Yeah, I suppose it could have been humor. It just happened to punch one of my hot-buttons (the entertainment-driven popular culture of America, as illustrated by television programming and the shallowness of TV "news", and the way some people/companies seem to want to take the worst features of TV (advertising everywhere you turn, two-second soundbites) and make the Web emulate that rather than using the Web's rich potential) and considering that the article had been broken up into five or six sections to increase the number of ad impressions, I just assumed the author was buying in to the "TV" mentality.
*Deep breath*
All right, I'm not going to submit you to yet another rant about television. You can come up with your own, I'm sure. Yeah, I hope the author was being humorous/ironic there. ----- The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
After reading this, I just couldn't take the article seriously:
What could we build with Buckytubes? Well, besides the boring standbys such as ultralight space-travel vehicles, we could see super roller coasters that drop you from 14,000 feet [...]
The author calls ultralight space-travel vehicles (useful applications) a "boring standy" but gets all excited about a roller coaster (entertainment). I stopped reading when I saw this. ----- The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
It seems the NY Times noticed the heavy activity on the "cypherpunks" account and shut it down. Someone (not me) has created a new, easy-to-remember username/password combination, though:
Username: slashdoted Password: slashdot
Note that there's only one "T" in "slashdoted", for some reason. ----- The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
It seems the NY Times noticed the heavy activity on the "cypherpunks" account and shut it down. Someone (not me) has created a new, easy-to-remember username/password combination, though:
Username: slashdoted Password: slashdot
Note that there's only one "T" in "slashdoted", for some reason.
I'm also posting this at the top level of the discussion tree. ----- The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Yes, it is spelled slashdotted. I didn't make the login, so I don't know why it was only spelled with one 't'; maybe the username field only allows for ten characters or something like that. I'm just passing on a piece of info someone gave a while back, last time there was an NYT piece on/. ----- The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Hey, that's actually a useful E-mail address to use! I just checked the WHOIS database, and domain.com is listed as "example domain", so you can be assured that mail sent to (anything)@domain.com will never (well, not within the foreseeable future) wind up filling up some poor guy's mailbox. Indeed, it's probably redirected to/dev/null.
Thanks for the tip. I'm going to start using that one as well! ----- The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Congratulations on finally getting Linux installed and working right for you. But more importantly,
And I am not a computer geek, and don't aspire to be one. I'm a writer, and happy with that title. Posting a column on a Linux laptop somebody else designed and preloaded for me hardly makes me any sort of nerd or techno-whiz. This is, in fact, the level of the classic breathless newbie, a mantle I expect to take to the grave.
A hearty CONGRATULATIONS on understanding this fact! I think you'll find that when (a year or so ago) you first started posting on Slashdot, most of us were annoyed at your (perceived) arrogance. "He calls himself a geek," we thought, "yet he can't even __________". Fill in the blanks with the flame-of-the-day ("get Linux installed." / "turn off those dumb 'smart quotes'." / and so on)...
But now you seem to have come to your senses and realized the truth. No, you're not a geek -- at least not a computer geek. But you don't have to be one to be respected here! All you have to do is honestly be yourself. Be a writer. Be a good writer. (Just don't get too pompous.:-) ). You won't get the same kind of respect that a hard-core kernel hacker might get, but you'll get respect of a different kind, better suited to your own skills.
It's quite simple, really. Respect among geeks is awarded to people who know their capabilities but don't brag about them. They just go out and do their thing quietly and well and let the results speak for them. People like Linus Torvalds, for example.
So just do your thing, do it well, and don't talk about yourself too much. Autobiographical pieces like this are one thing, but when you're not the subject of the article, see if you can avoid the word "I" altogether. Emulate Linus' attitude, in other words, and you'll do fine.:-)
Congratulations again, and good luck. ----- New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
Want to give me an example of some of these so called bugs in windows?
I have seen with my own eyes the following two scenarios:
1. Turn on PC. MS Windows 95 boots. Run MS Word. Type for a while. Crash for no apparent reason.
2. Turn on PC. MS Windows 95 boots. Wait. "Curves and Colors" screensaver kicks in. Crash.
Ever heard of MSDN and MSJ?
No, but my guess is they stand for "Microsoft Developers' Network" and "Microsoft Journal", respectively. Are they open to everyone? Do they cost anything to join? If the answers to these questions are "yes" and "no", respectively, then I'll admit their utility as a source of documentation. But documentation isn't useful if it: a) costs extra to get (not everyone will be willing/able to get it, which drastically reduces its utility), or b) is inaccessible to some people (ditto, only more so).
So please. Tell me more about MSDN and MSJ. I do want to know about them. ----- New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
^H is Control-H, which is the ASCII representation of the baskspace character. If you've ever been typing over a telnet link that was configured to use Delete, not Backspace, as the "erase character" character and you hit backspace, what you'll see appear at the other end is ^H.
So many people use ^H as a means of representing an overstrike in pure text, e.g. "I was going to write *this*, but I thought better of it and wrote *that* instead."
I'm trying to think of a witty example, but none spring to mind. ----- New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
Re:What an beautiful Foobar...
on
Dear Mr. Straw
·
· Score: 1
You're right about FUBAR except for the R -- I believe it stands for Recognition, not Relief. FUBAR = Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition. ----- New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
Although this obviously has many privacy concerns, I'm more interested in the security aspects of it. Based on the comments by Ms. Gardner, the IBM rep interviewed, that appears to be their main focus, too: they're interested in making E-commerce more secure. But they're going about it the wrong way (IMHO): see below.
