What you need is a Lego Mindstorms robot capable of assembling a clone of itself. Use one kit to build the first robot, and then automagically build six more using what you have on hand. Drop them all off in a Toys R Us late at night, and let them liberate and assemble their buddies. If the toy store is a rockin...
Build a driver bot, and have them hijack a truck to Legoland. Once they get there, its all over. The resulting army will help you take over the world. You will rule with your army of Legobots from a hollowed out volcano with giant video screens. Of course you could build a Mindstorms football team instead...
Holding, bot number 100101, ten brick penalty, repeat second down.
Make a good geek film! You only have a few obstacles.
The Studio: You have one year to make a movie about computers/geeks/hackers. The plot is up to you, but I have to approve every last detail. Ill change what I dont like. Your budget is 35 million dollars. If you cant double that in the first eight weeks of box office reciepts, youll never make another film in this town again.
The Public: Drooolll. We dont know the difference between Windows 97 and Office even though we use them every day. Honey look... my computer at home must be more advanced, that one only does text! Thats a geek movie, its all about computers, lets see something else. Double Jeopardy gave away its plot in 30 seconds and has been number one for a month. This is the mentality that you have to deal with.
The Geeks: HA! Like they really would run that version of Sendmail in 1999. They are just asking for trouble. And look he just recompiled his kernal in 3 seconds on that hunk of junk... Horrible film, OH the Inaccuracies!! Wait until my LUG hears about this. Ooooohh, Maybe I can post a review on Slashdot...
The Medium: You have two hours to tell your story tops, youre no Kevin Costner after all. You want character development, but you dont have time to do it with every character. Break out the stereotypes. Everyone is on union payscales, and everything you do is going to be horribly expensive. No, you dont have the money to reshoot that scene showing KDE on Uberhackers laptop. Your deadlines are slipping anyway. Well, how about we just cut it short here? No, the audience wont understand, you have to show this and that to get the effect right. Remember, shots of a computer screen will get really dull fast.
Hmmm, how about some drivel with a strong merchandising angle? Enjoy your beachhouse!
Pump the frames through a capture card to the screen. Take screen caps of each frame and dump them as bitmaps to a printer. Scan the printed pages back into the PC and OCR the text. Copy the resulting textfile back into place.
Ill be filing for a patent on this process tommorrow.
Barcodes seem to be a pretty good non-computer example of security through obscurity. The college I recently graduated from used the exact same barcode scheme for ID/meal/library cards. With a little work I was able to figure out the code. Some of us used our SSN's as student ID numbers, others used serialized sequences.
Occasionally, professors would post grades based on the student ID number. With the student ID number, you could generate a copy of the barcode on their ID card. At the library, you could use the barcode to check out books at the automated kiosks. Along with free books, you get a receipt with the borrower's name. With the name, you could look up the student's address in the campus directory. Amazing what a barcode tells you eh? So much for privacy when idiots are guarding the henhouse.
Last month, my cousin's friend's boss went to Hong Kong with a brand new strong crypto implant. He was dancing at an all night rave party, and drank way too much. Anyway, he remembers going home with this really hot girl, and they started drinking at her place. The next thing he knows, he wakes up in his hotel room laying in a bathtub full of ice. There was a note taped to the ceiling that says: "Call the paramedics, we took your implants!" The State Department wont talk about the story, but it was confirmed off the record by inside sources. Do not take any chances! Never drink alone in a strange place with strong crypto implants, especially outside the US. Forward this story to everyone you know, even if they dont have email!
I think that I would have a very negative view of the writings of a child molester. I couldnt imagine having a big stack of books from some known pervert. That would be sort of like having a Gacy clown painting hanging over the mantle. To some extent, actions of that degree do invalidate the rest of their achievements. If this guy does do serious time, do you think that his cellmates will care about his terrific Java skills?
This almost seems a bit Godwin like in this forum, but here it is anyway.
Take, for example, Bill Gates. Over the last fifteen years, MS has engaged in a lot of uncompetitive bullshit. Its seems to have gotten even worse since the release of Windows 95. So call him an anti competitive megalomaniac with a misguided view of the future of technology. In the realm of child molesters, that is pretty tame.
Lets say that he gives a total of 80 billion to charity, most of which wont benefit Microsoft.
Fast forward fifty years. How much will it matter that BG ran his company like a robber-baron? Will people still view the money as tainted by the blood of PC techs everywhere? I doubt it. The PC's of today will seem as irrelevant as the first generation of TVs in the late 40s and early fifties. So the question follows: How bad does an action have to be to invalidate a person's legacy?
Man, Im glad I bought that case of Stinger missiles when I had the chance. The first time someone cuts me off in one of these things Im gonna let it fly!
In an effort to retain customers, you gave them all free web email accounts. Do you even have a clue of who your customers are?
The average domain owner probably has a computer and an ISP. In many cases they will be a company that provides mail services for its employees. Others will be ISP's running huge mail servers. Many more will be website operators, who often get free email with their hosting package. At the very least they probably have a PC and an ISP that offers POP3. These people know the internet, and most of them dont want or need webmail. Those who do, probably already have it.
So, to retain customers you automatically sign them up for a service that they don't want? I simply dont understand the logic behind this. Not only that, but you break the most basic rules of security. Now you force some already annoyed sysadmins to fix a security hole that you created. Heads should roll.
Lets be honest, your company doesn't have the best reputation for customer service. Instead of blowing money on a mail server and admin costs, you could have hired more reps and made a public commitment to service. That would have made a nice little press release, and attracted some quiet praise. At the very least, it would have shown that you understand the problem, and are taking steps to fix it. Instead, you create more trouble for your customers and get bad press for technical ineptness. Go read the Cluetrain Manifesto www.cluetrain.com, clean house, and hire the clued. Otherwise, wither and die. HTH HAND
-BW
Re:About "tapping" the Internet...offtopic?
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 1
If you use, there is a good chance that you will fall into excessive use no matter the legal status of the drug. After all, that is why they are considered addictive.
