Repairing their image is more marketing than technical, but I disagree that MS must embrace Linux and/or FOSS. Very, very few tech-purchasing decisions are made on whether a given technology is open or proprietary (I do take issue with TFA's claim that Apple has blinkered people over DRM; I'd argue that most Apple buyers do not know that their stuff is DRM'd). MS needs to refurbish its image among IT decision-makers first, and that means leaner, more modular products (FOSS would help in this regard, but it's not necessary).
And to the benefit of the students themselves. Working for, or even better, owning private companies is very rewarding. Plus there are plenty of opportunities for students of all ages to learn and pursue their own interests.
The drive for money is no more an impurity than the drive for fame, reputation, and glory. Very, very few people in this world, including scientists and researchers, perform their work with motives that might fit your definition of "pure".
Remember, creating something of value for others is still a good thing, even if it is sold for profit.
It is true that there is no Fifth Amendment-type legal protection in the UK (well, that's what I've heard; I'm a USA citizen and know of British law only what I read and am told), BUT THAT IS AN IRRELEVANT POINT.
Rights are not granted by the government. Rights are inherent. Having the ability to *exercise* those rights often requires struggle and vigilance and often blood, but people all over the world have the right to question those who wish to rule them and the right to conduct their business in private.
The UK is proposing to infringe on its citizens' human rights. This is wrong. Period.
And why, exactly, are the interests of the developers and publishers irrelevant? Please tell me that my sarcasm detector has gone flunky.
Re:Drive, Vision, and Engineers
on
Apple After Jobs
·
· Score: 1
You can be sure that Apple will select someone when the time comes who has similar drive and vision, while those same engineers keep innovating the products that make Apple Apple.
Why, and I'm not being snarky, I'm asking, did you think he was innocent?
I can see one believing that the evidence as it was presented against him did not rise to the legal standard (I'd disagree, but never mind that now) and that the integrity of the process, a process which protects the rights of us all, demands a not-guilty verdict, but to me, the common-sense standard was always guilty. His behavior can be wrapped up in techs-are-weird spin only up to a point.
Are you defining "innocent" as "not guilty by the reasonable-doubt standard" or did you genuinely believe that he had nothing to do with the murder? And if the latter, on what did you base that?
BTW, this might not be a dumb move. I know pretty much zippo about California law, but my understanding is that first-degree murder is potentially punishable by death, provided certain circumstances. It's possible that Reiser (and/or his attorneys) felt that those circumstances could or might apply and made the deal to take all possibility of the death penalty off the table.
I disagree with the tips on circumventing Customs; most tips (as some posters have pointed out) won't work against a serious search, and it really isn't worth it to look like you have something to hide.
That, though, is beside the point. Finding ways around anti-privacy and anti-freedom measures is only partially effective at best and counter-productive at worst, if doing so prompts the authoritarian types to resort to more restrictive and invasive measures. Defeating these intrusions requires changing laws and attitudes, not hiding data on thumbdrives.
And those trying to protect themselves from the subset of CBP agents whose overzealousness or lack of scruples overcome their professionalism and good sense would be wary of assuming that CBP agents aren't very bright.
Preach on, brother, to the notion that many of us aren't willing to sacrifice in the name of protecting our liberties, but there is a difference between fighting the good fight and slamming your head against walls. Remember that the TSA/Customs agents are, in general, doing only what they are told to do, and their incentive structures bias them to be more restrictive and confiscatory, not less.
A better option, as TFA mentioned, is making sure your congressdroids are aware of your displeasure with the erosion of you rights and that you are willing to make protection of your freedoms the primary issue on which you base your vote. Then commence shouting from the rooftops. If data or hardware are confiscated, call the ACLU, write letters to the editor. Post on well-populated political blogs.
But don't think that you're effectively advancing the cause by letting the TSAers detain you (or, far worse, challenging them to do so). That just wastes time that you aren't going to get back.
Privacy and freedom of movement are worth fighting for, and anything important enough to be worth fighting for important enough to be worth fighting effectively.
Besides, they are always a conversation starter when I get visitors.
I, too, enjoy the dead-tree protocol stack, but why do you need a conversation starter when you get visitors? Do you not know the people who are coming into your home?
