I have no problem with post-Darwinian Macro Evolution proponents believing what they believe or even teaching it to their own children, but I do have a problem with them trying to force their view into the science classroom at the pre-College level. Post-Darwinian Macro Evolution is not a solid scientific theory. It is an attempt to resurrect Darwinian "slow-change" Evolution which was disproven by the fossil record. The assumptions of Evolution by Descent are not supported by a body of evidence, are not testable* in any meaningful way, and require a leap of faith to accept. In short, they are not good science.
It is fine if you want to teach it in an advanced course where the students already have the basic logic, reasoning facilities, and overall balls to question the teacher, but to teach it in grade school as an absolute smacks of brain-washing. Assuming it deserves equal weight with other so-called "hard sciences" just because it can be classed a 'theory' reveals some fundamental weaknesses in the modern practice of science.
* "Natural Selection(TM)" when used for Macro Evolution uses "all of science" as a mechanism, and so includes the basic untestable assumptions of science into itself... Some of us who weren't brow-beaten with stories about colored birds in our childhood call this a tautology. Of course, this point of view is obviously controversial and clearly minority.
Your True must be a lot different than my True because from where I sit it looks like you're removing "what really happened" from "what actually matters". This is something you might get away with for your own personal use, but isn't something you're likely to have much luck fosting off onto others.
Actually, it appears he'll find physical activities, art and music even more challenging, as he's studying those at the typical grade level for his age... (Note: I'm not sure why they're not listing english, social studies, history etc, as well if he isn't good at communicating with adults.)
That said, I'm certainly not going to sit here and say he should be deprived of a wonderful opportunity in areas he has an interest just because so many others will never have that chance. Of course, whenever one of these cases pops up, the thought does cross my mind, what about all the kids who may be this bright but will simply never have this kind of exposure to new ideas?
Or is it the combination of brains and exposure that truly is the exceptional thing in modern society?
Are you implying anyone who spends less than 12 hours a day 6 days a week working (in particular as a child!) is a hippy? Perhaps we should take away your Prozac and see just how long you can live with yourself?
so you might as well make sure that his young adult life is productive and get him working towards that Ph.D and out of his flying car dreams.
Good point! If he managed to escape the primary education system, lets make sure to break his will in secondary before he screws everything up. (By managing to lead an interesting life, or worse yet, do something remarkable.)
For a second there, I thought you "got it". For one brief moment, I thought you understood what it means to both be a producer and a consumer in the intellectual realm.
Then, I noticed that line. And I read this:
I want the Subaru dealership to sell me one of those 2005 Impreza WRX sedans for $2000. I have the money right now and I guarantee you that in a couple of years those cars will be selling for my price (okay, 8 - 10 years.)
The seller gets to choose the price of their products, not the buyer. Just because you don't agree with their outlet strategy, doesn't mean you're right to take what you want.
If you can't tell the difference between tangible and intangibles and/or can't stop lieing to youself and everyone else long enough to admit there is a difference, then there's really no point in participating in the copyright debate.
You can argue that copyright is the holy grail. You can argue that copyright infringement is a despicable act. However, even granting those two things, that does not make downloading a copy of the latest book the same crime as stealing a new car off a dealer's lot. The impact on society and all parties involved is entirely different.
Actually... I always thought the hard/paperback release cycle was copyright at it's best. Make it available at a premium initially, then when those who want it bad enough to pay the premium have had their run, make it available more cheaply for those who don't care enough to put up the cash. Later, make an even cheaper *anthology* and finally, when the copyright expires the work becomes a free part of the collective knowledge of our species.
At least, that's how I always thought it was supposed to work. And the great thing was, everyone got what they wanted and no one got hurt... What a great compromise.
Of course, if you really *prefer* paperback, I guess you'd rather pay the premium and get the cheaper format anyways... That is an inconvenience.
And plenty of freeloading small businessmen who will vote for lower taxes
That's funny. I thought the freeloaders were the ones expecting to benefit off someone else's tax dollars... (Whether corporations *or* individuals) Trying not to be taken advantage of, by voting for lower taxes and less government, hardly seems like free loading to me.
