Unix is not a product, it is a set of evolving ideas. As such, it is not going anywhere but up.
It's just as easy to ask: Is this the end of silverware, or the end of fire, or the end of any old thing that's proven to work... Is genetic engineering the end of agriculture? Is organ transplantation the end of death? Is The Bomb the end of War?
Yeah, there's micro-kernel based OSes out there like Qnx and NeXT, and Hurd... But they're still Unix. The NEW OS X from Apple is more Unix than it's predecessor. NT is more Unix than Win95.. There's new approaches like BeOS.
If one defines Unix in a very constrained way then Unix has been dead for a long time. When AT&T first released System V, and allowed it to mutate, Unix died and was reborn in a variety of ways. Umm, that was what? 1976?
If one defines Unix broadly, as a set of concepts, a layered architecture, levels of abstraction, sets of small uni-purpose tools working together, APIs and things 'grep-like' then guess what? Unix will live forever.
It's a pointless question, not because it's bad, but because it's completely subjective.
There are two very different issues to consider here: The education is entirely online, and entirely free... Coupled together, these two will present some unique problems as well, but let's start step by step.
Online education is full of problems. A certain level of interaction between the instructor and the student is required for teaching. Note, 'teaching' and not 'learning'. Most of us here are self-taught to a good extent, and much of our learning has been online - but not in a structured manner.
A teacher needs the visual feedback of eye contact and voice in order to know if a student 'gets it' or not. Online tends to strip that away, just as it strips away obvious sarcasm in email. Some of the most valuable things I've learned at the big U, were tangential "Oh BTW" things that were not part of the program. That spontaneity and pesonification of the material is crucial to the experience of 'being taught'.
Online collaborative technologies are not yet ready. We're limited in bandwidth, standards, and understanding. It's very hard to deliver an audio lecture, with gif slides, to people with MODEMS. Collaborative tools are emerging, but half the time drop dead at a firewall. Downloadable lesson packages might as well be shipped on CD, and the problem reduces to non-collaborative self-study...
I'm currently taking an online graduate level course, and I'm finding it very frustrating. The specialized software required for the course is Win32-biased, and has required me to compromise an otherwise stable WinNT system to accomodate it. MS has it's hooks so deeply in this stuff that it's damn near impossible to do without a dedicated computer. Overcoming the technical challenges of the experiment is so time consuming for both the teachers and the students, that the content is almost an afterthought. Maybe this is a job for a dedicated internet appliance? It's clear that a standard framework for online learning is needed. But before one can be defined and implemented, a lot of experimentation (like my course and this proposed online university maybe) is needed to see what's actually still missiong.
There is a certain need for human contact when teaching/learning. Groups of students can collaborate online in working on a project, but presenting information in an interactive way is still far off. Teaching online, synchronously, is currently analogous to herding cats. The tools are not there. The mindset is not there. The whole concept of 'teaching' will have to be revised, because todays teachers are still trying to lecture - to a webcam...
The idea of academic integrity is unenforcable online. When I was an undergrad, we were carded when taking a final exam. We literally had to show a school ID, or a driver's license, to be let into the exam hall. Much like when taking the SAT. Online, your buddy - the office guru - can take the test for you, and you get the certificate/diploma. The entire office can be consulted, or books, or friends via email... Forget timed exams.... "Sorry. BSOD! What are you gonna do? Fail me? Microsoft ate my homework!"
Enough about that... On to free education: The fact that anyone CAN get the education will mean that the degree will be worthless. This may be a very Good Thing, since if anyone can now get a piece of paper claiming competency, then they will have to PROVE it. Good Thing indeed. I just wish there was a way for all those Weekend MBA grads that dictate technical decisions to prove their ability to do something other than run Excel.
Free education is great, and the online distribution of it is the cheapest way to keep it free. Giving people the opportunity to learn, online, is wonderful, and beneficial to all. People with the desire to learn, and ANY available time (not 9 to 5 anymore) can improve their lot in life, and the lazy scumm can't just BUY a career. Merit and knowledge will become the metric of an educated person, not the name on the seal on the parchment.
But here's the rub. Free online education - good idea; synchronous teacher-students interaction - not there yet. Free online education is nothing more than another portal in this context. It's online self-study, via a place calling itself a 'college' or 'university' which is just an organized set of links to self-paced, self-study materials. I don't see this as much different than C++ in 21 Days.
The Institution of Education is a good thing as well. Creating an environment where more than facts are taught, but modes of thinking are created, is needed. A VR_U will have to resolve the technical problems of online collaborative teaching, and create the experience of learning, where it's not just about facts. Otherwise, we're already there, except a bit more distributed.
Yes, that's right. I think that the communication problems that open source has to contend with are actually a benefit.
Open source projects involve many people, in different geographical areas, from different backgrounds, often speaking different languages. This level of diversity would be near impossible to manage in a 'traditional' conference room.
The ego factor alone, with cultural alignments taking hold against those who do not pronounce something correctly... Office in-fighting.
The fact that there is so much difficulty bridging interpersonal differences, time zones, cultures, genders (I know, a little) actually helps open source projects get done.
People know that communication is difficult, and they make an effort to circumvent the problems. Knowing that sarcasm is hard to convey, that gestures are not part of the conversation, that tone of voice does not translate into ASCII, all this makes for BETTER communication.
The information that flies between open source developers is often clearer and less ambiguous than corporate memos. There's no room between the lines, so everything needs to get spelled out. In my office, the biggest source of frustration is not the lack of communication, it's the 'fluffiness' of communication.
Memos are sent in response to memos, but do not say anything. Information is provided by indirect reference, not directly (not my job to keep you informed). Everything is phrased in such a was that any semblamce of commitment to anything is purely implicit (it depends on what "it" means to YOU). Every concrete piece of information must be assumed, and things are only stated outright behind closed doors, so it's my word against yours. You CAN'T do that when your developers are half way around the world, and read your email with a dictionary in hand.
The open-forum nature of open source communication also keeps the politics and marketting from taking center stage in the development of the product. There are few clandestine meeting, and few sideways glances. The product is developed on it's merits, and the people with the right skills do the right work.
Competence can be faked in an office, and assignments can be made by and to the wrong people. You can fool the fans, but not the players, and in open source - with poor communication, everyone's a player.
