I'd sell it to Mr. Mitnick on the cheap-- a personal check in the amount of one dollar would be just fine...
As for the account:
Karma: Excellent; was above the 50-point Karma cap at the time of the switch to "descriptive" karma terms (it had karma in the mid-60s when the cap was put in place; I was never busted back down to 50, and I don't post much so I didn't lose points from the moderators). Frequent moderator access.
This account has a decent history, but it's been dormant recently-- I tend to post anonymously or not at all.
Of course, the name would be totally wrong, but-- heck, it could be made known fairly easily that Seth Scali is really Kevin Mitnick, can't it?
Okay, so you give expanded wiretapping power to the government, so they can tap ALL the phones of a suspected terrorist with one warrant.
So he uses SpeakFreely, an encrypted telephone program that runs on a PC with a 14.4 modem or faster.
All right, you pass a law requiring him to give his keys to the government. He refuses to do so, and he's arrested for violation of the new "Big Brother Protects Americans Against Evil Encryption Act". He's sentenced to ten years under the BBPAAEEA.
As he's being led into the jail, another terrorist, this one acting alone and having planned everything outside the USA, detonates a car bomb right outside the first suspected terrorist's cell.
Any expanded power on the government's part will give the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. only a temporary advantage at best. Terrorists have spent their entire lives adapting and reacting to government actions-- why should this be any different?
And putting an "annual review" clause into any proposed legislation is bullshit. It will be miraculously amended out. If not, we'll get speeches every year about how there haven't been any planes flown into the WTC since the law was passed-- and it will be renewed by near unanimous votes. Maybe a senator will, in his infinite wisdom, pass more legislation that amends the expanded wiretap legislation to waive the annual review requirement.
What's it going to take to get the point across that violating civil liberties simply DOESN'T solve the problem? Do we have to institute a police state, and watch as the Empire State Building is bombed before we realize that freedom doesn't cause terrorism?
Come on, Jon. At the risk of sounding like the typical/.er: Get a fucking clue.
Probably one of the best references for stuff like the "sticky hands" toys would be "The Official Icky Poo Book", from the Klutz Press. You can find it at http://www.klutz.com/product_details.cfm?productID =1116 for $11 (check Barnes and Noble, they only link to Amazon). Not only does it have a great story about the invention of the Icky Poo (very serendipitous, maybe a bit of an Urban Legend), but it includes actual Icky Poos!
Even better than Nerf stuff, IMO.
---- I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more mentally stable than any of these activists or
IANAL, but I'm not even hopeful. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think that 2600 is going to come out of this one vicorious. The judge is likely going to tell them to stop linking to copies of the 2600 source.
Why? Because 2600 still is still a major point of "distribution" for the code. Hell, I've used their list of mirrors once or twice when I wanted to show friends what this software *really is* (i.e., not an evil "hacker tool that has no legitimate purpose"). 2600 doesn't have the source code stored locally, but that doesn't mean they aren't "distributing" the program to others (at least, not in the eyes of the MPAA and the judge).
Remember, the MPAA requested the injunction because they wanted to stop 2600 from distributing DeCSS. So if linking to material (with an expressed intent to make it available to others) is considered a method of distribution by the courts, then the court can say that 2600 is distributing the code. And since the court has already issued an injunction against one method of distribution, issuing an injunction against another method is what the court would be *expected* to do.
Mind you, I don't think that linking is the same as distributing. But if the MPAA presents the case strongly enough, 2600 doesn't stand a chance. What we need are strong, logical arguments as to *why* linking is not a method of distribution.
Any ideas? ---- I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more mentally stable than any of these activists or
Deep-linking relates to whether or not you have the right to point to a specific page at foo.com, instead of pointing to http://foo.com/index.html, as Foo, Inc. would like you to. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with this case-- all the participants are voluntarily mirroring the source code, and the material is not allowed on the linking party's web site.
If, as Jack Valenti and his lawyers say, this is the same as having it hosted at the 2600.com domain, this *could* have implications toward deep-linking. That is, if linking to a page and mirroring the same page are considered equivelent actions by the law, then that would mean that by linking to copyrighted material, you have (in the eyes of the law) stolen that person's copyrighted material and placed it on your own site.
But the deep-linking case seems to be a totally different area.
IANAL, though. Any arguments that show how the deep-linking decision *could* help 2600? ---- I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more mentally stable than any of these activists or
Okay, I know this is a little late, but it isn't what you're expecting. This is a serious question for the Pinkerton Corporation.
Okay, when a student visits the "Wave America" site, the list of "Early Warning Signs" for a student are hosted locally-- specifically, here. But when it comes to "What you can do" if somebody exhibits these behaviors, you refer children to this page, hosted by the American Psychological Association.
Playing around on the APA site, I find a list of warning signs-- among them are a number of the same signs spelled out on your "Early Warning Signs" web page. However, the APA makes it abundantly clear that the symptoms listed under that category aren't even a potential issue unless exhibited over a period of time. You don't make that distinction on the WAVE site-- why not?
Additionally... The following behaviors are considered indicative of "serious possibility" of violence by the APA:
loss of temper on a daily basis
frequent physical fighting
significant vandalism or property damage
increase in use of drugs or alcohol
increase in risk-taking behavior
detailed plans to commit acts of violence
announcing threats or plans for hurting others
enjoying hurting animals
carrying a weapon
These are what the APA considers to be the best indicators of potential violence. They are more "concrete" (as far as that term can go in the field of psychology) than the "early warning" signs.
However, you seem insistent upon teaching children the "Early Signs". This is absolutely clear, even in your "Speak Out" page, which contains only a link to the "early" signs (and no link to the "imminent" warning signs). Why are you so insistent upon teaching the vague and inherently more error-prone methods of detection? Early detection is key, but it would seem you're overlooking a larger "threat" to the students. Why is this so?
---- I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more mentally stable than any of these activists or
Okay, this seems like a basic question, but it's really kinda thorny, isn't it?
On one hand, there's me:
If I want to install FooWidget 2.6, I know that I can do the following:
% ftp ftp.foowidget.org > get foowidget-2.6.tar.gz > quit % tar -zxf foowidget-2.6.tar.gz % cd foowidget %./configure (or make config, etc.) % make % make install
So a doc that says: "FTP the file from ftp.foowidget.org, untar it, run configure, run make and make install" doesn't do me a whole bloody lot of good. If I'm looking at the doc, it's usually because there's a problem (i.e., it won't compile or run right).
So for me, the ideal doc is actually kinda technical-- maybe a troubleshooting guide, or a list of known bugs and workarounds.
But then there's my mother:
"What the hell is FooWidget, and why the fuck do you want me to install it?" (Yes, that would likely be her-- she's been known to make sailors blush).
For her, the step-by-step instructions are all she needs (she already knows how to troubleshoot-- she picks up the phone and calls me at work). So the ideal docs for her are the ones that will hold your hand.
So for whom do we write our docs? My mom (in which case, I will feel insulted that you think I need to be taught how to su root) or me (in which case my mother tells me that this Linux bullshit is too hard, and she wants me to re-install Windows)? Is there a compromise between the two (like with the LyX documentation, perhaps?)?
