Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

atuda

Expand Messages
  • Dan Kenigsberg
    ... WHY? Maybe you should think again. Remember - not only are you determining what you are going to do, but also what a 27 years old man is going to do in the
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > I'm currently finishing 11th grade and since I want to get to the
      > atuda

      WHY? Maybe you should think again. Remember - not only are you determining what
      you are going to do, but also what a 27 years old man is going to do in the next
      decade. Are you sure he will want to wear green outfit? Or go through a
      bureaucratic ordeal when he wants to go abroad, or see a doctor? And see his
      friends having fun in south America while he's doing Katzin Toran? Would he
      think of you kindly?

      I'm not saying not to consider it, or apply for it. But check out your other
      options before you commit.
    • Nadav Har'El
      ... As Dan said, also consider if you really want to be an Atudai. Becoming an atudai means a fixed path for you until the age of (roughly) 27 - you study
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 7, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, Jun 06, 2001, peleg_w@... wrote about "[hackers-il] Academic education is Israel":
        > Hi.
        >
        > I'm currently finishing 11th grade and since I want to get to the
        > atuda I'll soon be required to apply to various universities in
        > Israel.

        As Dan said, also consider if you really want to be an Atudai. Becoming
        an atudai means a fixed path for you until the age of (roughly) 27 - you
        study until you're 21 and then work for the army for 6 years, without (hardly)
        chance of parole ;)
        This used to make a lot of sense when it was hard to get a job after getting
        a degree (the army pays pretty nicely for these last 3 years, especially if
        you know how bend the army's salary laws for your own good), and when having
        a BA was considered enough. Nowadays, the situation is slightly different:
        getting a job (especially in CS, and even now (if you're good)) is easy,
        and more people want higher degrees.

        As an Atudai (well, sort of - I don't want to get into the whole story here)
        meant that I had to do my MSc (toar sheni) while working almost full-time,
        and it was hell. It didn't allow me to enjoy my studies, and it meant that
        it took me almost 6 years to finish my MSc (I finally finished it after taking
        a 2 month vacation and concentrated on writing the thesis). I was lucky to
        be in actual army control for only 2 years (and that was also pretty lax)
        and then 4 years without any army beaurocracy. I have no idea how anyone would
        possibly remain sane after being under actual army beaurocracy (and quite
        strict control on almost every aspect of your life) for 6 years ;)

        But when I look at other things the army offers people who want to work in
        CS-related areas, like taking a short programming course and then signing
        for a total of 4.5 years, or studying to be an Handesai and then signing for
        a total of 5 years, Atuda may not be all that bad...

        If I was an MK, I would pass a law making the 36-month army service a MAXIMUM
        mandatory service. Kids should not be allowed at age of 17 to sign for 4.5-6
        years when the law only mandates 3 years, especially not by seducing them with
        nice words (you'll work in computers and get a good job later! Yeah right -
        I've seen people who were told that and then stuck in a boring job 5 years
        rebooting Windows computers, and didn't learn any useful skills). Heck, kids
        that age aren't even allowed to sign by themselves a much less
        fate-determining contract... Only when someone finishes their 3 year service
        they should be allowed to choose to stay on, if they wish. Or, if nobody
        wants to stay in the military, create seperate bodies for some of the
        technical areas the military needs - see for example the American NSA
        (www.nsa.gov).

        > My Bagrut grades are (Most of them are projected):
        >
        > Physics: 85
        > Maths: 80-85
        > English (Regular 5 points + 2 translation): 92
        > CS: 99
        > History: 95
        > Bible: 70
        > Literature: 70
        > Ezrahut: 82
        > Language: 60

        You should check which of the universities will accept you with these grades,
        and then make a more informed decision. Do you have 5 unit math? I think
        the Technion has such a requirement.

        I'd say apply to both the Technion and HUJI (you didn't say where you live...).
        I believe these are considered to be the best CS departments in Israel (I
        don't know about TAU - I'll let other people comment on it).
        I'd stay away from management in Toar Rishon, and later do an MBA (but don't
        take my recommendation on this subject - I wouldn't be caught dead doing an
        MBA ;))

        > My psychometric exam will be about 750.