So, sensitivity to the challenge of communication results in less ambiguity and BS-bingo; AND on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog, but everyone knows you can't code.
I can sort of understand the interests in my VISA #'s, and religion and stuff... But the last time I brushed my teeth is my own gosh-darned business Malda!!
That was exactly my point AC. If the need for ease of use was felt by enough developers, either directly or through requests, then the features would be widely available.
If Debian has these features, and they're not widely publicised, then the Debian people are dropping the ball. Ease of use is a great way to get new/un-expert users. I'm surprised that Debian isn't blowing it's horn loudly on this.
Next time you call someone 'dumbfuck', have the spine to sign your name.
When filling out FROMAL data, be truthful, otherwise you'll get bit. But, when the invasion of privacy is 'voluntary' but required...
My father almost always pays cash. If he's asked to fill out registration info, his name is that on the highest denomination... Andrew Jackson for example.
You've got to be reasonable. radio Shack, for example, uses phone numbers as database keys for customer tracking. You could try asking them to use a made up one, but you'll need to remember yet another PIN that way.:)
This issue, and this article, have been raised on/. before. IIRC, the result was much heated debate . Wish/. was responsive enough today to let me get a search done.:)
In a nutshell, the point of the debate was: Who is Linux targetted at? The developers of Linux are the users of Linux - the users of Linux become the developers of Linux. This is the way it has been before the IPO of AllThingsLinux.com
I have to ask, has the intention of Linux changed? Is it no longer software of the people, by the people and for the people? Has it become a supplier-consumer relationship?
If it's still the former, then the developers are the users and vice versa, and it's a stupid argument. If the latter is true, and the developers are the Morlocks to the users Eloi, then what Linux is all about is dead.
Linux WAS about solving real problems. Performance, technical issues, doing things 'right' without market pressure. If the focus must shift to 'end-users', and to providing 'unwashed masses' with a comfortable experience, then that goes contrary to the spirit of Linux - at least as I see it.
Let them eat cake, and run Windows and MacOS, I say! If they want to use Linux, they'll have to learn regular expressions.:) Linux is, first and foremost, a hobbyists system. Then, it is a server-side OS. Then, and only then, it is an end-user workstation OS that looks pretty and holds your hand, and comes preconfigured out of the box.
In fact, out of the box is exactly where this end-user convenience should come from. Let the people making money on Linux distros add that value. They're the ones who depend on a growing user base. "Hey you, in the red hat! Are you listening?"
The core community is it's own user base and doesn't seem to care too much about auto-configuration wizards and user-friendly dumbification. If they did, those features would be there by now. See how it works?
Frederic Douglass used "Agitate! Agitate! Agitate!" as the call to eventual freedom of the Black American.
Active resistance would have met with active retribution - and now would result in credit sanctions, bad histories, and denied loans.
Passive resistance would have led to further exploitation, and will do so in this case. Passively waiting for corporations and the government to spontaneously grow a conscience isn't going to work, as long as data-mining is profitable. Remember, in the end, the accountants make the policies.
Agitation, the non-violent and justifiable causing of frustration in the system that oppresses is the solution to the problem.
What needs to be done is, as Garfinkel (or maybe the reviewer) suggests, intentional pollution of the gathered data. Once the gathering of unreliable data becomes more costly than profitable, it will stop. If it costs more to filter and refilter dirty data than to simply ask for voluntary opt-in, then the data farmers will do the 'economical' thing.
Yes, it's going to be hard at first. Prices will rise (as they surely must anyway) and part of that increase will be due to the increased cost of fishing for good data, in a pool with an increasingly poor signal to noise ratio. We'll all get a lot more junk mail. Some of us will get very well paying jobs designing smart systems to side-step the subversion.
But eventually, through misinformation of the machine, they will just stop bothering us. It might even happen in this lifetime.
Whenever I fill out a 'registration' form (rare, and only for warranty reasons), I always jot down a household income that is hugely greater than the actual. I've gotten pre-approved credit cards for really large amounts. On some registration cards, I'm single, on others I'm married. There's about a three week delay between my infusing tracer data into 'their' system, and some peice of junk mail targeted as a response. When I last changed back to single status, a few weeks later I got mail for a local divorcee/widower support group. Hmmm.
A friend of mine, in high-school, used to order free smaples of stuff, using false names. He's gotten all sorts of interesting mailings to these names, slanted to reflect the information he provided. One alias, Santo Runningbear, got him a pre-approved Native American Scholarship. He's Irish.
The point is, a company won't change it's tactics as long as they are profitable. It's in our best interest to make farming of our identities and habits expensive.
Sort of make sense, since curved surfaces reflect, and they're easier to create in a machine than planar surfaces. Image of soap bubbles of different sizes appearing to be different colors, depending on their size (curvature) comes to mind. Bubbles are a natural shape - ever try to blow a square bubble?:) I wonder what substance they propose using?
If they propose to bounce the pulses off of bubble surfaces, they'll distort them. BUT, if they bounce them AGAIN from an identical bubble, they'll (should) be restored. Interesting.
Then again, it might be a hidden message. What do you need to blow bubbles? Air, preferably hot air. Well, some sort of vapor anyway. Vaporware.:)
And if the quality of the waveform is as good as the quality of inkjet printouts, we'll have to design a polymorphic iris for the optical receivers, so they could squint into the fiber to make out the signal!;P
The song makes fun of American parents, religious-right appropriateness freaks and the politically-correct-enabled. These folks would rather point a finger at ANYTHING, even something as innocuous as Canada, rather than take responsibility for their own actions.
Remember Columbine? They blamed the Internet, Doom, Goth sub-culture, trench-coats, drugs, ADD, peer pressure, jocks... Few people asked: What are these kids parents like? What about school administrators and teachers? How did THEY treat these (arguably fucked up) kids?
Several years ago, a kid killed himself. The kid was into heavy metal, so the parents came to the 'logical conclusion', and sued Judas Priest or Ozzy Osbourne, or some other 'artist' whose hm song suggested suicide.
A couple months later, in a very quiet development, it turned out that the kids parents were both having affairs, going through a messy divorce, and using the kid to score points against one another. Yeah, it was Ozzys fault.
