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 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 19:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vpquk7$np9$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26772 |
In article <vpq63t$36lja$2@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >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. This is true...BUT those developers are getting highly-paid jobs stringing together library calls that they don't understand. Just like they were promised. And then WE have to deal with the issues their code creates. >But ask them to do something for which they can't find an already >created library, and they are hopelessly lost. I was told by an interviewee that it is much faster to do a sort in Java than C because in Java it only takes one line of code whereas in C it takes many lines of code. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-01 15:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpv7pn$90c0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26780 |
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: > In article <vpq63t$36lja$2@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >>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. > > This is true...BUT those developers are getting highly-paid jobs stringing > together library calls that they don't understand. Just like they were > promised. And then WE have to deal with the issues their code creates. Sad but true. I've seen the direct result of that at $job. And the time (i.e. cost) "we" spend finding and cleaning up the problems far outstrips the cost of a better dev. who knew what they were actually doing being paid more up front to write the code correctly from the start. >>But ask them to do something for which they can't find an already >>created library, and they are hopelessly lost. > > I was told by an interviewee that it is much faster to do a sort in > Java than C because in Java it only takes one line of code whereas in > C it takes many lines of code. Ugh.... Complete misunderstanding of the intended meaning of 'faster' by that one there. Hopefully that one got passed over....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-01 11:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <28a3e89f-141f-5300-98c9-77f10424a879@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26772 |
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Rich wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote: >>> We also have a bunch of IT programs which are really business school >>> programs with some computing added. I think those are pretty much >>> worthless, but they get a lot of students. >> >> I think maybe those programs try to sell that you can get a nice >> FAANG job with 300k starting salary with very little effort. ;) > > Those are also the same "puppy farms" that curn out developers who only > know how to string together calling already written libraries to do > various tasks. > > But ask them to do something for which they can't find an already > created library, and they are hopelessly lost. Makes sense. Those type of programmers I think are the ones who will suffer the most when AI:s becoming better at generating simple code snippets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-01 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpvcod$a2fl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26794 |
D <nospam@example.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Rich wrote: > >> 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. > > Makes sense. Those type of programmers I think are the ones who will > suffer the most when AI:s becoming better at generating simple code > snippets. Very true. They clearly are the 'expendable' ones, as the AI's will be able to string library calls together just as poorly as they do so now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 21:52 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87wmdci4yw.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26702 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > 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? I'm afraid it is. > 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. =( Perhaps the crowd that's brilliant is a minority that hasn't changed much compared the previous times. (Perhaps it has.) Just because a lot of people are joining university and coming out of them pretty clueless, it doesn't mean that we've reduced that small group that carries the rest of the world on their shoulders. Perhaps this group is still the same percent compared to the last centuries. (Just guessing hypotheses here.) But I think you're totally right in that we've entered a period where we have a lot of people who are completely wasting their degrees, specially in an area such as computer science. I could be wrong, but it seems that computer science is housing a lot of nonsense. I'm sure there are declines in mathematics and physics too (likely more so on physics than in mathematics, I'd guess), but I believe computer science might be the worst. When I look at the student body in computer science, the vast majority seems totally uninterested in computer science---they're interested in /playing/ video-games, not producing them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 15:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8d478681-aca9-46d4-84c4-60fcaaad1c5c@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26738 |
