My big concern is over the principle that once these are made publicly digitally available, they will be easily tampered with.
Digital watermarking, digital signatures, heck, even a CRC checksum will go a long way to preventing forgeries. And if I'm not mistaken, these things will be on an "official" website somewhere, so if fakes start circulating it will be easy to point to the original.
And I quite agree as to the importance--as a non-Christian who studies ANE culture, this is an exciting and important step.
Other words like decimate have a more fixed meaning. Even where that meaning is slippery (can you decimate cake?) the 1/10th aspect is still obvious. Use of the word to mean other amounts is wrong, even if absolutely common.
Even here, I have to disagree, but I honestly believe our disagreement is not one of definitions, but of context.
The word decimate is clearly related to 1/10th, provided that you know where the word comes from. To say that a 10% tax "decimates" my paycheck is entirely correct. But the word has changed meaning since the time of the Romans. In common parlance (and in math and signals processing, incidentally), the word decimate simply stands for "drastic reduction."
It's my assertion that this change may have started with an erroneous usage (I of course do not know the actual history), but that such usage is so widespread to no longer be erroneous--at least, in common parlance. Yes, if I'm speaking with precision (something I strive to do but don't always succeed in), it's at worst "wrong," and at best "imprecise," but when I speak "common English," it's correct to say "Uncle Sam decimated my paycheck," even if my tax rate differs from 10%.
fancy-pants linguistic scientists to stay the hell out of my living, breathing, language
Good thing--because your counter-argument is based on an incorrect premise: that "hacker" is incorrect usage. That dog won't hunt.
I object to the argument you used, about how wrong usage is just future correct usage.
Perhaps you would do better in offering counter-arguments if you actually read my argument.
I do not state that "wrong usage is just future correct usage." A wrong usage that becomes the mainstream usage is one natural (and not uncommon) mechanism of language mutation: other examples of this type of mutation include the words "aspirin" and "xerox," where brand-names were wrongly generalized until they became generic.
At what point does "wrong usage" that mutates the language become correct usage? Such a question is probably best suited for the professional philologist. In this case, however, the arguments provided above that "hacker does not mean someone who breaks into computers" fail in their premise: the usage is not "wrong," therefore the question of "When does a 'wrong usage' become 'correct usage'" is moot.
That is, indeed, the crux of the issue: is the usage actually erroneous?
Phreak (and its cognates) was used in the 1970s, of course, while the earliest I can trace "hacker" in the computer security sense is 1983. Which leads to several questions.
1. When was "cracker" first used for someone who breaks into computer systems?
2. Have the words "phreak" and "hacker" ever been legitimately used as synonyms? (Hint: yes.)
3. Why was the word "cracker" developed? (Hint: it was to disassociate the word "hacker" from criminal activities.)
4. If the word "hacker" is, indeed, the correct word for someone who breaks into systems (especially to find out how they work, whether or not they are trying to make a financial advantage), then why are you fussing?
One more thing: if you want to object to the use of the word "hack" to indicate computer intrusion, you might want to start with "Emmanuel Goldstein" and 2600 magazine.
Both you and GP are incorrect--well, somewhat. Yes, languages do change via erroneous re-definition... but that is only one mechanism among many. You're quite correct that the situation is far more complex than GP states, but you drop the ball when you argue against the power of a definitional error that takes hold in the linguistic pool.
Our exercise in Iraq was successful--in that it did effect regime change. It was not successful--in that it did not preserve governmental infrastructure (which was a goal at the time of invasion). And it's success is as yet undetermined--in that Iraq is not yet stable (and there is some doubts if it will be stable under the current regime).
In language, context is important. Changes in language take place through many different mechanisms--erroneous re-definition is one of those mechanisms, and rarely a "popular" one. But it is a mechanism of language change... and those who wish to pick a fight with the tide of language change would do well to remember Knut.
Changes in language can be classified as "ignorance" only by the same logic that Iraq can be classified as "Successful." As has been said before: language changes. Dealing with that change, or ordering it back like Knut ordered back the tide, is entirely up to you.
But please do not expect people to appreciate or respect you when you're being irrelevant.
Hacker and pirate are far from the only words to have shifted meaning since the advent of the Jargon File. This points to a larger issue: specialized language ("jargon") that has been assimilated by the mainstream will not maintain a consistent definition. Expecting it to do so--or actively attempting to make it do so--is futile.
I have the feeling this is going to be another last-minute panic like Y2K was. Of course, Y2K was a tempest in a teapot--I have to wonder if this is not also in the same league.
