I personally would be willing to pay more per transaction from a company that I knew would NEVER divuldge my personal information. How bout the rest of you?
I suppose I would, but I wouldn't be happy about it. Why should I have to pay more just so I don't get unpleasant surprises? I've been told it's economic reality - if something (privacy, f'rinstance) is valuable, I should be willing to pay for it. I guess that's understandable. So I ask: where's my cut for disclosing my SSN, my credit card numbers, the sites I visit? Doubleclick et al never told me they were gathering this information; I had to hear it from places like Slashdot. They profited from that information. It's valuable to them. There seem to be different rules in play for the big players. If something is valuable to you or me, we can expect to pay for it. But if it's valuable to Doubleclick, they want us to give it to them for free.
I'll pay more for food that doesn't have dogshit in it too, because that's important to me. But I won't be happy about it. I'd prefer that ALL the food on the store shelves was dogshit-free.
...but I'm pretty sure that corporations (I seem to recall they have to incorporate) are legally considered to be "persons" in some ways, but they're not entitled to "all the rights and obligations involved". F'rinstance, General Motors doesn't get to vote, IBM doesn't have to register for the draft^H^H^H^H^Hselective service, and WalMart will never have to serve on a jury. Oh well...
These guys at Trans Union are laughing at the commission- they've made millions illegally and now that they are finally caught they don't even get a slap on the wrist.
They're laughing and crying. They're laughing because they got away with it for so long, and still aren't being punished; they're crying because they had a pretty good thing going there and now they've been told they have to stop or they'll have to pay (ooooh!) some fines...if they get caught doing it again.
Whining and bitching about big brother will achieve nothing.
If that's ALL you do, then that's true. You're preaching to the converted. But if you write (yes, with paper and stamps, because it's so much more effective than email that our benighted representatives seldom even hear about) to your representatives and THEN get onto a public forum like Slashdot and tell others what you did and why, it might get others to follow in your footsteps.
But please be polite. These people have to slog through bureaucratic BS all day. You won't win any friends in high places by venting your spleen at them. Just explain logically why this is a Bad Thing.
And while you're at it, write to your local newspaper. There you'll be preaching to many who are not yet converted. Spread the word!
I am SOOOOOOO sick of this PC bullshit, it's not funny. Are you an idiot?
I find it interesting that you dismiss my arguments as "PC bullshit". Is that so you don't have to disprove them logically? If it's PC, it must be wrong, just because?
If it matters, I'm not particularly PC. I just dislike bad science. And jumping to conclusions about the reasons for differences between men and women is bad science.
Go have a look at a PET or CAT scan of a human female, and then do the same for a male. Do you still need a clue? Men and women are wired DIFFERENTLY. Yes, that's right, the Y chromosome-challenged are indeed physically different than those that aren't. That's right - men and women are PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT. In the HEAD.
Did you even READ my post before venting? Go back and try it. You'll see that I never claimed that physical differences between men and women don't exist. They do! I acknowledge them!
What I dismiss as BS is the notion that these physical differences translate into "hardwired" behavioral differences. The behavioral differences are learned. They have to be, because physical "hardwired" differences change slowly, by natural selection, over many generations. That's perfectly adequate for insects and bacteria and the like, who have hundreds or thousands of offspring and who go through many generations in a short time. But it's far too slow for K-selected social animals like humans. We have to learn most of our behaviors, so that we can change them as the need arises. Good thing we got the big brains that allow us to do just that.
I've played on both sides of the hacking fence, and I'd guess maybe 10% of the community is female.
10% is a lot more than none. What I (and several others) are disputing, among other things, is the notion that (for whatever reason) female hackers don't exist at all. I particularly object when someone (not you - the author of the post I was refuting back there) suggests that the reason there are few (or no) female hackers is biological. Hardwired. Why is it that when most men are disinterested in something, they're just disinterested, but when most women are, it's because they're hardwired to prefer making babies instead? THIS is the kind of bad science that infuriates me, not the (quite reasonable, testable) claim that male hackers outnumber female ones.
Men and women are definitely wired differently. Hence the growing discipline of 'gender dimorphism', which study of the differences.
What differences? I see the only ones mentioned were peripheral vision and taste sensitivity (I'm discounting map-reading and listening because they're most definitely learned rather than hardwired), neither of which has anything to do with whether one is going to be socially engaged (as someone claimed women "naturally" are, and which I dismissed as BS) or solitary (as the same person claimed that men "naturally" are, and which I also dismissed as BS). I consider peripheral vision differences, taste sensitivity differences, and some if not all of the other gender-based differences (in humans) that gender morphology studies have uncovered to be physical differences. No different, really, than those beards and breasts that, I freely acknowledge, DO differ between men and women. They have little or nothing to do with behavior.
Examples of this include peripheral vision - men's is better because of millions of years of hunting.
I love this - cite an acknowledged, measurable difference between men and women, and then propose an entirely untested - indeed probably untestable - reason for that difference. Millions of years of hunting? How is it that you know that's the reason?
(digression)
I recall a discussion with a neurologist who noted a difference in the region of greatest visual acuity between men and women. Though there is a lot of overlap (which was conveniently ignored), women have the greatest acuity in a region around the center of their field of vision, while men have greatest acuity in a region from center to lower. This neurologist then claimed that this was due to men having "for millions of years" to hunt for creatures below their usual line of sight, while women were not subject to this pressure. He ignored several other possible (and IMHO much more probable, and measurable even today) reasons for such a condition.
