On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 17:22 +0530, Rony wrote:
Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
--- On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote: | A student is supposed to follow a syllabus and give answers within its | limits. --
That is where all students have failed, IMO.
Just passing an exam, and getting a degree does not make one an engineer.
Not passing an exam and not getting a degree would also not make him an engineer, at least officially recognized, on paper.
Except for becoming a "sarkari babu" no one really respects degree when it comes to real work and job. guess what? I don't have a degree for computer engineering, yet I lead projects and provide IT advice to organisations internationally. But if I want a government job then I will need it.
A student is expected to learn more than what is prescribed in the syllabus, to seek out for knowledge by reading, and practising whatever he/she has learnt (if any).
The ability of ones' own to gain knowledge through self-study, and solve problems by themselves is an art that is very rare to be seen amongst students, and that is a very important skill expected of an "engineer".
The above argument is right in the philosophy of learning but not in the context of giving answers in exams in India, that are acceptable within the syllabus limitations.
Exactly. So it is about exam and not learning.
| When we cannot make the college change its syllabus, why put | pressure on the students to take risks in their exams. --
You don't have to change the syllabus to do self-study, learn and deliver in F/OSS projects.
You still have to give the 'right' answers to pass in the Indian exams.
| Anyway it is a | word with different points of view in different environments so lets not | hang him for following his curriculum. --
Just because others' commit suicide, it doesn't mean we should too. Yes, the media and few others have been misusing the term.
Here we are debating the common use of a word for 2 different acts, one good and one bad. Suicide or Sati as an act would be bad, irrespective of what word one wants to use for it. The issue here is about the defining word for an act, not the act itself being good or bad. We all agree that breaking into peoples' systems is wrong. It is just the word to define it that is controversial. Hacking already has so many meanings in different scenarios.
Right. But te issue is whether we just go by *popular* belief which is a result of dirty propaganda all done by using money power or as good humans make an attempt to change the meaning to the real one. That way the analogies given about sati is right. The fundamental question I raised was not about the concept persay, but should one consider "what is popular is essentially right."
There is only one definition. Hacking in the Free Software world has been prevalent for decades.
Everyone does not live in the free software world.
But the art of hacking is nothing to do with free software or software itself.
read this article. http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html Although it is by RMS himself, it does not talk about hacking just in context of software. As another side note I have been to more than one event by the name hacker dome which is a large scale event with media coverage. The latest one was in trichur (Kerala). But I did not see any objection from police or media about that word.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.