Legalizing drugs will solve the problems of crime associated with their manufacture and distribution. Putting the responsibility for making and selling drugs on pharmaceutical companies will increase product quality and provide tax revenue for the government. Net result- less problems with overdoses, and money for treatment programs.
The other problem legalization solves is the need for intrusive government intervention AKA The War on (Some) Drugs. The fact that your car/house/boat can be seized without recourse because your buddy decided to bring over some pot is a violation of basic human rights. Legalization will help remove one of the great excuses for the intrusion of the government into the lives of common citizens. Granted, legalization alone wont get them to keep their hands off the net. However it may help weaken their arguments (They will scream Protect the Children instead). Another benefit is that it will prevent the destruction of families because of insane mandatory minimum sentences for petty infractions. A whole lot of good can come from legalization, both on the internet, and in the big blue room.
Hmmmm, I'm thinking that maybe I should become a divorce attorney...
Gee your honor, I know, the whole till death do us part thing. I just didnt figure it would take a thousand years. Plus there is this hot little 90 year old at work your honor. I just want to prove I still got it, you know. I havent had a date in 300 years...
The simplest solution for keeping kids away from porn, drugs, hate, and dangerous plans to build bombs that will blow their fingers off:
Take responsibility for your kids!
The pollitical battle cry of "We must protect our children!" is utter hogwash. I cannot remember one proposal under that tagline which involves spending more quality time with your kids. Not one encourages parents to truly develop deeper relationships and take interest in your children and their friends. Worst of all, not one brings up the point of fostering an attitude of personal responsibility in your children.
We seem to be hell bent on creating Nanny Society 2000. Supervise our kids while they netsurf? No, well fix that in software and with content rating. Sit with our kids and watch TV together? No, the V-chip will keep them from seeing the pseudoporn on Showtime while they watch their TV and I watch mine. Go see a movie with them, and discuss it afterward? No, Billy heres a ten spot. Have fun at the movies with all the PG-13 your tender little eyes can absorb. Im a hip 20th century dad who uses all kinds of electronic babysitters so that (as mandated by the advertisers) I Can Have My Life Too TM.
However, all of the pseudogovernmental regulations in the world are not going to do a damn bit of good when Billy has an opportunity for real trouble. Lets face it- The net is only one of the many potentially damaging situations that kids will run into daily. Sure, content ratings may make it "safer" (at a high price in terms of freedom). Yet those ratings wont matter when the joint gets passed around at the make-out party. The only real solution is to have a relationship that allows you to instill self discipline and responsibility for ones actions.
So you still want an electronic babysitter? Fine, easy solution. Why not make the browser/newsreader keep a detailed read-only history file. Tell everyone that net access is being monitored on that PC. Make sure that your expectations about appropriate content are known. Give the kids their own login (especially in a public setting) or keep track of when they are on the computer. Now they can surf while you mow the lawn. Then go check the logs. If you see content that is against your morals, talk to your kids about it. Apply sanctions if necessary. This approach has two benefits: Its your free choice to use it, not some government-in-bed-with-the-media regulatory decision. Second, you know what is really going on. I would rather know that my kids were looking at titties, than not know that they spent the last two hours looking for porn that wasn't blocked. Then I could deal with it how I wanted to, rather than trusting the ratings and filters to continue working.
We can get along quite nicely with one big code of ethics for everybody: Don't f*** anyone over. At least that's my code of ethics.
Hehehe, that might be the first time Ive seen the golden rule put into those words. Works for me.
However, Id like to add two related concepts: The first is a mandate to take responsibility for your actions. In my personal experience, there seems to be a shift away from admitting that you f***ed up to covering your ass at all costs. I have a lot more respect for people who admit their fault in a situation rather than trying to diffuse responsibility. At work, I made a pretty serious mistake that hosed a server and cost one department a day of downtime. Officially, it wasnt really my fault, but I had the last clear chance to avoid the problem. I spoke up and took responsibility, got chewed out pretty hardcore, and everyone moved on and we fixed the problem. Sure, I could have shut up and let my boss and the other techs share the grief, but it was mainly my fault. Fortunately, my boss wasnt a PHB by any strech and I wasnt officially sanctioned. This brings me to the other major concept I'd like to include.
What we need is an attitude of forgiveness, and a willingness to say shit happens and move on. I dont see one person, or one company that is perfect, or even close to it. Some try harder than others, but realisitcally mistakes will happen. If someone is willing to admit their wrongdoing and make an attempt to make it right, the only positive recourse is to forgive them. On a personal level this is pretty easy to implement. In the corporate realm, the situation becomes much messier because of the amounts of money involved. Yet if everyone would follow the simple rules of: Dont f*** anyone over, Take responsibility for your actions, and forgive others who have wronged you, I think that (trite as it may sound} the world would be a better place.
NO, sol.exe has nothing to do with crypto. Its powerful mind control software! Sol.exe is responsible for turning once productive middle age office drones into drooling click and drag morons. Just last month we had send 15 of our best people to the super secret sol.exe deprogramming center. You may be familliar with it. Most people know it as the unemployment office.
Christianity does not require blind faith, but states that Blessed are those who have it.
Mind providing chapter and verse for this? I don't have a concordnance handy. Your doubting Thomas argument is compelling. Lets take a closer look at the situation. Even before the crucifixion, all of the disciples abandoned their former lives to follow Jesus (Mark 2:14 and 3:15). The social and political climate of the region during this period must have made this a difficult decision [1]. It took a great deal of faith to follow a revolutionary like Jesus during this time. To us, looking back, the decision may seem obvious, but put yourself in any of the disciples positions. The popular WWJD is not nearly as important as the answer to: What would YOU do when Jesus showed up?
Then imagine that after following Jesus for a year or three, he is executed by the very same religious community that he was trying to save. Three days later, his body turns up missing. With 2000 years of tradition and documentation to rely on the resurrection seems to be the only explanation. However, the disciples were dealing with events as they happened. When Jesus finally reveals himself to the disciples, it seems pretty logical that they would have had doubts. In fact, their collective doubt is discussed in most of the accounts of the resurrection (Luke 24:38, Matt 28:17). For anyone to believe in Jesus he had to reveal himself and his saving work to man, in a clear and understandable manner. The disciples were fortunate to have such an intimate picture of the work of Christ. However, even in that situation their faith was not a foregone conclusion. In this special case, their faith was not a blind one, but unusually well supported by the evidence at hand.