Encrypt credit cards? What would be the point, your credit company shares everything anyways....
Social security cards? I don't tend to keep one of those around, though I do memorize the number. Birth certificates and passports seem much more useful.
As to safety deposit boxes, you're assuming you'll be able to get to one before needing to leave the area. In some situations that's a reasonable assumption, in others it isn't.
I guess I was mostly thinking of keeping a (rather large) set of information on a flash-drive of some form that contained things like family pictures, resumes, private letters, and anything else digital that seemed important. Some of that I'd likely want some level of privacy for, and so I'd probably just encrypt the lot of it... Not everything would need to be encrypted, but if I had a fairly easy method of getting things back then I can't see many downsides to encrypting the lot.
Basically the only difference between a key in a backpack and a plain-text drive in a safety deposit box is: One I have to go retrieve, the other is readily available in my own home. (Actually, to be honest having both would be even better in case I could get to the box but not my house...)
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Err... I know I shouldn't reply to sigs and all... but all I can say is ???eh???!!!??!! You must really hate organization!
But this article strongly implies that the Internet is not such an infrastructure (e.g., the lack of guaranteed connectivity between feuding backbone providers). My question is, to the extent that the Internet is not such a (i.e., to the extent that it proves to be ineffecitve and unreliable), so what if it deteriorates?
Heh. By this comment I guess we've mostly been arguing semantics all along.
The thing is... The internet is really all we've got at the moment, so we'll probably work on patching it first and revamping it second. (Yes, amazing and unexpected news I know...)
Note: Voice was already done in the telcom networks of the 70's, so VOIP really isn't all that big a deal. Don't shortsell the ability of random/generic applications to communicate in an "any to any" manner with each other over a global network. In my (At the moment inebriated) opinion that is the "killer app" of the internet. (Yes HTML etc is a very powerful way to share information among organizations working on varous projects... For one thing it moots the need for project teams to provide updated manuals on large projects as mentioned in the mythical-man-month. That alone is a huge cost savings, but at the same time it's only one example of what a generic information network can provide above and beyond a mere telecommunications network.)
I agree the internet is still fairly primitive, however I think you miss the point.
While the form of IP routing might change (say IPv4 to IPv6 or beyond) I hardly think packet switched networks are going anywhere any time soon. In the electronic world claiming packet switching will become obsolete is almost like claiming the wheel will become obsolete... There are certain inventions that make sense and that will never just go away. Packet switching is one of these (DNS may not be).
it's not clear that the Internet is a "step forward" in the long run
If you think things are still unclear, you either don't understand what "the internet" is or we're not talking about the same things when we say the word "internet" (or Internet...). An automatic generic global information sharing infrastructure is a GIGANTIC step forward from what came before. Comparing that to the telephone is like comparing the telephone to the telegraph (or worse).
Modifying the infrastructure so that the pathways are no longer "any to any" is a step backwards.
that doesn't mean that changes to the Internet must not involve any end-user changes. Perhaps that's the part that will need the most changing?
A network infrastructure actually has very little to do with the data that flows over it. It doesn't really matter what applications are written to make use of IP, TCP, UDP, DNS et al. What matters in infrastructure is only how those low level pieces might change or be changed. Writing some fancy new XML based protocol for eCommerce is in no way shape or form an infrastructure change. As to implementation level changes, in most cases those shouldn't affect the application level either. Decoupling is a two-way street, and universal last-mile/end-point changes are usually *very expensive*.
PANTS: No, seriously, so what? What is so important about being able to get to your website from anywhere in the world, that we must make sure never to do anything that might jeopardize that? You got by just fine without it the day before yestreday. Why wouldn't you get by just fine without it the day after tomorrow?
No seriously. My ex-girlfriend and I communicate between Seattle and Buffalo via IM. If we're on the wrong sides of this new digital devide, we won't be able to talk. But I suppose I won't *die* if I can't talk to her any more. (Though I probably would have changed ISP's if I'd lost this ability, even for a short time...)
You must be right, the world doesn't *need* an effective and reliable information infrastructure. After all, what you don't know can't hurt you and ignorance is bliss.