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo 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? > > I'm afraid it is. =( >> 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. =( > > Perhaps the crowd that's brilliant is a minority that hasn't changed > much compared the previous times. (Perhaps it has.) Just because a lot > of people are joining university and coming out of them pretty clueless, > it doesn't mean that we've reduced that small group that carries the > rest of the world on their shoulders. Perhaps this group is still the > same percent compared to the last centuries. (Just guessing hypotheses > here.) That would be a comforting thought! Maybe the nr of brilliant people stays at the same percentage! In my experience, the brilliant guys hardly need a teacher. All I do is to feed them problems when they get bored. Then they go away, work at it 24/7 until they solve it, and come back for more. When I teach, and have to keep it at a level that is appropriate for the average level, they get bored and space out. So I give them the lecture slides and material to read at their leisure and keep feeding them problems. Occasionally they get stuck, but very rarely, and then I zoom in. Those students give me immense joy! > But I think you're totally right in that we've entered a period where we > have a lot of people who are completely wasting their degrees, specially > in an area such as computer science. I could be wrong, but it seems > that computer science is housing a lot of nonsense. I'm sure there are > declines in mathematics and physics too (likely more so on physics than > in mathematics, I'd guess), but I believe computer science might be the > worst. When I look at the student body in computer science, the vast > majority seems totally uninterested in computer science---they're > interested in /playing/ video-games, not producing them. When I wwas young, it was considered a virtue to expand your mind, to learn new things, to develop yourself. My home was full of books, we watched documentaries, went to museums. When the computer arrived, I was fascinated with linux, BSDs, programming. I hope that this culture is still alive. It would be so incredibly depressing if the majority of the young today were to waste away their lives watching podcasts and playing computer games. It feels they would just waste their lives that way instead of exploring it and challenging their limits, and breaking through their limits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-01 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpvdv6$a2fl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26765 |
D <nospam@example.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo 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? >> >> I'm afraid it is. > > =( > >>> 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. =( >> >> Perhaps the crowd that's brilliant is a minority that hasn't changed >> much compared the previous times. (Perhaps it has.) Just because a >> lot of people are joining university and coming out of them pretty >> clueless, it doesn't mean that we've reduced that small group that >> carries the rest of the world on their shoulders. Perhaps this >> group is still the same percent compared to the last centuries. >> (Just guessing hypotheses here.) > > That would be a comforting thought! Maybe the nr of brilliant people > stays at the same percentage! > > In my experience, the brilliant guys hardly need a teacher. All I do > is to feed them problems when they get bored. Then they go away, > work at it 24/7 until they solve it, and come back for more. When I > teach, and have to keep it at a level that is appropriate for the > average level, they get bored and space out. I've seen this too. Actually, we all have. The "brainiac" in the front row of the calculus or physics class that's the one asking questions that sometimes befuddle the instructor for a moment.... But I've also long felt that 'intelligence', just like most everything else, tends to follow surprisingly closely a bell curve. There's always a small percentage of "ultra high" on one end, a large middle of "good to great, but not at the same level of the 'ultra high'" and a following tail who just can't, ever, get it. It just is the way it is. And the ones who strike it rich if you go digging you find out that they were the "survivor bias" ones (i.e., the lucky one that survived) or that they had "generational backing" (family wealth) that could be leveraged to "buy" the right people to increase their odds of becoming the "survivor bias" one. I've also seen what you describe at $job. I spent somewhere on 15-20 years helping train new hires, and it didn't take very long until I got quite good at "picking out" the new ones who were going to succeed from the ones who were likely to wash out just by interacting with them for a surprisingly short period of time. > So I give them the lecture slides and material to read at their > leisure and keep feeding them problems. Occasionally they get stuck, > but very rarely, and then I zoom in. > > Those students give me immense joy! Yes, these are the students you want, sadly, they usually are never more than about 3-4% of the class. They are also the ones you want HR to filter through to you from new applicants, but sadly, HR is piss poor at doing that filtering. >> But I think you're totally right in that we've entered a period where we >> have a lot of people who are completely wasting their degrees, specially >> in an area such as computer science. I could be wrong, but it seems >> that computer science is housing a lot of nonsense. I'm sure there are >> declines in mathematics and physics too (likely more so on physics than >> in mathematics, I'd guess), but I believe computer science might be the >> worst. When I look at the student body in computer science, the vast >> majority seems totally uninterested in computer science---they're >> interested in /playing/ video-games, not producing them. > > When I wwas young, it was considered a virtue to expand your mind, to learn new > things, to develop yourself. My home was full of books, we watched > documentaries, went to museums. When the computer arrived, I was fascinated with > linux, BSDs, programming. > > I hope that this culture is still alive. It is. Go look into the "maker community" or "maker space". It has shifted somewhat from our days back then but much of it is still there. > It would be so incredibly depressing if the majority of the young > today were to waste away their lives watching podcasts and playing > computer games. It feels they would just waste their lives that way > instead of exploring it and challenging their limits, and breaking > through their limits. Sadly, remember my 'bell curve' above. Half of them will fall on the "below median" point, and those will often be the ones who *do* waste away their life on consuming that which others create. And a lot of it is motivation. They, for whatever reason, seem to be unmotivated by most any argument to do other than consume for consumptions sake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-01 17:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87eczgihas.fsf@enoch.