When you encounter an argument against Christianity, do not assume that the writer is ignorant of the faith. To do so may be considered condescending. You will find that the best arguments both for and against Christianity will be made by those who know the most. To clarify, I was not attacking Christianity at all, but discussing some problems with the first poster's philosophy.
To assume that geeks are the only ones who read/. is like assuming that only Christians read the Bible. This thread is becoming more and more offtopic as it goes on, please direct non geek related followups to email o0JDL0o@yahoo.com (letter o number zero).
[1] A good reference for the sociopollitical climate for this period is the rather dry New Testament History by F.F. Bruce
"Science, for example, has serious metaphysical problems that bring into doubt whether it reflects reality, or is simply a very successful interpretation."
I'd like some more information about this, do you have any references for further reading? The junction of philosophy and science is a fertile area intellectually, and I'd like to become more familiar with some of the perspectives.
"The latter [the ability to have faith swayed by persuasive arguments] contradicts the very idea of 'strong faith'."
By definition that is true, but I still stand by the complete statement "Without thought and examination your faith... it can be swayed..." The attitude of the original poster seemed to preclude careful examination. Given sufficient time, faith based upon a strong (but not carefully thought out) acceptance of "The Bible said it, and I believe it" may be eroded. From what I have seen, sometimes it is the people who are the most outspoken about the strength of their faith that have the weakest positions.
"Would you discount the scientific work of every theologian, or every believer? Newton is a common example; he wrote more extensively on matters of faith than physics, yet few people question the objectivity of his work"
All scientific work must be questioned regardless of the person's religious orientation. Newton was right about classical physics because he was making objective observations of the physical world. We believe that he is right because we can verify his observations experimentally. Further, early this century we were able to accept that he was wrong in some instances, when other data was acquired. Objectivity ties all of this together, and allows learning to take place regardless of religious orientation.
"If you argue that one only must be objective within the scope of science and technology then the only concern is that he remain objective in that context, and his belief in God may be irrelevent. However, if you believe that objectivity must be absolute then you have to consider the the entire concept of objectivity and how it relates to the 'geek world-view'."
How simple it would be if it were that black and white. As far as sci/tech goes, objectivity is key. You may make spiritual interpretations about scientific observations, yet those fall under the realm of personal beliefs. When it comes to personal beliefs, then I urge you to have beliefs are well thought out and consistent with whatever evidence that they are based on. If you want to practice Biblical Christianity, great. Then have an understanding of the Bible and at least some objectivity about your personal experiences. I am not willing to accept absolute objectivity, some things are truly a matter of faith. Taking this one step further, I have faith in the existance of the material world. However, I am willing to consider other perspectives and study another worldview. Not considering the arguments against your faith weakens the overall strength of your faith. That is why I took issue with the statement "I don't think, I know."
Please elaborate on your philosophy. You describe yourself as a Christian/Geek, yet your philosophy is incompatible with both. As far as Christianity goes, it was my understanding that the core beliefs were centered around having faith. You cannot rationally know about the validity of the nature and sacrifices of Christ. Futhermore, you cannot even know that the Christian worldview of sin and redemption correlates with the true nature of the universe. On all points, your salvation is a matter of faith. If there was sufficient evidence to prove Christianity, then fulfilling the tenents of the religion would become trivial. Saying that you don't think, but rather know it to be true must be interpreted as an ironic misunderstanding, or a hyperbole about the strenghth of your faith. However, if you do have a strong faith in the saving work of Christ, I hope that you have taken some time to think about the evidence. Without thought and examination, your strong faith can be discounted as blind acceptance, or swayed by other persuasive arguments. You may not be able to prove anything at all, but you can have a well thought out position and know why you believe what you do.
You also described yourself as a geek. However your philosophy discounts the role of objectivity that is so important in technological pursuits. At its core, geekdom somewhat resembles the scientific method. You have to recognize what you don't know, figure out how to learn what you need to know, and have a grasp on the significance of what you have learned. By proclaiming that you know, you reject this methodology. Geeks tend to have the ability and drive to teach themselves about challenging and technical topics. Its a thirst for knowledge, and the ability to independently acquire that knowledge that is the true spirit of geekdom. Its not simply a matter of 'knowing' something, its about continually learning something new. Granted, this is a rather broad definition of geek, but I think it expands a bit beyond the stereotypes.
Please remember that the bandwidth for a cable modem is shared among all of the users. Now when everyone on a block is using a shared resource, I'd like to think that we can all have a bit of respect for our fellow users. Let me put together a little analogy.
For example, lets say that you live out in the desert on a dirt road. There are about 50 or 60 other families who all live along the same road with you. This road is so bad that you have to leave an extra 20 minutes for your commute because of it. Fed up, you look into paving a section of the road, but it costs way too much for you to take on alone.
Now imagine that some big company comes to town and offers to pave the road for a small cost, split among all of the negihbors. Everyone chips in thier small monthly fee, and soon there is a pristine 2-lane strip of asphalt. You cut your commute in half and now you can get a boat and trailer for the weekends. Life is good.
Then your next door neighbor tears down his house, and tilts up a 500000sf Wal Mart national distribution center. Pretty soon trucks start clogging that little strip of road. Not to be outdone, the Flynts up the street build a mega-theme park. Cars line up for miles just to get in. The Waltons and the Flynts are still only chipping in a few bucks a month, but they are using most of the capacity of the road. Now your commute has expanded by 40 minutes each way, but your stuck.
OK, so how to fix the problem? Limit the number of axels on the residential road. Close the gates to the theme park. Then everyone can share the same strip of highway. It might be hard on their business to have these restrictions imposed. Yet, if they as a business customer want that much road, they should build their own. The same goes for the theme park. The same goes for the guy running Phil's Playhouse of Porn and Top 50 W4r3Z site next door off of his cable modem.
