Auerbach himself, the technical expert, is the one who says he has personally been involved in tests that prove that the system can definitely handle millions of TLDs. Not one single person on the board disputed that. They called analysis such as yours, that the system wouldn't be able to handle millions of TLDs, a "red herring." Watch the video tapes, I was there.
Whether or not having millions of TLDs is a GOOD thing is entirely up to debate.
I went to the debate at the Berkman Center (note: Langenberg did not show up, probably because it was a pay-for-yourself event, so all 7 candidates were not there), and here are my impressions of how the candidates performed live:
Auerbach: Understands the issues backwards and forwards, he's an engineer who knows what's up. My two problems with him are a) he owns so much private stuff (his own internet company or two, his wife's internet company, his stock in Oracle or whatever place he works for) that he could have some conflicts of interest, and b) he is definitely lacking in the public speaking arena. He often loses sight of the larger issues and focuses too much on the technicalities, leaving people to think sometimes "yes that's nice, but what are you talking about?" Vote for him if you insist on your candidate having the most technical knowledge possible.
Simons: she's my favorite. She understands the civil liberty issues like/. said, and I think this is the most important part. Technical information she will be able to get from people like Auerbach, and she showed that she at least has the capacity to know whom to believe (she believed Auerbach without question that we could have millions of TLDs, for example.) She'd defend slashdot-like values by far the most in my opinion.
Lessig: a reaaaaally smart guy (he was a law prof at Harvard and now Stanford), he knows what's going on legally. What's more he understands perfectly his vision of ICANN and its legal implications -- specifically that ICANN should keep its focus extremely narrow in order to increase its mandate. My problem with him is that I don't agree with making ICANNs scope so narrow. When it comes to trademark disputes, for example, Lessig was dissapointed in ICANNs trademark board, he says this should be the role of government, while Simons said that while she agrees, the ICANN trademark board is far superior to existing structures and therefore should be kept. I think Lessig is obsessed too much with keeping down ICANN to its original and extremely limited charter and doesn't understand how ICANN will have to grow with the times.
Tiller:/. was very right in calling this guy a wildcard. He believes SOLELY in representing the masses. Not the educated masses, the masses. He reminds me of Bush. If you vote for him know that he will only take into view what joe sixpack will want. I also wasn't convinced at all that he understands the legal issues involved. At least he was open-minded and nice.
Langenberg: wasn't at the debate so I have no idea.
Chapin: He's a very smart guy, and his views are actually pretty good. But as/. says working for Verizon disqualifies him.
Miller: this guy sucked my ass. He's annoying as hell, he would interrrupt people, and he has absolutely NO idea what he's talking about. He's nervous and he gibbers and he managed to piss most of the panel off because of his intense incompetence. Vote for this guy if you want a lemming politician who understands less than nothing.
In the case of Harvard I can tell you that web access isn't adversely affected because our Napster traffic is small enough not to cause a heavy network load. And there's also a seperate UNIX cluster for Comp Sci majors who need to use a faster computing environment.
I don't think this is true. Read this from J.R. Brown and Melchor J. Antunano, M.D. of the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute:
Pre-breathing 100% oxygen for 30 minute (sic) prior to initiating ascent to altitude reduces the risk of altitude DCS for short exposures (10-30 minutes only) to altitudes between 18,000 and 43,000 feet. However, oxygen pre-breathing has to be continued, without interruption, with in-flight 100% oxygen breathing to provide effective protecting against altitude DCS.
And I'm quite aware that the body breathes to regulate CO2 levels inside the body, but your body could really care less how much CO2 is in the outside environment. By eliminating CO2 in the outside environment (like when you breathe pure oxygen) your body doesn't stop breathing because it's run out of CO2 to expel, it expels the CO2 from cellular respiration like always.
Yeah, that's what a space suit is for. Astronauts don't just go out onto Mars with their Oxygenator and start breathing. They're always inside either the climate controlled environment of their ship or in the climate controlled environment of their space suit. In both cases the air is pressurized.
The only thing humans use in air is oxygen, not nitrogen or anything else. Putting nitrogen into austronauts' air makes it more like Earth air, but it doesn't make it any more useful to them.