---- I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more mentally stable than any of these activists or
I'm probably going to be moderated down for this, but I'm curious...
On the Get Slack page on the Slackware web site, you only have versions as far back as 3.5.
Now, I know that no *sane* person would want to try and run anything earlier than 3.5 on his machine (though I do have a copy of Slack 3.something on a CD-ROM that came with "Linux Kernel Internals"), but I was wondering about "Historical" versions of the Slackware distribution. I'd really like to see an archive site with all the older versions available for download.
I know it isn't a big issue for you, and that it may not be practical, but I kinda think that older versions of Slackware might be cool to look at. Since Slack has been around so long, it would serve as an excellent guide through the evolution of Linux-- what version first had X? What was the first ELF version? How about the first version incorporating the 2.0.xx kernel series?
That said, is there any chance of a Slackware archive dating back further than 3.5? ---- I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more mentally stable than any of these activists or
Check out the JACAL web page-- http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~jaffer/JACAL.html for more details. You'll need a Scheme interpreter and the slib (Scheme library). It's GPL, if you're worried about licenses.
I don't know a whole bloody lot about Scheme-- would it be terribly difficult to create a C/C++ implementation of JACAL, or would it be best to start from scratch?
Remember, I've never used JACAL, so I don't know about how appropriate it will be to your needs. But it can supposedly "manipulate and simplify equations, scalars, vectors, and matrices of single and multiple valued algebraic expressions containing numbers, variables, radicals, and algebraic differential, and holonomic functions", according to the web page-- it might be a good starting point.
---- I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more mentally stable than any of these activists or
Who has the highest average reply rate (i.e., JonKatz usually gets 200-300, and not infrequently in excess of 400 or 500)?
Who is the "favorite" author on Slashdot (who has the highest number of hits per story, on average?)
What is the most frequently appearing topic? Linux, Microsoft, Star Wars Prequels, The Internet, Links, Quickies (when are we gonna get more quickies, anyway?), Science, or something else?
Who has posted the most comments, besides the Anonymous Coward?
What, in your opinion, were the coolest stories you've posted on Slashdot (yeah, the Netscape Open-Source thing was the indicator that Slashdot was "respectable", but what have you guys gotten the biggest kick out of posting?)?
Any regrets?
Anything you would do differently?
Did you ever imagine anything like this happening 3 years ago?
I never quite could understand how Libertarianism gives a person a "cop-out" from responsibility. I always kind of figured it was something that required that a person accept responsibility for one's own actions. You can't blame all your problems on the big power structure like Microsoft or IBM or AT&T. I suppose it can excuse a company from having to make, say, a TV capable of HDTV, but consumer demand would drive the demand anyway.
As for Libertarian rhetoric pandering to corporate interests: if the government should not be involved in business, that includes business subsidies and lawmaking. Subsidies for tobacco companies, for example, would be out in a Libertarian system. The DMCA is an infringement upon personal rights, so I don't think it would really be quite kosher in a Libertarian system-- it makes a civil matter into a criminal one, and it involves the government in matters of commerce (matters which would probably be handled best by contracts). If the government can't get take away rights of companies or give individuals special rights, then it can't give the companies special rights or take away the rights of individuals.
And I guess most Libertarians are more likely to complain about something like the Microsoft case than they are likely to complain about the DMCA-- which is probably because the DMCA hasn't really even entered into the public consciousness. OTOH, even my mom knows about the Microsoft case. If trying to draw attention to (what you believe to be) injustice, which one is going to easier to point out? Microsoft, naturally. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be speaking out against something like the DMCA, but it's understandable why they don't.
I guess maybe I see Libertarian viewpoints a little more objectively (insert Ayn Rand joke here) than people who just want to rant about Microsoft (which I've done before, but I've ranted to my friens about DMCA and the whole DeCSS thing, too). Or maybe I totally misunderstand the entire concept, but I'm somehow arriving at strikingly similary viewpoints from a totally different set of axioms... who knows?
Jesus Christ, I'm sick and tired of this. Libertarians are portrayed as ignorant people who just want to let big corporations roll over consumers, not letting the consumers or the government get involved. It seems that people think that Libertarians just want people to sit back and do nothing.
NOT TRUE.
One belief that a number of Libertarians (not all) have is that the government shouldn't be involved in commerce; that the Free Market will regulate itself, based on certain principles.
Boycotting is a method of self-regulation for the market, and most Libertarians support boycotts. I have previously participated in boycotts of companies that didn't take proper environmental meausures, choosing instead to pay the EPA's fines; I've also participated in boycotts of companies that used inhumane animal testing. Boycotts demonstrate how the market can be kept in check without the government getting involved (a boycott of Microsoft products, based on Microsoft's practices, would surely have been supported by a number of Libertarians-- just, please, no government involvement).
But that doesn't mean that Libertarians support the *reasons* behind every boycott. I, for one, don't support the current boycott of Disney that religious conservatives are calling for-- I don't agree with what the protestors are trying to achieve through the boycott.
But I would support a DVD boycott. While I certainly believe that one should be able to profit from one's own intellectual property (i.e., the CSS algorithm), I think that you have to take the proper measures to gain that protection (i.e., patenting the damn thing). The CSS algorithm was obtained through legal means, and I sincerely believe that the MPAA's actions are completely wrong. A boycott, in this case, would certainly be a *large* boost to the "Libertarian pulse" of the Internet, Jon. It would really give consumers an idea of just how much power they have-- that companies *can't* get away with anything they want, because they have consumers to answer to.
So let's boycott the DVD Forum companies. Then maybe they'll remember who ultimately controls their purse strings.
Our spies are better than your spies!
on
The GCHQ Challenge
·
· Score: 2
Okay, the answers are already posted. Morse code was a cute way of doing it, but I doubt the folks in charge of HR would say, "Dear God, he deciphered Morse code! We must hire this prodigy at all costs!" But then again, this is the same country that gave us the Spice Girls, so who knows?
One thing I have to admit, at least the NSA gives a *somewhat* more challenging "toy" to the people requesting job information. If you apply for their summer programs, they have a neat little challenge on the back, with four or five puzzles to solve. Each one tells you how to solve the next-- i.e., the first message (rot13) tells you that the next one is based on the faction 2/7 or something of the sort, which then tells you that the next one is a transposition cipher, etc.
Really, neither side has come up with an interesting problem for the public yet, but at least the American folks can keep us entertained for five minutes more. Come on, let's see the GCHQ come out with something better! We could have an arms race going in no time!
Very interesting awards, to say the least. Is it really worth it, though, to make an "Award of Shame"? It really makes the entire effort seem rather juvenile-- "here, let's make fun of those who oppose us". Couldn't that time be better spent, say, getting petitions signed (not the online kind) to take before congress when they vote on SAFE?
I think that, for the most part, the databases are doing their job rather well.
Where do you find the most dynamic content? News sites. Slashdot, Freshmeat, Linuxtoday, Yahoo! News, etc. These are the sites that need dynamic content.
Ironically, these are the exact sites that search engines are pretty much not interested in indexing, anyway. Even assuming that a database can update all its sites once per day, that means that the information is a day old-- centuries, in Slashdot time! People don't go to AltaVista to search for the story over at ABCNews.com. They go to AltaVista to find information about international child custody laws (to name a random hot issue of late).