``People from outside (of your organization) can get at your software,'' said Anne Gardner, general manager of desktop systems for IBM. ``People from the outside can't get to your hardware.''
So there will probably not be a software flash-upgrade for this chip or anything like that: after all, if it can be software-upgraded, it can be cracked: witness the recent virus (forget its name) that wiped your BIOS chip if you had a Flash-BIOS capable motherboard and chip. So the only way to upgrade this thing will be to replace the chip -- and it'll likely be soldered onto the motherboard.
``We want this to become an industry standard,'' IBM's Gardner said. ``We want this on as many desktops as possible.''
Which means that if they get there wish, people who build <buzzword>E-commerce</buzzword> sites will start to rely on their customers having PC's with the chip installed.
The features of the security chip include key encryption, which encodes text messages,
What key length? Is it upgradeable? Considering the "can't get at it with software" statement above, probably not. So either it will have export-grade encryption (weak and insufficient, as most/. readers well know) or the U.S. government will restrict its export from the U.S. Furthermore, what happens when 128-bit keys are no longer secure enough and you need to move to 256-bit keys? Whoops, sorry, can't just get a software upgrade, you need a new computer. More lock-the-consumer-into-the-upgrade-cycle stuff here, even if it's not intentional (and it very well may be intentional).
and ``digital signatures,'' which act as unique ``watermarks'' that identify the sender of the document.
So everything made on a computer can be traced to that computer. Just like typewriters in the olden days (I seem to recall a few detective stories based on that fact). Great -- could be useful in some circumstances; law enforcement would love that, for example. This is where the privacy issues (which I'm not discussing here) come in. BUT this just identifies machines and is useless for identifying people. It will almost certainly, however, be misused for identifying people by what computer they use. What happens when (not if) Joe L. User sits down at one of the public-access PCs at his local library to surf the web, sees a cool "web shopping" site and registers as a customer? Assuming the site uses the chip ID the way IBM seems to be suggesting here, it will send Joe's computer (which is actually the library's) a digital certificate for Joe to make it "easier" for him to shop there since next time he won't even have to log in. Joe likes this, of course: it makes things easier for him. So Joe orders a few things and leaves. (Log out? What's dead trees got to do with things, anyway?) Now Carl Cracker comes along, uses the same computer at the library, and checks the Netscape history to see what he can find. He finds Joe's recent visit to the <buzzword>E-commerce</buzzword> site, checks it out, and sure enough, Joe didn't log out. So he visits the site and their software thinks he's Joe. He orders a bunch of stuff and charges it all to Joe.
Plausible scenario? You bet. Could <buzzword>E-commerce</buzzword> site designers be so clueless as to use a mechanism designed for computeridentification to identify people? No doubt about it.
The real solution to the <buzzword>E-commerce</buzzword> security issue is software. Ubiquitous, open-source, peer-reviewed software. Like, say, PGP (International version), or GNU Privacy Guard, or SSLeay. The hard part is that "ubiquitous" bit. You want real security? Here's how: Convince your boss to go open-source on the security aspects of the company's new <buzzword>E-commerce</buzzword> site. Read the Linux Advocacy mini-HOWTO first, then point out the advantages of using PGP or GnuPG or SSLeay rather than a proprietary solution. It'll be a hard sell, but stick with it. If everyone works at this, we'll eventually achieve the "ubiquitous" part.
The solution is out there, folks. Let's go implement it. ----- New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
From the looks of the P.S. on that autoreply, I would conclude that this is *not* an official NSI communication -- somebody cracked the webmaster@dotcomnow.com account and put that text in as the autoreply. ----- New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
Seems to me that these stories about "everything's O.K. on 9/9/99" are more than likely part of an attempt to boost people's confidence so there won't be massive panic in December 1999. See, if I were making Y2K contingency plans for, say, a bank (which, thankfully, I'm not) I would be much less worried about disruptions in electrical service, etc. and much more worried about people panicking. See, if people don't trust that their banks are going to be ready, they'll start withdrawing their money, and before you know it you could have a run on the bank. Remember that scene in Mary Poppins? Or the one in It's a Wonderful Life?? That's what worries me more than any disruptions in electrical service.
So confidence-boosting articles are just fine by me!:-) ----- New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
Because of all the Y2K hysteria, at least something like this WILL be paid attention to. Instead of dismissing it as "Oh, so it'll show the wrong date, who cares?" some GPS-system owners may actually take this warning seriously and get their units checked out, or be sure to NOT be out navigating at midnight GMT Saturday. So in a weird, roundabout way, the Y2K hysteria may actually end up saving a few lives... -----
Solution: Multiple workspaces is a possibility. Default is only one workspace. In the "Daily Tips" or whatever your equivalent is, have a tip that says "Did you know... that you can have multiple [workspaces | virtual screens | desktops]? Just [fiddle option thingamabob under menu whatsit]." So the advanced users eventually run across this feature and use it, but the beginner doesn't get confused by it. -----
There are several window managers that emulate the MacOS look. I don't know their names offhand, but a little research at Freshmeat or Linuxberg ought to turn something up. And check Themes.org for MacOS themes for various themable windowmanagers.
It's just that you never hear about these Mac-like windowmanagers in the press because they're all getting excited about a Windows-like desktop system. But they're out there. -----
I know that comment was probably flamebait but I'm going to give it a serious response...