For starters... Visual acuity is not particularly vital for hunting. A hunter needs to see game, but does not need to discern tiny details about it. Where visual acuity is most vital - particularly in social animals like humans and wolves (and wolves have a highly developed sense so they don't need to rely on the visual acuity so much) is to determine the moods of ones conspecifics. Consider the range of emotion displayed in the human face, and the very tiny differences that mark such displays. Staring because one is interested in something, or staring because one is crazed with anger and poised to attack - there is very little difference between these facial displays. Fractions of a millimeter in eyelid position; barely-perceptible twitches in a clenched jaw as opposed to a relaxed one... yet humans - male and female - can easily tell the difference due to their fine visual acuity. I suggest that the (very real) difference in visual acuity in men and women is due to the fact that men tend to be about the same height (as other men) or taller (than women and children) than others in their tribe while women tend to be taller than some (the children), about the same height as others (the women) and shorter than still others (the men). In order to best evaluate the emotional states of the others in ones group (a valuable survival skill) it would be best to have ones greatest visual acuity near where one would see the faces of those in the group. For men, that's center and below; for women it would tend more toward center.
Same trait, two wildly different proposed reasons for its existence. One is accepted, not because of any evidence, but because it supports the popular notion of "man the hunter". I have no doubt that, if the situations had been reversed (women with greatest acuity at center and lower; men with greatest visual acuity around the center), the same explanation would have been given. Women would suddenly have needed this extra acuity below their usual line of sight because of "millions of years" of plant-gathering and child-watching, both of which involve looking at things below the normal woman's line of sight. Men would have needed acuity near the center of their field of vision to spot distant game on the horizon. When opposite traits are explained by identical scenarios, it's time to look out for bad science.
As for the sensitive palate, IIRC the sensitive palate trait is quite rare in both genders. Very few women are supertasters, but even fewer men are. While it may be a hardware difference, it's hardly a survival skill for either gender - if it were, most of us would be in serious trouble.
Look at the basic anthropology of women. Women are much more hardwired than men to be social animals
Bull. Neither men not women are "hardwired" for anything, other than a few relexive responses which, revealingly, are the same across the gender line. Response to loud noises, the eye-blink reflex, etc. There is little else in human beings that is hardwired AT ALL. Sure there are differences between male and female humans, but most of them are hardware. Men grow beards, women grow breasts. The social stuff, however, is far too complex to be left to the slow, unreliable hardware. Social things change too fast. The fast responses that software allows are the only solution. So humans learn, grow, and adapt. Faster than their hardwiring would allow.
Hardwiring is for insects.
Sitting around the basement fsck'ing around on PCs isn't a particularly social activity.
No? It is when I do it!
Sure, some (stereotypically) women's hobbies are social. But so are some of men's. In fact, the opposite argument used to be made regarding (stereotypically) women's sports. That they tend to be individual competitions (tennis, gymnastics) rather than team sports.
But I digress. The hacker does not hack for individual glory or profit, or because of the social contacts that it affords. He (or she) hacks "because it's there."
Maybe the women hackers are just better at not getting caught (when they're breaking rules) or avoiding attention (when they're just bending them).
Will the "fight fair" meme become popular in the long run? I hope so. But the way I see it, that will only happen if it is more successful at reproducing than its alternative: "fight dirty." In the long run, it doesn't matter what's right, or what's good, or what benefits us humans the most. The memes just spread because they're good at spreading.
So to some extent it does matter what benefits us humans most. Because with very few exceptions, memes need humans in order to spread. Lethal memes, like lethal viruses, kill off their hosts. If you kill your host, who's going to replicate you? This of course does not entirely eliminate deleterious memes. Lethal ones will continue to appear, but they will rise to prominence quickly, and fade even faster as their hosts die out. F'rinstance, the heaven's Gate cult. Not a lot of people propagating that meme anymore. Over the long term, memes that are neutral wrt their hosts - or even beneficial - will tend to persist longer than their deleterious counterparts.
I thought we agreed (yeah, right - like "we" can agree on anything) that pigeonholing is a Bad Thing. It's bad when high school students get pigeonholed, right? What about the goth who's also a stoner? What about the geek who's a decent athlete? The cheerleader who brings a gun to school? What about those who don't fit any category? Why is it okay to categorize the net, but not to categorize people?
If we must make categories, then rather than continents, with the implication that they're separated by vast distances, I think a better analogy would be a spectrum. The "colors" of the various regions of the net blend into each other.
Perhaps even that is too much pigeonholing. What about the porn sites or the information sites that charge for access or have expensive banner ads to pay the bills? Or the "God" sites that ask the faithful for donations? Some of them take in a lot of money - why aren't they ranked with the big portals and commercial sites? Where is the cutoff? Is it measured in dollars or hits or souls saved? Is there a cutoff at all, or do the types (like the various types of students in a school) blend into one another at the edges? Some may be a blend of more than two types, so a linear continuum is inadequate. A multidimentional continuum might be in order.
Is it possible it [MS] orchastrated the entire thing?
I suppose it's possible. Is it likely? Not hardly. Can MS be expected to exploit these high-profile DoS attacks to promote its own products and blame its major competitors? Bet money on it!
Katzish analogy time: Gun control zealots and censorship advocates invoked the Columbine tragedy to promote what they were selling. Why should we expect MS to behave any differently?
Calmer heads recognize(d) that these tragedies were waiting to happen. What's really surprising is not that they happened, but that they didn't happen sooner.
Linux (well, any OS, really) is only a tool. It can be used for good or for evil. Please use only for good.
Used in this fashion computers are same as TV - opium for the masses. A distractive factor so the people do not read and think.
Do you really think that Ford is giving (well, subsidizing) computers to employees so that they'll be used in this way? In my more cynical moments I might think so, as television is indeed an opium for the masses, and one that indoctrinates and sells things to them too. But in my more logical moments I know better. If distraction and indoctrination were the real motive behind this apparent act of generosity, why wouldn't Ford just hand out televisions? Or subsidize cable for those employees who can't afford it?