Most of your general information stuff is pretty much static. This is what the search engines look for anyway-- this is the stuff that doesn't change often, so it's good stuff to record. Why would anybody bother to make a page about Cup 'O Noodles that's generated through a Perl script? It's too tough, and can be a huge pain in the ass to change it.
Why index the pages that are constantly changing, when the stuff you're looking for (by definition) doesn't change much? Sure, there's overlap (small sites that use generate the exact same content every time). But it's such a small segment that hardly anybody would miss it (yes, it may be important, but not important enough to totally revamp the indexing procedure).
I'm not saying that NT is secure, I'm saying that it hasn't been intentionally weakened. Jesus Christ, you're like one of those idiots that *knows* that DES has a huge trapdoor in it, just because the NSA was involved in its development.
Look, Microsoft has never been a good company for security. They have *always* cut corners and taken the easy way out when it comes to security. But that doesn't mean that they intentionally put holes in the operating system.
Here's what I think happened:
The folks over at the NCSC told Microsoft that having one key for verification is definitely not a good thing-- what if the key is compromised? They suggest that Microsoft add more keys, or (even better) make the keys user-configurable.
Now, Microsoft doesn't want just *any* company to be able to sign system-level software, so they decide that user-configurable keys are not the answer. The only other way to do it is to hard-code another key into the OS. The programmer assigned the task is told that the key is there for the benefit of the NSA evaluators, so he (somewhat logically) calls the keypair NSAKEY.
Also: I firmly believe in applying bug fixes. If you believe that NSAKEY compromises your security, then I encourage you to change it with any of the programs out there that will do so. But if Microsoft only put the key in for the sake of appeasing a bunch of testers, then they really don't have much reason to delete the key-- especially if the irrational people that are absolutely terrified of it wind up changing it anyway.
Give me a break-- the whole NSAKEY thing is most likely benign. And even if you believe differently, you can change the second damn key.
However, I'd say this adds some light to the subject.
Part of the C2 evaluation process is "Fix bugs. Repeat." Perhaps the testers found some sort of minor bug in the source code that could only be corrected by the addition of a new key (or that could be fixed *most easily* by the addition of a new key). Microsoft adds the key to appease the testers (who happen to work for a branch of the NSA). What's the logical variable name for the key? NSAKEY.
"What would it take for Linux to get a C2 rating?"
Well, we certainly are doing well in the security arena. Open Source allows us to fix a number of bugs, and to identify trouble spots before they become vulnerabilities. Also, Linux has a hell of a lot of people that will back up its security when properly configured.
But here's the problem: Define Linux.
Okay, let's say we want to get Linux certified at the C2 level. Well, that's just fine and dandy. Are we going to just submit the kernel? Or are we going to submit programs (bash, mount, losetup, etc.), too? If so, what versions? Are we going to submit an entire distribution?
It wouldn't be possible to get a C2 rating for Linux in general. There are too many different distributions, platforms, bugfixes, and updates out there to get a handle on-- the best we can do is rate a particular version (at a particular bugfix level) of a particular distro. So, just because (say) RH 6.0 gets a C2 rating doesn't mean that Slackware 3.6 is less, more, or just as secure.
Even if we do get a version of Linux (in general) rated (for the sake of argument here, let's go with the idea), what about the next version? Microsoft is gonna have to go through the program again with W2K. Figure that we went from kernel version 2.2.0 to 2.2.13 in a space of less than a year-- and 2.2.14 is due out soon. It would be pointless to try this, because we would wind up constantly having to get it re-tested.
And let's not even talk about the price of such testing.
In other words: Forget about government security ratings for Linux. It's too dynamic to be given a static rating. It's also very reliant on the operator (as is NT, but that *seems* less obvious to most people).
I wouldn't interpret it as hacking on my take of the movie-- you raise very good questions.
As for the script-- I think that he was perhaps a bit too trite with a lot of the dialogue. And there are times when he strains to make his point so painfully obvious that it was almost insulting to watch-- "Can't be anal retentive if you don't have an anus" was one of those lines; I could have figured it out based on the whole "Angels lack certain body parts" theme that shows up later. And the character of Bartleby hardly seemed suited to making reference to the anus, especially over something as trivial as a figure of speech-- Bartleby seemed to be somebody who picked his words wisely.
But, like I said, I can't write any better, so I'm not really complaining-- the script was great overall, I just had some minor nitpicks. Smith did a fantastic job with an idea that's tough to set into a screenplay-- I applaud him for it. There were a number of great things about the script, most notable the lack of snappy one-liners in exchange for plot and character development.
As for the special effects-- when I said that the movie was good partially because of its shortcomings, I was actually thinking specifically of the special effects. It's also what I meant when I referred to the surreal nature of the film. Perhaps the director *was* going for a campy Golgothan-- in which case he did a very good job (though I wonder what the flowered Golgothan would have looked like!).
The special effects were nothing spectacular when you think of Jurassic Park, Star Wars, or Casper. But effects like that would have ruined Dogma-- the imperfections and such with the special effects only increased their (sur)reality. And even the parts that were just plain *bad* (i.e., Bartleby dropping the dude who simply exploded at the bottom) were insignificant in the whole scheme of things.
As for achieving the desired result through certain decisions: Dogma did fantastically. Like I said, Smith told a fantastic story, which is a big part of what *every* good film maker wants to do. Showing a different perspective of faith? I think that the controversy from the Catholic Church and www.capalert.com is evidence enough of that. Give new light to some serious social issues? Yep. Make a good movie? Hell yes.
I suppose that I'm an asshole-- I went to see it simply because it was being protested. I fought my way through the picketers and the people telling me about how I was going to eternally rot in hell for even entering a theatre that would show anything so blasphemous (at least, they'll say that until next week, when they have to go fight the *new* good fight).
I actually liked the movie. And not for the heavy-handed religious principles-- not even for being hilarious. I liked it because Kevin Smith told a story. And as outrageous and outlandish as it was, he told it well.
Now, I've never seen "Mall Rats" or "Clerks" or "Chasing Amy", so I didn't go see it out of any obligation to a specific director (Lucas, anybody?). I went to see it for three general reasons:
* I don't like the church telling me I shouldn't go see a movie, so fuck them. * I wanted to decide for myself if the fuss was really deserved. * It looked like a really good movie.
Now, I will admit: Dogma's script needed a little work, but it's better than anything I could ever write, so I don't feel I should complain. And the special effects were, yes, kinda cheesy (the Golgothan, for example, was almost campy).
But the acting and directing pulled it off. The movie is supposed to be somewhat surreal, and it is. In spite of some problems with the script and the special effects and such, the movie comes across as a story well told. The characters aren't as superficial as a lot of people would like to pass them off as being, and it brings out a lot of things in some of the actors-- for example, Chris Rock has a number of serious moments (which he handles quite well!).
As for the "split personality"-- well, I can see where that feeling comes from. But in another sense, I also see the movie as tying the two together. It all depends on how you look at it.