This seems to come up every time GNOME or KDE is mentioned. Yes, Windows already has a tried and true desktop which is easier to use for some people (since GUI ease-of-use is a very personal thing, some like one GUI and other like another. Choice is good!). And Linux is only reaching the stage of having a useful desktop system (KDE is already there, and GNOME is getting there rapidly as well), so it can't be called "tried and true" yet. But -- Linux isn't a "real" operating system? How's that again? It boots up my computer and runs all my programs, delivers my E-mail, etc. If that's not a real operating system, I don't know what is. And in terms of the "catch-up", you can just as easily (more easily, IMO) argue that Windows is playing "catch-up" to UNIX in all areas *but* the GUI. Networking and communications (E-mail, WWW, FTP, newsgroups) and security are just some of the areas that UNIX has long been good at and in which Windows is just playing "catch-up". (And in security particularly, Windows still has a long way to go).
And why not use Windows? Well, there's really no reason not to, if it's the right tool for the job. See, I'm neutral in the OS holy wars -- I don't care what you use, and I'll use the right tool for me. I don't use Windows because Linux does everything I need, has higher quality in many areas, and costs me $89 less than Windows (a very important consideration on a college student's budget!). Also, I happen to not like Microsoft's monopolistic practices, so I guess I'm not all that neutral. But if a Microsoft product is the right tool for the job, I'll use it.
Sorry. You'll get no flames from me. "Hey! You're one of those condescending UNIX users!" "Here's a nickel, kid. Go buy yourself a real operating system." - Stolen from Dilbert (I think) and changed a little -----
Did anyone else catch the name server / Internet confusion here?
The Internet really comes down to 13 machines, called "root servers." These are the major "data traffic cops" for the entire Internet. If those puppies blow, the entire global network grinds to halt. [...] Network Solutions Inc. [...] runs two of the world's 13 root servers.
So what they're talking about here is nameservers. Right. So if all thirteen root nameservers go down, DNS will be unreliable, yes. But you'll still be able to type "http://206.170.14.75/" into your web browser to read Slashdot. If you're really worried about DNS failing, start making those lists of important IP's now!:-)
Ah well. As long as there is journalism, there will always be a few good journalists who do their research and get it right, and a large number who write about things they just don't understand and make glaring mistakes like this one. All you can do is laugh, ignore it, and keep doing whatever you were doing... -----
I feel this is a good thing... I think cybersquatting is an abuse of the domain registration system and something should be done about it. Whether this is the right answer has yet to be seen, but in the meantime at lest something is being tried.
Now, about parody: Hopefully the right to put up a parody site with a name that's similar to the site you're parodying won't be infringed on. But it seems to me that if you're doing a parody site, it would be polite to put up somewhere (say, in small print at the top) something like "This is not the Microsoft homepage. This is a parody site. The real Microsoft homepage can be found here." Large enough to be visible, and at the top so that people will see it the first time through, but small enough to be unobtrusive and easily-ignorable once you've seen it once.
You know, now I come to think about it, the main reason why I'm annoyed at cybersquatting is that I feel it's impolite. No, really -- despite the easy anonymity (well, pseudo-anonymity at least) the Internet can provide, I still feel like people really should be polite and respectful, even though they're not face-to-face. Call me an idealist or something, I don't know... -----
As someone else already pointed out, there's no 8GB limit on the size of an ext2 partition, and the fsck isn't all that slow. I've got a 54GB RAID partition (split across three drives) here (not my home computer, though. I wish!:-) ), and fsck'ing it takes about half an hour (I timed it once).
I still am looking forward to putting xfs on that partition, though. -----
The problem with the evolution debate is that there are generally two different things people mean by the term "evolution". One is the process by which gene frequencies shift among a given population (e.g., the oft-cited example of the light and dark moths in industrial London) -- I'm going to call this microevolution. The other is the process by which new species are formed, over extended periods of time, eventually developing characteristics completely distinct from the characteristics of their ancestors. I'm going to call this process macroevolution.
Since microevolution happens over such a short period of time (usually several generations), it is easily observable and reproduceable and can thus be subjected to the scientific method. Macroevolution, however, is generally accepted to take place on a geological timescale and thus cannot be observed or reproduced. Macroevolution thus cannot be subjected to the scientific method. It, like the Big Bang and other theories of origins, can be argued for from other types of evidence, but can also be argued against from other types of evidence. Funny thing -- some specific pieces of evidence (specifically, the fossil record) have been used in arguments both for and against macroevolution. I maintain that macroevolution and other theories of origins (including the Big Bang theory, creationism and any others that I missed) hold more to the realm of philosophy than science.
Now I, personally, have no trouble accepting microevolution as proven scientific theory. ("Fact" if you like, but I've found the word "fact" to be a loaded word in the evolution debate, so I'm avoiding it). I also have no problem with speciation (sp?), as demonstrated for example by Darwin's finches in the Galapagos Islands. (For those who don't know this example, Darwin apparently observed several species of finch in the Galapagos Islands, which were almost identical in appearance but would not interbreed. Their main difference was in beak shape and in diet, and their beak shapes seemed to correspond to their diet: for example, those that ate tough, strong seeds tended to have correspondingly tough beaks to crack the seeds, while those that ate lighter, easier-to-crack seeds tended to have thinner, lighter beaks.) I can accept the theory that these various species of finch descended from a common ancestor, an undifferentiated type of finch, and that the various beak shapes developed in response to the various types of seeds available to eat on the different islands. But I don't accept the theory of macroevolution. Hang with me, and I'll explain why.