        I think you should study Astrology instead. How do you make these projections
        of bagrut and psychometric grades? ;)


        --
        Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Jun 7 2001, 16 Sivan 5761
        nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
        Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Share your knowledge. It's a way to
        http://nadav.harel.org.il |achieve immortality.
      • mulix
        ... you are avoiding an important issue (from the army s perspective) - the training required to bring the person to the level his position requires. some
        Message 3 of 12 , Jun 7, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Nadav Har'El wrote:

          > On Wed, Jun 06, 2001, peleg_w@... wrote about "[hackers-il] Academic education is Israel":

          > > I'm currently finishing 11th grade and since I want to get to the
          > > atuda I'll soon be required to apply to various universities in
          > > Israel.
          >
          > If I was an MK, I would pass a law making the 36-month army service a MAXIMUM
          > mandatory service. Kids should not be allowed at age of 17 to sign for 4.5-6
          > years when the law only mandates 3 years, especially not by seducing them with
          > nice words (you'll work in computers and get a good job later! Yeah right -
          > I've seen people who were told that and then stuck in a boring job 5 years
          > rebooting Windows computers, and didn't learn any useful skills). Heck, kids
          > that age aren't even allowed to sign by themselves a much less
          > fate-determining contract... Only when someone finishes their 3 year service
          > they should be allowed to choose to stay on, if they wish. Or, if nobody
          > wants to stay in the military, create seperate bodies for some of the
          > technical areas the military needs - see for example the American NSA
          > (www.nsa.gov).

          you are avoiding an important issue (from the army's perspective) - the
          training required to bring the person to the level his position
          requires. some positions do not tolerate "learning on the job", for
          example, a fighter pilot... from the army's persepective, a two year
          long training, or even a year long training, do not justify themselves
          unless the person agrees to sign for more than the basic three years.
          even a position (such as the one i was in) where the training is
          relatively short (because you only get in if you already know what you
          are doing) but you constantly learn on the job (on the army's time or
          off of it) new skills and techniques only makes sense for the army if
          you agree to sign some 'keva'. plus, there is the law of supply and
          demand - as long as some (good) people are willing to agree to the
          army's conditions, the army can make all the conditions it wants to, be
          they 6 years or 16.

          > > My Bagrut grades are (Most of them are projected):
          > >
          > > Physics: 85
          > > Maths: 80-85
          > > English (Regular 5 points + 2 translation): 92
          > > CS: 99
          > > History: 95
          > > Bible: 70
          > > Literature: 70
          > > Ezrahut: 82
          > > Language: 60
          >
          > You should check which of the universities will accept you with these grades,
          > and then make a more informed decision. Do you have 5 unit math? I think
          > the Technion has such a requirement.

          the technion does not have such a formal requirement, as far as i know,
          but since 5 point math get a double bonus (they count as 10 points)
          plus a 30% (if i remember correctly) modifier, getting in without 5
          points can be almost impossible. the competition, especially for CS, is
          fierce :(

          --
          mulix
          http://www.advogato.com/person/mulix

          linux/reboot.h: #define LINUX_REBOOT_MAGIC1 0xfee1dead
        • Nadav Har'El
          ... No, this is crap, and this is exactly the kind of crap they feed Atuda prospects (I was seduced into signing for 6 years even though I wans t an Atudai!
          Message 4 of 12 , Jun 7, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, Jun 07, 2001, mulix wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] Academic education is Israel":
            > you are avoiding an important issue (from the army's perspective) - the
            > training required to bring the person to the level his position
            > requires. some positions do not tolerate "learning on the job", for
            > example, a fighter pilot... from the army's persepective, a two year
            > long training, or even a year long training, do not justify themselves
            > unless the person agrees to sign for more than the basic three years.

            No, this is crap, and this is exactly the kind of crap they feed Atuda
            prospects (I was seduced into signing for 6 years even though I wans't
            an Atudai! But I'm starting to tell my long, boring, story..).

            Every company would love to have trained people to stay with it. Every
            company would prefer people with 3 years of experience to people without
            experience. But no company accepts people without experience by forcing
            them to sign, in advance, for 6 years. That's just not an accepted practice
            in democratic society.

            You can offer incentives for people to stay after 3 years: making the army
            service more enjoyable (is crappy food an medical service REALLY NECESSARY
            in the army?), making technical people part of external DoD bodies not
            ruled by army beaurocy (e.g., see the NSA example I gave before). Treat
            people like human beings, respect them, and make them feel like they make
            a different (rather than being a 300-shekel-per-month Windows rebooter).
            You'd be surprise but most people don't stay in the army (or try to quit
            in the middle, using all sort of ugly tricks) for the way they are treated,
            not because (for example) they would get more money outside.