Computers can be used like television, i.e a mindnumbing distraction. I've used them that way myself. But they can also be used like books or telephones, i.e. a stimulant to the mind. I use them for that even more. Watching television is not a valuable workplace skill, but literacy definitely is. Ditto for the ability to use a telephone. I think Ford - and the other, unsung corporations and individuals who are contributing computers to those who would not otherwise have them - are doing this out of a mix of generosity and enlightened self-interest, not mere greed.
If individuals are their own librarians, however, they will stock and lead themselves to what they need to know.
In an ideal world that would be true. But humans don't always act ideally. The way it really works is more like the following:
If individuals are their own librarians, they will stock and lead themselves to what they want to know.
It's still far preferable to letting government or corporations determine what information people have access to, but it's important to remember that what people want to know and what they need to know are not necessarily the same thing.
Do you really want everyone online. Just as you don't want drunk-drivers, mentally ustable, extremley elderly, or blind/deaf people on you highways, do you want child molesters, script kiddies, etc on the net?
As a matter of fact, I do want those people on the net. Unlike the drunk driver on the highway, the drunk on the net can't hurt me. Script kiddies grow up, and may even become valued contributors to the net (don't ask me how I know this). If they were denied access, they might well become bitter, resentful and far more dangerous.
I just haven't decided whether I want ConHugeCo and their lawyers on the net. But then that decision isn't mine to make.
NPR featured an interview with William freaking Gibson on their Talk of the Nation program way back in November. There might not be enough Gibson in the interview to satisfy the die-hard GibsonPhile, as he shared airtime with David Brin, Anne Simon, and a whole lot of callers (it's a call-in talk show). But if you're still interested (and if these links work) you can go to their Talk of the Nation site, or listen to the RealAudio version.
...long before software began to hasten its death.
The death of privacy has been so relentless, indirect and unintended, however, as to have gone virtually unnoticed. Reporters routinely pry into the most intimate details of the lives of public figures.
That's right. And reporters were prying into those most intimate details long before there were computers or the web or to make their job easier.
Economic reality, not software, has made possible the death or privacy. If something - say f'rinstance the intimate details of peoples' lives - become valuable, people, governments, and corporations will try to obtain it, and then use or sell it. In the past, one had to be famous before details of ones private life became valuable. But the privacy-killing forces were still at work. They've just grown to the point where they affect damn near anyone who buys or sells anything.
...an article about the flaws of Open Source software that doesn't hint (or outright declare) that the solution to these flaws is to abandon the Open Source model.
Until the user's perspective is an integral part of the Open Source development process, those Open Source products that rely on end-user interfaces (beyond the command line, that is) will continue to offer substandard interfaces on top of excellent engine code.
This problem can be fixed by merely paying attention to what ordinary users want and/or need.
Of course one person's flaw is another person's feature, but that's okay too. There will continue to be command line interfaces for those of us who want them, but an easy to use "training wheels" open source operating system with lots of GUI bells and whistles would certainly help to spread the gospel to those whose life doesn't revolve around computers, but who still use them from time to time.
...it seems there are 4 main opinion groups - "Yeeha! Where can I buy this?", "Cool, if it were possible, which it ain't", "(yawn) Been there, done that - see URL", and as always the "petrified Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans" contingent...
There's (at least) one more group you neglected to mention: The "(insert name of new technology here) will lead inevitably to (select one or more) global tyranny/evil insidious new weapons/unbearable breaches of privacy/environmental catastophe/the end of the world as we know it" faction. These may include a plea to stop this madness while there's still time, or a fatalistic acceptance that it's impossible to stop progress so we're all doomed.
Not to say that these opinions are wrong (or right) - just that they're usually found after any new technology items on Slashdot.
According to the security expert, *because* Linux is open source, the viruses will be even worse than in other systems.
The "security expert" has a point, but does not seem to be seeing the whole picture. Open source might make it easier for malicious virus-writers to exploit Linux... but it also makes it easier for the rest of us to see what devious tricks they're up to and protect ourselves. I'm going to be generous and suggest that there are more of us than there are of them. There are probably better minds working on the "good-guy" team too.
I don't see how this would make Linux viruses "worse", though theoretically they could be more prevalent. In that unusual scenario, it might be advisable for the uninformed newbies to stick with closed-source OS'es (like they don't already?), since they don't yet know how to protect themselves.
Windows et at might then rightfully be seen as "training wheels" OS'es, for people to use until they learn what they're doing and are ready to graduate to open source.
As most viruses in the real world are NOT written to exploit open-source OS'es, even that argument doesn't apply in reality. If it's not a good entry-level OS (for security reasons), what IS Windows good for?
...corporations ruled everything - and one of those corps., haha, was, heehee, get this - the Mighty ATARI Corp. Bwaaahahahaha:))
The names have changed (Atari isn't a big player anymore) but everything else is still the same. Corporations do rule damn near everything.
They may not be able to buy your vote, or my vote (yet), but convincing us not to vote is about as effective. And you can bet they buy our representatives' votes.
This is good in that hopefully companies will get serious about protecting their information systems.
No it's not. Companies should be serious about protecting their information systems because it's the right thing to do, not because some criminals (albeit clever ones) have made it necessary.
Analogy time! Would you be thankful for criminals who break into your house and steal valuable things? Even if they stole nothing, but merely left a note saying that they'd be back to steal your property later, if you don't pay them a big ransom? Hell no. You'd be angry, and rightly so. You might add better security, and that might be a Good Thing(tm) but it's still not good that some thugs threatened you or your property.
I'll just say that the organic-material-exchange-scenario is possible and completely feasible.
Fine. But is it scientific? What would occam's razor say? Yeah, it's reasonable that life originated on another planet (it seems really premature to suggest Mars), but isn't it more reasonable to suggest that it originated on Earth? Or that it has originated several times, on several planets, and occasionally been transported from one to another?