So "Blame Canada" may be offensive to Canadians, but that's a bonus, not it's intention.:) It might as well have been "Blame Poland", but everyone knows lots of Polish jokes, so it wouldn't be funny. It could have been "Blame Israel", but frankly, the movie would have never gotten made. It could have been "Blame Elbonia", but you can't wage war against the Elbonians without involving Dogbert, and possibly Soctt Adams' army of rabid lawyers (though somehow, I think he'd go along with it).
Blaming Canada is the right thing to do. They may not warp our fragile little minds as much as we'd like to think, but they must deserve it for SOMETHING. I mean, Brian Adams!! Ferchrissakes!!
Wow, that was one of the funniest things I'd read all year. I can't believe that so many chumps thought it was serious. Must be because it's so late at night, and they're too drunk to get it.
No wait, it's late here too and,... Yep, I've been drinking. Man, that was f*BLEEP*g funny!
"Gateway swear-word"... Snicker! "The kids' swearing reflects badly on US" Bwwwahahahaha!!!! Oh s*BLEEP*t, it's so funny, I'm crying!!
If the song gets aired but is self-censored, then a whole dimension of WHY it's great will be lost.
If they (ABC) omit the song because of it's content, then the mind-police win, and the uninformed viewer will miss the humor, and the point of the song (and SP as a cultural icon).
If they (ABC again) play the song unedited, they will torque-off many parents, religious groups and other purists, and make for a lot of bad publicity. While there is no such thing as bad publicity, there is advertiser retribution (see backlash against ABC after Ellen 'came out'), and ABC wouldn't do well if it's major advertisers suddenly stopped paying for ads, no?
The best, and last option is to play the song as it was written for the movie, but BLEEP it as necessary (if not more than necessary for comedic effect). This will keep the advertisers and the Falwells satiated since ABC will obviously "Think of the Children":). It will keep the kiddies from hearing the swear-words. It will make Trey and Brad happy since they won't have to bastardize their creation. AND the adults will be able to fill in the blanks for themselves, and either see the humor of gutter-mouth cartoons and ironic lyrical situations, or not.
Using the BLEEP will expose what is considered to be profanity without actually showing what is considered profanity. Personally, I think that "Blame Canada" wouldn't make the point as well as "Don't say shit, say poo", or better yet the "Cartman's Mom is a..." song, since every other word in that song would get the BLEEP, but still...
If an Oscar-worthy song has BLEEP after BLEEP, then maybe, just maybe, a few more people will take the time to think about what censorship is, and who is trying to protect whom from what.
I normally like Sterling's work, but I have to say that this piece was a disappointment.
Science fiction authors usually take something that they see in the present, extrapolate it into a potential future, and see what shakes loose. It makes for interesting reading, and it often makes the author seem pretty insightful. Not this time.
The idea of economic collapse and everyone hustling in the future has been around since the dawn of cyberpunk, at least since Neuromancer, if not since Do Androids Dream... Sterling took a similar tack to Gibson, in his Islands in the Net (1989?) where global international corporations have replaced nations - where all you have, do and think is corporate and your employer counts for more than your ethnicity. There were hustlers and up-starts in that world too, and the economy was completely different.
Environmental collapse was probably best described in Heavy Weather (1993?) - another great one by Sterling. Remember the flying cow in Twister? Guess where that came from!
So how is this rant on topic? Well, the reason I didn't care much for this piece, and why I don't think it deserved a place in Fortune (or anywhere else besides B.S.'s (heh!) private site) is that it was recycled material from years ago. Now, I'm all for code reuse and non-duplication of effort, but recycled creativity is an oxymoron.
I suspect that this was written for money, so maybe this sort of hit-and-run commentary writing is the second of Bruce's upcoming 37 companies.:) Anyone who rests on their laurels keeps them in the wrong place.
If I draw on my ability to bullshit - earned in English Lit many years ago....
Sterling's quip that the market has been made deterministic by the application of enough computing power suggests that enormous computing power is available.
This computing power can also be applied to making sure that corporations *perform* deterministically - hence the market is deterministic, and there are no misconceptions, hunches or secrets.
Perhaps the powers-that-be should revisit that now.:)
I don't know if it's a rule, or a 'guideline', but.orgs are not supposed to be profit-making entities. Anyone *know* for sure?
Now that/. is OWNED by a profit making entity, and displays advertisements (for a fee)... Well, it's only right to play by the rules of the community that one seeks to represent/cater to.
Not too long ago, Jon Katz posted an article on cyber-nations. This is the level at which TLDs should be determined. Surely there are 'classes' of sites out there, and the surfer would benefit from having a better sense of the domains.
Mainly, the.com domain is over used. No surprise there. As I see the usage of.com, it breaks down into shopping sites, business presence sites, business 'hit-and-run' announcement and advert sites, and service providing sites - selling no tangible product (yahoo or slashdot). The boundaries get blurry sometimes, but for the most part, I think this is accurate.
Should we stick to the three-letter scheme? Is there an obligation to do so. Regardless, the purpose of the site should be shown in it's URL. So, there should be a.buy or.shop. Same for.corp or.inc or.biz;.ad/.advert;.priv or.fam,.serv (for places like here or pricewatch)
Then again, there is the international consideration, where the domains OUGHT to be sensitive to the fact that no everyone speaks English. Any polyglots out there care to give this some thought?
And of course, if we can corral all the porn sites to the.xxx domain, they'd be both easier to find and to filter.
I see your point on the sodomy thing, and I follow your reasoning on 'value added' charges. But I don't agree, in two ways:
First, the additional charges are there to compound the punishment. The prosecution does not make the laws or establish the limits on penalties. The only way prosecution can increase the punishment for a crime, is to bring more charges.
When a law-maker who is sympathetic to maximally penalizing criminals appears, such a person has two options. They can try to increase the maximal penalty, and fight precedent, and those whose opinions differ (rehabilitators rather than incarcerators for example). Or, they can create new laws, which are on the fringe of possibility, except when applied in conjunction with an already (inadequatelly in their opinion) punishable crime.