All in all, I thought it was a good movie, partially in spite of its shortcomings, partially because of its shortcomings.
But whatever it that helps a person achieve Zen is soon changed. Tom's example is that of the keyboard on computers.
For another example, look at cars. I learned to drive with a Geo Metro. Part of the interface is sound-- the engine is screaming; shift gears. The engine is rumbling and sputtering; shift gears. The radio? That's way down by the ashtray, where I will only reach it when I make a conscious effort to do so.
Today I drove a Mercury Villager-- automatic, naturally. Now I have a penalty zone-- the time just before the transmission shifts up a notch. It pulls me out, it shakes me. Not only that, but when I look down at the steering wheel, I see buttons for tuning the radio! The old buttons (right behind where the stick should be!) are still there, but now I have radio buttons. It's idiot-proof.
For another example, look at the portable phone I bought the other day. There are 12 speed-dial buttons (memory buttons, the manual calls 'em). They are placed more prominently than the actual numeric pad! I know that a lot of people don't attain Zen when dialing phone numbers, but it's been known to happen on occasion. But anybody wishing to Zen out as he dials Fiji will now be stuck trying to avoid the memory keys.
It's history, folks. It's the natural progression of things. Something is good. Hackers "Zen out". Suits see that hackers are more productive, decide that good thing should be made available to all. Suits change good thing and destroy Zen. Hackers move on.
Such is life. We shall soon move on, I suppose. Zen will be found somewhere, and hackers will follow. It's our drug of choice, and junkies don't do too well without it.
I will admit that strong correlations are extremely important, and there *are* philosophies that show that we can only be certain to a certain percentage (i.e., 99.9999999999999999999%). Without evidence supplied by statistical relationships, we can't do *any* type of research. Dismissing it as "nothing more than a statistical relationship" was not my intention-- my intention was to dismiss the application of the correlation, but it didn't really come out that way.
My main problem is with the attitude that if we get rid of the smoke, we get rid of the fire (to use your analogy). For example, let's say Joe Geek gets targeted as a dangerous kid (he fits the demographic in a lot of ways). What would he do?
* He would not mention the fact that he plays Quake to anybody * He would definitely stop hanging out with the small group of friends he has. He would sit in the middle of crowds, trying to look like he fits in even though he isn't talking to anybody. * He would stop carrying around "A Course In Combinatorics" and "Cryptonomicon" in his backpack and start carrying around books by Steinbeck and Ginsberg.
After being observed by the administrators for a suitable period of time, it is determined that Joe Geek does not fit the demographic and is therefore not a threat. But in reality, Joe is just angrier at the school-- he's just not showing it. This only serves to make it all the more likely that he'll act out his anger in improper ways, perhaps even in violent outbursts.
Correlation is a good thing, and it should not be dismissed offhand. It's one of the most powerful tools that a scientist has-- and used properly, it can give insight into the way things work and the why they work that way.
But don't assume that "mainstreaming" a person will make him or her less "apt to kill".
I'm not disagreeing with your main point, Jon-- the geek profiling is bullshit. I don't think administrators are out to get us geeks, but I think that severely misguided principals will wind up inadvertently fucking up a lot of kids this way.
But let's see why the profile fits so well with most geeks:
Klebold and Harris were both computer whiz-kids that also excelled in math and foreign languages (hence all the emphasis on speaking German). The "Trenchcoat Mafia" was nothing more than a group of unpopular kids that would hang out together. Klebold and Harris spoke frequently of guns, death, violence, etc. The two were very much anti-authority. I don't know about family life... But they fit the profile pretty well.
Kip Kinkle was very much involved in guns. He also was an honor student, and unpopular (jokingly said to have been voted "most likely to start world war three"). He had a lot of resentment for authority, though he voiced his anger and outrage to those closest to him. He fit the profile pretty well.
How about the Jonesboro shooters? A little more difficult-- these kids were 11 and 13. But they were both fascinated with guns and death. They both did well enough in school. And they were described as kids that nobody really even paid attention to-- nothing remarkable, but they certainly weren't popular. They don't fit perfectly, but they do hit some of the points on the FBI profile.
Or how about Matt Myers? Killed Chris Eggleston in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Fascinated with murder and death. Trouble with the law. Nasty custody battle, wound up living with his grandparents. Part of a group of social outsiders known as the "Vampires". Fucking scary bright. He fits the profile perfectly.
Taking a purely scientific view of the above data, we see the following:
*The data presented is hardly enough to be statistically relevant. Bias in any one of the above cases is enough to invalidate the results entirely.
*The data above is incomplete. How many other cases of a similar nature are there? What are the details of those cases?
*Assuming that the data is unbiased and representative of the entire population, we still have nothing more that a statistical correlation. And even then, we are unable to determine the strength of this relationship.
*Playing devil's advocate, we can say that the relationship is a strong relationship-- 90% or more of the killers fit the profile. This still doesn't imply causation. There are a number of other factors that might enter into the picture-- acting as if A implies B (especially on such a small set of data) is not only scientifically unsound, but foolish.
So I guess you can say that the profile may have *some* statistical relevance; but it has very little scientific relevance.
Then again, scientists probably fit the profiles themselves:-)
I'm going to open up a can of worms here and open myself up to a flame war. Moderators, go ahead and mark this down as flamebait, but please realize I'm not trying to advocate a political viewpoint:
Is a gun company responsible for people who get shot?
Some people say "yes". Like Gail Fox, a Brooklyn lady who watched somebody shoot her son. He survived, fortunately, but she felt that action needed to be taken. Not against the person who pulled the trigger. Not against the dealer who illegally sold the gun. Against the gun industry. 15 of the 25 gun companies named in the suit were found liable for the shooting, and for the deaths of 6 other children.
Take this logic and apply it to software. If some company is hit by BO2K, it isn't the fault of the script kiddie who installed it. It isn't the fault of the administrator who didn't take proper precautions to secure the servers.
No, according to the flawed logic detailed above, it's the cDc's fault that the company gets hacked. After all, the cDc distributed something that they knew could be used for illegal purposes! They distributed something that could be easily used by even the most inexperienced person to wreak havoc on the lives of others, right?
In other words, personal responsibility is gone. Nobody prosecutes the people who sell illegal guns-- they prefer to make the CEO of Colt Firearms go in front of a judge and grovel for mercy. Nobody wants to prosecute the script kiddy or toughen up their system-- it's easier to blame the Cult of the Dead Cow and make them pay for the damages. Nobody wants to make a good copy protection scheme for DVD movies-- it's easier to threaten lawsuits against the people who point out how horribly fucked-up the system is.
Responsibility for the use of any technology, be it software or guns, is in the hands of the person who uses it. I don't believe in passing the blame around like so much candy-- my actions are my own, for better or worse. If I'm willing to take the credit for my accomplishments, I should damn well be willing to take the blame for my mistakes and blunders.
A note to the world: don't blame others. It won't do you a damn bit of good. Instead, take a little responsibility for your actions and learn from your mistakes. It's that ninth habit of highly successful people-- they don't pass the buck.
Slashdot Mirror
Is 18018 considered a "low-number"?
I'd sell it to Mr. Mitnick on the cheap-- a personal check in the amount of one dollar would be just fine...
