You'd think you learn your lesson. The best way to get a domain that is being squatted without paying a ransom is to not show any interest. It used to be domains could be held indefinitely, but ICANN closed that loophole a long time ago, so now it costs money to sit on it.
Let's walk this back. You said:
It isn't even about creating well-rounded people, and never really was [..] the curriculum and organization of institutions of higher education---particularly research universities---is still geared toward that Enlightenment ideal of academia.
The bold is what I responded to, in particular the word never. Goals have changed in 400 years.
That doesn't make any sense. You can be an academic in your field of interest without taking an array of courses that have nothing to do with it.
Because you are a 20 years old know-nothing you arrogant bratand maybe there is more than one thing in the entire wolrd that could be of interest for you ?
Maybe if you weren't an arrogant asshole posting as anonymous coward you wouldn't make such statements. I've been to college and have long-since graduated. Most people go to college because it's a checkbox for higher-paying jobs and a chance to party on their parent's dime and government loans.
The goal of college is NOT to train you like a puppy to do real work.
That's nice and all, but the vast majority of people go to college to get a well-paying job afterwards. That's what the point of the "major" is for.
You want to be trained ? go to a craft school or whatever you call them in your country.
College is a checkbox to get into higher paying jobs, so your suggestion of going to a "craft" school doesn't help.
PLUS YOU GET TO CHOOSE YOUR SUBJECTS so stop bitching!
Err, no, you don't when your major is something like computer science and they force you into heavy calculus courses. That's the topic under discussion. Try to pay attention.
2 years into the job I have greater mastery of pretty much any aspect of the project we are working on, and my skill-set is improving exponentially, while they almost never learn anything beyond what they know because they lack the methods to learn.
Yeah, that's a lot of bullshit. It's impossible to become a programmer without learning. What your one-sided anecdote says is that many workers do just enough to get by, not that they couldn't improve their skills if they applied themselves.
If being well-rounded "never really was" the point of college education, why are college students force to take an array of courses outside their field of interest?
Yes, I've heard the "well rounded" person argument. I can even accommodate it, to a certain extent, but it would stop at being exposed to ideas versus having to become competent at doing calculus problems in order to pass a course. I personally am not interested in doing calculus and haven't made use of it in over 20 years of programming.
Or was that too easy?
I want you to know/pass calculus because by the time you've worked that hard at that level of proofs, you've mastered *variable control*.
This is silly. You don't need incidental math to learn skills essential to programming. College education wastes countless hours teaching academic stuff that a great majority of programmers will not use on the job, while neglecting critical skills that could be immediately useful in a large .
If you want to teach "variable control", whatever you mean by that, then teach that in respect to programming, not high-level math that will only be used by a tiny percentage.
Just remember that companies like Valve were founded by ex-Microsoft software engineers.
Many of the early employees of Microsoft became millionaires due to stock options, so they could afford to jump ship and do their own thing. I doubt that's true of the people being laid off.
I mean, google + didn't become the next facebook simply because it didn't become the next facebook to enough people. Lets not complicate it, people simply didn't switch. It wasn't some bullshit about real names, or youtube integration, or features facebook didn't have. Facebook just kept critical mass.
Google obviously had an uphill battle trying to steal Facebook's thunder. It was stupid, then, to adopt a Real Name policy and enforce it like dicks instead of trying to differentiate themselves from Facebook.
This ties into YouTube, too. Instead of trying to hamfist their existing userbase into real names and Google+, they could have softselled an automatic, no hassle Google+ account linked to your YouTube account, as is. Instead they antagonized their YouTube base, too. Corporate fuckhead thinking.
Would it have mattered in the end? Who knows, but it was a stupid policy that only put up barriers, instead of trying to go after users who weren't interested in Facebook because of their focus on real names.
Restore the glory of the Internet? You mean to go back to a time when most people posted on Usenet with their real name and email address as their signature? The time when even political discussions were civilized?
What time was this? Because flamewars are as old as Usenet. I agree there's more garbage with anonymity, but let's not pretend it was some kind of utopia.
If a potential employer ever asked me for my Facebook password, I can plausibly say that I have no Facebook account, which they can verify by searching under my real name.
If a potential employer asks for your Facebook password, the proper response is, "Fuck off."
Yes it's sad that she was attacked for her criticisms, but it's sadder that she did not take responsibility, or stand her ground.
The original attack was sadder, and even sadder is for the courts to punish her for it, whether she hired a lawyer or not. Sounds like she's just an average person expressing an opinion that doesn't want to deal with a court hassle for something so mundane. I think you're unfairly blaming the victim here.
Reading few analysis about the judgement : the court did not make the condemnation for the article but only for the title ("A place to avoid in Cap-Ferret : Il Giardino"). [..] So yes, of course, seemingly against free-speech decision but not really as dramatic as many of you try to depict it.
That's bad enough as is. Where is the merit in this decision?
1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.