A necessary component of macroevolution is the increasing of genetic diversity. Say you have a lot of different species of fish, all of which have gills and thus can only live in water. One species or subspecies (or maybe even just one individual) develops a lunglike organ and can thus live on land for a short time. This proves beneficial to survival and reproduction for some reason (say, lack of competition for food on land), and so natural selection favors those with this lunglike organism, because they tend to produce a lot of offspring. Genetic diversity has increased -- before, there were no lungs, nothing but gills, and now, some fish have lunglike organs as well as gills. Genetic diversity increased, in fact, as soon as that one species (or subspecies or individual) developed the genes for that lunglike organ. If all the individuals with the genes for said organ had died out without reproducing, genetic diversity would have decreased again. The problem I have with this theory (which all sounds pretty good up until this point) is this: where did that increase in genetic diversity come from in the first place? Since microevolution and speciation tend to maintain genetic diversity at a constant at best, or even decrease the amount of genetic diversity at worst (see next paragraph for my argument on that score), it can't be the source of that increase in genetic diversity. Which only leaves natural, randomly-occurring mutations as the source of the increase in genetic diversity, and I can't accept that either for reasons given even further below.
NOTE: Up until the last section of the preceding paragraph, I've been confining myself to stating the "facts" of the case: statements about what the various theories say, and so on, and any personal opinions have been clearly labeled as such. From now on, however, I'm going to delve into those nagging questions like "Is this theory correct?" which the two sides of the debate don't seem to be able to agree upon. The rest of this article, therefore, is entirely personal opinion.
Right. Why do I believe that microevolution and speciation reduce genetic diversity or, at most, maintain it at its previous level? First of all, microevolution as per my definition above does nothing but reshuffle the distribution of genes already present in the population. In the case of the light and dark moths in industrial London, for example, both the genes for lightness and the genes for darkness were already present in the population at large. (To simplify matters a little, I'm going to assume that there are just two genes, L and D, involved, and that their combinations form a spectrum from light to dark -- for example, LLLL produces a very light moth, DDDD produces a very dark moth, LDLL produces a somewhat light moth, and so on. This may be a little bit of an over-simplification, but it works for the purposes of understanding my argument, and a more complex genetic method of determining lightness and darkness would still be subject to the same rules of natural selection, etc.) Now when conditions favored light coloring, the DDDD and DDLD moths would be seen and eaten by birds very easily and would tend to leave fewer offspring, thus reducing the frequency of the D gene. The LLDL moths would still produce offspring in sufficient quantities to preserve the D gene, however. Thus when conditions shifted and darkness became a better protective coloring than lightness, the LLLL and LLDL moths were at a disadvantage and the DDDD and DDDL moths tended to produce more offspring, thus decreasing the frequency of the L gene and increasing the frequency of the D gene. But no new genes have been introduced! If, by some unlucky chance, enough DDDD, DDDL, DDLL and DLLL moths had been eaten without leaving offspring so that almost all moths left were LLLL with only a few LDLL (or DLLL, or LLLD, or LLDL) moths left, that would be a highly skewed gene ratio -- but the D gene could still come back if conditions should happen to shift, and there could be more dark moths again. But if through some chance event (a forest fire, a particularly dry year with very little food for the moths, a sudden increase in predation), a lot more moths started dying without offspring, including, as chance might have it, all the remaining LLDL moths, the D gene would have completely died out. That's it folks. No more dark moths -- ever. In this scenario, through an unlikely (but possible) combination of events, genetic diversity has been reduced. And speciation makes this even more likely -- if, for some reason (maybe similar to whatever caused the Darwin's finches to speciate) the L and D genes became linked to genes that determine reproduction, light and dark moths would be either unable to reproduce together or else likely to leave fewer viable offspring. This would tend to produce two different species: one with mostly LLLL and a few LLDL moths, and one with mostly DDDD and a few DDLD moths. And those few with one "opposite" gene would probably have less capability to reproduce, leaving fewer offspring and thus driving the frequency of the "opposite" gene down. Again, an accident of some kind of another could exterminate the "opposite" gene in one or both of these populations, leaving two separate species with only one color gene each, rather than one species with two color genes. This leaves one gene or the other more prone to extermination should conditions shift to favor the other one -- should light color become a detriment (say, because all the trees are darkened by pollution and the birds can see light moths better), the LLLL population would be quickly decimated and might even become extinct before conditions shifted again. Again, genetic diversity has not been increased and the possibility for reduction of genetic diversity (by the complete extinction of one gene or the other) is there.
Finally, my opinion on mutations is less firm than on these other subjects. I believe the evidence shows that mutations are generally harmful (this, I think, most people will not dispute) and thus would tend to be culled from the gene pool since they introduce disadvantages rather than advantages. Those mutations that would kill an individual before it reproduced would, of course, be culled instantly -- at least if they were dominant. And I know of no evidence for generally favorable mutations -- all the ones I can think of that aren't harmful are, at best neutral. But if you know of any mutations that are favorable to an individual, whatever species they might occur in, please let me know.
