ID | <87mse7j134.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #26736 |
Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> writes: > Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes: > >> [snip] >> The command line is like language. >> >> The GUI is like shopping. >> >> Reports from a very different domain (sorry, I forget the URLs) are >> to the effect that university-level teachers of language & literature >> find that students are wholly unprepared to read whole, long novels. >> They just don't get it. Somehow, despite having reached postsecondary >> level, they don't have the attention span -- or can't call up the >> intellectual resources to invoke the attention span -- to read >> attentively something that goes on for a few hundred pages. >> >> [snip] > > I'm sorry for a follow-up with very little to add, but you really said > everything. Thank you. > The command line is language. And, yes, it turns out we > have an entire population who don't master much language at all. And I > equate language with thinking. I think language is what determined that homo became and remains sapiens. A vast corpus of neuroscience hasn't unravelled how language originated or why other animals with complex brains don't have it. Unless you're going to fall back on something mystical like "eternal souls", language is what makes us what we are. > 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. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web