The Y2K issue was known and discussed in the media as far back as 1984, yet did not hit the awareness horizon of most big businesses until late 1998. That's fourteen years of "It works now, right?"
1. The US government tries to dictate how a US company behave in another country in accordance to the acceptable standard. What is not acceptable is if the US government tries to dictate how a foreign government behave (dictate, no; influence, yes).
Wrong. Foreign companies who wish to do business either in or with the US must abide by US law within US territories. By the same token, Yahoo must abide by Chinese law within Chinese territory.
Your argument that the US should not dictate how a company behaves in another country because the US should object if another country dictates how a company behaves in the US.
Actually, my argument is that the US would not submit to another country trying to do what it is doing. I happen to feel that the US Senate is morally correct in doing so, but that its actions will be ineffective at best.
In this case, a respect for human rights.
"Rights" do not exist extrinsic of the culture that reveres them. There is no God, no cosmic principle, no "Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin" that spells out that human beings are assured of the rights that we uphold in our law--and as we have seen far too often of late, we don't uphold them as often as we should.
That is the important part--the Chinese Government is not sitting in Beijing saying "How can we undermine our subject's fundamental civil rights today?" The concept of "rights" does not exist in China: and as we have begun to see in Iraq, that concept cannot be imposed by force from the outside. It must be developed from within.
Would you explain how you reached your conclusion without the premise of equal validity of culture? Without that premise I'm afraid I can't make any sense of your original post at all.
My conclusion has nothing to do with the morality of the situation--I am far too tied to my Western cultural roots to decide which side is "right" without my own biases affecting my decision. My argument is simply this: if the US government was in a situation where another country tried to dictate how a company was to behave within US borders, our government would throw a complete and total hissy-fit. Yet certain elements in our government feel that it's acceptable to do this to another sovereign country?
(You may also want to be careful with throwing that strawman word around. I don't remember anyone making the claims you are labeling as Middle Kingdom Syndrome.)
Perhaps I should have given a more complete explanation as to why I made the reference.
Do I believe it's OK? Hell, no! By the same token, I also don't believe that this measure (even if successfully passed into law) will change the actions of even a single Chinese government official. Heck, I don't think it's going to make a damn bit of difference with Yahoo, either.
Equally "valid"? First and foremost... define "valid." Then kindly point out where I made any such suggestion. If you cannot do so, then kindly take your strawman and stuff him somewhere you'll always know where it's at.
I greatly prefer Western-style cultures, but that does not prevent me from seeing a double standard when such exists.
Middle Kingdrom syndrome is the tendency to believe that "our" culture is the best, and that "our" laws, customs, and culture should supercede all other laws, customs, and culture.
China is occasionally accused of Middle Kingdom syndrome by some Americans. Seems that the pot is still calling the kettle nasty names.
Definitely "you aren't trying to express opinions that run counter to Slashdot's current groupthink". Deliberate offense is dishonorable, and trolling is foolish, IMO, but challenging the groupthink is damned important.
Well, let me rephrase--challenging groupthink is important in life. Here on Slashdot, with a large but still limited readership and many who take what is said here less than seriously, challenging the groupthink is still important, but "real life" is more important even if there's no easily readable karma score.
What would you think if you pulled into a gas station and the attendant said "I'm sorry, we can't put gas into cars like yours." They aren't saying the gas won't work, it is just their choice to sell it only to certain car owners.
A closer analogy: if you walk into an auto parts store and buy a part that's not specifically made for your machine, but you take it home and adapt it, that's your right to do. However, Ford is not going to allow a 3rd party company to sell Ford-branded parts for Chevys.
Apple has never made any move against people who want to buy a retail copy of OSX and make a hackintosh.
The same goes for all products. If I buy an iPhone, an EeePC, or a Dell, it should be my choice to mod it in anyway. I paid the money they asked for the product and now it becomes mine.
While I happen to agree that software licenses should work like this, under current law they do not. If they did, then GPL2 and GPL3 would be completely unenforceable.
Slashdot Mirror
My big concern is over the principle that once these are made publicly digitally available, they will be easily tampered with.
Digital watermarking, digital signatures, heck, even a CRC checksum will go a long way to preventing forgeries. And if I'm not mistaken, these things will be on an "official" website somewhere, so if fakes start circulating it will be easy to point to the original.
And I quite agree as to the importance--as a non-Christian who studies ANE culture, this is an exciting and important step.
Other words like decimate have a more fixed meaning. Even where that meaning is slippery (can you decimate cake?) the 1/10th aspect is still obvious. Use of the word to mean other amounts is wrong, even if absolutely common.