As for the account:
Karma: Excellent; was above the 50-point Karma cap at the time of the switch to "descriptive" karma terms (it had karma in the mid-60s when the cap was put in place; I was never busted back down to 50, and I don't post much so I didn't lose points from the moderators). Frequent moderator access.
This account has a decent history, but it's been dormant recently-- I tend to post anonymously or not at all.
Of course, the name would be totally wrong, but-- heck, it could be made known fairly easily that Seth Scali is really Kevin Mitnick, can't it?
Okay, so you give expanded wiretapping power to the government, so they can tap ALL the phones of a suspected terrorist with one warrant.
/.er: Get a fucking clue.
So he uses SpeakFreely, an encrypted telephone program that runs on a PC with a 14.4 modem or faster.
All right, you pass a law requiring him to give his keys to the government. He refuses to do so, and he's arrested for violation of the new "Big Brother Protects Americans Against Evil Encryption Act". He's sentenced to ten years under the BBPAAEEA.
As he's being led into the jail, another terrorist, this one acting alone and having planned everything outside the USA, detonates a car bomb right outside the first suspected terrorist's cell.
Any expanded power on the government's part will give the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. only a temporary advantage at best. Terrorists have spent their entire lives adapting and reacting to government actions-- why should this be any different?
And putting an "annual review" clause into any proposed legislation is bullshit. It will be miraculously amended out. If not, we'll get speeches every year about how there haven't been any planes flown into the WTC since the law was passed-- and it will be renewed by near unanimous votes. Maybe a senator will, in his infinite wisdom, pass more legislation that amends the expanded wiretap legislation to waive the annual review requirement.
What's it going to take to get the point across that violating civil liberties simply DOESN'T solve the problem? Do we have to institute a police state, and watch as the Empire State Building is bombed before we realize that freedom doesn't cause terrorism?
Come on, Jon. At the risk of sounding like the typical
Probably one of the best references for stuff like the "sticky hands" toys would be "The Official Icky Poo Book", from the Klutz Press. You can find it at http://www.klutz.com/product_details.cfm?productID =1116 for $11 (check Barnes and Noble, they only link to Amazon). Not only does it have a great story about the invention of the Icky Poo (very serendipitous, maybe a bit of an Urban Legend), but it includes actual Icky Poos!
Even better than Nerf stuff, IMO.
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
Sigh...
IANAL, but I'm not even hopeful. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think that 2600 is going to come out of this one vicorious. The judge is likely going to tell them to stop linking to copies of the 2600 source.
Why? Because 2600 still is still a major point of "distribution" for the code. Hell, I've used their list of mirrors once or twice when I wanted to show friends what this software *really is* (i.e., not an evil "hacker tool that has no legitimate purpose"). 2600 doesn't have the source code stored locally, but that doesn't mean they aren't "distributing" the program to others (at least, not in the eyes of the MPAA and the judge).
Remember, the MPAA requested the injunction because they wanted to stop 2600 from distributing DeCSS. So if linking to material (with an expressed intent to make it available to others) is considered a method of distribution by the courts, then the court can say that 2600 is distributing the code. And since the court has already issued an injunction against one method of distribution, issuing an injunction against another method is what the court would be *expected* to do.
Mind you, I don't think that linking is the same as distributing. But if the MPAA presents the case strongly enough, 2600 doesn't stand a chance. What we need are strong, logical arguments as to *why* linking is not a method of distribution.
Any ideas?
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
I'm not so sure that this would apply here.
Deep-linking relates to whether or not you have the right to point to a specific page at foo.com, instead of pointing to http://foo.com/index.html, as Foo, Inc. would like you to. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with this case-- all the participants are voluntarily mirroring the source code, and the material is not allowed on the linking party's web site.
If, as Jack Valenti and his lawyers say, this is the same as having it hosted at the 2600.com domain, this *could* have implications toward deep-linking. That is, if linking to a page and mirroring the same page are considered equivelent actions by the law, then that would mean that by linking to copyrighted material, you have (in the eyes of the law) stolen that person's copyrighted material and placed it on your own site.
But the deep-linking case seems to be a totally different area.
IANAL, though. Any arguments that show how the deep-linking decision *could* help 2600?
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
Okay, when a student visits the "Wave America" site, the list of "Early Warning Signs" for a student are hosted locally-- specifically, here. But when it comes to "What you can do" if somebody exhibits these behaviors, you refer children to this page, hosted by the American Psychological Association.
Playing around on the APA site, I find a list of warning signs-- among them are a number of the same signs spelled out on your "Early Warning Signs" web page. However, the APA makes it abundantly clear that the symptoms listed under that category aren't even a potential issue unless exhibited over a period of time. You don't make that distinction on the WAVE site-- why not?
Additionally...
The following behaviors are considered indicative of "serious possibility" of violence by the APA:
These are what the APA considers to be the best indicators of potential violence. They are more "concrete" (as far as that term can go in the field of psychology) than the "early warning" signs.
However, you seem insistent upon teaching children the "Early Signs". This is absolutely clear, even in your "Speak Out" page, which contains only a link to the "early" signs (and no link to the "imminent" warning signs). Why are you so insistent upon teaching the vague and inherently more error-prone methods of detection? Early detection is key, but it would seem you're overlooking a larger "threat" to the students. Why is this so?
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
Okay, this seems like a basic question, but it's really kinda thorny, isn't it?
./configure (or make config, etc.)
On one hand, there's me:
If I want to install FooWidget 2.6, I know that I can do the following:
% ftp ftp.foowidget.org
> get foowidget-2.6.tar.gz
> quit
% tar -zxf foowidget-2.6.tar.gz
% cd foowidget
%
% make
% make install
So a doc that says: "FTP the file from ftp.foowidget.org, untar it, run configure, run make and make install" doesn't do me a whole bloody lot of good. If I'm looking at the doc, it's usually because there's a problem (i.e., it won't compile or run right).
So for me, the ideal doc is actually kinda technical-- maybe a troubleshooting guide, or a list of known bugs and workarounds.
But then there's my mother:
"What the hell is FooWidget, and why the fuck do you want me to install it?" (Yes, that would likely be her-- she's been known to make sailors blush).
For her, the step-by-step instructions are all she needs (she already knows how to troubleshoot-- she picks up the phone and calls me at work). So the ideal docs for her are the ones that will hold your hand.
So for whom do we write our docs? My mom (in which case, I will feel insulted that you think I need to be taught how to su root) or me (in which case my mother tells me that this Linux bullshit is too hard, and she wants me to re-install Windows)? Is there a compromise between the two (like with the LyX documentation, perhaps?)?
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
I'm probably going to be moderated down for this, but I'm curious...
On the Get Slack page on the Slackware web site, you only have versions as far back as 3.5.
Now, I know that no *sane* person would want to try and run anything earlier than 3.5 on his machine (though I do have a copy of Slack 3.something on a CD-ROM that came with "Linux Kernel Internals"), but I was wondering about "Historical" versions of the Slackware distribution. I'd really like to see an archive site with all the older versions available for download.
