The problem is that you were a small part of an evil system. You didn't create it, you didn't make it, and you weren't responsible for it.
I mean it's not an unfair criticism. They are doing the job that the Administration asked of them.
The problem is that not enough people resigned. That is how you show the world you are unhappy. From the top to bottom, when Pres. Obama or anyone else asked them to do something that was illegal, or lied about it during routine oversight, there should have been waves of resignations. Waves.
When the order goes out to do something illegal, or without appropriate authority, then it should be met with cold silence and the sound of thousands of keyboards typing out letters of resignations.
c.f. - yes, but not all of those operations would be illegal. There are all sorts of intelligence gathering operations that are perfectly legal that states conduct against each other all the time.
And the same is true for the other direction, the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) spying on U.S. politicians is illegal in the U.S..
Not necessarily. If the BND is using open sources, and having it's official diplomats observe and report what they see, they aren't doing anything illegal at all. Instead, that is the privilege of a soveign state credential for diplomacy in the United States (and all civilized states).
The US is breaking the law by intercepting communications. As far as you know the BND is not doing so. For example, imagine the response in the US if it was revealed that BND was listening to Michelle Obama and Barrack Obama's personal phone calls. There is a non-zero chance that we would nuke Berlin.
The truth is you don't know what the national security state is costing us. It's too secret to disclose.
But the broad strokes are that it has direct budged and non-budgeted costs in the range of $1T a year. On top of those expenditures are the revenues that are generated by selling weapons systems overseas. In some years that's tens of billions more. That's on an economy of ~$15 trillion. So that's on the order of 6.5% of the entire economy is directly involved in this sector.
That is not small. It is not tiny. There are few sectors that are as big and probably none that are bigger. The entire auto sector - manufacturing, sales, advertising, exports, imports, repair shops, parts shops, the whole supply line, shipping, trucking, etc is 5-6%. The entire healthcare sector including every doctor, every nurse, every insurance agency, R&D, the drug industry, every drug store, all the drugs, the pharmacy items in the drug store, that entire supply chain, heavy medical equipment, home health care, hospice, hospitals, hospital construction, medical tourism, advertising, medical lawsuits, lab services, medical schools and everything else lightly related to the medical business is about 11% of GDP.
Put it this way. If the national security industry was it's own country, based on GDP, it would be the 15th biggest in the world. Bigger than all of the entire South Korean economy, put together.
I saw the posters at my kids school and I am was unconvinced this is a good idea.
Programming / coding is a lot of things, and it's different to a lot of people. But the idea of teaching it by discussing game design really strikes me as a bad idea, for a lot of reasons:
1. Game design is inherently difficult. I mean, it's an art and science, and it is multi-discipline. After an hour, or ten hours, or whatever, you aren't going to have a lot to show for your efforts. Games designed and built by large teams of skilled programmers often fail to complete. Even a simple game requires substantial
2. Most programmers are not going to be doing game development. Or even game development. It's like trying to educate you on medicine by bringing in a surgeon to talk about remote micro-surgery. Sure, you could be the 1/100th of all doctors who are involved in that field. But chances are if you become a doctor it will be a GP.
3. The goal of getting more kids into programming, I would imagine, is to get kids to become programmers to do useful things. Games are a nice slice of entertainment, but in the big picture, except for the individuals, no one is really better off because of a new game being developed. If we as a country/specifies/whatever want more programmers, it should be to be more productive, to have a better economy, etc. We don't want/need more programmers for the next Candy Crush. That's a side benefit. Not a purpose.
Gap Bullet Time 1998 ad
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. And a sentimentalist, my dear Darlington, is a man who sees an absurd value in everything, and doesn't know the market place of any single thing.
I think this needs updating.
What is a tiresome dweeb? A poster who knows the logic of everything and the proportion of nothing.
That was the point of my first response.
Tie the copyright to someone's life? So all I have to do to make a copyright lawsuit disappear is to have them killed?
Tonya Harding is on the line, with a prior claim to that idea. I think you should pay up, or else.
You can also kill people to prevent them from voting. Surprised it doesn't happen more often as it's so easy to do.
It's called suspension of disbelief. If you're utterly unable to suspend disbelief, you might want to check that with a therapist, as it is the basis of all fiction humanity has ever enjoyed from the dawn of time
The summary's deliberately phrased to be inflammatory, and imply that she was persecuted for whistle-blowing.
A Google search for "Slashdot" still comes up Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters, but a single story summary this shitty sure puts paid to that aspiration.
For stories like this one, if my account wasn't a pseudonym I'd have to wear a bag over my face just to post here.
Even in a country that supposedly has a separation of church and state there are a lot of laws whose origins were based upon religion.
Yes, I get it. Everything that passes through religion is forever in debt. Not that religion itself didn't borrow its founding myths from oral culture dating back to the beginnings of human language.
There are two fundamental problems here. One is permanence and the other is moral authority. For permanence, nothing beats the invention of a chisel that mars stone. Scratch one. But for moral authority, why Hammurabi? Because his code is good, or because he kicks ass when anyone complains? The first is inevitably contested, the second reeks of non-moral authority.
Third option: I'm just the delegate on earth of the big guy in the sky.
Me special from special. How shocked the first person to successfully pull that off must have been.
"Sheesh, they actually went for it! Must be the mouldy grain again this year. But, hey, if it works, it's a great gig. Now, let's get on with appropriating all of human culture into a unified creation myth. I mean, it all comes from Him, or the whole point of this Glorious conceit is completely ruined."
Most of the ones I've known (from when I was in grad school and then from when I worked at a major biotech) do postdocs in order to build their research portfolio. If you want to a faculty research (not teaching) position in science, you need publications. These require research. Research requires time and money and in this day and age, the time typically spent in grad school is not enough to do a lot of top-quality research. And, grad school time is often spent teach undergrads, doing coursework, etc - whereas postdocs can usually afford to spend all their working hours on research.
So yes, postdocs aren't paid well, but most of that is because the position itself typically funds work that the postdoc needs and *wants* to do. It's a symbiotic relationship between PI and postdoc.
There are always, of course, the stars who are good enough to get research positions straight out of grad school. I've known a few.