Even here, I have to disagree, but I honestly believe our disagreement is not one of definitions, but of context.
The word decimate is clearly related to 1/10th, provided that you know where the word comes from. To say that a 10% tax "decimates" my paycheck is entirely correct. But the word has changed meaning since the time of the Romans. In common parlance (and in math and signals processing, incidentally), the word decimate simply stands for "drastic reduction."
It's my assertion that this change may have started with an erroneous usage (I of course do not know the actual history), but that such usage is so widespread to no longer be erroneous--at least, in common parlance. Yes, if I'm speaking with precision (something I strive to do but don't always succeed in), it's at worst "wrong," and at best "imprecise," but when I speak "common English," it's correct to say "Uncle Sam decimated my paycheck," even if my tax rate differs from 10%.
fancy-pants linguistic scientists to stay the hell out of my living, breathing, language
Besides, even if you overlook my joking tone
I occasionally suffer from acute pedantry.
...
OK, it's more than "occasionally." :)
It wasn't actually hacker that I object to.
Good thing--because your counter-argument is based on an incorrect premise: that "hacker" is incorrect usage. That dog won't hunt.
I object to the argument you used, about how wrong usage is just future correct usage.
Perhaps you would do better in offering counter-arguments if you actually read my argument.
I do not state that "wrong usage is just future correct usage." A wrong usage that becomes the mainstream usage is one natural (and not uncommon) mechanism of language mutation: other examples of this type of mutation include the words "aspirin" and "xerox," where brand-names were wrongly generalized until they became generic.
At what point does "wrong usage" that mutates the language become correct usage? Such a question is probably best suited for the professional philologist. In this case, however, the arguments provided above that "hacker does not mean someone who breaks into computers" fail in their premise: the usage is not "wrong," therefore the question of "When does a 'wrong usage' become 'correct usage'" is moot.
But erroneous usage is, well, erroneous.
That is, indeed, the crux of the issue: is the usage actually erroneous?
Phreak (and its cognates) was used in the 1970s, of course, while the earliest I can trace "hacker" in the computer security sense is 1983. Which leads to several questions.
1. When was "cracker" first used for someone who breaks into computer systems?
2. Have the words "phreak" and "hacker" ever been legitimately used as synonyms? (Hint: yes.)
3. Why was the word "cracker" developed? (Hint: it was to disassociate the word "hacker" from criminal activities.)
4. If the word "hacker" is, indeed, the correct word for someone who breaks into systems (especially to find out how they work, whether or not they are trying to make a financial advantage), then why are you fussing?
One more thing: if you want to object to the use of the word "hack" to indicate computer intrusion, you might want to start with "Emmanuel Goldstein" and 2600 magazine.
Both you and GP are incorrect--well, somewhat. Yes, languages do change via erroneous re-definition ... but that is only one mechanism among many. You're quite correct that the situation is far more complex than GP states, but you drop the ball when you argue against the power of a definitional error that takes hold in the linguistic pool.
Actually, no--I mean precisely what I said.
Our exercise in Iraq was successful--in that it did effect regime change. It was not successful--in that it did not preserve governmental infrastructure (which was a goal at the time of invasion). And it's success is as yet undetermined--in that Iraq is not yet stable (and there is some doubts if it will be stable under the current regime).
In language, context is important. Changes in language take place through many different mechanisms--erroneous re-definition is one of those mechanisms, and rarely a "popular" one. But it is a mechanism of language change ... and those who wish to pick a fight with the tide of language change would do well to remember Knut.
Changes in language can be classified as "ignorance" only by the same logic that Iraq can be classified as "Successful." As has been said before: language changes. Dealing with that change, or ordering it back like Knut ordered back the tide, is entirely up to you.
But please do not expect people to appreciate or respect you when you're being irrelevant.
Where's King Knut when we need him?
Hacker and pirate are far from the only words to have shifted meaning since the advent of the Jargon File. This points to a larger issue: specialized language ("jargon") that has been assimilated by the mainstream will not maintain a consistent definition. Expecting it to do so--or actively attempting to make it do so--is futile.
Delegate "security" to a dozen or so people you do know.
...to mount an external antenna, but you may be able to mount one inside a window. The glass should be more radio-transparent than the walls.
I strongly recommend the HDTv Antenna Labs website: especially the HDTv Antenna Reviews.
I have the feeling this is going to be another last-minute panic like Y2K was. Of course, Y2K was a tempest in a teapot--I have to wonder if this is not also in the same league.
