Yes there are some assumptions that play into my assertion. Were there others who may have toyed with linux on their own time, quietly? Quite possibly. However, I doubt it. When Lockheed Martin visited my school to mentor/start a cyber security (hacking) competition team, we were only able to get ~18 people (from multiple grades) to show up. I also know for a fact that there were only ever about 60 kids (across multiple grades) enrolled in the school's CS offerings during the year. I knew all of these kids.
I think you'll find that 300 is a much smaller number of people than it sounds. While I respect your challenge of my assertion, I feel it's mostly valid. The effect intended is that only a very small fraction of kids in my class were technically inclined.
You started off by citing his connection though. It's a small desktop. The reason he said Mac Mini _Pro_ was in reference to that high end spec you mention in your responce.
You started off by citing his connection though. It's a small desktop. The reason he said Mac Mini _Pro_ was in reference to that high end spec you mention in your responce.
You started off by citing his connection though. It's a small desktop. The reason he said Mac Mini _Pro_ was in reference to that high end spec you mention in your responce.
Although I agree the "nothing to hide" argument is fundamentally flawed, I have yet to read a solid rebuttal to it. This article has not broken that trend. While it has given me some food for thought, I feel it resorts to a weak slippery slope argument, not quite capturing what feels truly wrong about universal monitoring.
I think you may be overestimating the capacity of the education system to change. I'm now a year removed from High School, but in my class of 350 there were maybe 10 who could program proficiently. Only two (myself and a friend) knew what linux was. I would say it wasn't treated as "cool", but certainly regarded with a wierd respect.
He messed up the quote a bit, omitting an important qualifier:
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"
-- Napoleon (allegedly)
I don't think I need to explain how this shifts the meaning.
>People don't like being bothered by strangers on Facebook
This is true, however the fact that you can search friends of friends means you can look for people you might want to get to know better, and get introduced via your mutual friend. Or be bold and just send them a friend request with a little note, etc.
A friend of a friend is less of a random person than the current facebook search which is actually random.
Obviously it will be abused by some, however I think it is a pretty big deal as a feature
I think you'll find that 300 is a much smaller number of people than it sounds. While I respect your challenge of my assertion, I feel it's mostly valid. The effect intended is that only a very small fraction of kids in my class were technically inclined.