The cost of the bandwidth for cable is so low because it is shared among all of the users. If you want or need your own big pipe going out, you really should be paying for it rather than taking advantage of the guy next door. Just because you can sit in your living room with the blinds drawn and suckle on the teat of high bitrate bliss, does not mean that you should be the only one on your block with the privelage.
Its really easy to make the company the scapegoat in this situation. False advertising claims fly. Hey, its really not 50X faster than my old modem! No, that is a marketing come on phrased for a technically illiterate public. Sadly, people are starting to think that 56K is a brand of modem. Grandiose claims of peak speeds of 1.5megabits per second with a CIR of 10kbps does not make a catcy ad (but it does make a nice line in a service agreement.)
What it comes down to is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, there are good non-business uses for upstream bandwidth. However I would rather have some sort of limit to curb abusers, than have an unusable connection because of my neighbors. Yes the company can take steps to increase bandwidth. However those steps are costly, and those costs are either reflected in higher bills, or lower returns for investors. A little respect for the guy next door would go a long way in this case.
there's no way in hell the MS-team will beat Gary and Co
I wouldnt be so sure, I could just see it now...
Gates: So Gary, are you ready for the big game? Kasparov: Yes, you know that I can't possibly lose. Gates: I wouldn't be so sure Gary. Kasparov: Please, Chess by committee? Gates: I know you find it hard to believe, but you will lose this match. Kasparov: That is impossible! Gates: Then I want you to meet my friend, the man who makes the impossible possible... Enter Don King Don King: OK, time is short. This is how it is going to go down... Don King Explains the Plan to Gary. Kasparov: You mean, lose intentionally? Following this preposterous script? Gates: Yes, and I'll even throw in 500 million dollars for your effort. Kasparov: But why? Gates: I have a PR problem, people are starting to think that Windows users are stupid. Kasparov: Well, yes... Gates: So I rigged the website to eliminate all Linux users by saying their poor excuse for a browser is 16 bit, heheh Then we will prove the intellectual superiority of Windows users forever! Fade to Black
No they dont NEED more cash, but now they sure as hell better start producing some revenue.
Remember that they didn't hit the lotto, that $25 million is an investment. Now Google needs to find some way of producing good returns for its investors. Most of the time, when someone pours that kind of money into a business, arguments like "We dont like banner ads" and "We dont sell search keywords" start to fall short. They had better have some great new ideas and some compelling reasons not to (IE they can make more money another way) or else they will have two choices: Start with the whole banner-ad gig and other traditional ways of web portaldom, or be replaced with someone who will. Now all they need is to put together a good looking revenue stream, do the IPO, and hope to some-day become profitable. Sadly this will probably kill the functionality of the engine itself.
There are two reasons why the Star Wars soundtrack is so outstanding. Much of the credit goes to John Williams. He is a master at making symphonic music appeal to a mass audience. Every soundtrack that he has worked on has a song that gets under your skin. To this day I whistle the Imperial March, even though its been years (OK months) since I heard it last. Its pop music with a full orchestra. Even when I was a teenager into heavy metal, I still considered Williams to be one of my favorite artists.
The music of Star Wars is so fully integrated into the movie, that together they play like a long form music video. Listening to the music later recalls imagery and emotion from the films. Like a music video, the movie helps to deliver the music to people who would not otherwise be exposed to it. So yes, a wider audience is attracted to the music because of the Star Wars connection. However, this should only enhance the listening experience rather than detract from it in any way. Along with the music, you get a first class film too. Of course, as you may infer from my nick, I may be a bit biased.
The vast majority of people are not suited to or interested in the kind of mental training that is required to do computer science. THAT is why programmers will eventually be regarded in the same way as architects, IT people will be seen as Construction Foremen and the 'grunt' laborers.
Gee, I've felt like a grunt laborer ever since I took an IT support job. Just the other day I realized that I'm basically doing the same job as my best friend, who is an auto mechanic. I'm nothing more than a digital-grease monkey trying to keep the worst designed vehicles on the planet from constantly crashing. I bet it wont even take five years before my position gets slashed with a 40% pay cut, and only grads from tech schools that advertise during daytime TV will apply. Oh well, it kept my pockets filled while I was in school.
For the most part I completely agree with your assertion that programmers will start to be viewed as architects. There is only one problem that I see with this scenario. Right now there is a huge difference between REAL programmers who are well trained and professional, and the garage shop two-bit, still mostly Win 3.1 code lamers who are releasing ugly hacks of their ancient products to make a buck (sorry, I have to support this cruft). You really don't see a whole lot of architects using crayons and butcher paper. Hopefully the pros will drive these leeches of the software industry away. Then maybe we will have fairly non sucky software, and quit wondering why they forgot to put elevators in the skyscraper.
I cant help but comment on the irony of not needing a screwdriver to open the case, and not being able to do anything inside with one. Every Compaq I've opened has had some sort of screwy backplane setup, chinese puzzle box drive bays, and their own crazy form factor. If you want do destroy a computer, destroy a Compaq. But at least do it right, chainsaws, sledgehammers, and flamethrowers are the minimum recommended tools. I dont want to have pieces to put back together.
Tech support paradise...
on
Quickielanche
·
· Score: 1
This could be great for those damned to tech support. I think I'm going to try and convice everyone that we upgraded their PC with this feature. It could make troubleshooting a lot more fun.
User: My printer won't work, it just says 'spooling.'
BW: OK, Microsoft says to fix that you need to scowl, point your finger, and look threatening... Then your document will print.
User: But, that didn't work!
BW: OK, try standing on your chair, howling like a banshee, then moon the monitor.
User: Hooowwwlll, no, that's not it.
BW: OK, Ill come and fix it...
Gee maybe Ill have to install webcams all over the place to capture all the fun.
Slashdot Mirror
What you need is a Lego Mindstorms robot capable of assembling a clone of itself. Use one kit to build the first robot, and then automagically build six more using what you have on hand. Drop them all off in a Toys R Us late at night, and let them liberate and assemble their buddies. If the toy store is a rockin...