I know it isn't a big issue for you, and that it may not be practical, but I kinda think that older versions of Slackware might be cool to look at. Since Slack has been around so long, it would serve as an excellent guide through the evolution of Linux-- what version first had X? What was the first ELF version? How about the first version incorporating the 2.0.xx kernel series?
That said, is there any chance of a Slackware archive dating back further than 3.5?
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
"Cut yourself some Slack."
/* doesn't need an 'f'."
"Don't Slack off-- use Slackware!" (erm, maybe the phrase "Slack off" isn't a good one to use...)
"Slackware. Get down to brass tacks."
"Elegant. Simple. Slackware."
"When stability is paramount, Slackware is there."
"When you don't have time for 'pretty'."
"Because rm -r
"Kinda like a Geo Metro that does 300 MPH. In second gear."
"Because you know what you're doing."
"Good for small systems, great for big ones."
"Slackware-- Who has time for formalities?"
"Not everybody runs a Pentium or higher."
"Get to know your computer. Intimately." (err... not "intimately" in *that* sense...)
"The few. The proud. The people who stick with Slack."
"Only the smart survive."
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
Check out the JACAL web page-- http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~jaffer/JACAL.html for more details. You'll need a Scheme interpreter and the slib (Scheme library). It's GPL, if you're worried about licenses.
I don't know a whole bloody lot about Scheme-- would it be terribly difficult to create a C/C++ implementation of JACAL, or would it be best to start from scratch?
Remember, I've never used JACAL, so I don't know about how appropriate it will be to your needs. But it can supposedly "manipulate and simplify equations, scalars, vectors, and matrices of single and multiple valued algebraic expressions containing numbers, variables, radicals, and algebraic differential, and holonomic functions", according to the web page-- it might be a good starting point.
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
Who has the highest average reply rate (i.e., JonKatz usually gets 200-300, and not infrequently in excess of 400 or 500)?
Who is the "favorite" author on Slashdot (who has the highest number of hits per story, on average?)
What is the most frequently appearing topic? Linux, Microsoft, Star Wars Prequels, The Internet, Links, Quickies (when are we gonna get more quickies, anyway?), Science, or something else?
Who has posted the most comments, besides the Anonymous Coward?
What, in your opinion, were the coolest stories you've posted on Slashdot (yeah, the Netscape Open-Source thing was the indicator that Slashdot was "respectable", but what have you guys gotten the biggest kick out of posting?)?
Any regrets?
Anything you would do differently?
Did you ever imagine anything like this happening 3 years ago?
Where do we send congratulatory "Who" box sets?
I never quite could understand how Libertarianism gives a person a "cop-out" from responsibility. I always kind of figured it was something that required that a person accept responsibility for one's own actions. You can't blame all your problems on the big power structure like Microsoft or IBM or AT&T. I suppose it can excuse a company from having to make, say, a TV capable of HDTV, but consumer demand would drive the demand anyway.
As for Libertarian rhetoric pandering to corporate interests: if the government should not be involved in business, that includes business subsidies and lawmaking. Subsidies for tobacco companies, for example, would be out in a Libertarian system. The DMCA is an infringement upon personal rights, so I don't think it would really be quite kosher in a Libertarian system-- it makes a civil matter into a criminal one, and it involves the government in matters of commerce (matters which would probably be handled best by contracts). If the government can't get take away rights of companies or give individuals special rights, then it can't give the companies special rights or take away the rights of individuals.
And I guess most Libertarians are more likely to complain about something like the Microsoft case than they are likely to complain about the DMCA-- which is probably because the DMCA hasn't really even entered into the public consciousness. OTOH, even my mom knows about the Microsoft case. If trying to draw attention to (what you believe to be) injustice, which one is going to easier to point out? Microsoft, naturally. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be speaking out against something like the DMCA, but it's understandable why they don't.
I guess maybe I see Libertarian viewpoints a little more objectively (insert Ayn Rand joke here) than people who just want to rant about Microsoft (which I've done before, but I've ranted to my friens about DMCA and the whole DeCSS thing, too). Or maybe I totally misunderstand the entire concept, but I'm somehow arriving at strikingly similary viewpoints from a totally different set of axioms... who knows?
Jesus Christ, I'm sick and tired of this. Libertarians are portrayed as ignorant people who just want to let big corporations roll over consumers, not letting the consumers or the government get involved. It seems that people think that Libertarians just want people to sit back and do nothing.
NOT TRUE.
One belief that a number of Libertarians (not all) have is that the government shouldn't be involved in commerce; that the Free Market will regulate itself, based on certain principles.
Boycotting is a method of self-regulation for the market, and most Libertarians support boycotts. I have previously participated in boycotts of companies that didn't take proper environmental meausures, choosing instead to pay the EPA's fines; I've also participated in boycotts of companies that used inhumane animal testing. Boycotts demonstrate how the market can be kept in check without the government getting involved (a boycott of Microsoft products, based on Microsoft's practices, would surely have been supported by a number of Libertarians-- just, please, no government involvement).
But that doesn't mean that Libertarians support the *reasons* behind every boycott. I, for one, don't support the current boycott of Disney that religious conservatives are calling for-- I don't agree with what the protestors are trying to achieve through the boycott.
But I would support a DVD boycott. While I certainly believe that one should be able to profit from one's own intellectual property (i.e., the CSS algorithm), I think that you have to take the proper measures to gain that protection (i.e., patenting the damn thing). The CSS algorithm was obtained through legal means, and I sincerely believe that the MPAA's actions are completely wrong. A boycott, in this case, would certainly be a *large* boost to the "Libertarian pulse" of the Internet, Jon. It would really give consumers an idea of just how much power they have-- that companies *can't* get away with anything they want, because they have consumers to answer to.
So let's boycott the DVD Forum companies. Then maybe they'll remember who ultimately controls their purse strings.
Okay, the answers are already posted. Morse code was a cute way of doing it, but I doubt the folks in charge of HR would say, "Dear God, he deciphered Morse code! We must hire this prodigy at all costs!" But then again, this is the same country that gave us the Spice Girls, so who knows?
One thing I have to admit, at least the NSA gives a *somewhat* more challenging "toy" to the people requesting job information. If you apply for their summer programs, they have a neat little challenge on the back, with four or five puzzles to solve. Each one tells you how to solve the next-- i.e., the first message (rot13) tells you that the next one is based on the faction 2/7 or something of the sort, which then tells you that the next one is a transposition cipher, etc.
Really, neither side has come up with an interesting problem for the public yet, but at least the American folks can keep us entertained for five minutes more. Come on, let's see the GCHQ come out with something better! We could have an arms race going in no time!
That's kind of sad.
Very interesting awards, to say the least. Is it really worth it, though, to make an "Award of Shame"? It really makes the entire effort seem rather juvenile-- "here, let's make fun of those who oppose us". Couldn't that time be better spent, say, getting petitions signed (not the online kind) to take before congress when they vote on SAFE?
I think that, for the most part, the databases are doing their job rather well.
Where do you find the most dynamic content? News sites. Slashdot, Freshmeat, Linuxtoday, Yahoo! News, etc. These are the sites that need dynamic content.