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #26798 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > But I've also long felt that 'intelligence', just like most everything > else, tends to follow surprisingly closely a bell curve. There's > always a small percentage of "ultra high" on one end, a large middle of > "good to great, but not at the same level of the 'ultra high'" and a > following tail who just can't, ever, get it. It just is the way it is. [snip] >> When I wwas young, it was considered a virtue to expand your mind, >> to learn new things, to develop yourself. My home was full of >> books, we watched documentaries, went to museums. When the computer >> arrived, I was fascinated with linux, BSDs, programming. >> >> I hope that this culture is still alive. > > It is. Go look into the "maker community" or "maker space". It has > shifted somewhat from our days back then but much of it is still there. > > > > It would be so incredibly depressing if the majority of the young > > today were to waste away their lives watching podcasts and playing > > computer games. It feels they would just waste their lives that way > > instead of exploring it and challenging their limits, and breaking > > through their limits. > > Sadly, remember my 'bell curve' above. Half of them will fall on the > "below median" point, and those will often be the ones who *do* waste > away their life on consuming that which others create. Remember that "intelligence" has to be measured on multiple axes. I've know pwople who were nearly totally illiterate who could build or repair any (analog, non-digital) device better and faster than I. (And I'm pretty good on that axis.) > And a lot of it is motivation. They, for whatever reason, seem to be > unmotivated by most any argument to do other than consume for > consumptions sake. Amusing ourselves to death. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-02 12:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a35f9d5d-4836-dabb-962f-67766e6d9ed7@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26798 |
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025, Rich wrote: >> In my experience, the brilliant guys hardly need a teacher. All I do >> is to feed them problems when they get bored. Then they go away, >> work at it 24/7 until they solve it, and come back for more. When I >> teach, and have to keep it at a level that is appropriate for the >> average level, they get bored and space out. > > I've seen this too. Actually, we all have. The "brainiac" in the > front row of the calculus or physics class that's the one asking > questions that sometimes befuddle the instructor for a moment.... This is the truth! > But I've also long felt that 'intelligence', just like most everything > else, tends to follow surprisingly closely a bell curve. There's This is also the truth! I have seen the exact same thing. > always a small percentage of "ultra high" on one end, a large middle of > "good to great, but not at the same level of the 'ultra high'" and a > following tail who just can't, ever, get it. It just is the way it is. True. I divide them roughly in 20% hopeless, 60% average and 20% great! Actually in my current class I'd say it's closer to 30%, 50%, 20%. I try to make the initial class of the program a bit more difficult, so that the 20%-30% realize that it is not for them, and can save time and frustration, instead of hanging on for 0.5-1 year before reaching that conclusion. This makes the schools angry with me, because they get paid for every student who graduates, so they always try to influence and push me to pass students who have no business passing. It is a balance of terror... if I am too soft, the schools reputation suffers (and it already has) and if I am too hard, I have to look for a new job. =/ It takes enormous diplomatic skill to walk that line. =/ > And the ones who strike it rich if you go digging you find out that > they were the "survivor bias" ones (i.e., the lucky one that survived) > or that they had "generational backing" (family wealth) that could be > leveraged to "buy" the right people to increase their odds of becoming > the "survivor bias" one. Interesting. You also have the plain lucky ones who just ride along. But they still need some base level of competence, even if they just ride along. > I've also seen what you describe at $job. I spent somewhere on 15-20 > years helping train new hires, and it didn't take very long until I got > quite good at "picking out" the new ones who were going to succeed from > the ones who were likely to wash out just by interacting with them for > a surprisingly short period of time. I usually make notes on the ones who stand out, and sell their CV:s to business partners. The business partners know that I have vetted them, so they dare to hire them, the students get access to better jobs, and I earn a dollar or two. =) >> So I give them the lecture slides and material to read at their >> leisure and keep feeding them problems. Occasionally they get stuck, >> but very rarely, and then I zoom in. >> >> Those students