Build a driver bot, and have them hijack a truck to Legoland. Once they get there, its all over. The resulting army will help you take over the world. You will rule with your army of Legobots from a hollowed out volcano with giant video screens. Of course you could build a Mindstorms football team instead...
Holding, bot number 100101, ten brick penalty, repeat second down.
-BW
...should you choose to accept it:
Make a good geek film! You only have a few obstacles.
The Studio:
You have one year to make a movie about computers/geeks/hackers. The plot is up to you, but I have to approve every last detail. Ill change what I dont like. Your budget is 35 million dollars. If you cant double that in the first eight weeks of box office reciepts, youll never make another film in this town again.
The Public:
Drooolll. We dont know the difference between Windows 97 and Office even though we use them every day. Honey look... my computer at home must be more advanced, that one only does text! Thats a geek movie, its all about computers, lets see something else.
Double Jeopardy gave away its plot in 30 seconds and has been number one for a month. This is the mentality that you have to deal with.
The Geeks:
HA! Like they really would run that version of Sendmail in 1999. They are just asking for trouble. And look he just recompiled his kernal in 3 seconds on that hunk of junk... Horrible film, OH the Inaccuracies!! Wait until my LUG hears about this. Ooooohh, Maybe I can post a review on Slashdot...
The Medium:
You have two hours to tell your story tops, youre no Kevin Costner after all. You want character development, but you dont have time to do it with every character. Break out the stereotypes. Everyone is on union payscales, and everything you do is going to be horribly expensive. No, you dont have the money to reshoot that scene showing KDE on Uberhackers laptop. Your deadlines are slipping anyway. Well, how about we just cut it short here? No, the audience wont understand, you have to show this and that to get the effect right. Remember, shots of a computer screen will get really dull fast.
Hmmm, how about some drivel with a strong merchandising angle? Enjoy your beachhouse!
-BW
Pump the frames through a capture card to the screen. Take screen caps of each frame and dump them as bitmaps to a printer. Scan the printed pages back into the PC and OCR the text. Copy the resulting textfile back into place.
Ill be filing for a patent on this process tommorrow.
I can just see the next tragedy for the American space program:
The Degauss Button
Barcodes seem to be a pretty good non-computer example of security through obscurity. The college I recently graduated from used the exact same barcode scheme for ID/meal/library cards. With a little work I was able to figure out the code. Some of us used our SSN's as student ID numbers, others used serialized sequences.
Occasionally, professors would post grades based on the student ID number. With the student ID number, you could generate a copy of the barcode on their ID card. At the library, you could use the barcode to check out books at the automated kiosks. Along with free books, you get a receipt with the borrower's name. With the name, you could look up the student's address in the campus directory. Amazing what a barcode tells you eh? So much for privacy when idiots are guarding the henhouse.
-BW
NO! don't do it! I swear this is true!
Last month, my cousin's friend's boss went to Hong Kong with a brand new strong crypto implant. He was dancing at an all night rave party, and drank way too much. Anyway, he remembers going home with this really hot girl, and they started drinking at her place. The next thing he knows, he wakes up in his hotel room laying in a bathtub full of ice. There was a note taped to the ceiling that says: "Call the paramedics, we took your implants!" The State Department wont talk about the story, but it was confirmed off the record by inside sources. Do not take any chances! Never drink alone in a strange place with strong crypto implants, especially outside the US. Forward this story to everyone you know, even if they dont have email!
-BW
..... the rest of the persons achivements?
I think that I would have a very negative view of the writings of a child molester. I couldnt imagine having a big stack of books from some known pervert. That would be sort of like having a Gacy clown painting hanging over the mantle. To some extent, actions of that degree do invalidate the rest of their achievements. If this guy does do serious time, do you think that his cellmates will care about his terrific Java skills?
This almost seems a bit Godwin like in this forum, but here it is anyway.
Take, for example, Bill Gates. Over the last fifteen years, MS has engaged in a lot of uncompetitive bullshit. Its seems to have gotten even worse since the release of Windows 95. So call him an anti competitive megalomaniac with a misguided view of the future of technology. In the realm of child molesters, that is pretty tame.
Lets say that he gives a total of 80 billion to charity, most of which wont benefit Microsoft.
Fast forward fifty years. How much will it matter that BG ran his company like a robber-baron? Will people still view the money as tainted by the blood of PC techs everywhere? I doubt it. The PC's of today will seem as irrelevant as the first generation of TVs in the late 40s and early fifties. So the question follows: How bad does an action have to be to invalidate a person's legacy?
-BW
Man, Im glad I bought that case of Stinger missiles when I had the chance. The first time someone cuts me off in one of these things Im gonna let it fly!
-BW
To those with the power to make a difference:
In an effort to retain customers, you gave them all free web email accounts. Do you even have a clue of who your customers are?
The average domain owner probably has a computer and an ISP. In many cases they will be a company that provides mail services for its employees. Others will be ISP's running huge mail servers. Many more will be website operators, who often get free email with their hosting package. At the very least they probably have a PC and an ISP that offers POP3. These people know the internet, and most of them dont want or need webmail. Those who do, probably already have it.
So, to retain customers you automatically sign them up for a service that they don't want? I simply dont understand the logic behind this. Not only that, but you break the most basic rules of security. Now you force some already annoyed sysadmins to fix a security hole that you created. Heads should roll.
Lets be honest, your company doesn't have the best reputation for customer service. Instead of blowing money on a mail server and admin costs, you could have hired more reps and made a public commitment to service. That would have made a nice little press release, and attracted some quiet praise. At the very least, it would have shown that you understand the problem, and are taking steps to fix it. Instead, you create more trouble for your customers and get bad press for technical ineptness. Go read the Cluetrain Manifesto www.cluetrain.com, clean house, and hire the clued. Otherwise, wither and die. HTH HAND
-BW
If you use, there is a good chance that you will fall into excessive use no matter the legal status of the drug. After all, that is why they are considered addictive.
