As much as it may pain download-happy net users, I think that the IOC is right to prevent websites from broadcasting the Olympics, and even more right to be worried about people sneaking in with digital cameras and mobile phones for live broadcasts.
When you think about carefully, the Olympics rests upon a huge infrastructure, and this, unsuprisingly enough, costs a lot of money. How else are they going to obtain this money without licensing and sponsership deals with major corporations? Selling drugs? Running arms?
The Olympics is the greatest sporting event in the world, and since it's only once every 4 years anyway I don't think it's unfair of the IOC to use it finance themselves. After all, its for the good of every country in the world that competes in the Olympics.
Unfortunately what with the attitude of most/.ers that everything should be "free" and online, I'm sure that there'll be attmepts to get pirate coverage, sneak people in and the like. I wish they wouldn't - it's just selfish to think about yourself before an event that brings the whole world together.
Could you please enlighten us what do you recommend to your customers in terms of keeping our personal data secure. Do you insist that all data is kept encrypted? Do you suggest that the encrypted data is stored on a separate machine, with audited security?
That's not my area of expertise - I'm an ideas guy rather than an implentation guy. If they want to get these things sorted out then they'll need to hire a security consultant to go over the details and implement a working security policy.
I do recommend that they do it though, its always bad for business when one of your customers gets hacked into and their customer databases stolen.
We just keep our money under a stolen mattress as we have no use for it.
Since wages are so low in the UK and taxes so high, I very much doubt that anyone has enough money to hide under matresses, stolen or not. Luckily I'm earning good money being here, but I suppose that's because I'm on contract work for an American company...
Of course most Slashdot readers probably don't opt out, they just fill in absolute rubbish to try and skew your statistics. Or is that just me?
Well, since most/.ers would rather not pay for anything anyway, their contribution to commercial issues is negligible. The false statistics generated by them being "clever" is not something most companies would care about - it can be removed using standard statistical techniques.
As a top flight professional consultant who has worked with many companies attempting to leverage their business onto the net, I generally recommend that companies obtain as much information as they possibly can, but allow an "opt out" policy for customers for whom privacy is a concern. After all, it costs them nothing (well apart from some of my rather expensive time) and satisfies the small number of people paranoid about letting people know which browser they're using.
The information gained by online businesses in this way forms a valuable resource for them to react to what their customers want, even when the customer doesn't realise it. After all, the more information you can obtain the better the service you can provide - personalisation is the key to a happy customer and lots of business when many companies are all offering the same product at very similar prices.
Still, privacy concerns are overrated here and I think your're being overly concerned about what Tesco will do with your information. They're not going to sell it to other people - information like that is valuable to them - and they're not going to spy on the not-so-sordid details of your life with it.
My recommendation - give a little, get a little. Don't worry so much about giving out such inconsequential details online. There's a lot of hype and FUD around at the moment about privacy, and invasions of it, and falling for it simply limits your options and decreases the enjoyment of your net experiance.
Why should the guilty be allowed the same rights as everybody else? They've gone out of their way to invade other people's rights - they deserve everything they get. Protecting criminals only leads to them getting away with it and comitting more crime.
Heck, the way you put it, we might as well just shoot anybody that we think might have committed a crime.
Don't be silly. The punishment must fit the crime.
The definition of crime evolves like everything else.
Yes, according to the wonders of liberal "philosophy" you're correct. But for those of us with a more enlightened outlook, morality has dictated what is a crime since Moses received the Commandments, and those definitions are eternal.
Although osm has been quiet recently, but it's not because we've given up. It's just that thanks to morons spamming every story in sight we've all got user accounts how, with which we whore for the +1 bonus and then troll with.
On this story I can spot two troll accounts, you just need to look a bit harder...
But yeah, all of these spamming pricks need to be shot.
Attacking? Thats a load of crap; he was merely telling the common people (most could not read nor write, while the wealthy church however...) about his findings.
Exactly, attacking the church's authority. Whether or not the church was correct is irrelevent to the argument. The greatest good is served by allowing the church to see to the good of its member's souls, and this mission is harmed if the authority of the church is undermined. Galileo should have waited until he had the church's backing before proceeding.
Ehmz, offcourse not. I do have some confidence in the people working on this matter. science is nothing more then to study, come up with theories and backup those theories with proof.
But by this measure you would believe in Newtons' theory of gravity, yet Einstein proved Newtonian gravity to be wrong! So much for the sanctity of scientific "proof" eh? In reality you do have "faith" in science since you have obviously not proven every result yourself have you?
I take serious offence in the way you morons threaten the rest of the community with this loaded piece of crap.
*sigh* It's not a threat, it's just how it is. Read the Bible if you don't believe me.