It's too early to rule out any of these scenarios (IMHO). Sensational headlines like "Scientists say life originated on Mars!!!" are more suited to publications like the Weekly World News than to scientific journals or even Wired, but that's where the tabloids get their material. Their writers skim the journals, find some poor sucker of a scientist, take his/her words out of context, and print an attention-grabbing headline and article. The underlying science may be good, but the spin that the tabloids (and sometimes the mainstream press) puts on it is far from scientific. Magazines get sold, and scientists get laughed at by their colleagues. If they're lucky they might save their careers. Oh well...
I like it! The IPO-watchers should flock to this one, seeing as it combines the buzzwords of software and biotechnology. Still, some caution is advised.
One problem with distributing DNA source code via gametes is that in that form it won't even compile, much less run. Gametes need to be combined with their corresponding gametes (sperm with egg, f'rinstance) in order to result in usable output. By distributing only sperm over the Internet, Shoeboy cannot guarantee the quality of the resulting product.
This problem might be partially remedied if Shoeboy were to distribute both sperm and eggs over the internet. Since this is probably not feasable in the immediate future, Shoeboy might have to contract with - or even merge with - another company which specializes in egg production. Given Shoeboy's past performance, this doesn't seem likely.
Shoeboy is also quick to point out that his product is completely open source. "Since all future products based on my DNA source code will (by age 13 or so) feel a nearly uncontrollable urge to redistribute their own DNA source code, I am in compliance with the terms of the GPL - just like Linux."
Since only 1/2 (on average) of any resulting zygotes' DNA would be based on Shoeboy's code, it's impossible to say whether they would comply with the terms of the GPL. While some of them might be compelled to "redistribute their own DNA source code" by age 13 or so, experience suggests that many others - particulary those with redundancy in the so-called X chromosome portion of the code - might take far longer to experience this urge. Others might lack it entirely. While it can be argued that, without exception, all previous implementations of Shoeboy's code succeeded in redistributing themselves, it's important to remember that "past performance does not guarantee future results". The past is littered with failed implementations of open-source DNA code.
It's a clever (not to mention laugh-out-loud funny) idea, but given the problems inherent in meiotic reproduction, it is doubtful that internet distribution of gametes will be any better than doing it the old-fashioned way. Personally, I favor the mitotic approach, avoiding the use of gametes entirely. If some company (drox.com, perhaps?) found a way to eliminate the need for random-chance recombination of the DNA source code, the usefulness of future distributions could be more easily assured.
...as you lose weight excercise will become easier, and you will lose weight faster. It becomes a self-reinforcing loop.
Alas, it doesn't work that way. When most of us diet, the body goes into a sort of "famine mode". Our minds have eveolved, but our bodies are the same ones we had in the stone age. The body recognizes that it's not getting enough calories, so it sends out hunger signals, telling us to eat more. Also, since the "famine" may last a while, it tends to preserve fat (that's what fat is for - to keep you alive during famines) and burn up blood sugar (reduced blood sugar levels result in irritability and loss of concentration) and muscle (noooo!) for energy instead. The loss of muscle can be prevented by rigorous exercise (tricks the body into thinking that it needs that muscle to outrun predators or something) but there's not much to be done about the blood-sugar thing except suffer through it.
Exercise becomes easier as one loses weight, but that's not the whole story. Hauling lots of weight around burns calories, and when there's less of it, the "easier" exercise burns fewer calories, not more. It's not a self-reinforcing loop - it's more of a self-regulating mechanism.
And there's more! A heavy body uses more calories as it exercises than a light one... but a lean body uses more calories as it rests than a fat one. Just maintaining muscle - even at rest - burns calories.
Imagine a case of an evangelist preaches at the same corner, shouting their religious beliefs at the top of their voice. If you don't agree with their beliefs, you can choose to ignore them, go a different route, or listen and think. The point is, you have a choice.
You don't have a choice if you live there - you have to hear the shouting all the time, or move elsewhere. That's why there are things like noise ordinances. It shouldn't matter whether they're screaming obscenities or "praise the lord". If they're disturbing the peace, they can be legally stopped, or asked to take their message elsewhere. If they're being silenced because of what they're shouting, rather than where and when and how loud they're shouting it, then it's time to cry censorship.
The only way to "win" is for both sides to accept each other, and provide the means for both to co-exist, peacefully.
Dream on. That will never happen. And the only thing stopping it from happening is human nature (humans are such bastards).
What's so ironic is that the people who claim the moral high ground are usually the ones who refuse to coexist peacefully. The porn merchants seldom claim to be acting for some higher purpose (there are a few who claim to be promoting freedom fo expression, but I suspect that's largely a figurative flag of convenience). They usually admit they're just trying to make a (n honest?) buck. But neither do they force what they're selling on those who don't want any. But the self-described moral guardians are more than happy to force what they are selling on all who come near, whether they want it or not. Some even proudly say they won't stop their crusade until the filth is cleansed.
Yes, but the problem contains within it its own solution. Viruses evolve. So systems must also evolve. There will never be a perfectly secure system... for long. But neither will the most harmful viruses remain viable for long. Tremendous forces (unstoppable forces?) are quickly mobilized against them. The writers of malicious viruses are clever, but I doubt that they're as clever as the combined cleverness of all those who work to stop malicious viruses from doing their damage.
Only a "truly perfect" defence will work, but no such defence exists, or even theoretically could exist. This leaves you with the "best practical" approach, which is to make things as protected as reasonably practical, and no more.
Viruses, as they evolve, can be expected to arrive at the "most practical" approach, rather than the most damaging. Over time, this would lead to the evolution of stealthy viruses that do little or no harm to the systems they infect, use minimal resources, and may even offer some benefit (f'rinstance cool graphics, greater efficiency, protection against other viruses). A "most practical" virus-proofing scheme would not waste its time with these benign viruses, which would drive the evolution of ever more benign viruses.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally would be willing to pay more per transaction from a company that I knew would NEVER divuldge my personal information. How bout the rest of you?