            The reason for my external-bodies suggestion is that the people we're talking
            about, hackers, nerds, and the similar populations, hate living under strict
            disciplanry control, and such control is not needed (and is in fact counter-
            productive) for the work they are many times supposed to do. They don't like
            to wear starched green clothes all the time. They don't like to polish their
            shoes. They don't like to be told how/when to work. They don't like to be
            mistreated by the medical staff (where the default is to assume you're
            pretending to be sick - once I was home sick 2 weeks just because they
            mistreated me in the first couple of days). They don't like to be promoted
            based on pazam rather than what they actually do. They even less like to
            be promoted based on irrelevant military courses (such as kurs kzinim).

            > even a position (such as the one i was in) where the training is
            > relatively short (because you only get in if you already know what you
            > are doing) but you constantly learn on the job (on the army's time or
            > off of it) new skills and techniques only makes sense for the army if
            > you agree to sign some 'keva'. plus, there is the law of supply and
            > demand - as long as some (good) people are willing to agree to the
            > army's conditions, the army can make all the conditions it wants to, be
            > they 6 years or 16.

            What you're saying makes my blood boil ;) Of course it "makes sense for the
            army". You know what - it would make sense for them to sign people for 30
            years. Why bother trying to convince people to stay in the army, when you
            can coeerce them into it? Why not say to all new recruits

            "You know what, we have two kinds of open positions: either clean toilets
            for 3 years, or we have interesting things to do, but you'll need to
            sign for 10 years (but don't worry, we'll pay you for the last 7 years)."

            This is not hypothetical - this is *exactly* what is happening, with all
            sorts of "kadats", atudai, handesai, and similar plans. As I said above
            I wasn't an Atudai at all (I finished my BA before I was enlisted), but
            they still managed to got me to sign for 6 years. Actually, after 2 years
            I was given the choice (again, long story...) and I chose to stay, out of
            my free will, for 4 more years, so why did they need me to sign for 6 years
            in the first place?

            The legislative branch must come and say NO! to this. The army should not
            be able to do anything that "makes sense for the army". Not only is this
            absolutely not fair and immoral, but we need well-educated and smart people
            outside the army too! Every year the army wastes from a smart person's
            life (I saw many such young people) is a year that person won't be working
            in the industry. One of the reasons we can afford such a huge army (by
            huge I mean cost-wise, not number of people) is that we have such a large
            per-capita income and taxes.

            If you don't think that the army wastes peoples' years Just Because They
            Can, you probably haven't been in the army...

            The "law of supply and demand" is absolutely irrelevant. The army is the
            worst kind of monopoly that exists (because you're forced to buy its product,
            i.e., serve it for at least 3 years), and it must be controled by the
            legislative branch before it devours our society. Imagine another monopoly,
            Microsoft, doing what the army does. You'd be told something like

            "You now *have* to spend $1000 on our products and use only them for
            a year. We can sell you Microsoft Bob [an example of a useless
            product] for that $1000, but we'll give you another option -
            buy Microsoft Office for $2000. What would you prefer? Hey, we're a
            very nice company - we're giving you CHOICE!"

            --
            Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Jun 7 2001, 16 Sivan 5761
            nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
            Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |I had a lovely evening. Unfortunately,
            http://nadav.harel.org.il |this wasn't it. - Groucho Marx
          • Chen Shapira
            ... BTW, if you don t like Atuda, you can always leave, join the army for the mandatory 3 years and then continue on. ... With any grades, apply everywhere.
            Message 5 of 12 , Jun 7, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              > I'm currently finishing 11th grade and since I want to get to the
              > atuda I'll soon be required to apply to various universities in
              > Israel.
              >
              > I want to study CS (Perhaps combined with managment), and would like
              > to know where is the best place for me to apply.

              BTW, if you don't like Atuda, you can always leave, join the army for the
              mandatory 3 years and then continue on.


              > My question is:
              > 1)With these grades, where should I apply?