Should you want to continue this debate, I suggest taking it to email rather than continuing on Slashdot, since this article is about to disappear from the main Slashdot page and is heavily overloaded with comments anyway, and I at least won't have time to come back and check it constantly for responses. You can email me at the address listed in my User Info, or (preferably) at rmunn@pobox.com. The pobox.com address is the preferred one, since it won't change after I finish college -- but both addresses will work for the next two years or so. And if you've actually read this far, thanks for taking the time to do so and I'd appreciate carrying on this debate with you if you disagree with my position. -----
Yes, I'm also saddened by how often money is seen as all-important in the U.S.A. As an American who grew up in Europe (France, specifically) and is now going to college in the U.S., I have seen American culture from both the inside and the outside. And IMNSHO, Americans in general put way too much value on money. People pursue higher-paying jobs at the expense of their health, their families, their happiness. Good, but less popular, TV shows get cut in favor of low-quality (but popular) Yet-Another-Sitcom shows, because those get higher ratings and thus more advertising revenue. And so it goes...
I was talking to somebody once who mentioned, "You can make a lot of money in the field of computer science, can't you?" I answered, "Yeah, you can... If money's what you care about." He gave me a funny look. Sigh... Sometimes I'd like to stand in the middle of downtown with a megaphone during rush hour and yell at all the people going to work, "Hey! Money isn't everything, you know!" Do you think they'd lock me in the insane asylum? If you don't want money or fame in today's American culture, you're a nobody. Well, my answer to that comes from Emily Dickinson (this is from memory, so I may get punctuation or capitalization wrong...):
I'm nobody! Who are you? Are you nobody too? Then that makes two of us -- don't tell! They'd banish us, you know.
How dreary to be Somebody! How public, like the frog, To tell your name the livelong day To an admiring bog!
Slashdot Mirror
Funny thing... I originally read that as "nanosnot" cities. VERY weird mental picture... :-)
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
*Deep breath*
All right, I'm not going to submit you to yet another rant about television. You can come up with your own, I'm sure. Yeah, I hope the author was being humorous/ironic there.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
What could we build with Buckytubes? Well, besides the boring standbys such as ultralight space-travel vehicles, we could see super roller coasters that drop you from 14,000 feet [...]
The author calls ultralight space-travel vehicles (useful applications) a "boring standy" but gets all excited about a roller coaster (entertainment). I stopped reading when I saw this.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Username: slashdoted
Password: slashdot
Note that there's only one "T" in "slashdoted", for some reason.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Username: slashdoted
Password: slashdot
Note that there's only one "T" in "slashdoted", for some reason.
I'm also posting this at the top level of the discussion tree.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Yes, it is spelled slashdotted. I didn't make the login, so I don't know why it was only spelled with one 't'; maybe the username field only allows for ten characters or something like that. I'm just passing on a piece of info someone gave a while back, last time there was an NYT piece on /.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Thanks for the tip. I'm going to start using that one as well!
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Username: slashdoted
Password: slashdot
Enjoy!
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Congratulations on finally getting Linux installed and working right for you. But more importantly,
And I am not a computer geek, and don't aspire to be one. I'm a writer, and happy with that title. Posting a column on a Linux laptop somebody else designed and preloaded for me hardly makes me any sort of nerd or techno-whiz. This is, in fact, the level of the classic breathless newbie, a mantle I expect to take to the grave.
A hearty CONGRATULATIONS on understanding this fact! I think you'll find that when (a year or so ago) you first started posting on Slashdot, most of us were annoyed at your (perceived) arrogance. "He calls himself a geek," we thought, "yet he can't even __________". Fill in the blanks with the flame-of-the-day ("get Linux installed." / "turn off those dumb 'smart quotes'." / and so on)...
But now you seem to have come to your senses and realized the truth. No, you're not a geek -- at least not a computer geek. But you don't have to be one to be respected here! All you have to do is honestly be yourself. Be a writer. Be a good writer. (Just don't get too pompous. :-) ). You won't get the same kind of respect that a hard-core kernel hacker might get, but you'll get respect of a different kind, better suited to your own skills.
It's quite simple, really. Respect among geeks is awarded to people who know their capabilities but don't brag about them. They just go out and do their thing quietly and well and let the results speak for them. People like Linus Torvalds, for example.
So just do your thing, do it well, and don't talk about yourself too much. Autobiographical pieces like this are one thing, but when you're not the subject of the article, see if you can avoid the word "I" altogether. Emulate Linus' attitude, in other words, and you'll do fine. :-)
Congratulations again, and good luck.
-----
New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
I have seen with my own eyes the following two scenarios:
1. Turn on PC. MS Windows 95 boots. Run MS Word. Type for a while. Crash for no apparent reason.
2. Turn on PC. MS Windows 95 boots. Wait. "Curves and Colors" screensaver kicks in. Crash.
Ever heard of MSDN and MSJ?
No, but my guess is they stand for "Microsoft Developers' Network" and "Microsoft Journal", respectively. Are they open to everyone? Do they cost anything to join? If the answers to these questions are "yes" and "no", respectively, then I'll admit their utility as a source of documentation. But documentation isn't useful if it: a) costs extra to get (not everyone will be willing/able to get it, which drastically reduces its utility), or b) is inaccessible to some people (ditto, only more so).
So please. Tell me more about MSDN and MSJ. I do want to know about them.
-----
New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
So many people use ^H as a means of representing an overstrike in pure text, e.g. "I was going to write *this*, but I thought better of it and wrote *that* instead."