I suppose I would, but I wouldn't be happy about it. Why should I have to pay more just so I don't get unpleasant surprises? I've been told it's economic reality - if something (privacy, f'rinstance) is valuable, I should be willing to pay for it. I guess that's understandable. So I ask: where's my cut for disclosing my SSN, my credit card numbers, the sites I visit? Doubleclick et al never told me they were gathering this information; I had to hear it from places like Slashdot. They profited from that information. It's valuable to them. There seem to be different rules in play for the big players. If something is valuable to you or me, we can expect to pay for it. But if it's valuable to Doubleclick, they want us to give it to them for free.
I'll pay more for food that doesn't have dogshit in it too, because that's important to me. But I won't be happy about it. I'd prefer that ALL the food on the store shelves was dogshit-free.
...but I'm pretty sure that corporations (I seem to recall they have to incorporate) are legally considered to be "persons" in some ways, but they're not entitled to "all the rights and obligations involved". F'rinstance, General Motors doesn't get to vote, IBM doesn't have to register for the draft^H^H^H^H^Hselective service, and WalMart will never have to serve on a jury. Oh well...
These guys at Trans Union are laughing at the commission- they've made millions illegally and now that they are finally caught they don't even get a slap on the wrist.
They're laughing and crying. They're laughing because they got away with it for so long, and still aren't being punished; they're crying because they had a pretty good thing going there and now they've been told they have to stop or they'll have to pay (ooooh!) some fines...if they get caught doing it again.
Whining and bitching about big brother will achieve nothing.
If that's ALL you do, then that's true. You're preaching to the converted. But if you write (yes, with paper and stamps, because it's so much more effective than email that our benighted representatives seldom even hear about) to your representatives and THEN get onto a public forum like Slashdot and tell others what you did and why, it might get others to follow in your footsteps.
But please be polite. These people have to slog through bureaucratic BS all day. You won't win any friends in high places by venting your spleen at them. Just explain logically why this is a Bad Thing.
And while you're at it, write to your local newspaper. There you'll be preaching to many who are not yet converted. Spread the word!
Jesus! Looks like I touched a nerve.
I am SOOOOOOO sick of this PC bullshit, it's not funny. Are you an idiot?
I find it interesting that you dismiss my arguments as "PC bullshit". Is that so you don't have to disprove them logically? If it's PC, it must be wrong, just because?
If it matters, I'm not particularly PC. I just dislike bad science. And jumping to conclusions about the reasons for differences between men and women is bad science.
Go have a look at a PET or CAT scan of a human female, and then do the same for a male. Do you still need a clue? Men and women are wired DIFFERENTLY. Yes, that's right, the Y chromosome-challenged are indeed physically different than those that aren't. That's right - men and women are PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT. In the HEAD.
Did you even READ my post before venting? Go back and try it. You'll see that I never claimed that physical differences between men and women don't exist. They do! I acknowledge them!
What I dismiss as BS is the notion that these physical differences translate into "hardwired" behavioral differences. The behavioral differences are learned. They have to be, because physical "hardwired" differences change slowly, by natural selection, over many generations. That's perfectly adequate for insects and bacteria and the like, who have hundreds or thousands of offspring and who go through many generations in a short time. But it's far too slow for K-selected social animals like humans. We have to learn most of our behaviors, so that we can change them as the need arises. Good thing we got the big brains that allow us to do just that.
I've played on both sides of the hacking fence, and I'd guess maybe 10% of the community is female.
10% is a lot more than none. What I (and several others) are disputing, among other things, is the notion that (for whatever reason) female hackers don't exist at all. I particularly object when someone (not you - the author of the post I was refuting back there) suggests that the reason there are few (or no) female hackers is biological. Hardwired. Why is it that when most men are disinterested in something, they're just disinterested, but when most women are, it's because they're hardwired to prefer making babies instead? THIS is the kind of bad science that infuriates me, not the (quite reasonable, testable) claim that male hackers outnumber female ones.
Men and women are definitely wired differently. Hence the growing discipline of 'gender dimorphism', which study of the differences.
What differences? I see the only ones mentioned were peripheral vision and taste sensitivity (I'm discounting map-reading and listening because they're most definitely learned rather than hardwired), neither of which has anything to do with whether one is going to be socially engaged (as someone claimed women "naturally" are, and which I dismissed as BS) or solitary (as the same person claimed that men "naturally" are, and which I also dismissed as BS). I consider peripheral vision differences, taste sensitivity differences, and some if not all of the other gender-based differences (in humans) that gender morphology studies have uncovered to be physical differences. No different, really, than those beards and breasts that, I freely acknowledge, DO differ between men and women. They have little or nothing to do with behavior.
Examples of this include peripheral vision - men's is better because of millions of years of hunting.
I love this - cite an acknowledged, measurable difference between men and women, and then propose an entirely untested - indeed probably untestable - reason for that difference. Millions of years of hunting? How is it that you know that's the reason?
(digression)
I recall a discussion with a neurologist who noted a difference in the region of greatest visual acuity between men and women. Though there is a lot of overlap (which was conveniently ignored), women have the greatest acuity in a region around the center of their field of vision, while men have greatest acuity in a region from center to lower. This neurologist then claimed that this was due to men having "for millions of years" to hunt for creatures below their usual line of sight, while women were not subject to this pressure. He ignored several other possible (and IMHO much more probable, and measurable even today) reasons for such a condition.
