And yet the software you are complaining about is MS Word. That is consumer software. To me, this just seems lime more "MS should be held accountable for everything because I don't like them," crap.
Hasn't the most militarily aggressive country done most of the Moon exploration to date?
Yes, but do you want the militarily aggressive that is for free speech and human rights or the one that is against it?
Though frankly the U.S. has toned down from the age of military drone strikes on weddings.
Also it's not like we mounted any weapons on the moon whereas the Chinese certainly would. Do you truly doubt that?
I'm quoting you: "...repressive government and the wrongful imprisonment of dissenters".
As I seem to have to continually remind people on Slashdot, Hillary is not president.
Who exactly has Trump imprisoned wrongfully? Or are you saying it is wrong to imprison people who set cars on fire and loot shops? I know many on the left bellive this to be true but I had hoped that rot had not spread to the more rational denizens of Slashdot.
It's just their sheeple, drink the Kool-Aid given to them and think the other is more evil.
While that is indeed true of many Statists, it's not really true of the other more libertarian side of that equation - which only makes sense as the larger a government gets, the more unfeeling and cruel it becomes... so you can imagine what happens in essentially a world-wide government.
So, if a CS degree is overrated
Which it is to some extent (I say that as a CS major).
I did find it useful and still find many of the concepts useful, plus I really enjoyed the courses. But the degree to which CS majors seem worshiped seems overmuch, or at least the degree to which non-CS majors are thought not to have the same skills seems overwrought. Non-CS majors can easily learn the aspects of CS that make a CS degree useful and give you a real-world advantage in the workplace. Think on it, what aspects of a CS degree are not able to be learned outside of college?
why isn't college in general overrated?
It is vastly overrated. If I were at an age to go to college today, I would elect to spend four years focusing self-study on a primary topic along with some kind of apprenticeship approach, or perhaps deep contribution to a set of open-source projects.
You could easily add in other aspects of study for rounding and spend vastly less than you would on a "real" college. Get a dirt cheap apartment around a college of your choice and you can enjoy all the social benefits with none of the massive debt.
why isn't high school overrated?
Public high school is not overrated, because the ratings are already horrendous. It certainly is not worth much currently, it serves mainly as a way to keep most kids off the streets for a number of hours per day. Far better to either go to a private school, some kind of charter school, or be homeschooled.
What you're saying is that education is pointless,
The actual thing he was saying is that EDUCATION is valuable, but you are only getting a real education to varying degrees from each of the steps you outlined.
Trump, if we don't fund science, China will be #1 in RD
How is it not a problem if a repressive government gets ahead of the west in R&D? Do you like more, or less repressive government and the wrongful imprisonment of dissenters?
Trump, if we don't fund NASA, China will own the Moon!
Again, would you like a militarily aggressive force controlling the moon? That seems like a pretty valid concern for real, not just "a way to get Trump interested". In fact it's why Trump is already pretty interested in continuing NASA's work and why NASA didn't face any major budget cuts, in fact they increased planetary science spending, which is what you would hope from any rational president. We are all better off if a number of nations have operations on the moon, so we should figure out how to get more U.S. presence back on our nearest neighbor.
Seriously guys, this isn't hard to understand.
You can have that however you have to accept a few things:
1) Costs are going to go way up. You aren't going to pay $50 or $100 for a software package, it'll be 5 or 6 figures. You'll be paying for all the additional testing, certification, and risk.
2) You won't get new stuff. Everything you use will be old tech. You'll be 5-10 years out of date because of the additional time needed to test and prove things. When a new chip or whatever comes on the market it'll be a good bit of time before it has undergone all the validation it needs to be ready for such a critical use.
3) You will not be permitted to modify anything. You will sign a contract (a real paper one) up front that will specify what you can do with the solution, and what environment it must be run in. Every component will have to be certified, all software on the system, the system itself, any systems it connects to, etc. No changes on your part will be permitted, everything will have to be regression tested and verified before any change is made.
If you are ok with that, then off you go! The way I know this is how it goes is that we have shit like this, we have critical systems out there and this is the kind of shit they go through. They are expensive, inflexible, and out of date compared to the latest mass market shit. If you look at the computers that control a fighter plane or the like you'll be amazed at how "dated" they are. Well they are that way because development took a long time and once they are developed, they continue to be used, they aren't changed often.
Now if that's not ok, if you want the free wheeling environment we have now where you can buy new tech when you like, put things together in any configuration, and run whatever you want that's cool, but accept that means problems will happen. You cannot have it both ways.
Oh and also with that critical stuff:
4) There will be no FOSS. If there's liability for losses, nobody will be willing to freely distribute their work. They aren't going to accept liability for no payment, and aren't going to accept that if their code was used by someone else they might be liable.
H1-Bs to the rescue! It's Bollywood Summer!
Well, it is just yourself you want to convince, sure. But for others, you sort-of have to have demonstrated skills and that is where the PhD comes in. After all, you cannot just call yourself a surgeon or a pilot or the like either. Well, you can, but it will be meaningless. Although almost all self-styled "scientists" have no clue what they are doing and due to Dunning-Kruger are in addition unable to see that. The scientific method is a bit more involved than most people realize and that includes some pretty smart people. For example, "following the scientific method" is necessary but not sufficient. And even that part is actually pretty difficult to do and takes a lot of different forms. A single life is too short to find out all that by yourself.
Hence assuming that somebody without a PhD is not a scientist is a pretty safe bet.
Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this-- no dog exchanges bones with another. -- Adam Smith