I was mainly talking about the one post where the guy copied the entire specification...as to MS wanting to stop commenters from linking to info, that's BS.
I think Microsoft responded to the postings as if what they posted were a trade secret, and everybody knows their Kerberos specs aren't a trade secret any more. That said, it's still copyrighted (though even that's up for grabs since their Kerberos is a modification of MIT's Kerberos). If it's copyrighted then linking to the info is in no way illegal, but posting the entire text of it probably is, as lots of people have pointed out. As to posting part of it, I'm not so sure.
Anyway, this is a great debate. I wonder if somebosdy at/. would mind putting a link to this story and related stories on the main page for a while, apart from the daily news.
I dunno, Emmett, I think this is a hard call. The reason I think it's a hard call is that I really think Microsoft has a legitimate claim that if they copyright something, and somehow it's on your site in violation of that copyright, somebody has to be responsible to take it down. I mean, if somebody were to post on/. the text to a copyrighted screenplay, for example, then wouldn't it seem reasonable for them to ask you to take it off of your servers? The whole point of copyright law is that information is _not_ open source, no matter how much you may want it to be, unless the person who came up with the information explicitly makes it available. That said, I think you have the weight of US copyright law against you, and I don't think anything is going to change that law. Information will just never be by nature free and open because part of our market is that if you come up with an idea, you shouldn't have that idea stolen from you and made profitable by somebody else. And something else. The Open Source community doesn't do what they do because they have the weight of law behind them. Open Soruce is a choice, not anything worked into our economy. I like the car analogy that I read a while back, that people choose Open Source not because it's better but because they want to have the option of having ANYbody with skills service what they've bought. Car makers don't keep as a secret the inner workings of their cars, so we have the freedom to take our car wherever we want to get it serviced. If a car maker came along who welded the hood shut and said only they can service your car, then nobody would buy it because it's a bad deal. Even if the car were much better than others available, the option of having your car serviced ANYwhere jumps the worth of the car to more than make up for the difference in quality. So don't try to get the force of law behind you, guys. You're simlpy cannot force Microsoft to play by Open Source rules just as much as Microsoft cannot force us to play by proprietary rules. Our market is set up so that people who want to make something proprietary CAN and can keep it that way with the force of law. The idea of open sourcing is simply another (albeit in our opinions better) marketing model. It has no force of law in its favor. So if we're going to beat Microsoft, we're going to have to do it on their terms. We're going to have to let them keep their proprietariness and STILL manage to beat them. Which we will. But don't try and bend the law in your favor in the dispute. By posting Kerberos to the web, their code lost its trade secret status, but it's still copyrightable and its still theirs. I welcome anybody more informed than I to fix any misconceptions on copyright law I may have, but those were my $.02
I have to say I agree with most of what you say. Forget about skimming the actual study, in the process of skimming I missed how they adjusted for innate aggressiveness.
But your ice cream example is a really appropriate one. It shows how a correlational study can lead to two very different conclusions. I still stand by what I said about correlational studies being so bad, however...not because of any lack of scientific worth, but because they're so often misenterpreted. The media tend to think of one logical conclusion from a correlational study (i.e. games lead to violence) and don't realize that there are almost always more than one logical conslusion you can draw from these studies.
Anyway, thanks for the lesson...Im a freshman working on my BS in psych:)
I was about to make a post with lots of resposnes to the recently published article on video game violence before actually reading the response that was posted here. That guy says everything I was going to, however, and a little more, so I just wanted to tell everybody that if you intend to enter debate about the violence in video games topic you should really read both the original journal article and this guy's response (I recommend skimming the actual article).
The most important point from this guy's article is that a correlational study is not a causational study...it's not even close. Correlational studies are what are done to feel out the territory, not to make any conclusions. In fact, any rational person would expect these peoples' correlational study to turn out as it did...not because video games cause violence but because violent personalities are probably more inclined to play violent video games. Which would take all responsibility for this violence off of the video games' shoulders.