Unfortunately, I can't say if I support this bill until I've read it. (And yes, I've read the DMCA. And no, it's not entirely bad.):-)
I can't say whether I support the anti-DMCA law or not, but I can say I disagree with the article and believe the author to be nearly 100% wrong and/or lying.
The only "threatened innovations" I can think of in his scenarios are newer and better "legally protected style" DRM and further "pay-per-view"/customer bilking practices. (Even other, more naturally effective, forms of DRM aren't threatened.) I don't believe innovations in specific forms of market manipulation to be what the founders intended when they wrote the words "progress of the useful arts and sciences" on the constitution.
It's funny... there's biased reporting, and then there's outright lies:
From the article: A well-meaning U.S. Congressman, Rick Boucher of Virginia, is the author of the legislation in question. He first tried to make circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms legal back in 1998, when Congress was debating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. His effort to amend the bill failed.
Erm... Wouldn't that be more accurately stated as: "Congressman Boucher tried to keep circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms from becoming illegal."?
Obviously, everyone has an opionion that will color what they do and say. I think what most people mean when they say "biased" is when the discoloration becomes blatant and unreasonable, as in this case.
In 1970 I could dial (xxx)yyy-zzzz, the phone would ring and I could talk to someone or get a busy signal.
I expect that in 2035 I'll be able to sit down at a computer, bring up a web-browser, type in www.***.com and look at someone's site. (Or at a lower level I can route IP traffic to/from any IP addresses in certain blocks w.x.y.z for machines that are online.)
Other than that it's just boring implementation details.
But with this particular change, some computer users can no longer type in www.*****.com and bring up the site they're looking for. (Or route IP traffic to/from certain w.x.y.z's) If the trend continues, that's a major step backwards.
Guess what, ACMESoft can compel you to write COBOL code for them at $15/hr, no matter what other companies may be willing to pay you. Do you like this idea?
Wouldn't this be called slavery? As good as AI gets, last I checked software didn't have feelings let alone civil rights.
how DARE you charge $100/hr for fixing and maintaining COBOL code!?
Isn't that actually doing something, vs what you seem to be supporting (charging for ideas in either fixed or intangible form *after* they've been produced by someone useful to society, who undoubtedly gets no per-sale benefit and would be lucky to make $20/hr given overtime put in compared with salary). The only problem might come in if I created a union with those 2000 (more like 20,000) programmers and then made a point of charging Linus Torvalds $20/hr and Microsoft $100/hr. (Compulsory licensing would be like saying the union, having a monopoly, must charge everyone the same amount... Except perhaps charity, in which case Linus would be getting it for $0/hr, and you'd get to write it off as a $100/hr loss.)
but contract law is more important than fair use and must be enforced above it.
Ya, if I go to the store and buy a $300 copy of office for my home computer I should really have to sign something more binding than the loan-contract on my house without the benefit of any legal council whatsoever, or the ability to read the thing beforehand... Uh huh, that's fair.
Further, the agreement should also be able to restrict me from using non-Microsoft toilets and other products as well as not allow me to ever say a disparaging word about Microsoft as long as I'd like to enjoy the privilege of using the copy of Office I "purchased" (read up on copyright if you don't understand the implication of the word purchase here) for $300 without getting sued.
Face it. If you want to protect your software you should get a choice. Use a license, or get the benefit of copyright law (as it once made sense). Both is just rediculous, and quite frankly I don't think licensing can do the job.
It's not like the Internet is the key to everything, or to anything, really. It's certainly not the ne plus ultra of human achievement, or the One True Path to the Future.
Ya, the internet is wholly insignificant, why it's barely any more important than the telecommunications infrastructure for phones was in the 70's.
and it better be a bitchen password, with known parts of files to look for.
Well, as you say, it's risk versus rewards. You get some measure of security with PBE, and there are some techniques that make it more or less reliable. RFC 2898 deals with this. Of course RFC 2898, and PKCS have become a bit dated, but things could certainly be brought up to date using similar techniques, and a little obfuscation never hurt anyone. (Hashing your pre-encrypted data, rather than just your password, with a salt value would probably throw off an automated tool wielded by a non-expert.)