The Y2K issue was known and discussed in the media as far back as 1984, yet did not hit the awareness horizon of most big businesses until late 1998. That's fourteen years of "It works now, right?"
1. The US government tries to dictate how a US company behave in another country in accordance to the acceptable standard. What is not acceptable is if the US government tries to dictate how a foreign government behave (dictate, no; influence, yes).
Wrong. Foreign companies who wish to do business either in or with the US must abide by US law within US territories. By the same token, Yahoo must abide by Chinese law within Chinese territory.
Your argument that the US should not dictate how a company behaves in another country because the US should object if another country dictates how a company behaves in the US.
Actually, my argument is that the US would not submit to another country trying to do what it is doing. I happen to feel that the US Senate is morally correct in doing so, but that its actions will be ineffective at best.
In this case, a respect for human rights.
"Rights" do not exist extrinsic of the culture that reveres them. There is no God, no cosmic principle, no "Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin" that spells out that human beings are assured of the rights that we uphold in our law--and as we have seen far too often of late, we don't uphold them as often as we should.
That is the important part--the Chinese Government is not sitting in Beijing saying "How can we undermine our subject's fundamental civil rights today?" The concept of "rights" does not exist in China: and as we have begun to see in Iraq, that concept cannot be imposed by force from the outside. It must be developed from within.
Would you explain how you reached your conclusion without the premise of equal validity of culture? Without that premise I'm afraid I can't make any sense of your original post at all.
My conclusion has nothing to do with the morality of the situation--I am far too tied to my Western cultural roots to decide which side is "right" without my own biases affecting my decision. My argument is simply this: if the US government was in a situation where another country tried to dictate how a company was to behave within US borders, our government would throw a complete and total hissy-fit. Yet certain elements in our government feel that it's acceptable to do this to another sovereign country?
(You may also want to be careful with throwing that strawman word around. I don't remember anyone making the claims you are labeling as Middle Kingdom Syndrome.)
Perhaps I should have given a more complete explanation as to why I made the reference.
Do I believe it's OK? Hell, no! By the same token, I also don't believe that this measure (even if successfully passed into law) will change the actions of even a single Chinese government official. Heck, I don't think it's going to make a damn bit of difference with Yahoo, either.
Equally "valid"? First and foremost ... define "valid." Then kindly point out where I made any such suggestion. If you cannot do so, then kindly take your strawman and stuff him somewhere you'll always know where it's at.
I greatly prefer Western-style cultures, but that does not prevent me from seeing a double standard when such exists.
Middle Kingdrom syndrome is the tendency to believe that "our" culture is the best, and that "our" laws, customs, and culture should supercede all other laws, customs, and culture.
China is occasionally accused of Middle Kingdom syndrome by some Americans. Seems that the pot is still calling the kettle nasty names.
Humanism is also a form of faith--though it is faith in the goodness or worth of fellow human beings with no need to call on the supernatural.
Unfortunately, it's a faith that my cynicism has denied me.
Definitely "you aren't trying to express opinions that run counter to Slashdot's current groupthink". Deliberate offense is dishonorable, and trolling is foolish, IMO, but challenging the groupthink is damned important.
Well, let me rephrase--challenging groupthink is important in life. Here on Slashdot, with a large but still limited readership and many who take what is said here less than seriously, challenging the groupthink is still important, but "real life" is more important even if there's no easily readable karma score.
You cannot have a post post first post post.
Punctuation is over-rated.
Probably because I didn't actually add anything substantive to the discussion. It's cool--I have the karma to burn, and my sig says it all.
And hey, it was a first post that didn't say "First Post." That ought to count for something! :)
Way to go, Ms. Andersen!
That's not "making a hackintosh"--that's selling hackintoshes. A dramatic difference.
What would you think if you pulled into a gas station and the attendant said "I'm sorry, we can't put gas into cars like yours." They aren't saying the gas won't work, it is just their choice to sell it only to certain car owners.
A closer analogy: if you walk into an auto parts store and buy a part that's not specifically made for your machine, but you take it home and adapt it, that's your right to do. However, Ford is not going to allow a 3rd party company to sell Ford-branded parts for Chevys.
Apple has never made any move against people who want to buy a retail copy of OSX and make a hackintosh.
The same goes for all products. If I buy an iPhone, an EeePC, or a Dell, it should be my choice to mod it in anyway. I paid the money they asked for the product and now it becomes mine.
While I happen to agree that software licenses should work like this, under current law they do not. If they did, then GPL2 and GPL3 would be completely unenforceable.
I have no mod points (and am not particularly religious), but your post deserves some.