Ironically, these are the exact sites that search engines are pretty much not interested in indexing, anyway. Even assuming that a database can update all its sites once per day, that means that the information is a day old-- centuries, in Slashdot time! People don't go to AltaVista to search for the story over at ABCNews.com. They go to AltaVista to find information about international child custody laws (to name a random hot issue of late).
Most of your general information stuff is pretty much static. This is what the search engines look for anyway-- this is the stuff that doesn't change often, so it's good stuff to record. Why would anybody bother to make a page about Cup 'O Noodles that's generated through a Perl script? It's too tough, and can be a huge pain in the ass to change it.
Why index the pages that are constantly changing, when the stuff you're looking for (by definition) doesn't change much? Sure, there's overlap (small sites that use generate the exact same content every time). But it's such a small segment that hardly anybody would miss it (yes, it may be important, but not important enough to totally revamp the indexing procedure).
I'm not saying that NT is secure, I'm saying that it hasn't been intentionally weakened. Jesus Christ, you're like one of those idiots that *knows* that DES has a huge trapdoor in it, just because the NSA was involved in its development.
Look, Microsoft has never been a good company for security. They have *always* cut corners and taken the easy way out when it comes to security. But that doesn't mean that they intentionally put holes in the operating system.
Here's what I think happened:
The folks over at the NCSC told Microsoft that having one key for verification is definitely not a good thing-- what if the key is compromised? They suggest that Microsoft add more keys, or (even better) make the keys user-configurable.
Now, Microsoft doesn't want just *any* company to be able to sign system-level software, so they decide that user-configurable keys are not the answer. The only other way to do it is to hard-code another key into the OS. The programmer assigned the task is told that the key is there for the benefit of the NSA evaluators, so he (somewhat logically) calls the keypair NSAKEY.
Also: I firmly believe in applying bug fixes. If you believe that NSAKEY compromises your security, then I encourage you to change it with any of the programs out there that will do so. But if Microsoft only put the key in for the sake of appeasing a bunch of testers, then they really don't have much reason to delete the key-- especially if the irrational people that are absolutely terrified of it wind up changing it anyway.
Give me a break-- the whole NSAKEY thing is most likely benign. And even if you believe differently, you can change the second damn key.
However, I'd say this adds some light to the subject.
Part of the C2 evaluation process is "Fix bugs. Repeat." Perhaps the testers found some sort of minor bug in the source code that could only be corrected by the addition of a new key (or that could be fixed *most easily* by the addition of a new key). Microsoft adds the key to appease the testers (who happen to work for a branch of the NSA). What's the logical variable name for the key? NSAKEY.
Is this a plausible explanation?
"What would it take for Linux to get a C2 rating?"
Well, we certainly are doing well in the security arena. Open Source allows us to fix a number of bugs, and to identify trouble spots before they become vulnerabilities. Also, Linux has a hell of a lot of people that will back up its security when properly configured.
But here's the problem: Define Linux.
Okay, let's say we want to get Linux certified at the C2 level. Well, that's just fine and dandy. Are we going to just submit the kernel? Or are we going to submit programs (bash, mount, losetup, etc.), too? If so, what versions? Are we going to submit an entire distribution?
It wouldn't be possible to get a C2 rating for Linux in general. There are too many different distributions, platforms, bugfixes, and updates out there to get a handle on-- the best we can do is rate a particular version (at a particular bugfix level) of a particular distro. So, just because (say) RH 6.0 gets a C2 rating doesn't mean that Slackware 3.6 is less, more, or just as secure.
Even if we do get a version of Linux (in general) rated (for the sake of argument here, let's go with the idea), what about the next version? Microsoft is gonna have to go through the program again with W2K. Figure that we went from kernel version 2.2.0 to 2.2.13 in a space of less than a year-- and 2.2.14 is due out soon. It would be pointless to try this, because we would wind up constantly having to get it re-tested.
And let's not even talk about the price of such testing.
In other words: Forget about government security ratings for Linux. It's too dynamic to be given a static rating. It's also very reliant on the operator (as is NT, but that *seems* less obvious to most people).
I wouldn't interpret it as hacking on my take of the movie-- you raise very good questions.
As for the script-- I think that he was perhaps a bit too trite with a lot of the dialogue. And there are times when he strains to make his point so painfully obvious that it was almost insulting to watch-- "Can't be anal retentive if you don't have an anus" was one of those lines; I could have figured it out based on the whole "Angels lack certain body parts" theme that shows up later. And the character of Bartleby hardly seemed suited to making reference to the anus, especially over something as trivial as a figure of speech-- Bartleby seemed to be somebody who picked his words wisely.
But, like I said, I can't write any better, so I'm not really complaining-- the script was great overall, I just had some minor nitpicks. Smith did a fantastic job with an idea that's tough to set into a screenplay-- I applaud him for it. There were a number of great things about the script, most notable the lack of snappy one-liners in exchange for plot and character development.
As for the special effects-- when I said that the movie was good partially because of its shortcomings, I was actually thinking specifically of the special effects. It's also what I meant when I referred to the surreal nature of the film. Perhaps the director *was* going for a campy Golgothan-- in which case he did a very good job (though I wonder what the flowered Golgothan would have looked like!).
The special effects were nothing spectacular when you think of Jurassic Park, Star Wars, or Casper. But effects like that would have ruined Dogma-- the imperfections and such with the special effects only increased their (sur)reality. And even the parts that were just plain *bad* (i.e., Bartleby dropping the dude who simply exploded at the bottom) were insignificant in the whole scheme of things.
As for achieving the desired result through certain decisions: Dogma did fantastically. Like I said, Smith told a fantastic story, which is a big part of what *every* good film maker wants to do. Showing a different perspective of faith? I think that the controversy from the Catholic Church and www.capalert.com is evidence enough of that. Give new light to some serious social issues? Yep. Make a good movie? Hell yes.
I suppose that I'm an asshole-- I went to see it simply because it was being protested. I fought my way through the picketers and the people telling me about how I was going to eternally rot in hell for even entering a theatre that would show anything so blasphemous (at least, they'll say that until next week, when they have to go fight the *new* good fight).
I actually liked the movie. And not for the heavy-handed religious principles-- not even for being hilarious. I liked it because Kevin Smith told a story. And as outrageous and outlandish as it was, he told it well.
Now, I've never seen "Mall Rats" or "Clerks" or "Chasing Amy", so I didn't go see it out of any obligation to a specific director (Lucas, anybody?). I went to see it for three general reasons:
* I don't like the church telling me I shouldn't go see a movie, so fuck them.
* I wanted to decide for myself if the fuss was really deserved.
* It looked like a really good movie.
Now, I will admit: Dogma's script needed a little work, but it's better than anything I could ever write, so I don't feel I should complain. And the special effects were, yes, kinda cheesy (the Golgothan, for example, was almost campy).
But the acting and directing pulled it off. The movie is supposed to be somewhat surreal, and it is. In spite of some problems with the script and the special effects and such, the movie comes across as a story well told. The characters aren't as superficial as a lot of people would like to pass them off as being, and it brings out a lot of things in some of the actors-- for example, Chris Rock has a number of serious moments (which he handles quite well!).