Nobody who is consentually involved in sodomy would report it. So it's an add-on for sexual assault. Same with possession of narcotics versus possession with intent to sell (once you exceed a certain amount, it's not just for you). I, personally, couldn't care less if there is or isn't a sodomy law. It's not something I'm into. But, if I were accused of rape (and these days that's all it takes), there's no way that law would apply - as it's not something I'm into - and it's medically provable if it happened. On reflecting on the subject, I'm rather glad that the maximum penalty for rape is lower than it would be if the additional sodomy penalty was built in de facto. Nasty topic, BTW, but I think it makes the example.
Now, I'm not saying that this layered penalty approach is necessarily right, it's just a line of reasoning that tracks, and achieves it's intended goal.
Second, the posession of the implement used to commit a crime implies intent. Having cracked passwords on your disk, along-side the crack program is like having a knife that matches the wound. The intent to commit the crime, the premeditation of doing so, and the preparation for it by getting the necessary tools, counts against the criminal.
People break in to homes all the time. They walk in through unlocked doors. Or they break a window. Or they scope out a home ahead of time, arrive at a convenient time, bring specialized tools, wear gloves, carefully pick the lock, come with a gun... The difference is the intent, and the level of preparation and premeditation. Happenstantial crime is bad and wrong, but methodical crime is something else entirely.
So in the case of this article, where there is considerable fore-thought to the crime, there is the intention to steal the protected 'trade-secret' customer list and there is the conspiracy (another charge that I'm surprised wasn't mentioned), then the layering of penalties seems appropriate to fit the extent of the crime. After all, the guy could have gotten in and erased data. He could have stolen the file. But he, and an accomplice, compromised the encrypted passwd file with a tool obtained specifically (arguable, but likely) for that purpose.
Again, the intent of use matters. Or rather, it's the effect of a higher maximum penalty that matters. It gives the state a stronger bargaining position. If the criminals plea-bargain, the possession may get dropped, and there's still the max for the break-in to get them with.
I see a lot of people already up in arms, claiming that the next thing to be outlawed will be crowbars and ski masks. Many parallels are already being drawn between these things, which can be user to commit crimes, and Crack.
This is incorrect reasoning. Crack's purpose is [drum roll] to crack passwords. There is no other application for the program. That's why it exists. Much like a set of lock-picks.
Here's the rub though, lock-picks and Crack can be used in a legal manner, by people who provide a service to breaching security to people who should rightfully have access. Ever lock the keys in your car? Nice to have somoene to call, isn't it?
They can also be used illegaly, to gain access to where you do not belong. This is when such tools become implements of criminal activity - when a trespasser has gained illegal entry to your home, and a set of picks is found in his posession, wouldn't you want that used against him?
Nobody is going to outlaw crowbars, flashlights or SATAN - even though any of these can be used to 'scope a place out'. But if you bludgeon a guard with a blackjack, or have a program designed for DoS attacks on your machine, and you are conclusively linked to a crime, then you're in for it.
Commiting robbery with your bare hands versus doing so whith a gun are two very different crimes, because of the potential for harm, or the ease with which harm can be caused. Similarly with means of trespass, if after being caught, your place is searched, and a map of the sewer beneath the facility you broke into is found on your desk...
Before we all over-react to this, let's read the article for what it is. The possession of Crack wasn't the crime, it was an additional charge brought against people who had commited a break-in.
Either I'm confused (likely), or we're not exactly talking about the same thing (more likely).
To me, bandwidth is the bit carrying capacity, measured in bps. After looking up Nyquist's and Shannon's formulas, and reading up on the correct terminology, I'm going to plant my foot firmly in my mouth.
By George! Bandwidth in EE land is a frequency range. So I stand corrected, a slice of the spectrum, regardless of position, has a constant bandwidth; meaning the difference between the top freq and bottom freq of the slice. Duh!
Would you accept that the bit rate of a bandwidth in a higher frequency range is greater than the bit rate of that same bandwidth in a lower frequency range? Does that even make sense? Or do I need to consider the properties of the medium as well?
For what it's worth, here's the reference that started my digging.
It does matter where you allocate the bandwidth in that the higher the frequency, the higher the bandwidth that it can carry. So, for a set bandwidth, you need a tighther band in the higher freq than in the lower one.
However, the power needed to push a higher frequency is higher than the lower one.
Not placing cells using a certain freq range adjacent to each other is a great way to minimize collision problems. Reminds me of a logic puzzle, where you're given x hexagons in three different colors. The object is to fill the game field with the hexagons without two of the same color touching.
Bluetooth is a low power solution. This means that the range of transmission is relatively small. Given this, there are fewer devices close enough to each other to conflict.
Remember when wireless phones first took off? If your neighbor had the same phone, you'd step on one another, and get cross-talk and what not. Then we got into frequency bands to get around the problem. Frequency hopping addresses the issue somewhat, but it doesn't solve the problem you point out. It's the same air.
With Bluetooth, the odds of signal collision are relatively small, due to frequency hopping. What's BT's range? I can't recall.. 10 metres?
You'd have to sit on a full bus of BT enabled people for this to really become an issue.
As you point out, cell has 'almost' solved the problem. The cells provide enough spatial separation between the phones that only those phones in a particular cell are competing for bendwidth. Since those phones have the ability to choose a sub-frequency that is available in the cell, they rarely conflict. When setting up a connection to the cell tower, they jump frequencies until a clear one is found.
Bummer when your cell gets saturated though. We'll have the same problem in BT-enabled offices.
Slashdot Mirror
Unix is not a product, it is a set of evolving ideas. As such, it is not going anywhere but up.
It's just as easy to ask: Is this the end of silverware, or the end of fire, or the end of any old thing that's proven to work... Is genetic engineering the end of agriculture? Is organ transplantation the end of death? Is The Bomb the end of War?
Yeah, there's micro-kernel based OSes out there like Qnx and NeXT, and Hurd... But they're still Unix. The NEW OS X from Apple is more Unix than it's predecessor. NT is more Unix than Win95.. There's new approaches like BeOS.
If one defines Unix in a very constrained way then Unix has been dead for a long time. When AT&T first released System V, and allowed it to mutate, Unix died and was reborn in a variety of ways. Umm, that was what? 1976?
If one defines Unix broadly, as a set of concepts, a layered architecture, levels of abstraction, sets of small uni-purpose tools working together, APIs and things 'grep-like' then guess what? Unix will live forever.