give me immense joy! > > Yes, these are the students you want, sadly, they usually are never > more than about 3-4% of the class. They are also the ones you want HR > to filter through to you from new applicants, but sadly, HR is piss > poor at doing that filtering. This is the truth! Hence my little side business. Recruitment companies charge ridiculous amounts of money for nothing. I charge less than ridiculous amounts of money for sending good, vetted CV:s. Sadly, the flow of students is too low, to make any steady money on this, but from time to time, when I have a good year, it is possible to help 3-4 to good jobs. >>> But I think you're totally right in that we've entered a period where we >>> have a lot of people who are completely wasting their degrees, specially >>> in an area such as computer science. I could be wrong, but it seems >>> that computer science is housing a lot of nonsense. I'm sure there are >>> declines in mathematics and physics too (likely more so on physics than >>> in mathematics, I'd guess), but I believe computer science might be the >>> worst. When I look at the student body in computer science, the vast >>> majority seems totally uninterested in computer science---they're >>> interested in /playing/ video-games, not producing them. >> >> When I wwas young, it was considered a virtue to expand your mind, to learn new >> things, to develop yourself. My home was full of books, we watched >> documentaries, went to museums. When the computer arrived, I was fascinated with >> linux, BSDs, programming. >> >> I hope that this culture is still alive. > > It is. Go look into the "maker community" or "maker space". It has > shifted somewhat from our days back then but much of it is still there. Will make a note of that! No such community close to me. I knew one, but it closed down, but I shall have to look for other ones. >> It would be so incredibly depressing if the majority of the young >> today were to waste away their lives watching podcasts and playing >> computer games. It feels they would just waste their lives that way >> instead of exploring it and challenging their limits, and breaking >> through their limits. > > Sadly, remember my 'bell curve' above. Half of them will fall on the > "below median" point, and those will often be the ones who *do* waste > away their life on consuming that which others create. > > And a lot of it is motivation. They, for whatever reason, seem to be > unmotivated by most any argument to do other than consume for > consumptions sake. True. If we ever move to a highly automated post scarcity society, this riddle needs to be solved. How can innate motivation be kindled in all humans and not just in the ones who happen to be genetically lucky? If we can solve this, there will not be a problem with a fully automated future, because there will be many things to do and to learn and to excel at for the self motivated human.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <864j0g51om.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26697 |
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: > 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 Isn't a command line just like a chat box to students?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vpo1dp$dsv$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26706 |
In article <864j0g51om.fsf@example.com>, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: > >> 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 > >Isn't a command line just like a chat box to students? That's a great analogy, thank you for it! I will use it! --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 22:04 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87bjuoi4ex.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26720 |
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: > In article <864j0g51om.fsf@example.com>, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: >> >>> 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 >> >>Isn't a command line just like a chat box to students? > > That's a great analogy, thank you for it! I will use it! Yeah---pretty good! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvshao0.2ecok.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid> |
| In reply to | #26720 |
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote at 21:34 this Wednesday (GMT): > In article <864j0g51om.fsf@example.com>, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: >> >>> 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 >> >>Isn't a command line just like a chat box to students? > > That's a great analogy, thank you for it! I will use it! > --scott More like a old adventure game, where you need to use a specific structure, but yeah I like that analogy. -- user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 21:38 -0300 |
| Subject | more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) |
| Message-ID | <87ldtsjk7l.fsf_-_@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26697 |
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: > 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!" That's almost incredible, but I'm afraid I believe it. > 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. What O'Reilly book? Are you saying the PhD was an O'Reilly-published author? That would be literally incredible. > 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. You know what I think? I believe the problem is more on the teachers. Teachers---university professors---may perhaps be too depressed and too sick of computers themselves to have the energy to master the subject with energy left to teach them. What I'm seeing is that those with the energy end up seeing resistance from the rest. Many don't want their colleagues to enrich the course because they more or less share the teaching of these courses, so someone with skills above the average happens to be a nuissance to the rest of the group of teachers. Sadly, the above the average might be a very small minority. These days, even computer science departments are completely based on Google services, say. Students don't even have the chance to run the local mail server. It's appalling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 19:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) |