I personally believe the time to leave that first tech job is when you can find another job that pays significantly more (and at a point that doesn't leave the current team in a bind). This applies to any job in any industry, not just the tech industry.
I couldn't agree more. I've been thinking along these lines for a long time. Of course, if you have a comfortable salary, and a busy work schedule, it isn't always easy to motivate yourself into looking for those better paying jobs...
Why not just use password based encryption? Choose something non-trivial to hack and everyone who matters should memorize the password... Heck, you could even share one password with your whole extended-family.
So does IPSec with opertunistic encryption. Do we give it its own layer too?
I'm not really familiar enough with IPSec to say. As far as I understand it, IPsec sort of blends in with the IP/network layer, whereas SSL seems much more distinct from the TCP implementation. Then again, maybe it just seems that way to me because I've spent time reading up on SSL, but less so on IPsec.
Note: Using a symmetric pre-shared key (as IPSec can) makes encryption into something that can fit into a shim without requiring special handshaking. It would also seem likely the same could be done when both ends of a connection have public/private key pairs. Whereas SSL can generate shared session keys when only one side has a public/private key-pair, and it always requires extra handshaking that cannot merely be padded into existing packets.
. For example, he suggests that one readily and willingly let others take credit for your ideas. To nerds, tech credit is worth more than money and friends.
Actually, I've found I get more credit from the people who matter (my associates) by not being overly possesive about my ideas. As a programmer, my body of work is code, not notions about how to write code. I see cross polination of ideas as a "good thing". I share with them, they share with me, everyone benefits and makes their own body of work better.
Besides, if I came up with one good idea, I can always come up with another one. If I rely on borrowing good ideas, it's going to be a lot more difficult.
P.S. - I know I shouldn't reply to sigs but...
Is sticking up for the middle guy the same as stickup up for the middle man?
Slashdot Mirror
I have no problem with post-Darwinian Macro Evolution proponents believing what they believe or even teaching it to their own children, but I do have a problem with them trying to force their view into the science classroom at the pre-College level. Post-Darwinian Macro Evolution is not a solid scientific theory. It is an attempt to resurrect Darwinian "slow-change" Evolution which was disproven by the fossil record. The assumptions of Evolution by Descent are not supported by a body of evidence, are not testable* in any meaningful way, and require a leap of faith to accept. In short, they are not good science.
It is fine if you want to teach it in an advanced course where the students already have the basic logic, reasoning facilities, and overall balls to question the teacher, but to teach it in grade school as an absolute smacks of brain-washing. Assuming it deserves equal weight with other so-called "hard sciences" just because it can be classed a 'theory' reveals some fundamental weaknesses in the modern practice of science.
* "Natural Selection(TM)" when used for Macro Evolution uses "all of science" as a mechanism, and so includes the basic untestable assumptions of science into itself... Some of us who weren't brow-beaten with stories about colored birds in our childhood call this a tautology. Of course, this point of view is obviously controversial and clearly minority.
True but not fact...
Your True must be a lot different than my True because from where I sit it looks like you're removing "what really happened" from "what actually matters". This is something you might get away with for your own personal use, but isn't something you're likely to have much luck fosting off onto others.
He will find physics challenging.
Actually, it appears he'll find physical activities, art and music even more challenging, as he's studying those at the typical grade level for his age... (Note: I'm not sure why they're not listing english, social studies, history etc, as well if he isn't good at communicating with adults.)
That said, I'm certainly not going to sit here and say he should be deprived of a wonderful opportunity in areas he has an interest just because so many others will never have that chance. Of course, whenever one of these cases pops up, the thought does cross my mind, what about all the kids who may be this bright but will simply never have this kind of exposure to new ideas?
Or is it the combination of brains and exposure that truly is the exceptional thing in modern society?
Are you implying anyone who spends less than 12 hours a day 6 days a week working (in particular as a child!) is a hippy? Perhaps we should take away your Prozac and see just how long you can live with yourself?
so you might as well make sure that his young adult life is productive and get him working towards that Ph.D and out of his flying car dreams.
Good point! If he managed to escape the primary education system, lets make sure to break his will in secondary before he screws everything up. (By managing to lead an interesting life, or worse yet, do something remarkable.)