              With any grades, apply everywhere.
              You can decide after you get accepted, which is a more educated decision.
            • mulix
              [ warning, very long reply and obviously a heated issue for nadav ] ... i beg to disagree. consider two equally good candidates for position foo. which one
              Message 6 of 12 , Jun 7, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                [ warning, very long reply and obviously a heated issue for nadav ]

                On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Nadav Har'El wrote:

                > On Thu, Jun 07, 2001, mulix wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] Academic education is Israel":
                > > you are avoiding an important issue (from the army's perspective) - the
                > > training required to bring the person to the level his position
                > > requires. some positions do not tolerate "learning on the job", for
                > > example, a fighter pilot... from the army's persepective, a two year
                > > long training, or even a year long training, do not justify themselves
                > > unless the person agrees to sign for more than the basic three years.
                >
                > No, this is crap, and this is exactly the kind of crap they feed Atuda
                > prospects (I was seduced into signing for 6 years even though I wans't
                > an Atudai! But I'm starting to tell my long, boring, story..).

                i beg to disagree. consider two equally good candidates for position
                foo. which one should the army choose? the one who will do the training,
                do the minimum time required on the job and then leave, or the one who
                will guarantee that he will stay for some extended amount of time,
                therefore doing the job better, by virtue of accumulated expereience?
                and yes, these candidates are both EQUALLY good.

                > Every company would love to have trained people to stay with it. Every
                > company would prefer people with 3 years of experience to people without
                > experience. But no company accepts people without experience by forcing
                > them to sign, in advance, for 6 years. That's just not an accepted practice
                > in democratic society.

                ehm, this is the army. the army operates under unique circumstances, in
                that virtually all of its man-power starts untrained and without
                experience. show me a company that starts this way and i'll show you a
                chronicle of bankruptcy-in-happening.

                > You can offer incentives for people to stay after 3 years: making the army
                > service more enjoyable (is crappy food an medical service REALLY NECESSARY
                > in the army?), making technical people part of external DoD bodies not
                > ruled by army beaurocy (e.g., see the NSA example I gave before). Treat
                > people like human beings, respect them, and make them feel like they make
                > a different (rather than being a 300-shekel-per-month Windows rebooter).
                > You'd be surprise but most people don't stay in the army (or try to quit
                > in the middle, using all sort of ugly tricks) for the way they are treated,
                > not because (for example) they would get more money outside.

                actually, the unit i was in was really superb in all of these respects,
                and i still chose to leave once my three years were up. not because of
                my unit, which was incredible (and an excellent preamble to a high
                tech career), but because it was still a part of the army and
                occasionally you were reminded of that in the most unpleasant ways
                you can imagine.

                > The reason for my external-bodies suggestion is that the people we're talking
                > about, hackers, nerds, and the similar populations, hate living under strict
                > disciplanry control, and such control is not needed (and is in fact counter-
                > productive) for the work they are many times supposed to do. They don't like
                > to wear starched green clothes all the time. They don't like to polish their
                > shoes. They don't like to be told how/when to work. They don't like to be
                > mistreated by the medical staff (where the default is to assume you're
                > pretending to be sick - once I was home sick 2 weeks just because they
                > mistreated me in the first couple of days). They don't like to be promoted
                > based on pazam rather than what they actually do. They even less like to
                > be promoted based on irrelevant military courses (such as kurs
                > kzinim).

                again, the unit i was in did not have much in the way of control,
                exactly because it was counterintuitive to production. and i know of
                many other places, where your average hacker/nerd/cs graduate is likely
                to end up, where it is the army in name only. most of the time. it's the
                time when you are forcefully reminded that you ARE in the army that
                cause you to leave in the end.

                > > even a position (such as the one i was in) where the training is
                > > relatively short (because you only get in if you already know what you
                > > are doing) but you constantly learn on the job (on the army's time or
                > > off of it) new skills and techniques only makes sense for the army if
                > > you agree to sign some 'keva'. plus, there is the law of supply and
                > > demand - as long as some (good) people are willing to agree to the
                > > army's conditions, the army can make all the conditions it wants to, be
                > > they 6 years or 16.
                >
                > What you're saying makes my blood boil ;) Of course it "makes sense for the
                > army". You know what - it would make sense for them to sign people for 30
                > years. Why bother trying to convince people to stay in the army, when you
                > can coeerce them into it? Why not say to all new recruits
                >
                > "You know what, we have two kinds of open positions: either clean toilets
                > for 3 years, or we have interesting things to do, but you'll need to
                > sign for 10 years (but don't worry, we'll pay you for the last 7 years)."

                why bother? because coerced people are far less productive then people
                who vulonteered or were persuaded to remain. witness the large army
                presence at the last technion job fair, for example.

