Why yes, I am a liberal arts major, who studied classical logic, among other things. I was responding to the assertion that 'most' liberal arts majors ended up as lowly restaurant workers. I countered that by asserting a) that restaurant workers are not so lowly as characterised; b) that drawing general conclusions about people's prospects based on their education does not bear out, particularly where some of the more respected and influential jobs are concerned; and c) that in a number of cases, a liberal arts education is a precursor to the kind of work that most people can only dream about.

You see, I was actually not making a positive argument so much as rebutting (and refuting) someone else's crass, inaccurate and unsubstantiated assertion that a liberal arts degree is valueless. Shocking, isn't it, to see a STEM major failing so badly at applying basic logic?

But yeah, the plural of anecdote is not always data.

P.S. For the humour-impaired: I'm a keyboard monkey, too. A liberal arts educated keyboard monkey.

Two things:

First - I supported myself for a decade working in bars and restaurants. There are more interesting people living interesting lives employed in that sector than just about any other.

Second - Ridley Scott went to art college. Peter Jackson was self-taught. James Cameron was a truck driver. The people who have done more to shape your vision than you're likely able to realise followed no discernible pattern of behaviour. I'd advise you to save your derision until someone's earned it.

Case in point: One 'liberal arts' friend of mine plays the king of the White Walkers on GoT. Another works on The Daily Show. How's your job look now, keyboard monkey?

Did a double major in Theatre and English Literature. After 20 years of gainful employment in systems software development and consulting, I'm now CTO at an international think tank. I also know the value of capitalisation and punctuation.

Short version: It's horses for courses; reflect carefully, then do what you feel is best. If you're smart, the real determining factor is how hard you're willing to work, and how well you continue to learn.

Except he was elected in part by presenting the case that his predecessor (and by association, a candidate from the same party) wasn't open and clear or honest with the country. He said that his administration would be the most transparent in history. And of course he hadn't been in office for week before he proved to be MORE opaque, more controlling of the media, and more comfortable simply lying his ass off than any president in recent memory. Bill Clinton's compulsive lying seems like little league by comparison.

It's Obama's own finger-wagging lecturing prior to holding office to which it makes sense to hold up his own behavior. That wasn't him being surprised by the realities of office (though, clearly, he had no idea what he was getting himself into, having never run anything in his life, before hand), this was him simply realizing that there was no need to keep up the facade once in office.

And to make your point, you cite a highly partisan organization known for its well funded hatchet jobs?

The question isn't whether the White House told the truth about whether or not they could done something in the moment, militarily, to change matters on the ground during the attack. No, they couldn't have. Because their earlier policy decisions left that option off the table. They left that compound and our ambassador woefully under-protected on the key anniversary of a favorite Islamist attack date. Pure incompetence, of course, but nothing they could do about it once the attack started.

That's what the Democrat-led reports are concluding. It's all about trying for maximum cover for Hillary, period.

And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the sustained, demonstrated days of lying the White House did after the event, in a transparently lame, embarrassing attempt to prevent their narrative (in the days before an election) about Islamist terrorists being "on the run" from being seen as pure BS. Instead, they tried to explain away the death of a left-for-dead ambassador as the result of a cheesy video posted on YouTube. That is the Big Lie. Of course it all fell apart when it became evident that not even an hour had passed after the attacks before senior intelligence people were in the White House telling Obama exactly what happened (heavily armed, organized terrorists conducting a well planned attack). But know, he and his media emissaries marched out for interview after interview, for days and even weeks, and just lied their asses off - all with the election in mind, period. That's the behavior you're supporting.

No dispute there. The problem, though, is not that we make easy things simple and hard things possible (pace, Larry Wall). It's that we have of late developed a tendency to simplify too far. Microsoft is famous for making systems administration and certain types of programming 'click-and-drool' easy. And hyperbole aside, the cost to society of the half-competent people who found gainful employment due to this charade can be measured in the many billions.

You're absolutely right in that commercial flying is safer than ever, notwithstanding the tendency in airlines to pressure senior pilots out in favour of cheaper, younger staff. And those working in HFT would likely be wreaking havoc by other means if they didn't have software and fibre-optics to enable them. I guess my tongue hadn't entirely left my cheek when I wrote that last para.

BUT... Microsoft has contributed significantly to a general downward trend in the quality of software and systems integrity. And they've done so by marketing the idea that with the right tools, tool users can be commoditised. And that really, really sucks.

Agreed. 'Software that makes it easy for non-experts to do expert tasks' will one day be recognised for its role in causing the downfall of civilisation as we know it. By then, of course, it will be too late.

Some among you may think that's overstating things. Some among you are also .NET developers, so what do you know?

Seriously, though: From the Airbus crash to high frequency trading to the Sony hack, examples abound of how enabling and empowering mediocrity is the first ingredient of every modern tragedy.

Of course they have a say! But what they're trying to say is it's not cool (it's "playing for the other team") to shop around for the best tool for the job because it might be bad for their future marketing efforts and PR.