If you're gonna steal, just say so.
For a second there, I thought you "got it". For one brief moment, I thought you understood what it means to both be a producer and a consumer in the intellectual realm.
Then, I noticed that line. And I read this:
I want the Subaru dealership to sell me one of those 2005 Impreza WRX sedans for $2000. I have the money right now and I guarantee you that in a couple of years those cars will be selling for my price (okay, 8 - 10 years.)
The seller gets to choose the price of their products, not the buyer. Just because you don't agree with their outlet strategy, doesn't mean you're right to take what you want.
If you can't tell the difference between tangible and intangibles and/or can't stop lieing to youself and everyone else long enough to admit there is a difference, then there's really no point in participating in the copyright debate.
You can argue that copyright is the holy grail. You can argue that copyright infringement is a despicable act. However, even granting those two things, that does not make downloading a copy of the latest book the same crime as stealing a new car off a dealer's lot. The impact on society and all parties involved is entirely different.
Actually... I always thought the hard/paperback release cycle was copyright at it's best. Make it available at a premium initially, then when those who want it bad enough to pay the premium have had their run, make it available more cheaply for those who don't care enough to put up the cash. Later, make an even cheaper *anthology* and finally, when the copyright expires the work becomes a free part of the collective knowledge of our species.
At least, that's how I always thought it was supposed to work. And the great thing was, everyone got what they wanted and no one got hurt... What a great compromise.
Of course, if you really *prefer* paperback, I guess you'd rather pay the premium and get the cheaper format anyways... That is an inconvenience.
Once you invite it in you're, fscked. (or soon will be)
And plenty of freeloading small businessmen who will vote for lower taxes
That's funny. I thought the freeloaders were the ones expecting to benefit off someone else's tax dollars... (Whether corporations *or* individuals) Trying not to be taken advantage of, by voting for lower taxes and less government, hardly seems like free loading to me.
Encrypt credit cards? What would be the point, your credit company shares everything anyways....
Social security cards? I don't tend to keep one of those around, though I do memorize the number. Birth certificates and passports seem much more useful.
As to safety deposit boxes, you're assuming you'll be able to get to one before needing to leave the area. In some situations that's a reasonable assumption, in others it isn't.
I guess I was mostly thinking of keeping a (rather large) set of information on a flash-drive of some form that contained things like family pictures, resumes, private letters, and anything else digital that seemed important. Some of that I'd likely want some level of privacy for, and so I'd probably just encrypt the lot of it... Not everything would need to be encrypted, but if I had a fairly easy method of getting things back then I can't see many downsides to encrypting the lot.
Basically the only difference between a key in a backpack and a plain-text drive in a safety deposit box is: One I have to go retrieve, the other is readily available in my own home. (Actually, to be honest having both would be even better in case I could get to the box but not my house...)
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Err... I know I shouldn't reply to sigs and all... but all I can say is ???eh???!!!??!! You must really hate organization!
But this article strongly implies that the Internet is not such an infrastructure (e.g., the lack of guaranteed connectivity between feuding backbone providers). My question is, to the extent that the Internet is not such a (i.e., to the extent that it proves to be ineffecitve and unreliable), so what if it deteriorates?
Heh. By this comment I guess we've mostly been arguing semantics all along.
The thing is... The internet is really all we've got at the moment, so we'll probably work on patching it first and revamping it second. (Yes, amazing and unexpected news I know...)
Note: Voice was already done in the telcom networks of the 70's, so VOIP really isn't all that big a deal. Don't shortsell the ability of random/generic applications to communicate in an "any to any" manner with each other over a global network. In my (At the moment inebriated) opinion that is the "killer app" of the internet. (Yes HTML etc is a very powerful way to share information among organizations working on varous projects... For one thing it moots the need for project teams to provide updated manuals on large projects as mentioned in the mythical-man-month. That alone is a huge cost savings, but at the same time it's only one example of what a generic information network can provide above and beyond a mere telecommunications network.)
I agree the internet is still fairly primitive, however I think you miss the point.