For starters... Visual acuity is not particularly vital for hunting. A hunter needs to see game, but does not need to discern tiny details about it. Where visual acuity is most vital - particularly in social animals like humans and wolves (and wolves have a highly developed sense so they don't need to rely on the visual acuity so much) is to determine the moods of ones conspecifics. Consider the range of emotion displayed in the human face, and the very tiny differences that mark such displays. Staring because one is interested in something, or staring because one is crazed with anger and poised to attack - there is very little difference between these facial displays. Fractions of a millimeter in eyelid position; barely-perceptible twitches in a clenched jaw as opposed to a relaxed one... yet humans - male and female - can easily tell the difference due to their fine visual acuity. I suggest that the (very real) difference in visual acuity in men and women is due to the fact that men tend to be about the same height (as other men) or taller (than women and children) than others in their tribe while women tend to be taller than some (the children), about the same height as others (the women) and shorter than still others (the men). In order to best evaluate the emotional states of the others in ones group (a valuable survival skill) it would be best to have ones greatest visual acuity near where one would see the faces of those in the group. For men, that's center and below; for women it would tend more toward center.
Same trait, two wildly different proposed reasons for its existence. One is accepted, not because of any evidence, but because it supports the popular notion of "man the hunter". I have no doubt that, if the situations had been reversed (women with greatest acuity at center and lower; men with greatest visual acuity around the center), the same explanation would have been given. Women would suddenly have needed this extra acuity below their usual line of sight because of "millions of years" of plant-gathering and child-watching, both of which involve looking at things below the normal woman's line of sight. Men would have needed acuity near the center of their field of vision to spot distant game on the horizon. When opposite traits are explained by identical scenarios, it's time to look out for bad science.
As for the sensitive palate, IIRC the sensitive palate trait is quite rare in both genders. Very few women are supertasters, but even fewer men are. While it may be a hardware difference, it's hardly a survival skill for either gender - if it were, most of us would be in serious trouble.
Look at the basic anthropology of women. Women are much more hardwired than men to be social animals
Bull. Neither men not women are "hardwired" for anything, other than a few relexive responses which, revealingly, are the same across the gender line. Response to loud noises, the eye-blink reflex, etc. There is little else in human beings that is hardwired AT ALL. Sure there are differences between male and female humans, but most of them are hardware. Men grow beards, women grow breasts. The social stuff, however, is far too complex to be left to the slow, unreliable hardware. Social things change too fast. The fast responses that software allows are the only solution. So humans learn, grow, and adapt. Faster than their hardwiring would allow.
Hardwiring is for insects.
Sitting around the basement fsck'ing around on PCs isn't a particularly social activity.
No? It is when I do it!
Sure, some (stereotypically) women's hobbies are social. But so are some of men's. In fact, the opposite argument used to be made regarding (stereotypically) women's sports. That they tend to be individual competitions (tennis, gymnastics) rather than team sports.
But I digress. The hacker does not hack for individual glory or profit, or because of the social contacts that it affords. He (or she) hacks "because it's there."
Maybe the women hackers are just better at not getting caught (when they're breaking rules) or avoiding attention (when they're just bending them).
...is often what's good for the meme.
Will the "fight fair" meme become popular in the long run? I hope so. But the way I see it, that will only happen if it is more successful at reproducing than its alternative: "fight dirty." In the long run, it doesn't matter what's right, or what's good, or what benefits us humans the most. The memes just spread because they're good at spreading.
So to some extent it does matter what benefits us humans most. Because with very few exceptions, memes need humans in order to spread. Lethal memes, like lethal viruses, kill off their hosts. If you kill your host, who's going to replicate you? This of course does not entirely eliminate deleterious memes. Lethal ones will continue to appear, but they will rise to prominence quickly, and fade even faster as their hosts die out. F'rinstance, the heaven's Gate cult. Not a lot of people propagating that meme anymore. Over the long term, memes that are neutral wrt their hosts - or even beneficial - will tend to persist longer than their deleterious counterparts.
I thought we agreed (yeah, right - like "we" can agree on anything) that pigeonholing is a Bad Thing. It's bad when high school students get pigeonholed, right? What about the goth who's also a stoner? What about the geek who's a decent athlete? The cheerleader who brings a gun to school? What about those who don't fit any category? Why is it okay to categorize the net, but not to categorize people?
If we must make categories, then rather than continents, with the implication that they're separated by vast distances, I think a better analogy would be a spectrum. The "colors" of the various regions of the net blend into each other.
Perhaps even that is too much pigeonholing. What about the porn sites or the information sites that charge for access or have expensive banner ads to pay the bills? Or the "God" sites that ask the faithful for donations? Some of them take in a lot of money - why aren't they ranked with the big portals and commercial sites? Where is the cutoff? Is it measured in dollars or hits or souls saved? Is there a cutoff at all, or do the types (like the various types of students in a school) blend into one another at the edges? Some may be a blend of more than two types, so a linear continuum is inadequate. A multidimentional continuum might be in order.
Oh well...
Is it possible it [MS] orchastrated the entire thing?
I suppose it's possible. Is it likely? Not hardly. Can MS be expected to exploit these high-profile DoS attacks to promote its own products and blame its major competitors? Bet money on it!
Katzish analogy time: Gun control zealots and censorship advocates invoked the Columbine tragedy to promote what they were selling. Why should we expect MS to behave any differently?
Calmer heads recognize(d) that these tragedies were waiting to happen. What's really surprising is not that they happened, but that they didn't happen sooner.
Linux (well, any OS, really) is only a tool. It can be used for good or for evil. Please use only for good.
Used in this fashion computers are same as TV - opium for the masses. A distractive factor so the people do not read and think.
Do you really think that Ford is giving (well, subsidizing) computers to employees so that they'll be used in this way? In my more cynical moments I might think so, as television is indeed an opium for the masses, and one that indoctrinates and sells things to them too. But in my more logical moments I know better. If distraction and indoctrination were the real motive behind this apparent act of generosity, why wouldn't Ford just hand out televisions? Or subsidize cable for those employees who can't afford it?