As for the "split personality"-- well, I can see where that feeling comes from. But in another sense, I also see the movie as tying the two together. It all depends on how you look at it.
All in all, I thought it was a good movie, partially in spite of its shortcomings, partially because of its shortcomings.
But whatever it that helps a person achieve Zen is soon changed. Tom's example is that of the keyboard on computers.
For another example, look at cars. I learned to drive with a Geo Metro. Part of the interface is sound-- the engine is screaming; shift gears. The engine is rumbling and sputtering; shift gears. The radio? That's way down by the ashtray, where I will only reach it when I make a conscious effort to do so.
Today I drove a Mercury Villager-- automatic, naturally. Now I have a penalty zone-- the time just before the transmission shifts up a notch. It pulls me out, it shakes me. Not only that, but when I look down at the steering wheel, I see buttons for tuning the radio! The old buttons (right behind where the stick should be!) are still there, but now I have radio buttons. It's idiot-proof.
For another example, look at the portable phone I bought the other day. There are 12 speed-dial buttons (memory buttons, the manual calls 'em). They are placed more prominently than the actual numeric pad! I know that a lot of people don't attain Zen when dialing phone numbers, but it's been known to happen on occasion. But anybody wishing to Zen out as he dials Fiji will now be stuck trying to avoid the memory keys.
It's history, folks. It's the natural progression of things. Something is good. Hackers "Zen out". Suits see that hackers are more productive, decide that good thing should be made available to all. Suits change good thing and destroy Zen. Hackers move on.
Such is life. We shall soon move on, I suppose. Zen will be found somewhere, and hackers will follow. It's our drug of choice, and junkies don't do too well without it.
I will admit that strong correlations are extremely important, and there *are* philosophies that show that we can only be certain to a certain percentage (i.e., 99.9999999999999999999%). Without evidence supplied by statistical relationships, we can't do *any* type of research. Dismissing it as "nothing more than a statistical relationship" was not my intention-- my intention was to dismiss the application of the correlation, but it didn't really come out that way.
My main problem is with the attitude that if we get rid of the smoke, we get rid of the fire (to use your analogy). For example, let's say Joe Geek gets targeted as a dangerous kid (he fits the demographic in a lot of ways). What would he do?
* He would not mention the fact that he plays Quake to anybody
* He would definitely stop hanging out with the small group of friends he has. He would sit in the middle of crowds, trying to look like he fits in even though he isn't talking to anybody.
* He would stop carrying around "A Course In Combinatorics" and "Cryptonomicon" in his backpack and start carrying around books by Steinbeck and Ginsberg.
After being observed by the administrators for a suitable period of time, it is determined that Joe Geek does not fit the demographic and is therefore not a threat. But in reality, Joe is just angrier at the school-- he's just not showing it. This only serves to make it all the more likely that he'll act out his anger in improper ways, perhaps even in violent outbursts.
Correlation is a good thing, and it should not be dismissed offhand. It's one of the most powerful tools that a scientist has-- and used properly, it can give insight into the way things work and the why they work that way.
But don't assume that "mainstreaming" a person will make him or her less "apt to kill".
I'm not disagreeing with your main point, Jon-- the geek profiling is bullshit. I don't think administrators are out to get us geeks, but I think that severely misguided principals will wind up inadvertently fucking up a lot of kids this way.
:-)
But let's see why the profile fits so well with most geeks:
Klebold and Harris were both computer whiz-kids that also excelled in math and foreign languages (hence all the emphasis on speaking German). The "Trenchcoat Mafia" was nothing more than a group of unpopular kids that would hang out together. Klebold and Harris spoke frequently of guns, death, violence, etc. The two were very much anti-authority. I don't know about family life... But they fit the profile pretty well.
Kip Kinkle was very much involved in guns. He also was an honor student, and unpopular (jokingly said to have been voted "most likely to start world war three"). He had a lot of resentment for authority, though he voiced his anger and outrage to those closest to him. He fit the profile pretty well.
How about the Jonesboro shooters? A little more difficult-- these kids were 11 and 13. But they were both fascinated with guns and death. They both did well enough in school. And they were described as kids that nobody really even paid attention to-- nothing remarkable, but they certainly weren't popular. They don't fit perfectly, but they do hit some of the points on the FBI profile.
Or how about Matt Myers? Killed Chris Eggleston in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Fascinated with murder and death. Trouble with the law. Nasty custody battle, wound up living with his grandparents. Part of a group of social outsiders known as the "Vampires". Fucking scary bright. He fits the profile perfectly.
Taking a purely scientific view of the above data, we see the following:
*The data presented is hardly enough to be statistically relevant. Bias in any one of the above cases is enough to invalidate the results entirely.
*The data above is incomplete. How many other cases of a similar nature are there? What are the details of those cases?
*Assuming that the data is unbiased and representative of the entire population, we still have nothing more that a statistical correlation. And even then, we are unable to determine the strength of this relationship.
*Playing devil's advocate, we can say that the relationship is a strong relationship-- 90% or more of the killers fit the profile. This still doesn't imply causation. There are a number of other factors that might enter into the picture-- acting as if A implies B (especially on such a small set of data) is not only scientifically unsound, but foolish.
So I guess you can say that the profile may have *some* statistical relevance; but it has very little scientific relevance.
Then again, scientists probably fit the profiles themselves
Just my $0.02
I'm going to open up a can of worms here and open myself up to a flame war. Moderators, go ahead and mark this down as flamebait, but please realize I'm not trying to advocate a political viewpoint:
Is a gun company responsible for people who get shot?
Some people say "yes". Like Gail Fox, a Brooklyn lady who watched somebody shoot her son. He survived, fortunately, but she felt that action needed to be taken. Not against the person who pulled the trigger. Not against the dealer who illegally sold the gun. Against the gun industry. 15 of the 25 gun companies named in the suit were found liable for the shooting, and for the deaths of 6 other children.
Take this logic and apply it to software. If some company is hit by BO2K, it isn't the fault of the script kiddie who installed it. It isn't the fault of the administrator who didn't take proper precautions to secure the servers.
No, according to the flawed logic detailed above, it's the cDc's fault that the company gets hacked. After all, the cDc distributed something that they knew could be used for illegal purposes! They distributed something that could be easily used by even the most inexperienced person to wreak havoc on the lives of others, right?
In other words, personal responsibility is gone. Nobody prosecutes the people who sell illegal guns-- they prefer to make the CEO of Colt Firearms go in front of a judge and grovel for mercy. Nobody wants to prosecute the script kiddy or toughen up their system-- it's easier to blame the Cult of the Dead Cow and make them pay for the damages. Nobody wants to make a good copy protection scheme for DVD movies-- it's easier to threaten lawsuits against the people who point out how horribly fucked-up the system is.
Responsibility for the use of any technology, be it software or guns, is in the hands of the person who uses it. I don't believe in passing the blame around like so much candy-- my actions are my own, for better or worse. If I'm willing to take the credit for my accomplishments, I should damn well be willing to take the blame for my mistakes and blunders.
A note to the world: don't blame others. It won't do you a damn bit of good. Instead, take a little responsibility for your actions and learn from your mistakes. It's that ninth habit of highly successful people-- they don't pass the buck.