And our experiences cannot be different?
And our experiences cannot be different?
Good teachers deserve our support. Not the bad ones. Being a teacher doesn't give you an aura of nobility simply because.
I don't quite agree. I think if someone goes into teaching with the desire to do good, accepting that they'll never get rich doing it, and it turns out after training up that they're just not very good at it, or don't like doing it, or maybe after 15 years are just plain tired of it, I think they still deserve our support. In this case support might mean radical counseling or retraining to either make them good again in the classroom or find them another niche where they can be productive.
I think we have to accept that not everyone's going to be able to stand 20+ years of dealing with some of the little shits and their insufferable parents, bureaucratic bullshit, false abuse charges (I have relatives who are teachers), etc. We should plan for this.
And yes, of all the professions, I think teaching is one of the most noble. It's just in a completely different class than going into, say, marketing.
Lots of places: several startups, industry and govt, one superlarge corp, etc. I have seen a lot of people fired for basic HR violations--running a business out of one's cube, not showing up to work, etc. But nothing regarding skill.
I'm not suggesting "throwing" money at education--obviously we'd like it spent wisely. Looking at districts across the US, it's clear that there's a correlation between quality of education and dollars spent.
One significant benefit of increasing education funding is that it allows a larger set of people to consider teaching as a career, as opposed to their next best alternative.
For example, I have some desire to teach, a graduate degree, and an excellent knowledge of science and technology. I'd have to cut my salary in half, though, and since I have a family, I'm not willing to do this. (In my case, I believe I'd do poorly in the classroom, so this is not much of a loss, but there are a lot of people like me who'd make excellent teachers.)
I'd be curious to hear more. Why were they considered to be incompetent? Over what period of time was this measured? Do you think it's a correct assessment?
Most of the companies were small (20-30 total), but some large/huge. A few were very stringent about who got in in the first place, but the rest I guess you'd have to say were "non-demanding" by definition.
I agree that finding excellent programmers is tough. Finding such a person who can also fit into the current organization, each having its own strange quirks, if more difficult still. I don't imagine that I have any skill at it.
I don't have much faith in "bell curves and 360 reports". The latter is mostly a measure of likability and charisma: nice attributes to be sure, but obvious and not in any sense sufficient. The former implies that quality programmer output is something that can be easily scored. In my experience, people who can really crank out the SLOCs are mostly just making messes for others to clean up later.
I've worked as a computer programmer for over 20 years, and I have never seen or heard of any programmer being fired for incompetence, no matter the magnitude.
As far as I'm concerned, teachers deserve our support, and I think all of the bitching is just a smokescreen to support cutting education funding, and a mind-trick to turn people against unions.
They took money to do their fucking job.
Sorry, but in this case this is crap. Do you really think Elsevier would accept your implied description (i.e., We will publish any garbage anyone pays us to, because that's our job.)? I seriously doubt it, because they (and everyone else) knows they have an solemn ethical duty not to do this sort of thing.
This really puts the lie to Elsevier's claim that open access scientific publication is somehow not as good (ugh) as commercial, restricted-access scientific journals.
Damn you guys use weasel words.
You have to think precisely about these issues, or you will easily fall under the influence of any "weasel" that comes along. I encourage you to read up and test what I am saying yourself.
But only is true if your code never touched my code. The second your GPL code touches my codebase, if I want to redistribute the codebase, I *must* do so under the GPL.
This is a very backhanded way of putting this, considering that you are the one deriving your code from my GPL'ed code in this example. Yes, if you really are deriving from someone's code (as opposed to mere aggregation), then yes, you must obey its license. (Probably a lot of commercial licenses don't even allow "mere aggregation", but the GPL does, as far as I know.)
Remember you are fighting a war of ideas, and not everybody agrees with your ideas.
I'm not sure I'm much of a soldier in the war. Rather, if I spend my weekends writing code for the public good, why shouldn't I license it as I see fit? Sometimes I use Open Source licenses and sometimes the GPL. Even the FSF uses non-GPL licenses when they perceive the need.
But the second you want to distribute it, anything that the GPL considers a derivative work becomes GPL. And *that* is why some people, like myself, prefer to avoid GPL.
The only way that something you write can "become GPL" is for you to choose to license it under the GPL. There is no other way under heaven or earth for this to happen. If you've heard otherwise, you've been misinformed.
Using the GPL takes away the *option* of ever being able to distribute our work without making it GPL.
You seem to be saying that if I choose the GPL as the license for my software, I've removing your ability to redistribute software that you derive from mine under a non-GPL license. If so, yes, that is correct. That is the price I'm charging for allowing you to derive from my work. (If you ask me with a good reason, I might allow something else, but that's the default.)
If I start using the GPL in my code, my option to distribute my codebase under a license of my choosing goes out the window
No. You can distribute your code under the GPL and then switch to another license at any time for future versions. What you cannot do is redistribute my GPL'ed code under the license of your choice.
anti-capitalist hippie and the gun-loving greaseball
Most Open Source licenses are less capitalist than the GPL, and ESR does love guns, but I don't think he's a "greaseball".
Bottom line, I won't touch GPL for anything that might make my mainline code become a derivative work and force it all to become GPL'd. BSD'sh licenses cannot do this to my mainline code, so I can use their stuff and contribute anything I think they will find useful.
I have a news flash: the GPL has no such mystical powers as being able to force your code to "become a derivative work" or "become GPL'ed".
If your code is derived from some other code base, then it is. If it is not, then it is not. The GPL has nothing to do with this. If you want total control over your source code, don't derive it from anything you don't own, no matter what the license is.
The GPL also cannot force anything else to suddenly become GPL'ed. If you derive from GPL code, then yes, your code may not be legally redistributable unless it is also available under the GPL. But again, no magic: you chose to derive, you have to play by the rules. This is true of every software license--commercial, Open Source, whatever.
He likes to pretend/delude himself into thinking that he's speaking from a position of authority.
If RMS is not authoritative on this subject, I truly cannot imagine what a person could possibly do to achieve that status.
I agree. You must agree, however, that usage of the word 'must' does not necessarily imply much other than that the writer is arguing for a certain position.
There are lots of people in the world bringing waterboards, but RMS is hardly one of them.
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.