... he probably also hopes that other countries around the world will consider buying and using products and services that originate in the EU. Just so long as people in the EU can't shop around. Like he hopes others will do, and wind up spending money in France. I'm trying to think of a better word than "hypocrisy." How do you say "Greenpeace" in French?

We need a PETA vs Greenpeace death-by-irony cage fight.

"It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds." -Doc Holliday

This post, not least because of the sig, wins the internet today. It's why I persist in reading Slashdot. Even as this site declines, it still has moments like this when someone posts something intellectually challenging, scientifically insightful and sardonically clever as fuck.

So when those two people are the SAME person, using the same equipment to acquire the exact same images - how does that work? You're saying that regulations should be applied not because of any material difference in skill, flight, equipment, or any circumstance other than motivation? You're actually cool with prior restraint based on thought crime? Really?

That's your reason? You're exhausted by the burden of your doubts? That's why you can't muster the energy to cite a single example of something you say history is full of, that would explain why two identical operators doing exactly the same things in the air and on the ground with identical equipment should be either let off the hook or subject to an enormous fine? If you were watching me twice fly exactly the same route, with the same procedures, the same care and the same equipment, and didn't know which of those two flights was for fun or for compensation, how would you (and I mean you, yourself) decide which of those two 10 minute flights over a farm field should result in my being fined $10,000 just for having done it, and which of the two identical flights was just fine with you? Would you flip a coin?

Regardless, it seems a little silly to speculate about whether I'd come away from your actual explanation with a different perspective when the only explanation you'll provide boils down to, "The government has its reasons, and they're good, and you wouldn't understand."

How about this: try actually mentioning the real reason. Saying that the FAA's reason for subjecting a kid flying his 3-pound plastic RC model to a $10,000 fine if he enters a prize-giving contest at his local AMA hobby club is that the feds consider his motivation to be much more dangerous than the motivations of a totally inexperienced, uninformed noob who just unpacked his first multi-rotor and makes exactly the same flight ... but without your personal righteous condemnation because there's no prize involved ... that doesn't cut it. Provide a rational explanation.

Saying, "Tust me, there are good reasons ..." might work on people who respond well to patronizing platitudes, but it doesn't work with people who want to know what those reasons actually are. The FAA's recently published interpretation document outlines a policy position that is going to kill off a multi-billion dollar industry (unless you're a defense contractor) and the retailers and service providers who are engaged in commerce that involves testing, showing, and using RC models (unless of course the $10/hour-earning employees at your local hobby shop are going to look under their sofas for some spare change so they can spring for a commercial license, right?). The feds are doing their best to chase innovation out of the country (sorry, all you engineers who want to work for companies developing and employing this technology - you can't actually touch it, try it, or work to improve it in the field unless you walk away from your hard-won profession and work instead to become a licensed commercial pilot!). But of course, all you engineers... you can go out on your lunch break and fly exactly the same equipment, in exactly the same way, and FlyHelicopters is OK with that, because your motivations are pure if you fly while you're chewing your ham sandwich.

How did you sustain employment in that industry without being able to articulate something as central to your entire position on this as... what it is that the engineer trying to squeeze in a recreational flight on his lunch hour is doing that is so much safer than the same guy would be if he were on the clock, doing his job. Why is he more dangerous when he punches back in at his lab? Specifically. A former manager in the aviation industry, like you, should be able to mention at least one specific thing he'd be doing when he walks back in the door to his office that makes the FAA so convinced that he should be fined $10,000 for operating exactly the same equipment that he just used - with their blessings - as a hobbyist on his lunch break.

Oh, right. The answer is: because that's the way it is, and has to be, for important reasons involving the motivations that Mr. Engineer holds deep in his heart at 1:15PM, compared to his motivations and care at 12:15PM. Or are you just looking to preserve the value of your commercial license in the face of a transformative technology? Are you the mainframe operator from 1979 that thinks normal people shouldn't be allowed to operate their own computers, because, you know, there are good reasons for that and that's all we need to know.

They've come right out and said that things like any use of hobby RC aircraft by people who are in any way compensated during their use would bring fines. They've already sent out Cease & Desist letters to one-man operations doing things like photographing farms out in the middle of nowhere - what makes you think they'll ignore businesses that sell lots of hardware and have multiple employees? If you think they put a lot of effort into the Pirker case, imagine how happy they'll be to go after people who (unlike Pirker) actually live in the US and have real money in the bank. And no, they haven't dropped (or lost) that case. They've appealed it up the food chain from that administrative judge's finding, to the full NTSB panel - and it's the NTSB that also just said they're leaning towards outright banning of this stuff.

If history is full of examples that show how the same pilot operating the same quad copter twice in the same hour, making the same exact flight in the same exact place using the same exact equipment is suddenly less safe when an exact repeat performance is compensated, then I'm sure you can provide an example. Or, you can just say why YOU think that operators second flight is more dangerous than his first one. Really - assume I'm just dumb, and can't guess at which step of the second flight the danger increases. Why not just tell me, instead of making me guess, or comb through all of history for an example? Because I can't think of what action the operator is taking in the second flight that is less safe than the first. Or, more likely in terms of your view, what is it about that first flight that is more safe? Which extra safety precautions is the operator taking when he's flying his same exact equipment for fun? Please, be specific about that exact scenario.