Computers can be used like television, i.e a mindnumbing distraction. I've used them that way myself. But they can also be used like books or telephones, i.e. a stimulant to the mind. I use them for that even more. Watching television is not a valuable workplace skill, but literacy definitely is. Ditto for the ability to use a telephone. I think Ford - and the other, unsung corporations and individuals who are contributing computers to those who would not otherwise have them - are doing this out of a mix of generosity and enlightened self-interest, not mere greed.
If individuals are their own librarians, however, they will stock and lead themselves to what they need to know.
In an ideal world that would be true. But humans don't always act ideally. The way it really works is more like the following:
If individuals are their own librarians, they will stock and lead themselves to what they want to know.
It's still far preferable to letting government or corporations determine what information people have access to, but it's important to remember that what people want to know and what they need to know are not necessarily the same thing.
Do you really want everyone online. Just as you don't want drunk-drivers, mentally ustable, extremley elderly, or blind/deaf people on you highways, do you want child molesters, script kiddies, etc on the net?
As a matter of fact, I do want those people on the net. Unlike the drunk driver on the highway, the drunk on the net can't hurt me. Script kiddies grow up, and may even become valued contributors to the net (don't ask me how I know this). If they were denied access, they might well become bitter, resentful and far more dangerous.
I just haven't decided whether I want ConHugeCo and their lawyers on the net. But then that decision isn't mine to make.
'nuff said.
NPR featured an interview with William freaking Gibson on their Talk of the Nation program way back in November. There might not be enough Gibson in the interview to satisfy the die-hard GibsonPhile, as he shared airtime with David Brin, Anne Simon, and a whole lot of callers (it's a call-in talk show). But if you're still interested (and if these links work) you can go to their Talk of the Nation site, or listen to the RealAudio version.
...long before software began to hasten its death.
The death of privacy has been so relentless, indirect and unintended, however, as to have gone virtually unnoticed. Reporters routinely pry into the most intimate details of the lives of public figures.
That's right. And reporters were prying into those most intimate details long before there were computers or the web or to make their job easier.
Economic reality, not software, has made possible the death or privacy. If something - say f'rinstance the intimate details of peoples' lives - become valuable, people, governments, and corporations will try to obtain it, and then use or sell it. In the past, one had to be famous before details of ones private life became valuable. But the privacy-killing forces were still at work. They've just grown to the point where they affect damn near anyone who buys or sells anything.
...an article about the flaws of Open Source software that doesn't hint (or outright declare) that the solution to these flaws is to abandon the Open Source model.
Until the user's perspective is an integral part of the Open Source development process, those Open Source products that rely on end-user interfaces (beyond the command line, that is) will continue to offer substandard interfaces on top of excellent engine code.
This problem can be fixed by merely paying attention to what ordinary users want and/or need.
Of course one person's flaw is another person's feature, but that's okay too. There will continue to be command line interfaces for those of us who want them, but an easy to use "training wheels" open source operating system with lots of GUI bells and whistles would certainly help to spread the gospel to those whose life doesn't revolve around computers, but who still use them from time to time.
...it seems there are 4 main opinion groups - "Yeeha! Where can I buy this?", "Cool, if it were possible, which it ain't", "(yawn) Been there, done that - see URL", and as always the "petrified Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans" contingent...
There's (at least) one more group you neglected to mention: The "(insert name of new technology here) will lead inevitably to (select one or more) global tyranny/evil insidious new weapons/unbearable breaches of privacy/environmental catastophe/the end of the world as we know it" faction. These may include a plea to stop this madness while there's still time, or a fatalistic acceptance that it's impossible to stop progress so we're all doomed.
Not to say that these opinions are wrong (or right) - just that they're usually found after any new technology items on Slashdot.
According to the security expert, *because* Linux is open source, the viruses will be even worse than in other systems.
The "security expert" has a point, but does not seem to be seeing the whole picture. Open source might make it easier for malicious virus-writers to exploit Linux... but it also makes it easier for the rest of us to see what devious tricks they're up to and protect ourselves. I'm going to be generous and suggest that there are more of us than there are of them. There are probably better minds working on the "good-guy" team too.
I don't see how this would make Linux viruses "worse", though theoretically they could be more prevalent. In that unusual scenario, it might be advisable for the uninformed newbies to stick with closed-source OS'es (like they don't already?), since they don't yet know how to protect themselves.
Windows et at might then rightfully be seen as "training wheels" OS'es, for people to use until they learn what they're doing and are ready to graduate to open source.
As most viruses in the real world are NOT written to exploit open-source OS'es, even that argument doesn't apply in reality. If it's not a good entry-level OS (for security reasons), what IS Windows good for?
...corporations ruled everything - and one of those corps., haha, was, heehee, get this - the Mighty ATARI Corp. Bwaaahahahaha :))
The names have changed (Atari isn't a big player anymore) but everything else is still the same. Corporations do rule damn near everything.
They may not be able to buy your vote, or my vote (yet), but convincing us not to vote is about as effective. And you can bet they buy our representatives' votes.
This is good in that hopefully companies will get serious about protecting their information systems.
No it's not. Companies should be serious about protecting their information systems because it's the right thing to do, not because some criminals (albeit clever ones) have made it necessary.
Analogy time! Would you be thankful for criminals who break into your house and steal valuable things? Even if they stole nothing, but merely left a note saying that they'd be back to steal your property later, if you don't pay them a big ransom? Hell no. You'd be angry, and rightly so. You might add better security, and that might be a Good Thing(tm) but it's still not good that some thugs threatened you or your property.
I'll just say that the organic-material-exchange-scenario is possible and completely feasible.
Fine. But is it scientific? What would occam's razor say? Yeah, it's reasonable that life originated on another planet (it seems really premature to suggest Mars), but isn't it more reasonable to suggest that it originated on Earth? Or that it has originated several times, on several planets, and occasionally been transported from one to another?