One note, however. The guy in the article also criticizes the authors for sensationalizing the issue, but I think this is a slightly less valid point. He cites the fact that in college most of the studies he read were dry and tame, and this article is different in the amount of sensationalizing of the topic. I've read journal articles that are this fervent before, though...it doesn't stem from poor authoring, it just stems from the issue being new. When issues in psychology are new and important, emotions tend to run a little higher as people get all worked up about who's right and all that...just my $.02
Slashdot Mirror
Auerbach himself, the technical expert, is the one who says he has personally been involved in tests that prove that the system can definitely handle millions of TLDs. Not one single person on the board disputed that. They called analysis such as yours, that the system wouldn't be able to handle millions of TLDs, a "red herring." Watch the video tapes, I was there.
Whether or not having millions of TLDs is a GOOD thing is entirely up to debate.
I went to the debate at the Berkman Center (note: Langenberg did not show up, probably because it was a pay-for-yourself event, so all 7 candidates were not there), and here are my impressions of how the candidates performed live:
/. said, and I think this is the most important part. Technical information she will be able to get from people like Auerbach, and she showed that she at least has the capacity to know whom to believe (she believed Auerbach without question that we could have millions of TLDs, for example.) She'd defend slashdot-like values by far the most in my opinion.
/. was very right in calling this guy a wildcard. He believes SOLELY in representing the masses. Not the educated masses, the masses. He reminds me of Bush. If you vote for him know that he will only take into view what joe sixpack will want. I also wasn't convinced at all that he understands the legal issues involved. At least he was open-minded and nice.
/. says working for Verizon disqualifies him.
Auerbach: Understands the issues backwards and forwards, he's an engineer who knows what's up. My two problems with him are a) he owns so much private stuff (his own internet company or two, his wife's internet company, his stock in Oracle or whatever place he works for) that he could have some conflicts of interest, and b) he is definitely lacking in the public speaking arena. He often loses sight of the larger issues and focuses too much on the technicalities, leaving people to think sometimes "yes that's nice, but what are you talking about?" Vote for him if you insist on your candidate having the most technical knowledge possible.
Simons: she's my favorite. She understands the civil liberty issues like
Lessig: a reaaaaally smart guy (he was a law prof at Harvard and now Stanford), he knows what's going on legally. What's more he understands perfectly his vision of ICANN and its legal implications -- specifically that ICANN should keep its focus extremely narrow in order to increase its mandate. My problem with him is that I don't agree with making ICANNs scope so narrow. When it comes to trademark disputes, for example, Lessig was dissapointed in ICANNs trademark board, he says this should be the role of government, while Simons said that while she agrees, the ICANN trademark board is far superior to existing structures and therefore should be kept. I think Lessig is obsessed too much with keeping down ICANN to its original and extremely limited charter and doesn't understand how ICANN will have to grow with the times.
Tiller:
Langenberg: wasn't at the debate so I have no idea.
Chapin: He's a very smart guy, and his views are actually pretty good. But as
Miller: this guy sucked my ass. He's annoying as hell, he would interrrupt people, and he has absolutely NO idea what he's talking about. He's nervous and he gibbers and he managed to piss most of the panel off because of his intense incompetence. Vote for this guy if you want a lemming politician who understands less than nothing.
In the case of Harvard I can tell you that web access isn't adversely affected because our Napster traffic is small enough not to cause a heavy network load. And there's also a seperate UNIX cluster for Comp Sci majors who need to use a faster computing environment.
I don't think this is true. Read this from J.R. Brown and Melchor J. Antunano, M.D. of the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute:
And I'm quite aware that the body breathes to regulate CO2 levels inside the body, but your body could really care less how much CO2 is in the outside environment. By eliminating CO2 in the outside environment (like when you breathe pure oxygen) your body doesn't stop breathing because it's run out of CO2 to expel, it expels the CO2 from cellular respiration like always.
Yeah, that's what a space suit is for. Astronauts don't just go out onto Mars with their Oxygenator and start breathing. They're always inside either the climate controlled environment of their ship or in the climate controlled environment of their space suit. In both cases the air is pressurized.
The only thing humans use in air is oxygen, not nitrogen or anything else. Putting nitrogen into austronauts' air makes it more like Earth air, but it doesn't make it any more useful to them.
I was mainly talking about the one post where the guy copied the entire specification...as to MS wanting to stop commenters from linking to info, that's BS.
/. would mind putting a link to this story and related stories on the main page for a while, apart from the daily news.