While the form of IP routing might change (say IPv4 to IPv6 or beyond) I hardly think packet switched networks are going anywhere any time soon. In the electronic world claiming packet switching will become obsolete is almost like claiming the wheel will become obsolete... There are certain inventions that make sense and that will never just go away. Packet switching is one of these (DNS may not be).
it's not clear that the Internet is a "step forward" in the long run
If you think things are still unclear, you either don't understand what "the internet" is or we're not talking about the same things when we say the word "internet" (or Internet...). An automatic generic global information sharing infrastructure is a GIGANTIC step forward from what came before. Comparing that to the telephone is like comparing the telephone to the telegraph (or worse).
Modifying the infrastructure so that the pathways are no longer "any to any" is a step backwards.
that doesn't mean that changes to the Internet must not involve any end-user changes. Perhaps that's the part that will need the most changing?
A network infrastructure actually has very little to do with the data that flows over it. It doesn't really matter what applications are written to make use of IP, TCP, UDP, DNS et al. What matters in infrastructure is only how those low level pieces might change or be changed. Writing some fancy new XML based protocol for eCommerce is in no way shape or form an infrastructure change. As to implementation level changes, in most cases those shouldn't affect the application level either. Decoupling is a two-way street, and universal last-mile/end-point changes are usually *very expensive*.
PANTS: No, seriously, so what? What is so important about being able to get to your website from anywhere in the world, that we must make sure never to do anything that might jeopardize that? You got by just fine without it the day before yestreday. Why wouldn't you get by just fine without it the day after tomorrow?
No seriously. My ex-girlfriend and I communicate between Seattle and Buffalo via IM. If we're on the wrong sides of this new digital devide, we won't be able to talk. But I suppose I won't *die* if I can't talk to her any more. (Though I probably would have changed ISP's if I'd lost this ability, even for a short time...)
You must be right, the world doesn't *need* an effective and reliable information infrastructure. After all, what you don't know can't hurt you and ignorance is bliss.
Unfortunately, I can't say if I support this bill until I've read it. (And yes, I've read the DMCA. And no, it's not entirely bad.) :-)
I can't say whether I support the anti-DMCA law or not, but I can say I disagree with the article and believe the author to be nearly 100% wrong and/or lying.
The only "threatened innovations" I can think of in his scenarios are newer and better "legally protected style" DRM and further "pay-per-view"/customer bilking practices. (Even other, more naturally effective, forms of DRM aren't threatened.) I don't believe innovations in specific forms of market manipulation to be what the founders intended when they wrote the words "progress of the useful arts and sciences" on the constitution.
It's funny... there's biased reporting, and then there's outright lies:
From the article:
A well-meaning U.S. Congressman, Rick Boucher of Virginia, is the author of the legislation in question. He first tried to make circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms legal back in 1998, when Congress was debating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. His effort to amend the bill failed.
Erm... Wouldn't that be more accurately stated as: "Congressman Boucher tried to keep circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms from becoming illegal."?
On October 28, 2000 the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) took full effect
Obviously, everyone has an opionion that will color what they do and say. I think what most people mean when they say "biased" is when the discoloration becomes blatant and unreasonable, as in this case.
Well, from an end-user perspective...
In 1970 I could dial (xxx)yyy-zzzz, the phone would ring and I could talk to someone or get a busy signal.
I expect that in 2035 I'll be able to sit down at a computer, bring up a web-browser, type in www.***.com and look at someone's site. (Or at a lower level I can route IP traffic to/from any IP addresses in certain blocks w.x.y.z for machines that are online.)
Other than that it's just boring implementation details.
But with this particular change, some computer users can no longer type in www.*****.com and bring up the site they're looking for. (Or route IP traffic to/from certain w.x.y.z's) If the trend continues, that's a major step backwards.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
The word? Innovation.
Guess what, ACMESoft can compel you to write COBOL code for them at $15/hr, no matter what other companies may be willing to pay you. Do you like this idea?
Wouldn't this be called slavery? As good as AI gets, last I checked software didn't have feelings let alone civil rights.
how DARE you charge $100/hr for fixing and maintaining COBOL code!?