I'm trying to think of a witty example, but none spring to mind.
-----
New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
You're right about FUBAR except for the R -- I believe it stands for Recognition, not Relief. FUBAR = Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition.
-----
New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
``People from outside (of your organization) can get at your software,'' said Anne Gardner, general manager of desktop systems for IBM. ``People from the outside can't get to your hardware.''
So there will probably not be a software flash-upgrade for this chip or anything like that: after all, if it can be software-upgraded, it can be cracked: witness the recent virus (forget its name) that wiped your BIOS chip if you had a Flash-BIOS capable motherboard and chip. So the only way to upgrade this thing will be to replace the chip -- and it'll likely be soldered onto the motherboard.
``We want this to become an industry standard,'' IBM's Gardner said. ``We want this on as many desktops as possible.''
Which means that if they get there wish, people who build <buzzword>E-commerce</buzzword> sites will start to rely on their customers having PC's with the chip installed.
The features of the security chip include key encryption, which encodes text messages,
What key length? Is it upgradeable? Considering the "can't get at it with software" statement above, probably not. So either it will have export-grade encryption (weak and insufficient, as most /. readers well know) or the U.S. government will restrict its export from the U.S. Furthermore, what happens when 128-bit keys are no longer secure enough and you need to move to 256-bit keys? Whoops, sorry, can't just get a software upgrade, you need a new computer. More lock-the-consumer-into-the-upgrade-cycle stuff here, even if it's not intentional (and it very well may be intentional).
and ``digital signatures,'' which act as unique ``watermarks'' that identify the sender of the document.
So everything made on a computer can be traced to that computer. Just like typewriters in the olden days (I seem to recall a few detective stories based on that fact). Great -- could be useful in some circumstances; law enforcement would love that, for example. This is where the privacy issues (which I'm not discussing here) come in. BUT this just identifies machines and is useless for identifying people. It will almost certainly, however, be misused for identifying people by what computer they use. What happens when (not if) Joe L. User sits down at one of the public-access PCs at his local library to surf the web, sees a cool "web shopping" site and registers as a customer? Assuming the site uses the chip ID the way IBM seems to be suggesting here, it will send Joe's computer (which is actually the library's) a digital certificate for Joe to make it "easier" for him to shop there since next time he won't even have to log in. Joe likes this, of course: it makes things easier for him. So Joe orders a few things and leaves. (Log out? What's dead trees got to do with things, anyway?) Now Carl Cracker comes along, uses the same computer at the library, and checks the Netscape history to see what he can find. He finds Joe's recent visit to the <buzzword>E-commerce</buzzword> site, checks it out, and sure enough, Joe didn't log out. So he visits the site and their software thinks he's Joe. He orders a bunch of stuff and charges it all to Joe.
Plausible scenario? You bet. Could <buzzword>E-commerce</buzzword> site designers be so clueless as to use a mechanism designed for computeridentification to identify people? No doubt about it.
The real solution to the <buzzword>E-commerce</buzzword> security issue is software. Ubiquitous, open-source, peer-reviewed software. Like, say, PGP (International version), or GNU Privacy Guard, or SSLeay. The hard part is that "ubiquitous" bit. You want real security? Here's how: Convince your boss to go open-source on the security aspects of the company's new <buzzword>E-commerce</buzzword> site. Read the Linux Advocacy mini-HOWTO first, then point out the advantages of using PGP or GnuPG or SSLeay rather than a proprietary solution. It'll be a hard sell, but stick with it. If everyone works at this, we'll eventually achieve the "ubiquitous" part.
The solution is out there, folks. Let's go implement it.
-----
New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
From the looks of the P.S. on that autoreply, I would conclude that this is *not* an official NSI communication -- somebody cracked the webmaster@dotcomnow.com account and put that text in as the autoreply.
-----
New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
So confidence-boosting articles are just fine by me! :-)
-----
New E-mail address! If I'm in your address book, please update it.
Because of all the Y2K hysteria, at least something like this WILL be paid attention to. Instead of dismissing it as "Oh, so it'll show the wrong date, who cares?" some GPS-system owners may actually take this warning seriously and get their units checked out, or be sure to NOT be out navigating at midnight GMT Saturday. So in a weird, roundabout way, the Y2K hysteria may actually end up saving a few lives...
-----
Solution: Multiple workspaces is a possibility. Default is only one workspace. In the "Daily Tips" or whatever your equivalent is, have a tip that says "Did you know... that you can have multiple [workspaces | virtual screens | desktops]? Just [fiddle option thingamabob under menu whatsit]." So the advanced users eventually run across this feature and use it, but the beginner doesn't get confused by it.
-----
It's just that you never hear about these Mac-like windowmanagers in the press because they're all getting excited about a Windows-like desktop system. But they're out there.
-----
This seems to come up every time GNOME or KDE is mentioned. Yes, Windows already has a tried and true desktop which is easier to use for some people (since GUI ease-of-use is a very personal thing, some like one GUI and other like another. Choice is good!). And Linux is only reaching the stage of having a useful desktop system (KDE is already there, and GNOME is getting there rapidly as well), so it can't be called "tried and true" yet. But -- Linux isn't a "real" operating system? How's that again? It boots up my computer and runs all my programs, delivers my E-mail, etc. If that's not a real operating system, I don't know what is. And in terms of the "catch-up", you can just as easily (more easily, IMO) argue that Windows is playing "catch-up" to UNIX in all areas *but* the GUI. Networking and communications (E-mail, WWW, FTP, newsgroups) and security are just some of the areas that UNIX has long been good at and in which Windows is just playing "catch-up". (And in security particularly, Windows still has a long way to go).