It's a pointless question, not because it's bad, but because it's completely subjective.
"Mr. Gates, the geeks are revolting!"
"Yes, I know. Issue a memo on personal hygiene, would you?"
There are two very different issues to consider here: The education is entirely online, and entirely free... Coupled together, these two will present some unique problems as well, but let's start step by step.
Online education is full of problems. A certain level of interaction between the instructor and the student is required for teaching. Note, 'teaching' and not 'learning'. Most of us here are self-taught to a good extent, and much of our learning has been online - but not in a structured manner.
A teacher needs the visual feedback of eye contact and voice in order to know if a student 'gets it' or not. Online tends to strip that away, just as it strips away obvious sarcasm in email. Some of the most valuable things I've learned at the big U, were tangential "Oh BTW" things that were not part of the program. That spontaneity and pesonification of the material is crucial to the experience of 'being taught'.
Online collaborative technologies are not yet ready. We're limited in bandwidth, standards, and understanding. It's very hard to deliver an audio lecture, with gif slides, to people with MODEMS. Collaborative tools are emerging, but half the time drop dead at a firewall. Downloadable lesson packages might as well be shipped on CD, and the problem reduces to non-collaborative self-study...
I'm currently taking an online graduate level course, and I'm finding it very frustrating. The specialized software required for the course is Win32-biased, and has required me to compromise an otherwise stable WinNT system to accomodate it. MS has it's hooks so deeply in this stuff that it's damn near impossible to do without a dedicated computer. Overcoming the technical challenges of the experiment is so time consuming for both the teachers and the students, that the content is almost an afterthought. Maybe this is a job for a dedicated internet appliance? It's clear that a standard framework for online learning is needed. But before one can be defined and implemented, a lot of experimentation (like my course and this proposed online university maybe) is needed to see what's actually still missiong.
There is a certain need for human contact when teaching/learning. Groups of students can collaborate online in working on a project, but presenting information in an interactive way is still far off. Teaching online, synchronously, is currently analogous to herding cats. The tools are not there. The mindset is not there. The whole concept of 'teaching' will have to be revised, because todays teachers are still trying to lecture - to a webcam...
The idea of academic integrity is unenforcable online. When I was an undergrad, we were carded when taking a final exam. We literally had to show a school ID, or a driver's license, to be let into the exam hall. Much like when taking the SAT. Online, your buddy - the office guru - can take the test for you, and you get the certificate/diploma. The entire office can be consulted, or books, or friends via email... Forget timed exams.... "Sorry. BSOD! What are you gonna do? Fail me? Microsoft ate my homework!"
Enough about that... On to free education:
The fact that anyone CAN get the education will mean that the degree will be worthless. This may be a very Good Thing, since if anyone can now get a piece of paper claiming competency, then they will have to PROVE it. Good Thing indeed. I just wish there was a way for all those Weekend MBA grads that dictate technical decisions to prove their ability to do something other than run Excel.
Free education is great, and the online distribution of it is the cheapest way to keep it free. Giving people the opportunity to learn, online, is wonderful, and beneficial to all. People with the desire to learn, and ANY available time (not 9 to 5 anymore) can improve their lot in life, and the lazy scumm can't just BUY a career. Merit and knowledge will become the metric of an educated person, not the name on the seal on the parchment.
But here's the rub. Free online education - good idea; synchronous teacher-students interaction - not there yet. Free online education is nothing more than another portal in this context. It's online self-study, via a place calling itself a 'college' or 'university' which is just an organized set of links to self-paced, self-study materials. I don't see this as much different than C++ in 21 Days.
The Institution of Education is a good thing as well. Creating an environment where more than facts are taught, but modes of thinking are created, is needed. A VR_U will have to resolve the technical problems of online collaborative teaching, and create the experience of learning, where it's not just about facts. Otherwise, we're already there, except a bit more distributed.
Things heretofore never considered:
Pig name squatting.
sci.bio.cloning.pork.pork.pork
"how much is that kidney in the window? Pork! Pork! Pork! The one with the dotcom in it's name?"
"Kerrrrmmmiiiit!!!!! Haaaaaaayyyyyyyyahhhhh!!!" in stereo.
With this, and genetic engineering, I just might live long enough to see PIGS FLY! I dread the though of all those promises I'd have to live up to.
Flying pigs? And you thought Seagulls made a mess on your windshield..
Yes, that's right. I think that the communication problems that open source has to contend with are actually a benefit.
Open source projects involve many people, in different geographical areas, from different backgrounds, often speaking different languages. This level of diversity would be near impossible to manage in a 'traditional' conference room.
The ego factor alone, with cultural alignments taking hold against those who do not pronounce something correctly... Office in-fighting.
The fact that there is so much difficulty bridging interpersonal differences, time zones, cultures, genders (I know, a little) actually helps open source projects get done.
People know that communication is difficult, and they make an effort to circumvent the problems. Knowing that sarcasm is hard to convey, that gestures are not part of the conversation, that tone of voice does not translate into ASCII, all this makes for BETTER communication.
The information that flies between open source developers is often clearer and less ambiguous than corporate memos. There's no room between the lines, so everything needs to get spelled out. In my office, the biggest source of frustration is not the lack of communication, it's the 'fluffiness' of communication.
Memos are sent in response to memos, but do not say anything. Information is provided by indirect reference, not directly (not my job to keep you informed). Everything is phrased in such a was that any semblamce of commitment to anything is purely implicit (it depends on what "it" means to YOU). Every concrete piece of information must be assumed, and things are only stated outright behind closed doors, so it's my word against yours. You CAN'T do that when your developers are half way around the world, and read your email with a dictionary in hand.
The open-forum nature of open source communication also keeps the politics and marketting from taking center stage in the development of the product. There are few clandestine meeting, and few sideways glances. The product is developed on it's merits, and the people with the right skills do the right work.
Competence can be faked in an office, and assignments can be made by and to the wrong people. You can fool the fans, but not the players, and in open source - with poor communication, everyone's a player.
So, sensitivity to the challenge of communication results in less ambiguity and BS-bingo; AND on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog, but everyone knows you can't code.
mochaone is right..