But the profits and earnings aren't being returned to the shareholders. Under Ballmer's tenure the stock price has declined by close to 40% after accounting for inflation, a far worse return than the S&P 500 (although not as bad a decline as the NASDAQ). I've long been surprised that the institutional investors, like CALPERS, have not been more aggressive in pushing for change.
And how, precisely, is decrying the profit motive going to help these people? Better food-production and -distribution techniques will not happen unless there is a likelihood of profit. Such investments require massive sums money, an amount that cannot be raised solely through altruistic donations. Ditto tomorrow's life-saving drugs.
If you want new advances, someone has to pay for them, and that funding, realistically, can come in only one of two forms: taxation (which, beyond a certain level, begins to harm the tax base that is the golden goose) or the pursuit of profit.
money rules the world
And while money can indeed be and often is the root of no small amount of evil, its rule over the world's affairs is on balance a good thing. Read Will Wilkinson's analysis of "happiness" research. More money helps make life better.
The problem here is less your needing to go through IT to get your preferred or necessary tools than that your IT group is either incompetent or unresponsive.
I had a vague feeling similar to this, but couldn't really articulate it. Stephen King once wrote that a novel was like an affair and a short story a quick kiss in the dark. The Baroque Cycle was something close to a marriage. When it was over, when I realized that it was finally, truly over, I felt a void in my life.
You may have preferred him when he was all gung-ho on the deeply technical and fascinating aspects of crypto... but you are not his audience anymore.
I have nothing to add, other than preach on, brother.
It is always unfair to criticize a work which was never intended for you in the first place. Schneier has long since lost his faith in strong crypto as security's holy grail. He now writes, often, that security problems will not be solved with technical tools because they aren't technical problems. They are economic, political, psychological problems. In short, security problems are people problems. And he is absolutely right.
If you have a critique of his writing on these people-problems subjects, then please say so. But if you're annoyed that he has moved on from the technology aspect of security, then it's okay to say that this isn't your cup of tea, but please acknowledge that you aren't in his target audience.
He isn't writing for the math geeks anymore, and hasn't for quite some time.
Slashdot Mirror
Repairing their image is more marketing than technical, but I disagree that MS must embrace Linux and/or FOSS. Very, very few tech-purchasing decisions are made on whether a given technology is open or proprietary (I do take issue with TFA's claim that Apple has blinkered people over DRM; I'd argue that most Apple buyers do not know that their stuff is DRM'd). MS needs to refurbish its image among IT decision-makers first, and that means leaner, more modular products (FOSS would help in this regard, but it's not necessary).
And to the benefit of the students themselves. Working for, or even better, owning private companies is very rewarding. Plus there are plenty of opportunities for students of all ages to learn and pursue their own interests.
The drive for money is no more an impurity than the drive for fame, reputation, and glory. Very, very few people in this world, including scientists and researchers, perform their work with motives that might fit your definition of "pure".
Remember, creating something of value for others is still a good thing, even if it is sold for profit.
Ads are the root of all evil. period
Care to expound on this a bit, AC? Or are you just sinking into a commerce-is-bad reactionary mindset?
It is true that there is no Fifth Amendment-type legal protection in the UK (well, that's what I've heard; I'm a USA citizen and know of British law only what I read and am told), BUT THAT IS AN IRRELEVANT POINT.
Rights are not granted by the government. Rights are inherent. Having the ability to *exercise* those rights often requires struggle and vigilance and often blood, but people all over the world have the right to question those who wish to rule them and the right to conduct their business in private.
The UK is proposing to infringe on its citizens' human rights. This is wrong. Period.
And why, exactly, are the interests of the developers and publishers irrelevant? Please tell me that my sarcasm detector has gone flunky.
You can be sure that Apple will select someone when the time comes who has similar drive and vision, while those same engineers keep innovating the products that make Apple Apple.
Why?
Why, and I'm not being snarky, I'm asking, did you think he was innocent?
I can see one believing that the evidence as it was presented against him did not rise to the legal standard (I'd disagree, but never mind that now) and that the integrity of the process, a process which protects the rights of us all, demands a not-guilty verdict, but to me, the common-sense standard was always guilty. His behavior can be wrapped up in techs-are-weird spin only up to a point.
Are you defining "innocent" as "not guilty by the reasonable-doubt standard" or did you genuinely believe that he had nothing to do with the murder? And if the latter, on what did you base that?