And why not use Windows? Well, there's really no reason not to, if it's the right tool for the job. See, I'm neutral in the OS holy wars -- I don't care what you use, and I'll use the right tool for me. I don't use Windows because Linux does everything I need, has higher quality in many areas, and costs me $89 less than Windows (a very important consideration on a college student's budget!). Also, I happen to not like Microsoft's monopolistic practices, so I guess I'm not all that neutral. But if a Microsoft product is the right tool for the job, I'll use it.
Sorry. You'll get no flames from me.
"Hey! You're one of those condescending UNIX users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Go buy yourself a real operating system."
- Stolen from Dilbert (I think) and changed a little
-----
The Internet really comes down to 13 machines, called "root servers." These are the major "data traffic cops" for the entire Internet. If those puppies blow, the entire global network grinds to halt. [...] Network Solutions Inc. [...] runs two of the world's 13 root servers.
So what they're talking about here is nameservers. Right. So if all thirteen root nameservers go down, DNS will be unreliable, yes. But you'll still be able to type "http://206.170.14.75/" into your web browser to read Slashdot. If you're really worried about DNS failing, start making those lists of important IP's now! :-)
Ah well. As long as there is journalism, there will always be a few good journalists who do their research and get it right, and a large number who write about things they just don't understand and make glaring mistakes like this one. All you can do is laugh, ignore it, and keep doing whatever you were doing...
-----
Now, about parody: Hopefully the right to put up a parody site with a name that's similar to the site you're parodying won't be infringed on. But it seems to me that if you're doing a parody site, it would be polite to put up somewhere (say, in small print at the top) something like "This is not the Microsoft homepage. This is a parody site. The real Microsoft homepage can be found here." Large enough to be visible, and at the top so that people will see it the first time through, but small enough to be unobtrusive and easily-ignorable once you've seen it once.
You know, now I come to think about it, the main reason why I'm annoyed at cybersquatting is that I feel it's impolite. No, really -- despite the easy anonymity (well, pseudo-anonymity at least) the Internet can provide, I still feel like people really should be polite and respectful, even though they're not face-to-face. Call me an idealist or something, I don't know...
-----
I still am looking forward to putting xfs on that partition, though.
-----
Since microevolution happens over such a short period of time (usually several generations), it is easily observable and reproduceable and can thus be subjected to the scientific method. Macroevolution, however, is generally accepted to take place on a geological timescale and thus cannot be observed or reproduced. Macroevolution thus cannot be subjected to the scientific method. It, like the Big Bang and other theories of origins, can be argued for from other types of evidence, but can also be argued against from other types of evidence. Funny thing -- some specific pieces of evidence (specifically, the fossil record) have been used in arguments both for and against macroevolution. I maintain that macroevolution and other theories of origins (including the Big Bang theory, creationism and any others that I missed) hold more to the realm of philosophy than science.
Now I, personally, have no trouble accepting microevolution as proven scientific theory. ("Fact" if you like, but I've found the word "fact" to be a loaded word in the evolution debate, so I'm avoiding it). I also have no problem with speciation (sp?), as demonstrated for example by Darwin's finches in the Galapagos Islands. (For those who don't know this example, Darwin apparently observed several species of finch in the Galapagos Islands, which were almost identical in appearance but would not interbreed. Their main difference was in beak shape and in diet, and their beak shapes seemed to correspond to their diet: for example, those that ate tough, strong seeds tended to have correspondingly tough beaks to crack the seeds, while those that ate lighter, easier-to-crack seeds tended to have thinner, lighter beaks.) I can accept the theory that these various species of finch descended from a common ancestor, an undifferentiated type of finch, and that the various beak shapes developed in response to the various types of seeds available to eat on the different islands. But I don't accept the theory of macroevolution. Hang with me, and I'll explain why.
A necessary component of macroevolution is the increasing of genetic diversity. Say you have a lot of different species of fish, all of which have gills and thus can only live in water. One species or subspecies (or maybe even just one individual) develops a lunglike organ and can thus live on land for a short time. This proves beneficial to survival and reproduction for some reason (say, lack of competition for food on land), and so natural selection favors those with this lunglike organism, because they tend to produce a lot of offspring. Genetic diversity has increased -- before, there were no lungs, nothing but gills, and now, some fish have lunglike organs as well as gills. Genetic diversity increased, in fact, as soon as that one species (or subspecies or individual) developed the genes for that lunglike organ. If all the individuals with the genes for said organ had died out without reproducing, genetic diversity would have decreased again. The problem I have with this theory (which all sounds pretty good up until this point) is this: where did that increase in genetic diversity come from in the first place? Since microevolution and speciation tend to maintain genetic diversity at a constant at best, or even decrease the amount of genetic diversity at worst (see next paragraph for my argument on that score), it can't be the source of that increase in genetic diversity. Which only leaves natural, randomly-occurring mutations as the source of the increase in genetic diversity, and I can't accept that either for reasons given even further below.
NOTE: Up until the last section of the preceding paragraph, I've been confining myself to stating the "facts" of the case: statements about what the various theories say, and so on, and any personal opinions have been clearly labeled as such. From now on, however, I'm going to delve into those nagging questions like "Is this theory correct?" which the two sides of the debate don't seem to be able to agree upon. The rest of this article, therefore, is entirely personal opinion.