| Message-ID | <vpocno$650$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26735 |
Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: > >> 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. > >What O'Reilly book? Are you saying the PhD was an O'Reilly-published >author? That would be literally incredible. No, I mean that when he didn't know what make was, we handed him the O'Reilly book about make. Because that's how you learn things that you don't know in the Unix world. It did not seem to help. He continued trying to write sequential build scripts using make. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 08:55 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: more on broken schools |
| Message-ID | <87cyf3eh5z.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26737 |
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: > Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: >> >>> 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. >> >>What O'Reilly book? Are you saying the PhD was an O'Reilly-published >>author? That would be literally incredible. > > No, I mean that when he didn't know what make was, we handed him the > O'Reilly book about make. Because that's how you learn things that > you don't know in the Unix world. It did not seem to help. > He continued trying to write sequential build scripts using make. Oh, I perfectly understand now. (Thanks.) I read ``make'' as a verb in that phrase. Yeah, it makes sense that someone with no make experience (at all) could misuse it. He likely didn't have any experience even with competitors such as gradle or whatever. Pretty sad story: as I discovered flaws in my education, I felt hurt---people wasted my time, made a fool out of me, hurt me emotionally and so on; not as a conspiracy against me, but as a matter of course. I feel lucky to have noticed it throughout the process and not at too many decades later.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 19:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: more on broken schools |
| Message-ID | <vpquau$fmh$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26755 |
Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >Oh, I perfectly understand now. (Thanks.) I read ``make'' as a verb in >that phrase. Yeah, it makes sense that someone with no make experience >(at all) could misuse it. He likely didn't have any experience even >with competitors such as gradle or whatever. Right, but how do you get to the point of having a doctorate in CS without having used make? But it was worse than just that: he couldn't get the concept that make figured out what was needed to build things by itself and then figured out what was needed to build those things and then figured out the order to build them by itself. Once you figure that out, actually writing a makefile is not a big deal unless you need portability for a lot of weird machines. >Pretty sad story: as I >discovered flaws in my education, I felt hurt---people wasted my time, >made a fool out of me, hurt me emotionally and so on; not as a >conspiracy against me, but as a matter of course. I feel lucky to have >noticed it throughout the process and not at too many decades later. I don't feel bad at all about having an imperfect and often missing education. Nobody can know everything. But my education was good enough for me to have the tools to learn things that I might need in the future, and that's what I need. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 09:31 -0300 |
| Subject | OT: a personal note to Stefan Ram (Was: Re: more on broken schools) |
| Message-ID | <87eczjd0wa.fsf@ic.ufrj.br> |
| In reply to | #26735 |
Hi, Stefan. Sorry to hijack this thread just to make a personal request. We once talked in comp.lang.python about Alan Kay's notion of OOP. (Thanks for the reference you gave me back then.) I wanted to rediscuss that---I have not been able to fully comprehend it after all the reading I've done. I could follow-up there, but I suppose comp.misc is even more appropriate. I'm going to open a new thread for that as it's a completely new subject. I'm posting it here because I wanted to call your attention and I suppose a follow-up to your post is most effective. The thread will likely have subject ``Alan Kay on OOP''.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 15:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) |
| Message-ID | <7e8c77e6-4d20-b1af-4698-c25f892330d9@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26735 |
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > These days, even computer science departments are completely based on > Google services, say. Students don't even have the chance to run the > local mail server. It's appalling. Not all hope is lost! ;) My courses are based on linux and for the cloud part, they are based on our own OpenStack environment! =D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-07 20:30 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: more on broken schools |
| Message-ID | <87ikokifl1.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26763 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >> These days, even computer science departments are completely based on >> Google services, say. Students don't even have the chance to run the >> local mail server. It's appalling. > > Not all hope is lost! ;) My courses are based on linux and for the cloud part, > they are based on our own OpenStack environment! =D Yay---a 4-leaf clover. :P Seriously, though: good job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web