                > This is not hypothetical - this is *exactly* what is happening, with all
                > sorts of "kadats", atudai, handesai, and similar plans. As I said above
                > I wasn't an Atudai at all (I finished my BA before I was enlisted), but
                > they still managed to got me to sign for 6 years. Actually, after 2 years
                > I was given the choice (again, long story...) and I chose to stay, out of
                > my free will, for 4 more years, so why did they need me to sign for 6 years
                > in the first place?

                excellent question. because that way they can plan in advance on having
                the necessary man-power? or simply because they can and people will
                agree to their conditions?

                i understand you dont think people should not be _given_ this sort of
                choice. do tell me, however, how you can justify the two years of
                training a fighter pilot undergoes before he starts being "productive",
                if he's only productive for one year and then he is free to leave? he
                might choose to stay, but he might also leave. how can the army justify
                that option economically?

                > The legislative branch must come and say NO! to this. The army should not
                > be able to do anything that "makes sense for the army". Not only is this
                > absolutely not fair and immoral, but we need well-educated and smart people
                > outside the army too! Every year the army wastes from a smart person's
                > life (I saw many such young people) is a year that person won't be working
                > in the industry. One of the reasons we can afford such a huge army (by
                > huge I mean cost-wise, not number of people) is that we have such a large
                > per-capita income and taxes.

                i think it can be safely said you had a bad army experience, and i'm
                sorry for that. i, on the other hand, learned somethign new every day in
                the army, did the things i love with people who shared my passion for
                writing code, and accumulated lots of experience. all this, without
                signing for one extra minute of keva. i dont doubt many people share
                your misgivings about the army, but neither do i doubt many peolpe share
                my kind of story. in recent newspaper articles, my unit was called "the
                hightech greenhouse of israel". how much of that per-capita income you talk about
                is coming from people who, once they leave the army use _the knowledge
                they learned in the army_ to make many millions of dollars? (checkpoint
                comes to mind here...)

                > If you don't think that the army wastes peoples' years Just Because They
                > Can, you probably haven't been in the army...

                oh, i have been, and i hated some of it, and i loved some of it, and all
                in all, it's a matter of luck. what you do, where you do it and who you
                do it with are the difference between X years of heaven or X years of
                hell.

                > The "law of supply and demand" is absolutely irrelevant. The army is the
                > worst kind of monopoly that exists (because you're forced to buy its product,
                > i.e., serve it for at least 3 years), and it must be controled by the
                > legislative branch before it devours our society. Imagine another monopoly,
                > Microsoft, doing what the army does. You'd be told something like
                >
                > "You now *have* to spend $1000 on our products and use only them for
                > a year. We can sell you Microsoft Bob [an example of a useless
                > product] for that $1000, but we'll give you another option -
                > buy Microsoft Office for $2000. What would you prefer? Hey, we're a
                > very nice company - we're giving you CHOICE!"

                how is this the same, nadav? again, consider two equally good
                candidates. which one should the army choose for the position? the one
                who will bring more use to the army, by staying and doing the job
                longer (and because of accumulated experience, better). plain and
                simple, dont you agree?
                --
                mulix
                http://www.advogato.com/person/mulix

                linux/reboot.h: #define LINUX_REBOOT_MAGIC1 0xfee1dead
              • Nadav Har'El
                ... Every company has some experienced people, and many inexperienced people (which are also paid less). Just look around you, in everything from waiting
                Message 7 of 12 , Jun 7, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Thu, Jun 07, 2001, mulix wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] Academic education is Israel":
                  > > Every company would love to have trained people to stay with it. Every
                  > > company would prefer people with 3 years of experience to people without
                  > > experience. But no company accepts people without experience by forcing
                  > > them to sign, in advance, for 6 years. That's just not an accepted practice
                  > > in democratic society.
                  >
                  > ehm, this is the army. the army operates under unique circumstances, in
                  > that virtually all of its man-power starts untrained and without
                  > experience. show me a company that starts this way and i'll show you a
                  > chronicle of bankruptcy-in-happening.

                  Every company has some experienced people, and many inexperienced people (which
                  are also paid less). Just look around you, in everything from waiting tables in
                  restaurants to high-tech companies. Of course, everybody would just *love*
                  to have only experienced people, but that just doesn't happen.

                  Besides, the whole idea of Atuda was to let you get some knowledge and
                  experience before you join the army, so you'd be productive right away.
                  True, you won't be productive on the first month, but take my word for it -
                  it doesn't take a person 3 years to become productive. In my service, I
                  considered myself productive after 6 months.

                  > actually, the unit i was in was really superb in all of these respects,
                  > and i still chose to leave once my three years were up. not because of
                  > my unit, which was incredible (and an excellent preamble to a high
                  > tech career), but because it was still a part of the army and
                  > occasionally you were reminded of that in the most unpleasant ways
                  > you can imagine.