Right. Why do I believe that microevolution and speciation reduce genetic diversity or, at most, maintain it at its previous level? First of all, microevolution as per my definition above does nothing but reshuffle the distribution of genes already present in the population. In the case of the light and dark moths in industrial London, for example, both the genes for lightness and the genes for darkness were already present in the population at large. (To simplify matters a little, I'm going to assume that there are just two genes, L and D, involved, and that their combinations form a spectrum from light to dark -- for example, LLLL produces a very light moth, DDDD produces a very dark moth, LDLL produces a somewhat light moth, and so on. This may be a little bit of an over-simplification, but it works for the purposes of understanding my argument, and a more complex genetic method of determining lightness and darkness would still be subject to the same rules of natural selection, etc.) Now when conditions favored light coloring, the DDDD and DDLD moths would be seen and eaten by birds very easily and would tend to leave fewer offspring, thus reducing the frequency of the D gene. The LLDL moths would still produce offspring in sufficient quantities to preserve the D gene, however. Thus when conditions shifted and darkness became a better protective coloring than lightness, the LLLL and LLDL moths were at a disadvantage and the DDDD and DDDL moths tended to produce more offspring, thus decreasing the frequency of the L gene and increasing the frequency of the D gene. But no new genes have been introduced! If, by some unlucky chance, enough DDDD, DDDL, DDLL and DLLL moths had been eaten without leaving offspring so that almost all moths left were LLLL with only a few LDLL (or DLLL, or LLLD, or LLDL) moths left, that would be a highly skewed gene ratio -- but the D gene could still come back if conditions should happen to shift, and there could be more dark moths again. But if through some chance event (a forest fire, a particularly dry year with very little food for the moths, a sudden increase in predation), a lot more moths started dying without offspring, including, as chance might have it, all the remaining LLDL moths, the D gene would have completely died out. That's it folks. No more dark moths -- ever. In this scenario, through an unlikely (but possible) combination of events, genetic diversity has been reduced. And speciation makes this even more likely -- if, for some reason (maybe similar to whatever caused the Darwin's finches to speciate) the L and D genes became linked to genes that determine reproduction, light and dark moths would be either unable to reproduce together or else likely to leave fewer viable offspring. This would tend to produce two different species: one with mostly LLLL and a few LLDL moths, and one with mostly DDDD and a few DDLD moths. And those few with one "opposite" gene would probably have less capability to reproduce, leaving fewer offspring and thus driving the frequency of the "opposite" gene down. Again, an accident of some kind of another could exterminate the "opposite" gene in one or both of these populations, leaving two separate species with only one color gene each, rather than one species with two color genes. This leaves one gene or the other more prone to extermination should conditions shift to favor the other one -- should light color become a detriment (say, because all the trees are darkened by pollution and the birds can see light moths better), the LLLL population would be quickly decimated and might even become extinct before conditions shifted again. Again, genetic diversity has not been increased and the possibility for reduction of genetic diversity (by the complete extinction of one gene or the other) is there.
Finally, my opinion on mutations is less firm than on these other subjects. I believe the evidence shows that mutations are generally harmful (this, I think, most people will not dispute) and thus would tend to be culled from the gene pool since they introduce disadvantages rather than advantages. Those mutations that would kill an individual before it reproduced would, of course, be culled instantly -- at least if they were dominant. And I know of no evidence for generally favorable mutations -- all the ones I can think of that aren't harmful are, at best neutral. But if you know of any mutations that are favorable to an individual, whatever species they might occur in, please let me know.
Should you want to continue this debate, I suggest taking it to email rather than continuing on Slashdot, since this article is about to disappear from the main Slashdot page and is heavily overloaded with comments anyway, and I at least won't have time to come back and check it constantly for responses. You can email me at the address listed in my User Info, or (preferably) at rmunn@pobox.com. The pobox.com address is the preferred one, since it won't change after I finish college -- but both addresses will work for the next two years or so. And if you've actually read this far, thanks for taking the time to do so and I'd appreciate carrying on this debate with you if you disagree with my position.
-----
Yes, I'm also saddened by how often money is seen as all-important in the U.S.A. As an American who grew up in Europe (France, specifically) and is now going to college in the U.S., I have seen American culture from both the inside and the outside. And IMNSHO, Americans in general put way too much value on money. People pursue higher-paying jobs at the expense of their health, their families, their happiness. Good, but less popular, TV shows get cut in favor of low-quality (but popular) Yet-Another-Sitcom shows, because those get higher ratings and thus more advertising revenue. And so it goes...
I was talking to somebody once who mentioned, "You can make a lot of money in the field of computer science, can't you?" I answered, "Yeah, you can... If money's what you care about." He gave me a funny look. Sigh... Sometimes I'd like to stand in the middle of downtown with a megaphone during rush hour and yell at all the people going to work, "Hey! Money isn't everything, you know!" Do you think they'd lock me in the insane asylum? If you don't want money or fame in today's American culture, you're a nobody. Well, my answer to that comes from Emily Dickinson (this is from memory, so I may get punctuation or capitalization wrong...):
I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody too?
Then that makes two of us -- don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.
How dreary to be Somebody!
How public, like the frog,
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!
-----
Hiking, not camping. So their stupidity is still believable.
-----