Legalizing drugs will solve the problems of crime associated with their manufacture and distribution. Putting the responsibility for making and selling drugs on pharmaceutical companies will increase product quality and provide tax revenue for the government. Net result- less problems with overdoses, and money for treatment programs.
The other problem legalization solves is the need for intrusive government intervention AKA The War on (Some) Drugs. The fact that your car/house/boat can be seized without recourse because your buddy decided to bring over some pot is a violation of basic human rights. Legalization will help remove one of the great excuses for the intrusion of the government into the lives of common citizens. Granted, legalization alone wont get them to keep their hands off the net. However it may help weaken their arguments (They will scream Protect the Children instead). Another benefit is that it will prevent the destruction of families because of insane mandatory minimum sentences for petty infractions. A whole lot of good can come from legalization, both on the internet, and in the big blue room.
-BW
In fifty years, we will have immortality.
Hmmmm, I'm thinking that maybe I should become a divorce attorney...
Gee your honor, I know, the whole till death do us part thing. I just didnt figure it would take a thousand years. Plus there is this hot little 90 year old at work your honor. I just want to prove I still got it, you know. I havent had a date in 300 years...
BW
The simplest solution for keeping kids away from porn, drugs, hate, and dangerous plans to build bombs that will blow their fingers off:
Take responsibility for your kids!
The pollitical battle cry of "We must protect our children!" is utter hogwash. I cannot remember one proposal under that tagline which involves spending more quality time with your kids. Not one encourages parents to truly develop deeper relationships and take interest in your children and their friends. Worst of all, not one brings up the point of fostering an attitude of personal responsibility in your children.
We seem to be hell bent on creating Nanny Society 2000. Supervise our kids while they netsurf? No, well fix that in software and with content rating. Sit with our kids and watch TV together? No, the V-chip will keep them from seeing the pseudoporn on Showtime while they watch their TV and I watch mine. Go see a movie with them, and discuss it afterward? No, Billy heres a ten spot. Have fun at the movies with all the PG-13 your tender little eyes can absorb. Im a hip 20th century dad who uses all kinds of electronic babysitters so that (as mandated by the advertisers) I Can Have My Life Too TM.
However, all of the pseudogovernmental regulations in the world are not going to do a damn bit of good when Billy has an opportunity for real trouble. Lets face it- The net is only one of the many potentially damaging situations that kids will run into daily. Sure, content ratings may make it "safer" (at a high price in terms of freedom). Yet those ratings wont matter when the joint gets passed around at the make-out party. The only real solution is to have a relationship that allows you to instill self discipline and responsibility for ones actions.
So you still want an electronic babysitter? Fine, easy solution. Why not make the browser/newsreader keep a detailed read-only history file. Tell everyone that net access is being monitored on that PC. Make sure that your expectations about appropriate content are known. Give the kids their own login (especially in a public setting) or keep track of when they are on the computer. Now they can surf while you mow the lawn. Then go check the logs. If you see content that is against your morals, talk to your kids about it. Apply sanctions if necessary. This approach has two benefits: Its your free choice to use it, not some government-in-bed-with-the-media regulatory decision. Second, you know what is really going on. I would rather know that my kids were looking at titties, than not know that they spent the last two hours looking for porn that wasn't blocked. Then I could deal with it how I wanted to, rather than trusting the ratings and filters to continue working.
-BW
We can get along quite nicely with one big code of ethics for everybody: Don't f*** anyone over. At least that's my code of ethics.
Hehehe, that might be the first time Ive seen the golden rule put into those words. Works for me.
However, Id like to add two related concepts: The first is a mandate to take responsibility for your actions. In my personal experience, there seems to be a shift away from admitting that you f***ed up to covering your ass at all costs. I have a lot more respect for people who admit their fault in a situation rather than trying to diffuse responsibility. At work, I made a pretty serious mistake that hosed a server and cost one department a day of downtime. Officially, it wasnt really my fault, but I had the last clear chance to avoid the problem. I spoke up and took responsibility, got chewed out pretty hardcore, and everyone moved on and we fixed the problem. Sure, I could have shut up and let my boss and the other techs share the grief, but it was mainly my fault. Fortunately, my boss wasnt a PHB by any strech and I wasnt officially sanctioned. This brings me to the other major concept I'd like to include.
What we need is an attitude of forgiveness, and a willingness to say shit happens and move on. I dont see one person, or one company that is perfect, or even close to it. Some try harder than others, but realisitcally mistakes will happen. If someone is willing to admit their wrongdoing and make an attempt to make it right, the only positive recourse is to forgive them. On a personal level this is pretty easy to implement. In the corporate realm, the situation becomes much messier because of the amounts of money involved. Yet if everyone would follow the simple rules of: Dont f*** anyone over, Take responsibility for your actions, and forgive others who have wronged you, I think that (trite as it may sound} the world would be a better place.
-BW
NO, sol.exe has nothing to do with crypto. Its powerful mind control software! Sol.exe is responsible for turning once productive middle age office drones into drooling click and drag morons. Just last month we had send 15 of our best people to the super secret sol.exe deprogramming center. You may be familliar with it. Most people know it as the unemployment office.
-BW
Christianity does not require blind faith, but states that Blessed are those who have it.
/. is like assuming that only Christians read the Bible. This thread is becoming more and more offtopic as it goes on, please direct non geek related followups to email o0JDL0o@yahoo.com (letter o number zero).
Mind providing chapter and verse for this? I don't have a concordnance handy. Your doubting Thomas argument is compelling. Lets take a closer look at the situation. Even before the crucifixion, all of the disciples abandoned their former lives to follow Jesus (Mark 2:14 and 3:15). The social and political climate of the region during this period must have made this a difficult decision [1]. It took a great deal of faith to follow a revolutionary like Jesus during this time. To us, looking back, the decision may seem obvious, but put yourself in any of the disciples positions. The popular WWJD is not nearly as important as the answer to: What would YOU do when Jesus showed up?