Isn't that actually doing something, vs what you seem to be supporting (charging for ideas in either fixed or intangible form *after* they've been produced by someone useful to society, who undoubtedly gets no per-sale benefit and would be lucky to make $20/hr given overtime put in compared with salary). The only problem might come in if I created a union with those 2000 (more like 20,000) programmers and then made a point of charging Linus Torvalds $20/hr and Microsoft $100/hr. (Compulsory licensing would be like saying the union, having a monopoly, must charge everyone the same amount... Except perhaps charity, in which case Linus would be getting it for $0/hr, and you'd get to write it off as a $100/hr loss.)
but contract law is more important than fair use and must be enforced above it.
Ya, if I go to the store and buy a $300 copy of office for my home computer I should really have to sign something more binding than the loan-contract on my house without the benefit of any legal council whatsoever, or the ability to read the thing beforehand... Uh huh, that's fair.
Further, the agreement should also be able to restrict me from using non-Microsoft toilets and other products as well as not allow me to ever say a disparaging word about Microsoft as long as I'd like to enjoy the privilege of using the copy of Office I "purchased" (read up on copyright if you don't understand the implication of the word purchase here) for $300 without getting sued.
Face it. If you want to protect your software you should get a choice. Use a license, or get the benefit of copyright law (as it once made sense). Both is just rediculous, and quite frankly I don't think licensing can do the job.
It's not like the Internet is the key to everything, or to anything, really. It's certainly not the ne plus ultra of human achievement, or the One True Path to the Future.
Ya, the internet is wholly insignificant, why it's barely any more important than the telecommunications infrastructure for phones was in the 70's.
Obviously some things (like birth certificates) don't necessarily need to be encrypted.
and it better be a bitchen password, with known parts of files to look for.
Well, as you say, it's risk versus rewards. You get some measure of security with PBE, and there are some techniques that make it more or less reliable. RFC 2898 deals with this. Of course RFC 2898, and PKCS have become a bit dated, but things could certainly be brought up to date using similar techniques, and a little obfuscation never hurt anyone. (Hashing your pre-encrypted data, rather than just your password, with a salt value would probably throw off an automated tool wielded by a non-expert.)
Offices are expensive. If you're THAT bothered by distractions, you can buy huge jars of very good foam earplugs for like $8 at your local drugstore.
Or, get a pair of headphones and listen to some music while you work... It should be up to you to know what does/doesn't increase your productivity.
I personally believe the time to leave that first tech job is when you can find another job that pays significantly more (and at a point that doesn't leave the current team in a bind). This applies to any job in any industry, not just the tech industry.
I couldn't agree more. I've been thinking along these lines for a long time. Of course, if you have a comfortable salary, and a busy work schedule, it isn't always easy to motivate yourself into looking for those better paying jobs...
Why not just use password based encryption? Choose something non-trivial to hack and everyone who matters should memorize the password... Heck, you could even share one password with your whole extended-family.
So does IPSec with opertunistic encryption. Do we give it its own layer too?
I'm not really familiar enough with IPSec to say. As far as I understand it, IPsec sort of blends in with the IP/network layer, whereas SSL seems much more distinct from the TCP implementation. Then again, maybe it just seems that way to me because I've spent time reading up on SSL, but less so on IPsec.
Note: Using a symmetric pre-shared key (as IPSec can) makes encryption into something that can fit into a shim without requiring special handshaking. It would also seem likely the same could be done when both ends of a connection have public/private key pairs. Whereas SSL can generate shared session keys when only one side has a public/private key-pair, and it always requires extra handshaking that cannot merely be padded into existing packets.
. For example, he suggests that one readily and willingly let others take credit for your ideas. To nerds, tech credit is worth more than money and friends.
Actually, I've found I get more credit from the people who matter (my associates) by not being overly possesive about my ideas. As a programmer, my body of work is code, not notions about how to write code. I see cross polination of ideas as a "good thing". I share with them, they share with me, everyone benefits and makes their own body of work better.
Besides, if I came up with one good idea, I can always come up with another one. If I rely on borrowing good ideas, it's going to be a lot more difficult.
P.S. - I know I shouldn't reply to sigs but...
Is sticking up for the middle guy the same as stickup up for the middle man?