I have a CS degree. I know people who don't have degrees who are great and make more than I do. I know people with degrees who can't do shit. There is a misunderstanding about what a degree means. An undergrad CS degree means that you know a little about several broad areas of computers. A little about programming, a little about data structures, a little about algorithms, a little about digital logic, a little about system software, a little about operating systems, and a little about how computers work. Someone who goes through the program doing the minimum necessary to get by will not know enough about any one area to be immediately useful to employers even if they did learn what they were supposed to. It is what they do above and beyond their degree requirements that define what direction they will go professionally. The degree says that even if candidate is a specialist in one area that (s)he knows the basics about the rest of the areas. This broader base of knowledge hopefully allows the degreed candidate to rise to new challenges better than someone who only knows the narrow requirements of their position. I taught one computer course at my university. One of the most frustrating things for me was when I was lecturing on a difficult topic and a student would raise their hand and ask if this was going to be on the test. What kind of stupid question is this? I guess they don't want to waste their time learning something that won't even be on the test! Even if it isn't on the test it could be something that they need to know to do their job in the future. Their first concern should be learning and the second should be getting a satisfactory grade; for the most part if they do the former the later won't be a problem. I think it is students like this that give people with degrees a bad name.
Police can show discretion. So using a dedicated GPS for directions is legal but using a phone for the same purpose is illegal? While that may be the letter of the law, does enforcing it make roads safer? Is someone texting at a red light putting the public in significant danger or are they guilty of a technicality? Cops who enforce stupid laws just because they can give law enforcement a bad name and breed contempt for laws. Here is a real shocker. Did you know that you can be arrested for DWI even if your car is parked and you are sleeping it off? Having keys in your pocket means you are in control and the law makes no distinction whether your car is moving or stationary with the engine off. All I have to say is I don't know how police can sleep at night knowing they screwed up someone's entire future for no good reason and I can't believe that any jury would convict a motorist under these circumstances.
The revenue model of the Free Software Foundation was basically give away software and charge for media and support (ok, with the Internet nobody really needs media). There is no requirement in GPL to donate any specific number of lines of code, the only requirement is if you distribute its software you have to give away the source. If Red Hat wants to be able to close the door to cloners than they should switch to the BSD kernel and be done with it. Everything Red Hat does to make it difficult for other entities to use their code goes against the spirit if not the letter of the GPL. Instead of licensing their distribution Red Hat shoulld give away the software then charge for support. That is how it worked before RHEL and is the way it should work today. Red Hat should be happy that other people are using their contributed code rather than feeling violated.