Then imagine that after following Jesus for a year or three, he is executed by the very same religious community that he was trying to save. Three days later, his body turns up missing. With 2000 years of tradition and documentation to rely on the resurrection seems to be the only explanation. However, the disciples were dealing with events as they happened. When Jesus finally reveals himself to the disciples, it seems pretty logical that they would have had doubts. In fact, their collective doubt is discussed in most of the accounts of the resurrection (Luke 24:38, Matt 28:17). For anyone to believe in Jesus he had to reveal himself and his saving work to man, in a clear and understandable manner. The disciples were fortunate to have such an intimate picture of the work of Christ. However, even in that situation their faith was not a foregone conclusion. In this special case, their faith was not a blind one, but unusually well supported by the evidence at hand.
When you encounter an argument against Christianity, do not assume that the writer is ignorant of the faith. To do so may be considered condescending. You will find that the best arguments both for and against Christianity will be made by those who know the most. To clarify, I was not attacking Christianity at all, but discussing some problems with the first poster's philosophy.
To assume that geeks are the only ones who read
[1] A good reference for the sociopollitical climate for this period is the rather dry New Testament History by F.F. Bruce
-BW
Dicing the material further:
"Science, for example, has serious metaphysical problems that bring into doubt whether it reflects reality, or is simply a very successful interpretation."
I'd like some more information about this, do you have any references for further reading? The junction of philosophy and science is a fertile area intellectually, and I'd like to become more familiar with some of the perspectives.
"The latter [the ability to have faith swayed by persuasive arguments] contradicts the very idea of 'strong faith'."
By definition that is true, but I still stand by the complete statement "Without thought and examination your faith... it can be swayed..." The attitude of the original poster seemed to preclude careful examination. Given sufficient time, faith based upon a strong (but not carefully thought out) acceptance of "The Bible said it, and I believe it" may be eroded. From what I have seen, sometimes it is the people who are the most outspoken about the strength of their faith that have the weakest positions.
"Would you discount the scientific work of every theologian, or every believer? Newton is a common example; he wrote more extensively on matters of faith than physics, yet few people question the objectivity of his work"
All scientific work must be questioned regardless of the person's religious orientation. Newton was right about classical physics because he was making objective observations of the physical world. We believe that he is right because we can verify his observations experimentally. Further, early this century we were able to accept that he was wrong in some instances, when other data was acquired. Objectivity ties all of this together, and allows learning to take place regardless of religious orientation.
"If you argue that one only must be objective within the scope of science and technology then the only concern is that he remain objective in that context, and his belief in God may be irrelevent. However, if you believe that objectivity must be absolute then you have to consider the the entire concept of objectivity and how it relates to the 'geek world-view'."
How simple it would be if it were that black and white. As far as sci/tech goes, objectivity is key. You may make spiritual interpretations about scientific observations, yet those fall under the realm of personal beliefs. When it comes to personal beliefs, then I urge you to have beliefs are well thought out and consistent with whatever evidence that they are based on. If you want to practice Biblical Christianity, great. Then have an understanding of the Bible and at least some objectivity about your personal experiences. I am not willing to accept absolute objectivity, some things are truly a matter of faith. Taking this one step further, I have faith in the existance of the material world. However, I am willing to consider other perspectives and study another worldview. Not considering the arguments against your faith weakens the overall strength of your faith. That is why I took issue with the statement "I don't think, I know."
-BW
Please elaborate on your philosophy. You describe yourself as a Christian/Geek, yet your philosophy is incompatible with both. As far as Christianity goes, it was my understanding that the core beliefs were centered around having faith. You cannot rationally know about the validity of the nature and sacrifices of Christ. Futhermore, you cannot even know that the Christian worldview of sin and redemption correlates with the true nature of the universe. On all points, your salvation is a matter of faith. If there was sufficient evidence to prove Christianity, then fulfilling the tenents of the religion would become trivial. Saying that you don't think, but rather know it to be true must be interpreted as an ironic misunderstanding, or a hyperbole about the strenghth of your faith. However, if you do have a strong faith in the saving work of Christ, I hope that you have taken some time to think about the evidence. Without thought and examination, your strong faith can be discounted as blind acceptance, or swayed by other persuasive arguments. You may not be able to prove anything at all, but you can have a well thought out position and know why you believe what you do.
You also described yourself as a geek. However your philosophy discounts the role of objectivity that is so important in technological pursuits. At its core, geekdom somewhat resembles the scientific method. You have to recognize what you don't know, figure out how to learn what you need to know, and have a grasp on the significance of what you have learned. By proclaiming that you know, you reject this methodology. Geeks tend to have the ability and drive to teach themselves about challenging and technical topics. Its a thirst for knowledge, and the ability to independently acquire that knowledge that is the true spirit of geekdom. Its not simply a matter of 'knowing' something, its about continually learning something new. Granted, this is a rather broad definition of geek, but I think it expands a bit beyond the stereotypes.
-BW
Please remember that the bandwidth for a cable modem is shared among all of the users. Now when everyone on a block is using a shared resource, I'd like to think that we can all have a bit of respect for our fellow users. Let me put together a little analogy.
For example, lets say that you live out in the desert on a dirt road. There are about 50 or 60 other families who all live along the same road with you. This road is so bad that you have to leave an extra 20 minutes for your commute because of it. Fed up, you look into paving a section of the road, but it costs way too much for you to take on alone.
Now imagine that some big company comes to town and offers to pave the road for a small cost, split among all of the negihbors. Everyone chips in thier small monthly fee, and soon there is a pristine 2-lane strip of asphalt. You cut your commute in half and now you can get a boat and trailer for the weekends. Life is good.
Then your next door neighbor tears down his house, and tilts up a 500000sf Wal Mart national distribution center. Pretty soon trucks start clogging that little strip of road. Not to be outdone, the Flynts up the street build a mega-theme park. Cars line up for miles just to get in. The Waltons and the Flynts are still only chipping in a few bucks a month, but they are using most of the capacity of the road. Now your commute has expanded by 40 minutes each way, but your stuck.