                  Read what you write again: read the first line of the above paragraph, and then
                  the last two lines. Don't you see a contradiction? Many people tell me
                  "my army unit is not a normal unit and it was wonderful..." but then go on
                  saying "but the food was uneatable, and I couldn't bare staying there
                  another day and eat that food" or "I couldn't get decent medical treatment
                  and on one occasion I nearly died". Somehow people don't see the
                  contradiction...

                  Unfortunately, many people don't even have the experience you had: they
                  simply had a crappy service, like the reboot-the-Windows-PC guy I told you
                  about. I know plenty of people who had service similar to that, supposedly
                  in the high-tech area but in actuality it was simply a way to get them to
                  sign for more years.

                  > again, the unit i was in did not have much in the way of control,
                  > exactly because it was counterintuitive to production. and i know of
                  > many other places, where your average hacker/nerd/cs graduate is likely
                  > to end up, where it is the army in name only. most of the time. it's the
                  > time when you are forcefully reminded that you ARE in the army that
                  > cause you to leave in the end.

                  Again, you completely contradict yourself in this paragraph. Your last sentence
                  is exactly my point.

                  > why bother? because coerced people are far less productive then people
                  > who vulonteered or were persuaded to remain. witness the large army
                  > presence at the last technion job fair, for example.

                  This is not quite true. Say a coereced person does 50% work than a person
                  who truely likes the job. So instead of trying to find 10 people to come
                  to your unit, isn't it simpler to just get 20 people in their mandatory
                  service? And isn't it even easier to get 10 people who will come for double
                  the time? Easy, yes. Fair or good for the overall economy, no.

                  > i understand you dont think people should not be _given_ this sort of
                  > choice. do tell me, however, how you can justify the two years of
                  > training a fighter pilot undergoes before he starts being "productive",
                  > if he's only productive for one year and then he is free to leave? he
                  > might choose to stay, but he might also leave. how can the army justify
                  > that option economically?

                  Maybe the case of pilots is somewhat different, and requires an exception.
                  But exceptions should be made only in very rare cases. Currently it is
                  almost a norm to tell new recruits something along the lines of "you can
                  either have a crappy job at the army, or a good job - but all the good
                  jobs need signing more time". I was told this when I enlisted 7 years
                  ago, my younger sister was told this 2 years ago, and they are still saying
                  this. And not only for hightech jobs - just look the the army's latest
                  "kadats" brochure.

                  > i think it can be safely said you had a bad army experience, and i'm
                  > sorry for that. i, on the other hand, learned somethign new every day in

                  You couldn't be more wrong :) Do you know me as someone who complains only
                  about wrongs done to him? Do you think I also wrote that essay about how free
                  software can help poor people because I am a poor person?

                  I had a very non-standard and interesting army service. I wasn't an Atudai.
                  I only spent one month in the actual army, and the rest of the time I was
                  in a non-army body. After two years I became an ordinary civilian, and stayed
                  in that place for 4 more years, out of my own free will and without the
                  horrible green clothes (but did exactly the same important service for our
                  country). I traveled abroad several times during my service. I finished my
                  masters degree during those 6 years (although it was very hard, as I said in
                  a previous post).
                  No, I did not have a bad army experience. But I see other people around me,
                  having a REALLY BAD army experience, just because they were less lucky in the
                  cosmic roll-of-the-dice.

                  > the army, did the things i love with people who shared my passion for
                  > writing code, and accumulated lots of experience. all this, without
                  > signing for one extra minute of keva. i dont doubt many people share

                  This is how it should be. And if you really loved it, you could have stayed
                  there after the 3 years were over (of course, not everyone would stay but
                  if only 25% stayed, it would be enough and they didn't have to force everyone
                  to stay 3 years).

                  > your misgivings about the army, but neither do i doubt many peolpe share
                  > my kind of story. in recent newspaper articles, my unit was called "the
                  > hightech greenhouse of israel". how much of that per-capita income you talk about
                  > is coming from people who, once they leave the army use _the knowledge
                  > they learned in the army_ to make many millions of dollars? (checkpoint
                  > comes to mind here...)

                  Wouldn't they get the same knoweldge by working 3 years in the civilian
                  industry? They would.