I have the following cookies:
slashdot.org FALSE / FALSE ######### income_bracket #########.#########
slashdot.org FALSE / FALSE ######### high_school_gpa #########.#########
slashdot.org FALSE / FALSE ######### sexual_orientation #########.#########
slashdot.org FALSE / FALSE ######### mothers_maiden_name #########.#########
slashdot.org FALSE / FALSE ######### last_time_you_brushed_teeth #########.#########
slashdot.org FALSE / FALSE ######### soc_sec_num #########.#########
slashdot.org FALSE / FALSE ######### iq #########.#########
slashdot.org FALSE / FALSE ######### religion #########.#########
slashdot.org FALSE / FALSE ######### visa_num #########.#########
I can sort of understand the interests in my VISA #'s, and religion and stuff... But the last time I brushed my teeth is my own gosh-darned business Malda!!
If we manage to 'solve' the puzzle, how will we know that our solution is correct?
That was exactly my point AC. If the need for ease of use was felt by enough developers, either directly or through requests, then the features would be widely available.
If Debian has these features, and they're not widely publicised, then the Debian people are dropping the ball. Ease of use is a great way to get new/un-expert users. I'm surprised that Debian isn't blowing it's horn loudly on this.
Next time you call someone 'dumbfuck', have the spine to sign your name.
When filling out FROMAL data, be truthful, otherwise you'll get bit. But, when the invasion of privacy is 'voluntary' but required...
:)
My father almost always pays cash. If he's asked to fill out registration info, his name is that on the highest denomination... Andrew Jackson for example.
You've got to be reasonable. radio Shack, for example, uses phone numbers as database keys for customer tracking. You could try asking them to use a made up one, but you'll need to remember yet another PIN that way.
This issue, and this article, have been raised on /. before. IIRC, the result was much heated debate . Wish /. was responsive enough today to let me get a search done. :)
:) Linux is, first and foremost, a hobbyists system. Then, it is a server-side OS. Then, and only then, it is an end-user workstation OS that looks pretty and holds your hand, and comes preconfigured out of the box.
In a nutshell, the point of the debate was: Who is Linux targetted at? The developers of Linux are the users of Linux - the users of Linux become the developers of Linux. This is the way it has been before the IPO of AllThingsLinux.com
I have to ask, has the intention of Linux changed? Is it no longer software of the people, by the people and for the people? Has it become a supplier-consumer relationship?
If it's still the former, then the developers are the users and vice versa, and it's a stupid argument. If the latter is true, and the developers are the Morlocks to the users Eloi, then what Linux is all about is dead.
Linux WAS about solving real problems. Performance, technical issues, doing things 'right' without market pressure. If the focus must shift to 'end-users', and to providing 'unwashed masses' with a comfortable experience, then that goes contrary to the spirit of Linux - at least as I see it.
Let them eat cake, and run Windows and MacOS, I say! If they want to use Linux, they'll have to learn regular expressions.
In fact, out of the box is exactly where this end-user convenience should come from. Let the people making money on Linux distros add that value. They're the ones who depend on a growing user base. "Hey you, in the red hat! Are you listening?"
The core community is it's own user base and doesn't seem to care too much about auto-configuration wizards and user-friendly dumbification. If they did, those features would be there by now. See how it works?
That is the only thing to be done.
Frederic Douglass used "Agitate! Agitate! Agitate!" as the call to eventual freedom of the Black American.
Active resistance would have met with active retribution - and now would result in credit sanctions, bad histories, and denied loans.
Passive resistance would have led to further exploitation, and will do so in this case. Passively waiting for corporations and the government to spontaneously grow a conscience isn't going to work, as long as data-mining is profitable. Remember, in the end, the accountants make the policies.
Agitation, the non-violent and justifiable causing of frustration in the system that oppresses is the solution to the problem.
What needs to be done is, as Garfinkel (or maybe the reviewer) suggests, intentional pollution of the gathered data. Once the gathering of unreliable data becomes more costly than profitable, it will stop. If it costs more to filter and refilter dirty data than to simply ask for voluntary opt-in, then the data farmers will do the 'economical' thing.
Yes, it's going to be hard at first. Prices will rise (as they surely must anyway) and part of that increase will be due to the increased cost of fishing for good data, in a pool with an increasingly poor signal to noise ratio. We'll all get a lot more junk mail. Some of us will get very well paying jobs designing smart systems to side-step the subversion.
But eventually, through misinformation of the machine, they will just stop bothering us. It might even happen in this lifetime.
Whenever I fill out a 'registration' form (rare, and only for warranty reasons), I always jot down a household income that is hugely greater than the actual. I've gotten pre-approved credit cards for really large amounts. On some registration cards, I'm single, on others I'm married. There's about a three week delay between my infusing tracer data into 'their' system, and some peice of junk mail targeted as a response. When I last changed back to single status, a few weeks later I got mail for a local divorcee/widower support group. Hmmm.
A friend of mine, in high-school, used to order free smaples of stuff, using false names. He's gotten all sorts of interesting mailings to these names, slanted to reflect the information he provided. One alias, Santo Runningbear, got him a pre-approved Native American Scholarship. He's Irish.
The point is, a company won't change it's tactics as long as they are profitable. It's in our best interest to make farming of our identities and habits expensive.
Sort of make sense, since curved surfaces reflect, and they're easier to create in a machine than planar surfaces. Image of soap bubbles of different sizes appearing to be different colors, depending on their size (curvature) comes to mind. Bubbles are a natural shape - ever try to blow a square bubble? :) I wonder what substance they propose using?
:)
;P
If they propose to bounce the pulses off of bubble surfaces, they'll distort them. BUT, if they bounce them AGAIN from an identical bubble, they'll (should) be restored. Interesting.
Then again, it might be a hidden message. What do you need to blow bubbles? Air, preferably hot air. Well, some sort of vapor anyway. Vaporware.
And if the quality of the waveform is as good as the quality of inkjet printouts, we'll have to design a polymorphic iris for the optical receivers, so they could squint into the fiber to make out the signal!
The song makes fun of American parents, religious-right appropriateness freaks and the politically-correct-enabled. These folks would rather point a finger at ANYTHING, even something as innocuous as Canada, rather than take responsibility for their own actions.