It's too early to rule out any of these scenarios (IMHO). Sensational headlines like "Scientists say life originated on Mars!!!" are more suited to publications like the Weekly World News than to scientific journals or even Wired, but that's where the tabloids get their material. Their writers skim the journals, find some poor sucker of a scientist, take his/her words out of context, and print an attention-grabbing headline and article. The underlying science may be good, but the spin that the tabloids (and sometimes the mainstream press) puts on it is far from scientific. Magazines get sold, and scientists get laughed at by their colleagues. If they're lucky they might save their careers. Oh well...
I like it! The IPO-watchers should flock to this one, seeing as it combines the buzzwords of software and biotechnology. Still, some caution is advised.
One problem with distributing DNA source code via gametes is that in that form it won't even compile, much less run. Gametes need to be combined with their corresponding gametes (sperm with egg, f'rinstance) in order to result in usable output. By distributing only sperm over the Internet, Shoeboy cannot guarantee the quality of the resulting product.
This problem might be partially remedied if Shoeboy were to distribute both sperm and eggs over the internet. Since this is probably not feasable in the immediate future, Shoeboy might have to contract with - or even merge with - another company which specializes in egg production. Given Shoeboy's past performance, this doesn't seem likely.
Shoeboy is also quick to point out that his product is completely open source. "Since all future products based on my DNA source code will (by age 13 or so) feel a nearly uncontrollable urge to redistribute their own DNA source code, I am in compliance with the terms of the GPL - just like Linux."
Since only 1/2 (on average) of any resulting zygotes' DNA would be based on Shoeboy's code, it's impossible to say whether they would comply with the terms of the GPL. While some of them might be compelled to "redistribute their own DNA source code" by age 13 or so, experience suggests that many others - particulary those with redundancy in the so-called X chromosome portion of the code - might take far longer to experience this urge. Others might lack it entirely. While it can be argued that, without exception, all previous implementations of Shoeboy's code succeeded in redistributing themselves, it's important to remember that "past performance does not guarantee future results". The past is littered with failed implementations of open-source DNA code.
It's a clever (not to mention laugh-out-loud funny) idea, but given the problems inherent in meiotic reproduction, it is doubtful that internet distribution of gametes will be any better than doing it the old-fashioned way. Personally, I favor the mitotic approach, avoiding the use of gametes entirely. If some company (drox.com, perhaps?) found a way to eliminate the need for random-chance recombination of the DNA source code, the usefulness of future distributions could be more easily assured.
...as you lose weight excercise will become easier, and you will lose weight faster. It becomes a self-reinforcing loop.
Alas, it doesn't work that way. When most of us diet, the body goes into a sort of "famine mode". Our minds have eveolved, but our bodies are the same ones we had in the stone age. The body recognizes that it's not getting enough calories, so it sends out hunger signals, telling us to eat more. Also, since the "famine" may last a while, it tends to preserve fat (that's what fat is for - to keep you alive during famines) and burn up blood sugar (reduced blood sugar levels result in irritability and loss of concentration) and muscle (noooo!) for energy instead. The loss of muscle can be prevented by rigorous exercise (tricks the body into thinking that it needs that muscle to outrun predators or something) but there's not much to be done about the blood-sugar thing except suffer through it.
Exercise becomes easier as one loses weight, but that's not the whole story. Hauling lots of weight around burns calories, and when there's less of it, the "easier" exercise burns fewer calories, not more. It's not a self-reinforcing loop - it's more of a self-regulating mechanism.
And there's more! A heavy body uses more calories as it exercises than a light one... but a lean body uses more calories as it rests than a fat one. Just maintaining muscle - even at rest - burns calories.
Oh Well...
Imagine a case of an evangelist preaches at the same corner, shouting their religious beliefs at the top of their voice. If you don't agree with their beliefs, you can choose to ignore them, go a different route, or listen and think. The point is, you have a choice.
You don't have a choice if you live there - you have to hear the shouting all the time, or move elsewhere. That's why there are things like noise ordinances. It shouldn't matter whether they're screaming obscenities or "praise the lord". If they're disturbing the peace, they can be legally stopped, or asked to take their message elsewhere. If they're being silenced because of what they're shouting, rather than where and when and how loud they're shouting it, then it's time to cry censorship.
The only way to "win" is for both sides to accept each other, and provide the means for both to co-exist, peacefully.
Dream on. That will never happen. And the only thing stopping it from happening is human nature (humans are such bastards).
What's so ironic is that the people who claim the moral high ground are usually the ones who refuse to coexist peacefully. The porn merchants seldom claim to be acting for some higher purpose (there are a few who claim to be promoting freedom fo expression, but I suspect that's largely a figurative flag of convenience). They usually admit they're just trying to make a (n honest?) buck. But neither do they force what they're selling on those who don't want any. But the self-described moral guardians are more than happy to force what they are selling on all who come near, whether they want it or not. Some even proudly say they won't stop their crusade until the filth is cleansed.
There is a problem ... It's called evolution.
Yes, but the problem contains within it its own solution. Viruses evolve. So systems must also evolve. There will never be a perfectly secure system... for long. But neither will the most harmful viruses remain viable for long. Tremendous forces (unstoppable forces?) are quickly mobilized against them. The writers of malicious viruses are clever, but I doubt that they're as clever as the combined cleverness of all those who work to stop malicious viruses from doing their damage.
Only a "truly perfect" defence will work, but no such defence exists, or even theoretically could exist. This leaves you with the "best practical" approach, which is to make things as protected as reasonably practical, and no more.
Viruses, as they evolve, can be expected to arrive at the "most practical" approach, rather than the most damaging. Over time, this would lead to the evolution of stealthy viruses that do little or no harm to the systems they infect, use minimal resources, and may even offer some benefit (f'rinstance cool graphics, greater efficiency, protection against other viruses). A "most practical" virus-proofing scheme would not waste its time with these benign viruses, which would drive the evolution of ever more benign viruses.