                  I'm not saying serving in the army is not important - it certainly is. But
                  there are other important things in life. It is up to the knesset to decide
                  just how important the army is, and put it in its place - not to become
                  more important than it really is. Similarly, the military gets some part of
                  the national budget. Maybe it's 10% and maybe it is 50% - but it is up to
                  the knesset to decide that, and once it is decided the army should be
                  satisfied by what it is getting, and not try to get more using ugly tricks.
                  If the army will benefit by increasing its budget by 10%, it doesn't mean
                  it should be done - there are other considerations too.

                  > how is this the same, nadav? again, consider two equally good
                  > candidates. which one should the army choose for the position? the one
                  > who will bring more use to the army, by staying and doing the job
                  > longer (and because of accumulated experience, better). plain and
                  > simple, dont you agree?

                  Why are you bringing up what the army wants all the time? The army will
                  prefer people to enlist for 10 years. I will prefer to pay them 100 shekels
                  a month, instead of 300, and to call the first 9 years "sherut chova" and
                  only the last year "keva". It will prefer people to sleep in tents rather
                  than build places to sleep. It will prefer to get 90% of the national budget,
                  and not anything less. It will prefer people to do 180 days of miluim every
                  year.
                  But it doesn't matter what it prefers. It should be aware of the costs to
                  the economy of its preferences. And it should retain at least some spark
                  of morality, dignity, fairness, and respect to the human beings that it
                  enlists.

                  And again, I don't think that the choice to stay in the army longer, when
                  made in advance, is really a free choice, or a fair "michraz" between
                  candidates. In this michraz you have one monopoly and many people who are
                  forced to "use your services", which is what makes it fixed and causes so
                  many people to enlist for extra years (6 years is really a lot, but many
                  people I know, not atudaim, did more than 3 years - anything from 3.5 to 5
                  years.)

                  Sorry about all this ranting ;) Nothing is against you Muli, of course - I'm
                  just clearing some anger :) I think we should open a new list,
                  ranting-and-bitching-il for this kind of postings...


                  --
                  Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Jun 7 2001, 16 Sivan 5761
                  nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                  Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |A smart man always covers his ass. A
                  http://nadav.harel.org.il |wise man just keeps his pants on.
                • mulix
                  ... allow me to clarify: my unit was fantastic in the _professional_ aspect, but it was still a a part of the army. professionaly it was wonderful, but it was
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jun 7, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Nadav Har'El wrote:

                    > > actually, the unit i was in was really superb in all of these respects,
                    > > and i still chose to leave once my three years were up. not because of
                    > > my unit, which was incredible (and an excellent preamble to a high
                    > > tech career), but because it was still a part of the army and
                    > > occasionally you were reminded of that in the most unpleasant ways
                    > > you can imagine.
                    >
                    > Read what you write again: read the first line of the above paragraph, and then
                    > the last two lines. Don't you see a contradiction? Many people tell me

                    allow me to clarify: my unit was fantastic in the _professional_ aspect,
                    but it was still a a part of the army. professionaly it was wonderful,
                    but it was still a part of the army and as such, sometimes things
                    sucked. .

                    i agree with you on general army suckiness. i disagree with you on the
                    army's _professional_ suckiness. does that clear up the
                    apparent contradiction?

                    > You couldn't be more wrong :) Do you know me as someone who complains only
                    > about wrongs done to him? Do you think I also wrote that essay about how free
                    > software can help poor people because I am a poor person?

                    i guess i shouldn't have assumed. your email came accross with the sort
                    of tone i associate with strong _personal_ feeelings. i'm glad you
                    didnt suffer too much :)

                    > > the army, did the things i love with people who shared my passion for
                    > > writing code, and accumulated lots of experience. all this, without
                    > > signing for one extra minute of keva. i dont doubt many people share
                    >
                    > This is how it should be. And if you really loved it, you could have stayed
                    > there after the 3 years were over (of course, not everyone would stay but
                    > if only 25% stayed, it would be enough and they didn't have to force everyone
                    > to stay 3 years).

                    the army, or rather my superiors, would have loved for me to stay (and
                    indeed, tried to tempt me in many ways) but i was set on starting the
                    technion as soon as possible. if i was "forced" to stay, it wouldn't
                    have hurt me one bit.

                    > > your misgivings about the army, but neither do i doubt many peolpe share
                    > > my kind of story. in recent newspaper articles, my unit was called "the
                    > > hightech greenhouse of israel". how much of that per-capita income you talk about
                    > > is coming from people who, once they leave the army use _the knowledge
                    > > they learned in the army_ to make many millions of dollars? (checkpoint
                    > > comes to mind here...)
                    >
                    > Wouldn't they get the same knoweldge by working 3 years in the civilian
                    > industry? They would.

                    they would - if they could get in in the first place. how many companies
                    do you know that train _completely unexperienced and unproven_ people
                    and give them this kind of knowledge?