:) It might as well have been "Blame Poland", but everyone knows lots of Polish jokes, so it wouldn't be funny. It could have been "Blame Israel", but frankly, the movie would have never gotten made. It could have been "Blame Elbonia", but you can't wage war against the Elbonians without involving Dogbert, and possibly Soctt Adams' army of rabid lawyers (though somehow, I think he'd go along with it).
Remember Columbine? They blamed the Internet, Doom, Goth sub-culture, trench-coats, drugs, ADD, peer pressure, jocks... Few people asked: What are these kids parents like? What about school administrators and teachers? How did THEY treat these (arguably fucked up) kids?
Several years ago, a kid killed himself. The kid was into heavy metal, so the parents came to the 'logical conclusion', and sued Judas Priest or Ozzy Osbourne, or some other 'artist' whose hm song suggested suicide.
A couple months later, in a very quiet development, it turned out that the kids parents were both having affairs, going through a messy divorce, and using the kid to score points against one another. Yeah, it was Ozzys fault.
So "Blame Canada" may be offensive to Canadians, but that's a bonus, not it's intention.
Blaming Canada is the right thing to do. They may not warp our fragile little minds as much as we'd like to think, but they must deserve it for SOMETHING. I mean, Brian Adams!! Ferchrissakes!!
Wow, that was one of the funniest things I'd read all year. I can't believe that so many chumps thought it was serious. Must be because it's so late at night, and they're too drunk to get it.
No wait, it's late here too and,... Yep, I've been drinking. Man, that was f*BLEEP*g funny!
"Gateway swear-word"... Snicker! "The kids' swearing reflects badly on US" Bwwwahahahaha!!!! Oh s*BLEEP*t, it's so funny, I'm crying!!
Thank you. Really. Haaa!
Amen! Preach on Brother!
:). It will keep the kiddies from hearing the swear-words. It will make Trey and Brad happy since they won't have to bastardize their creation. AND the adults will be able to fill in the blanks for themselves, and either see the humor of gutter-mouth cartoons and ironic lyrical situations, or not.
..." song, since every other word in that song would get the BLEEP, but still...
If the song gets aired but is self-censored, then a whole dimension of WHY it's great will be lost.
If they (ABC) omit the song because of it's content, then the mind-police win, and the uninformed viewer will miss the humor, and the point of the song (and SP as a cultural icon).
If they (ABC again) play the song unedited, they will torque-off many parents, religious groups and other purists, and make for a lot of bad publicity. While there is no such thing as bad publicity, there is advertiser retribution (see backlash against ABC after Ellen 'came out'), and ABC wouldn't do well if it's major advertisers suddenly stopped paying for ads, no?
The best, and last option is to play the song as it was written for the movie, but BLEEP it as necessary (if not more than necessary for comedic effect). This will keep the advertisers and the Falwells satiated since ABC will obviously "Think of the Children"
Using the BLEEP will expose what is considered to be profanity without actually showing what is considered profanity. Personally, I think that "Blame Canada" wouldn't make the point as well as "Don't say shit, say poo", or better yet the "Cartman's Mom is a
If an Oscar-worthy song has BLEEP after BLEEP, then maybe, just maybe, a few more people will take the time to think about what censorship is, and who is trying to protect whom from what.
I normally like Sterling's work, but I have to say that this piece was a disappointment.
:) Anyone who rests on their laurels keeps them in the wrong place.
Science fiction authors usually take something that they see in the present, extrapolate it into a potential future, and see what shakes loose. It makes for interesting reading, and it often makes the author seem pretty insightful. Not this time.
The idea of economic collapse and everyone hustling in the future has been around since the dawn of cyberpunk, at least since Neuromancer, if not since Do Androids Dream... Sterling took a similar tack to Gibson, in his Islands in the Net (1989?) where global international corporations have replaced nations - where all you have, do and think is corporate and your employer counts for more than your ethnicity. There were hustlers and up-starts in that world too, and the economy was completely different.
Environmental collapse was probably best described in Heavy Weather (1993?) - another great one by Sterling. Remember the flying cow in Twister? Guess where that came from!
So how is this rant on topic? Well, the reason I didn't care much for this piece, and why I don't think it deserved a place in Fortune (or anywhere else besides B.S.'s (heh!) private site) is that it was recycled material from years ago. Now, I'm all for code reuse and non-duplication of effort, but recycled creativity is an oxymoron.
I suspect that this was written for money, so maybe this sort of hit-and-run commentary writing is the second of Bruce's upcoming 37 companies.
If I draw on my ability to bullshit - earned in English Lit many years ago....
Sterling's quip that the market has been made deterministic by the application of enough computing power suggests that enormous computing power is available.
This computing power can also be applied to making sure that corporations *perform* deterministically - hence the market is deterministic, and there are no misconceptions, hunches or secrets.
The 'pre-announcement' (date 1/19/00) Transmeta site.
It attracted a HUGE amount of attention, and weighed in at what??? 100 bytes?
Just how big is "This page is not here yet." wrapped in the minimal obligatory HTML tags?
Perhaps the powers-that-be should revisit that now. :)
.orgs are not supposed to be profit-making entities. Anyone *know* for sure?
/. is OWNED by a profit making entity, and displays advertisements (for a fee)... Well, it's only right to play by the rules of the community that one seeks to represent/cater to.
I don't know if it's a rule, or a 'guideline', but
Now that
Not too long ago, Jon Katz posted an article on cyber-nations. This is the level at which TLDs should be determined. Surely there are 'classes' of sites out there, and the surfer would benefit from having a better sense of the domains.
.com domain is over used. No surprise there. As I see the usage of .com, it breaks down into shopping sites, business presence sites, business 'hit-and-run' announcement and advert sites, and service providing sites - selling no tangible product (yahoo or slashdot). The boundaries get blurry sometimes, but for the most part, I think this is accurate.
.buy or .shop. Same for .corp or .inc or .biz; .ad/.advert; .priv or .fam, .serv (for places like here or pricewatch)
.xxx domain, they'd be both easier to find and to filter.
Mainly, the
Should we stick to the three-letter scheme? Is there an obligation to do so. Regardless, the purpose of the site should be shown in it's URL.
So, there should be a
Then again, there is the international consideration, where the domains OUGHT to be sensitive to the fact that no everyone speaks English. Any polyglots out there care to give this some thought?
