As someone with a degree in Mathematics and Computer Science, I can tell you that if your CS degree is applied-maths, then you really should find another course.

Pretty much, when I was at uni, the CS guys couldn't do the maths side of the courses and the maths guys couldn't do the CS side of the courses. There's an overlap of, at most, a few "theoretical" courses (so much closer to pure math, to be honest) - graph theory, coding theory, logic, etc.

But ultimately, they are separate for a reason. Otherwise, CS would just be another area of mathematics rather than a subject in its own right.

That said, education is a lovely thing to have, but if you want recognised education, it kinda stops at your second degree. Past that, you wouldn't need to prove yourself career-wise in the vast majority of jobs. And, in fact, a masters or a PhD speaks volumes more than any amount of undergraduate degrees.

If you're doing it for yourself, do it for yourself (and good on you!). If you're doing it for career "brownie points", then do the job, or higher education, instead.

Other way around. If you learn the new hot skills, you can get a low level job where you'll struggle and work poorly because you don't really know what you're doing. Then when the buzzwords change, you'll be unhirable. If you learn the theory and fundamentals, you'll write better code more quickly and be able to easily pick up new technologies as they come along. Theory always trumps "real world" skills.

Amen.

+100 mod points.

Everyone is an "expert" on Data Protection, etc. laws until they are the ones who will go down if they get it wrong. Suddenly, all those minor things that were "dictator"ish when they weren't legally responsible turn into their norm when they are.

I had to write a 38-page diatribe on why we don't get administrator access to teachers. It's actually illegal. You can argue all you like, but it's illegal. And the way data protection laws are worded in the UK, I can go down for failing to abide by it just the same as the company I'm representing.

Just the POTENTIAL for a person to use access that I've granted even TEMPORARILY (even if they don't ever use that access) which could IN THEORY allow them to access personal data we've collected is a breach of data protection law. Hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of fines with established case law for just that.

Hell, even failing to encrypt a laptop which you can't prove DIDN'T hold personal data (but might conceivably have done, e.g. a staff laptop), could result in the same. And there is case law for schools, hospitals, etc. being fined for doing JUST THAT.

It's all fun and games until you're the one who has to sign off on it, and put their career on the line. That's when you realise that, actually, it's not that important for these things to happen.

Couple with child-protection laws, basic employment protection (i.e. doing your damn job, even if it's not explicit in law), etc. and it becomes a whole different ball game.

But, do you know what? Even if you sign a piece of paper to say that you're taking utter responsibility away from me and taking all the burden on you - even THAT doesn't clear me of certain responsibilities under the law.

Consider it like speeding laws - don't break them, but campaign to have them changed. If it's really not that dangerous, other countries have no limits (e.g. Germany), etc. then you have more of a case of changing the law. But breaking even a 20mph imposed speed limit will still see points on your licence and fines for you until you do.

I work in schools.
I work in UK schools.
I work in IT in UK schools.

This is normal. Sorry, but there's nothing shocking here.

You join our domain, we get the right to push any and all security measures to your client that we deem necessary. If you don't want to allow it, don't join our domain (which also means we probably won't authorise you to use our Internet connection, etc.)

The domain will have a "Default Domain Policy" that almost certainly includes software you don't want (but we insist you have), settings you'd rather not have (but which we will enforce on you) and things like this - installation of a required domain certificate so we can check your not using OUR SCHOOL FILTER to do illegal / illicit things.

Chances are if you read your network acceptable usage policy, it states this. The alternative is you don't get network access. Because we are LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for what is accessed through the network on our network, as well as the protection of our internal data and services.

Complain all you like. The alternative is that we block SSL site-wide. That means no Facebook at all, by the way. Or GMail. Or Hotmail. Or anything else that uses SSL by default.

We have a legal duty to monitor, record and analyse the logs of Internet traffic to ensure our child-protection policy (a legally-required policy) is followed. Additionally, it's OUR resource. If you want to use your own external 3G connection on your own time, argue for that. Chances are it will fail.

If you want to use the SCHOOL connection on SCHOOL time for NON-SCHOOL business, that's not going to happen. However if you want to use it for SCHOOL BUSINESS then you are required to allow us to apply our domain policy. If that, at any particular place, happens to include SSL certificates, monitoring software (potentially even INVISIBLE monitoring software like Securus, Ranger, etc.) then that's what you get.

Sorry, but as an IT Manager specialising in schools, and working in state, private and boarding schools from primary to further education, this is bog-standard and has happened for years. I believe even places like LGfL (a London-wide, government-backed school IT services supplier) do it.

There's a reason - we are required to protect our systems and protect ALL the children. That means everything gets summarised, logged and monitored. If we then need to dig into detailed logs, we can enable that option and do that too. Because - as in a previous school I worked for many years ago - we get things like members of staff browsing child pornography on school time. Yes, they are that stupid. And yes, they get caught. And, sorry, but our child-protection and data-protection policies take precedence over you going on your private Facebook after hours and we can't spend the time to distinguish hours, locations, staff-types, etc. for everyone.

If you don't like it, do not join your computer to a domain. If you are on the domain, it's literally our DOMAIN. Our rules. Clearly stated. That you would have agreed to.

Please, also don't act like your the first person ever that this has happened to. It's been standard practice for at least the last 15 years I've been working IT in schools in the UK.

The problem is that facts dont stop the uneducated from imposing their made up beliefs on others.

The biggest problem in America is not guns, it's people electing idiots. Until we have an IQ and education requirement for government office, we will continue the downward spiral into oblivion.

WE would do better with a random lottery every 4 years for our leaders to be chosen.

"So, the actual percentage of good gun owners who manage to not commit murder is 99.99079%"
Stating facts are simply wasting your breath, he is an extremist and no amount of facts will change his pre-formed religious opinion.

" I would say that a bottle of whisky and a bottle of sleeping pills are easier to get than a box of bullets. "

In fact for the past year, it's easier to get Heroin than a box of bullets. you can find pure pharmaceutical grade Cocaine easier than a box of .22LR

I believe you're confusing Vogons with wizards. Too much pipeweed, Gandalf?

Understood but there is something very wrong with the safety culture in a company if one environment is very safe and the other kills thousands. Throwing enough resources at a problem can often fix it and if you have an appalling track record of safety in one area they may well be doing this to distract from their appalling record elsewhere. Would you take advice on how to improve a lecture from a school teacher with an appalling teaching record in the classroom? These are very different teaching environments which need difference teaching skills but there is enough similarity that any advice from someone who is really terrible in one area is highly suspect.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. Where does it say that for something to be settled, it must unfalsifiable. For instance, I think common understanding is that "settled science" is merely the collection of theories which are widely accepted and very unlikely to be proven false.

That would be the "settled science" we're talking about. It's settled, not indestructible.