                    > Why are you bringing up what the army wants all the time? The army will

                    because i agree with you that the army should not be all powerfull and
                    omnipotent, should not take too many resources from society. however,
                    the only way for the army to do that is to use whatever resources it
                    does have in the most effective way. and unfortunately, you, and i, and
                    every other 18 year old are _resources_ for the army, to be used in the
                    most effective possible way.

                    you cannot give with one hand and deny with the other. we agree that the
                    army is a necessity, do we not? we agree that it should be as efficient
                    as possible in its usage of resources, do we not, in order to be the
                    least burden for society? well, for the army, just like for any other
                    company, a person _is_ a resource, to be used as effectively is
                    possible. some army units understand nowdays that sometimes that means
                    giving their people good conditions and a good salary and treating them
                    like human beings. one day, i hope, the entire army will realise this
                    and then they wont need to coerce someone into signing 'keva', since
                    they'll be able to compete fair and square for that person. until that
                    happens, the army will use whatever advantage it has. i am NOT saying it
                    is right, but i am saying its justified, _from the army's point of
                    view_.

                    > Sorry about all this ranting ;) Nothing is against you Muli, of course - I'm
                    > just clearing some anger :) I think we should open a new list,
                    > ranting-and-bitching-il for this kind of postings...

                    nothing personal here either, nadav :)

                    but can we get back to hacking now?
                    --
                    mulix
                    http://www.advogato.com/person/mulix

                    linux/reboot.h: #define LINUX_REBOOT_MAGIC1 0xfee1dead
                  • Adi Stav
                    ... Actually, the army does not want to receive 90% of the budget, because that would harm economical growth and would reduce the overall budget in the future.
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jun 7, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 03:47:14PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote:
                      > Why are you bringing up what the army wants all the time? The army will
                      > prefer people to enlist for 10 years. I will prefer to pay them 100 shekels
                      > a month, instead of 300, and to call the first 9 years "sherut chova" and
                      > only the last year "keva". It will prefer people to sleep in tents rather
                      > than build places to sleep. It will prefer to get 90% of the national budget,
                      > and not anything less. It will prefer people to do 180 days of miluim every
                      > year.

                      Actually, the army does not want to receive 90% of the budget, because
                      that would harm economical growth and would reduce the overall budget in
                      the future. The army has an "econimical planning" unit that does the
                      necessary calculations and estimation to decide what is the optimum amount
                      to request, that would leave the army with as much money as possible both
                      in the present and future.

                      Of course, that supports your point further.
                    • peleg_w@yahoo.com
                      ... determining what ... do in the next ... through a ... And see his ... Would he ... your other ... You do have a point here. I still have a few months to
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jun 7, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In hackers-il@y..., Dan Kenigsberg <danken@c...> wrote:
                        > > I'm currently finishing 11th grade and since I want to get to the
                        > > atuda
                        >
                        > WHY? Maybe you should think again. Remember - not only are you
                        determining what
                        > you are going to do, but also what a 27 years old man is going to
                        do in the next
                        > decade. Are you sure he will want to wear green outfit? Or go
                        through a
                        > bureaucratic ordeal when he wants to go abroad, or see a doctor?
                        And see his
                        > friends having fun in south America while he's doing Katzin Toran?
                        Would he
                        > think of you kindly?
                        >
                        > I'm not saying not to consider it, or apply for it. But check out
                        your other
                        > options before you commit.


                        You do have a point here.
                        I still have a few months to decide if I want to do it, and I'll re-
                        consider it.
                      • peleg_w@yahoo.com
                        ... know, ... CS, is ... I am in 5 points... I had no other choice since I wanted to take Physics and CS.
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jun 7, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In hackers-il@y..., mulix <mulix@a...> wrote:
                          > the technion does not have such a formal requirement, as far as i
                          know,
                          > but since 5 point math get a double bonus (they count as 10 points)
                          > plus a 30% (if i remember correctly) modifier, getting in without 5
                          > points can be almost impossible. the competition, especially for
                          CS, is
                          > fierce :(
                          >
                          > --
                          > mulix
                          > http://www.advogato.com/person/mulix
                          >
                          > linux/reboot.h: #define LINUX_REBOOT_MAGIC1 0xfee1dead

                          I am in 5 points... I had no other choice since I wanted to take
                          Physics and CS.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.