And of course, if we can corral all the porn sites to the
I see your point on the sodomy thing, and I follow your reasoning on 'value added' charges. But I don't agree, in two ways:
First, the additional charges are there to compound the punishment. The prosecution does not make the laws or establish the limits on penalties. The only way prosecution can increase the punishment for a crime, is to bring more charges.
When a law-maker who is sympathetic to maximally penalizing criminals appears, such a person has two options. They can try to increase the maximal penalty, and fight precedent, and those whose opinions differ (rehabilitators rather than incarcerators for example). Or, they can create new laws, which are on the fringe of possibility, except when applied in conjunction with an already (inadequatelly in their opinion) punishable crime.
Nobody who is consentually involved in sodomy would report it. So it's an add-on for sexual assault. Same with possession of narcotics versus possession with intent to sell (once you exceed a certain amount, it's not just for you). I, personally, couldn't care less if there is or isn't a sodomy law. It's not something I'm into. But, if I were accused of rape (and these days that's all it takes), there's no way that law would apply - as it's not something I'm into - and it's medically provable if it happened. On reflecting on the subject, I'm rather glad that the maximum penalty for rape is lower than it would be if the additional sodomy penalty was built in de facto. Nasty topic, BTW, but I think it makes the example.
Now, I'm not saying that this layered penalty approach is necessarily right, it's just a line of reasoning that tracks, and achieves it's intended goal.
Second, the posession of the implement used to commit a crime implies intent. Having cracked passwords on your disk, along-side the crack program is like having a knife that matches the wound. The intent to commit the crime, the premeditation of doing so, and the preparation for it by getting the necessary tools, counts against the criminal.
People break in to homes all the time. They walk in through unlocked doors. Or they break a window. Or they scope out a home ahead of time, arrive at a convenient time, bring specialized tools, wear gloves, carefully pick the lock, come with a gun... The difference is the intent, and the level of preparation and premeditation. Happenstantial crime is bad and wrong, but methodical crime is something else entirely.
So in the case of this article, where there is considerable fore-thought to the crime, there is the intention to steal the protected 'trade-secret' customer list and there is the conspiracy (another charge that I'm surprised wasn't mentioned), then the layering of penalties seems appropriate to fit the extent of the crime.
After all, the guy could have gotten in and erased data. He could have stolen the file. But he, and an accomplice, compromised the encrypted passwd file with a tool obtained specifically (arguable, but likely) for that purpose.
Again, the intent of use matters. Or rather, it's the effect of a higher maximum penalty that matters. It gives the state a stronger bargaining position. If the criminals plea-bargain, the possession may get dropped, and there's still the max for the break-in to get them with.
I see a lot of people already up in arms, claiming that the next thing to be outlawed will be crowbars and ski masks. Many parallels are already being drawn between these things, which can be user to commit crimes, and Crack.
This is incorrect reasoning. Crack's purpose is [drum roll] to crack passwords. There is no other application for the program. That's why it exists. Much like a set of lock-picks.
Here's the rub though, lock-picks and Crack can be used in a legal manner, by people who provide a service to breaching security to people who should rightfully have access. Ever lock the keys in your car? Nice to have somoene to call, isn't it?
They can also be used illegaly, to gain access to where you do not belong. This is when such tools become implements of criminal activity - when a trespasser has gained illegal entry to your home, and a set of picks is found in his posession, wouldn't you want that used against him?
Nobody is going to outlaw crowbars, flashlights or SATAN - even though any of these can be used to 'scope a place out'. But if you bludgeon a guard with a blackjack, or have a program designed for DoS attacks on your machine, and you are conclusively linked to a crime, then you're in for it.
Commiting robbery with your bare hands versus doing so whith a gun are two very different crimes, because of the potential for harm, or the ease with which harm can be caused. Similarly with means of trespass, if after being caught, your place is searched, and a map of the sewer beneath the facility you broke into is found on your desk...
Before we all over-react to this, let's read the article for what it is. The possession of Crack wasn't the crime, it was an additional charge brought against people who had commited a break-in.
Either I'm confused (likely), or we're not exactly talking about the same thing (more likely).
To me, bandwidth is the bit carrying capacity, measured in bps. After looking up Nyquist's and Shannon's formulas, and reading up on the correct terminology, I'm going to plant my foot firmly in my mouth.
By George! Bandwidth in EE land is a frequency range. So I stand corrected, a slice of the spectrum, regardless of position, has a constant bandwidth; meaning the difference between the top freq and bottom freq of the slice. Duh!
Would you accept that the bit rate of a bandwidth in a higher frequency range is greater than the bit rate of that same bandwidth in a lower frequency range? Does that even make sense? Or do I need to consider the properties of the medium as well?
For what it's worth, here's the reference that started my digging.
It does matter where you allocate the bandwidth in that the higher the frequency, the higher the bandwidth that it can carry. So, for a set bandwidth, you need a tighther band in the higher freq than in the lower one.
However, the power needed to push a higher frequency is higher than the lower one.
Not placing cells using a certain freq range adjacent to each other is a great way to minimize collision problems. Reminds me of a logic puzzle, where you're given x hexagons in three different colors. The object is to fill the game field with the hexagons without two of the same color touching.
Bluetooth is a low power solution. This means that the range of transmission is relatively small. Given this, there are fewer devices close enough to each other to conflict.
Remember when wireless phones first took off? If your neighbor had the same phone, you'd step on one another, and get cross-talk and what not. Then we got into frequency bands to get around the problem. Frequency hopping addresses the issue somewhat, but it doesn't solve the problem you point out. It's the same air.
With Bluetooth, the odds of signal collision are relatively small, due to frequency hopping. What's BT's range? I can't recall.. 10 metres?
You'd have to sit on a full bus of BT enabled people for this to really become an issue.
As you point out, cell has 'almost' solved the problem. The cells provide enough spatial separation between the phones that only those phones in a particular cell are competing for bendwidth. Since those phones have the ability to choose a sub-frequency that is available in the cell, they rarely conflict. When setting up a connection to the cell tower, they jump frequencies until a clear one is found.
Bummer when your cell gets saturated though. We'll have the same problem in BT-enabled offices.