OK, so how to fix the problem? Limit the number of axels on the residential road. Close the gates to the theme park. Then everyone can share the same strip of highway. It might be hard on their business to have these restrictions imposed. Yet, if they as a business customer want that much road, they should build their own. The same goes for the theme park. The same goes for the guy running Phil's Playhouse of Porn and Top 50 W4r3Z site next door off of his cable modem.
The cost of the bandwidth for cable is so low because it is shared among all of the users. If you want or need your own big pipe going out, you really should be paying for it rather than taking advantage of the guy next door. Just because you can sit in your living room with the blinds drawn and suckle on the teat of high bitrate bliss, does not mean that you should be the only one on your block with the privelage.
Its really easy to make the company the scapegoat in this situation. False advertising claims fly. Hey, its really not 50X faster than my old modem! No, that is a marketing come on phrased for a technically illiterate public. Sadly, people are starting to think that 56K is a brand of modem. Grandiose claims of peak speeds of 1.5megabits per second with a CIR of 10kbps does not make a catcy ad (but it does make a nice line in a service agreement.)
What it comes down to is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, there are good non-business uses for upstream bandwidth. However I would rather have some sort of limit to curb abusers, than have an unusable connection because of my neighbors. Yes the company can take steps to increase bandwidth. However those steps are costly, and those costs are either reflected in higher bills, or lower returns for investors. A little respect for the guy next door would go a long way in this case.
But you don't want Beta, wait for the release version...
there's no way in hell the MS-team will beat Gary and Co
I wouldnt be so sure, I could just see it now...
Gates: So Gary, are you ready for the big game?
Kasparov: Yes, you know that I can't possibly lose.
Gates: I wouldn't be so sure Gary.
Kasparov: Please, Chess by committee?
Gates: I know you find it hard to believe, but you will lose this match.
Kasparov: That is impossible!
Gates: Then I want you to meet my friend, the man who makes the impossible possible...
Enter Don King
Don King: OK, time is short. This is how it is going to go down...
Don King Explains the Plan to Gary.
Kasparov: You mean, lose intentionally? Following this preposterous script?
Gates: Yes, and I'll even throw in 500 million dollars for your effort.
Kasparov: But why?
Gates: I have a PR problem, people are starting to think that Windows users are stupid.
Kasparov: Well, yes...
Gates: So I rigged the website to eliminate all Linux users by saying their poor excuse for a browser is 16 bit, heheh
Then we will prove the intellectual superiority of Windows users forever!
Fade to Black
Bottom line:
No they dont NEED more cash, but now they sure as hell better start producing some revenue.
Remember that they didn't hit the lotto, that $25 million is an investment. Now Google needs to find some way of producing good returns for its investors. Most of the time, when someone pours that kind of money into a business, arguments like "We dont like banner ads" and "We dont sell search keywords" start to fall short. They had better have some great new ideas and some compelling reasons not to (IE they can make more money another way) or else they will have two choices: Start with the whole banner-ad gig and other traditional ways of web portaldom, or be replaced with someone who will. Now all they need is to put together a good looking revenue stream, do the IPO, and hope to some-day become profitable. Sadly this will probably kill the functionality of the engine itself.
-bw
There are two reasons why the Star Wars soundtrack is so outstanding. Much of the credit goes to John Williams. He is a master at making symphonic music appeal to a mass audience. Every soundtrack that he has worked on has a song that gets under your skin. To this day I whistle the Imperial March, even though its been years (OK months) since I heard it last. Its pop music with a full orchestra. Even when I was a teenager into heavy metal, I still considered Williams to be one of my favorite artists.
The music of Star Wars is so fully integrated into the movie, that together they play like a long form music video. Listening to the music later recalls imagery and emotion from the films. Like a music video, the movie helps to deliver the music to people who would not otherwise be exposed to it. So yes, a wider audience is attracted to the music because of the Star Wars connection. However, this should only enhance the listening experience rather than detract from it in any way. Along with the music, you get a first class film too. Of course, as you may infer from my nick, I may be a bit biased.
The vast majority of people are not suited to or interested in the kind of mental training that is required to do computer science. THAT is why programmers will eventually be regarded in the same way as architects, IT people will be seen as Construction Foremen and the 'grunt' laborers.
Gee, I've felt like a grunt laborer ever since I took an IT support job. Just the other day I realized that I'm basically doing the same job as my best friend, who is an auto mechanic. I'm nothing more than a digital-grease monkey trying to keep the worst designed vehicles on the planet from constantly crashing. I bet it wont even take five years before my position gets slashed with a 40% pay cut, and only grads from tech schools that advertise during daytime TV will apply. Oh well, it kept my pockets filled while I was in school.
For the most part I completely agree with your assertion that programmers will start to be viewed as architects. There is only one problem that I see with this scenario. Right now there is a huge difference between REAL programmers who are well trained and professional, and the garage shop two-bit, still mostly Win 3.1 code lamers who are releasing ugly hacks of their ancient products to make a buck (sorry, I have to support this cruft). You really don't see a whole lot of architects using crayons and butcher paper. Hopefully the pros will drive these leeches of the software industry away. Then maybe we will have fairly non sucky software, and quit wondering why they forgot to put elevators in the skyscraper.
I cant help but comment on the irony of not needing a screwdriver to open the case, and not being able to do anything inside with one. Every Compaq I've opened has had some sort of screwy backplane setup, chinese puzzle box drive bays, and their own crazy form factor. If you want do destroy a computer, destroy a Compaq. But at least do it right, chainsaws, sledgehammers, and flamethrowers are the minimum recommended tools. I dont want to have pieces to put back together.
This could be great for those damned to tech support. I think I'm going to try and convice everyone that we upgraded their PC with this feature. It could make troubleshooting a lot more fun.
User: My printer won't work, it just says 'spooling.'
BW: OK, Microsoft says to fix that you need to scowl, point your finger, and look threatening... Then your document will print.
User: But, that didn't work!
BW: OK, try standing on your chair, howling like a banshee, then moon the monitor.
User: Hooowwwlll, no, that's not it.
BW: OK, Ill come and fix it...
Gee maybe Ill have to install webcams all over the place to capture all the fun.