No, I think a lot of the push back is from small businesses - specially, old-school AP operators who have taken on the overhead of operating commercial full-scale, team-based rigs in order to do things that can now be done for some uses with a $500 piece of equipment carrying a $300 camera, flying lower and more safely than full-scale operators can. The FAA has come right out and said that some of their choices to shut down certain RCAP operators came as a result of competing full-scale operators finding web sites for RC-based competition, and writing to the FAA to get them shut down. Shocking, no doubt.

But regardless of the legislative history, the pending court decisions, and the FAA's often contradictory and foot-dragging responses to congressional requirements ... I want to hear you explain, in simple specific terms, why the same guy using the same equipment is suddenly more dangerous when doing exactly the same thing minutes later. Really. We both operate equipment in the real world. Explain it in real world terms, not in vague "because the government says so" terms.

Except the FAA's most recent published position on this is that ALL radio controlled flying machines are the same. They make no distinction between a hobbyist's 4-pounder and a much larger machine. This is why large organizations populated by mostly hobbyists are currently freaking out - because the FAA is gearing up to ban their events, meets, contests, etc. It's not about "drone"-ness, it's about "it flies in the air, period." Other government entities, like the Department of the Interior and all of their sub-departments, also lump them together. That's why you're no longer allowed to operate ANY sort of RC device on any of the millions of acres, ten thousand miles of coastline and river boundaries, etc., that fall under the administration of that agency. They don't care if you're getting paid or if you have a camera or downlink - it's just about whether you're flying something by remote control, period. The FAA's current position would prevent any hobby store from testing a 1-pound palm-sized quad in their parking lot, or prevent hundreds of decades-old model clubs from ever again holding contests where you might, say, win a free radio. No professionals will be allowed to demonstrate new products at events, no kids will be allowed to be sponsored as they fly RC. Why? Because like you, they can't draw any sort of rational distinction between that sort of "commerce" and FedEx flying an RC 747 at 30,000 feet.

No, the FAA says that if you're a farmer, you can't do that - it's commerce. Flying over your own soybean field to look for dry spots is using an RC aircraft to help your farm business. You now owe $10,000 or worse. But if your friend asks if he can fly the exact same device in exactly the same way, and wants to use your bean field as a place to goof around - that's OK. And you're saying that's OK because the hobby guy has "more skin in the game" than the farmer does? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

So, if two guys who OWN THEIR OWN DEVICES are flying right next to each other in exactly the same way, with exactly the same risks to their identical devices as they fly with exactly the same level of experience, you're saying that the guy who happens to be helping out the farmer for a small fee is the more dangerous one, and the hobbyist is by definition safer? Or better yet, what about ONE guy who flies a lap around a stock pond just for fun (hey, it's a hobby!), and then ten minutes later makes exactly the same flight while allowing the pond's owner to look over his shoulder at a high-def downlink display so he can see where the algae is blooming and pay $15 for that useful information - the EXACT SAME GUY FLYING THE EXACT SAME RIG MINUTES LATER - that that guy should be free and clear at 12:15 PM, but at 12:25, when the farmer is looking over his shoulder with a $20 bill in hand, he should be subject to a $10,000 fine? Yes or no, please. The FAA has already said yes - that the 12:25 flight is more dangerous and should be subject to life-altering financial damages, while the 12:15 flight is just fine, and that's because the 12:25 flight is inherently more risky because ... well, they never actually explain that part, because they can't.

They won't say what differentiates those two flights - in terms of equipment, practices, safety, risk, experience, or anything else - but perhaps you have the secret knowledge. When does the 12:25 risk begin? As the operator checks the props? Is that when he's a poorer judge of the status of his equipment than he was ten minutes earlier? Is it the extra 10 minutes of age on the batteries he's using? Is it because the sun is at a different angle? Is it because he can't concentrate with the farmer looking over his shoulder, but he CAN concentrate when a friendly fellow RC enthusiast does the exact same thing and it's all for fun? When, specifically, does the 12:25 flight become the risk that the 12:15 wasn't?

Yes, it's a rhetorical question. Because you're not being honest about your actual agenda. You want the feds to come down hard on the would-be commercial operators as round one, and to ban hobbyists from using equipment they've already been enjoying for years, which they use in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, because that's what really pisses you off - people having fun with things that fly without having to go through the expensive hoops you had to jump through to operate the gear you operate. I'll bet that the local AMA clubs flying 500mm toy helicopters have been getting under your skin for years. And, of course, you don't want smaller, safer-than-you competition able to do things like aerial real estate photography from the far more useful altitude/perspective of tree-top-level flying. At least be honest about it.

Why should it matter if the camera's output can only be seen after the fact vs. live via downlink? The ability to frame the camera's shot in real time during the flight makes the flight more efficient, shorter, and safer. A live video downlink provides the operator with telemetry that shows the orientation, movement, battery health, GPS status, and other important information - all of which greatly improves the safety of the flight, whether it's for fun or for money. The with/without camera concept is an absurd distinction when it comes to separating a hobby flight from a commercial one.