I think Microsoft responded to the postings as if what they posted were a trade secret, and everybody knows their Kerberos specs aren't a trade secret any more. That said, it's still copyrighted (though even that's up for grabs since their Kerberos is a modification of MIT's Kerberos). If it's copyrighted then linking to the info is in no way illegal, but posting the entire text of it probably is, as lots of people have pointed out. As to posting part of it, I'm not so sure.
Anyway, this is a great debate. I wonder if somebosdy at
I dunno, Emmett, I think this is a hard call. The reason I think it's a hard call is that I really think Microsoft has a legitimate claim that if they copyright something, and somehow it's on your site in violation of that copyright, somebody has to be responsible to take it down. I mean, if somebody were to post on /. the text to a copyrighted screenplay, for example, then wouldn't it seem reasonable for them to ask you to take it off of your servers? The whole point of copyright law is that information is _not_ open source, no matter how much you may want it to be, unless the person who came up with the information explicitly makes it available. That said, I think you have the weight of US copyright law against you, and I don't think anything is going to change that law. Information will just never be by nature free and open because part of our market is that if you come up with an idea, you shouldn't have that idea stolen from you and made profitable by somebody else. And something else. The Open Source community doesn't do what they do because they have the weight of law behind them. Open Soruce is a choice, not anything worked into our economy. I like the car analogy that I read a while back, that people choose Open Source not because it's better but because they want to have the option of having ANYbody with skills service what they've bought. Car makers don't keep as a secret the inner workings of their cars, so we have the freedom to take our car wherever we want to get it serviced. If a car maker came along who welded the hood shut and said only they can service your car, then nobody would buy it because it's a bad deal. Even if the car were much better than others available, the option of having your car serviced ANYwhere jumps the worth of the car to more than make up for the difference in quality. So don't try to get the force of law behind you, guys. You're simlpy cannot force Microsoft to play by Open Source rules just as much as Microsoft cannot force us to play by proprietary rules. Our market is set up so that people who want to make something proprietary CAN and can keep it that way with the force of law. The idea of open sourcing is simply another (albeit in our opinions better) marketing model. It has no force of law in its favor. So if we're going to beat Microsoft, we're going to have to do it on their terms. We're going to have to let them keep their proprietariness and STILL manage to beat them. Which we will. But don't try and bend the law in your favor in the dispute. By posting Kerberos to the web, their code lost its trade secret status, but it's still copyrightable and its still theirs. I welcome anybody more informed than I to fix any misconceptions on copyright law I may have, but those were my $.02
But your ice cream example is a really appropriate one. It shows how a correlational study can lead to two very different conclusions. I still stand by what I said about correlational studies being so bad, however...not because of any lack of scientific worth, but because they're so often misenterpreted. The media tend to think of one logical conclusion from a correlational study (i.e. games lead to violence) and don't realize that there are almost always more than one logical conslusion you can draw from these studies.
Anyway, thanks for the lesson...Im a freshman working on my BS in psych :)
I was about to make a post with lots of resposnes to the recently published article on video game violence before actually reading the response that was posted here. That guy says everything I was going to, however, and a little more, so I just wanted to tell everybody that if you intend to enter debate about the violence in video games topic you should really read both the original journal article and this guy's response (I recommend skimming the actual article).
The most important point from this guy's article is that a correlational study is not a causational study...it's not even close. Correlational studies are what are done to feel out the territory, not to make any conclusions. In fact, any rational person would expect these peoples' correlational study to turn out as it did...not because video games cause violence but because violent personalities are probably more inclined to play violent video games. Which would take all responsibility for this violence off of the video games' shoulders.
One note, however. The guy in the article also criticizes the authors for sensationalizing the issue, but I think this is a slightly less valid point. He cites the fact that in college most of the studies he read were dry and tame, and this article is different in the amount of sensationalizing of the topic. I've read journal articles that are this fervent before, though...it doesn't stem from poor authoring, it just stems from the issue being new. When issues in psychology are new and important, emotions tend to run a little higher as people get all worked up about who's right and all that...just my $.02
I didn't say they were similar, I said they were in the same series. I thought it was a valid point when discussing the options of space sim fanatics.