BTW, this might not be a dumb move. I know pretty much zippo about California law, but my understanding is that first-degree murder is potentially punishable by death, provided certain circumstances. It's possible that Reiser (and/or his attorneys) felt that those circumstances could or might apply and made the deal to take all possibility of the death penalty off the table.
I disagree with the tips on circumventing Customs; most tips (as some posters have pointed out) won't work against a serious search, and it really isn't worth it to look like you have something to hide.
That, though, is beside the point. Finding ways around anti-privacy and anti-freedom measures is only partially effective at best and counter-productive at worst, if doing so prompts the authoritarian types to resort to more restrictive and invasive measures. Defeating these intrusions requires changing laws and attitudes, not hiding data on thumbdrives.
And those trying to protect themselves from the subset of CBP agents whose overzealousness or lack of scruples overcome their professionalism and good sense would be wary of assuming that CBP agents aren't very bright.
... lots of cases and complaints on file of this particular situation.
Any cites for this? I'm not being snarky, but if this is happening I would love to see it documented.
Preach on, brother, to the notion that many of us aren't willing to sacrifice in the name of protecting our liberties, but there is a difference between fighting the good fight and slamming your head against walls. Remember that the TSA/Customs agents are, in general, doing only what they are told to do, and their incentive structures bias them to be more restrictive and confiscatory, not less.
A better option, as TFA mentioned, is making sure your congressdroids are aware of your displeasure with the erosion of you rights and that you are willing to make protection of your freedoms the primary issue on which you base your vote. Then commence shouting from the rooftops. If data or hardware are confiscated, call the ACLU, write letters to the editor. Post on well-populated political blogs.
But don't think that you're effectively advancing the cause by letting the TSAers detain you (or, far worse, challenging them to do so). That just wastes time that you aren't going to get back.
Privacy and freedom of movement are worth fighting for, and anything important enough to be worth fighting for important enough to be worth fighting effectively.
People have rights. Nations and states do not have rights.
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I've long thought of "reading" audiobooks to be better described as "content absorption".
Besides, they are always a conversation starter when I get visitors.
I, too, enjoy the dead-tree protocol stack, but why do you need a conversation starter when you get visitors? Do you not know the people who are coming into your home?
But the profits and earnings aren't being returned to the shareholders. Under Ballmer's tenure the stock price has declined by close to 40% after accounting for inflation, a far worse return than the S&P 500 (although not as bad a decline as the NASDAQ). I've long been surprised that the institutional investors, like CALPERS, have not been more aggressive in pushing for change.
And how, precisely, is decrying the profit motive going to help these people? Better food-production and -distribution techniques will not happen unless there is a likelihood of profit. Such investments require massive sums money, an amount that cannot be raised solely through altruistic donations. Ditto tomorrow's life-saving drugs.
If you want new advances, someone has to pay for them, and that funding, realistically, can come in only one of two forms: taxation (which, beyond a certain level, begins to harm the tax base that is the golden goose) or the pursuit of profit.
money rules the world And while money can indeed be and often is the root of no small amount of evil, its rule over the world's affairs is on balance a good thing. Read Will Wilkinson's analysis of "happiness" research. More money helps make life better.
My goodness is this deluded.
The problem here is less your needing to go through IT to get your preferred or necessary tools than that your IT group is either incompetent or unresponsive.
I had a vague feeling similar to this, but couldn't really articulate it. Stephen King once wrote that a novel was like an affair and a short story a quick kiss in the dark. The Baroque Cycle was something close to a marriage. When it was over, when I realized that it was finally, truly over, I felt a void in my life.
You may have preferred him when he was all gung-ho on the deeply technical and fascinating aspects of crypto ... but you are not his audience anymore.
I have nothing to add, other than preach on, brother.
It is always unfair to criticize a work which was never intended for you in the first place. Schneier has long since lost his faith in strong crypto as security's holy grail. He now writes, often, that security problems will not be solved with technical tools because they aren't technical problems. They are economic, political, psychological problems. In short, security problems are people problems. And he is absolutely right.
If you have a critique of his writing on these people-problems subjects, then please say so. But if you're annoyed that he has moved on from the technology aspect of security, then it's okay to say that this isn't your cup of tea, but please acknowledge that you aren't in his target audience.
He isn't writing for the math geeks anymore, and hasn't for quite some time.