Its the same old story and I guess you dumbo's will never grow up; you can't force people anymore into believing the things you seem fit.
Of course you can, you just need to convince them it is in their own best interests, which it is. After all it is far better than to suffer on Earth and go to heaven than to life a comfortable life here and then suffer eternal damnation in Hell isn't it?
Egads... More blind people spewing out their Christian Mythology.
Hah! I think it is obvious I see further than you my deluded friend.
For hundreds of years science has been chipping away at religion. The church was ready to execute Galileo in the name of a god. Only recently did the Pope apologize.
You are in error. The church did not execute Galileo because of his calculations, but instead because he was using them to attack religion. If he had just stuck with using them to obtain results he would have been fine. There's a fine distinction there, but an important one.
I'm always amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent people that believe in ghosts, goblins, and invisible deities.
I'm always amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent people that believe in quarks, gluons, leptons and invisible forces.
Saying one must have faith simply acknowledges the fact that religion can't stand up on it's own merits.
Nonsense. You have "faith" in science don't you? Whether or not you believed in science would make no difference to its objective truth. Similarly, whether or not people have faith makes no difference to the Truth. Faith is required for following the path of the Lord and being allowed into Heaven. It's not required, but the consequences of its lack is eternal damnation.
While I, as a Christian myself, respect the princples of Jesus Christ and the words of the Bible, I must take offense at the way in which you abuse them through reference. You honestly think God will penalize humanity for paying attention to space exploration and questioning the sciences?
Indeed, for such things go against what the Lord has taught us and attempt to mislead humanity into believing such lies as the "Big Bang" and evolution. People like yourself shouldn't call themselves Christians, your liberal theology is no kind of belief at all in truth, and you are little better than the most limp-wristed of agnostics.
It is not being suggested that there is no God, and even if so, I hardly see fit to punish those who differ in our beliefs of the world.
Nonsense. It's for their own good - if you do not follow the path of righteousness then you cannot go to Heaven when you die. It's for the sake of others that true believers are sometimes forced into extreme measures. We are doing the work of the Lord, and in doing so we cannot do any wrong. There can be no sin in doing the Lord's work by saving the souls of heathens.
Our pope has revealed it that Christians may believe in evolution.
Aaah, now that explains a lot. If you are a Catholic then you are no Christian at all! Your worship of idols and the Virgin Whore is directly against one of God's Commandments, and means that you cannot be a Christian if you are a Catholic! All Catholics are bound by their "religion" for eternal damnation, and the pope as the head of this cult is second only to the Anti-Christ in the harvesting of souls for Satan!
Unlike the police the customs people don't need a license and can enter your home whenever they feel like it. Interestingly enough the Fedaration Against Software Theft (FAST) (IIRC) were extended the same priviliges a while back, even though they weren't officially part of the C&E.
It's about time somebody stood up to the legions of open source zealots and told them that their cherished view of "many eyes makes bugs shallow" is little more than McCarthy-like jingoism rather than a solid foundation for security.
I'm not saying that obscurity is good for security either mind you, but the fact is that when you have the source code to a product at hand, it becomes a hell of a lot easier to find exploits with a debugger and a bit of patience than it would be with a raw binary. And thanks to the "efforts" of system administrators who would rather spend their time playing Quake than downloading the latest patches and bug-fixes these exploits put thousands of sites that rely on open source software at risk.
The many eyes mantra only applies when many eyes are actually looking at the code. In most cases there are about two people (the programmers) who actually look through the code to fix it, and everyone else is hackers looking for their latest backdoor penetration.
This is an area in which there is so much FUD, from both sides, that a reasoned debate is next to impossible. Until the zealots stop and think, security is going to be something that is argued about rather than realised.
... it's just that my name seems to have been eternally linked to the concept of Trolling on/. even though spiralx is not a troll account - that's what this is for:)
I don't think anyone really thinks/. and k5 are at war - all three posts you linked were trolls. And I hope k5 gets back up since it was definitely getting some interesting stories recently and I was getting more into reading it.
Maybe it's time to restrict who has access to the roads.
Isn't that what driving licenses are for? I'm suggesting a similar thing for the net. You wouldn't let your 5 year old son drive a car, why let him online? Both are dangerous in their own ways.
You further make the insiduous claim that average AOL users are script kiddies; this is a cheap, elitist attack that doesn't in the least help your argument: AOL users aren't anonymous.
What have AOLers ever added to the net? Even if they're not all hackers and script-kiddies, they're certainly a drain on bandwidth. Remember how the net was ten years ago?
We don't want our kids to read about bomb-making until they reach the age of 18 and are magically wise.
Well frankly, no. Kids can't be trusted to make the right decisions until they grow up. Why do you think we have age limits on things?
the nations of the world would unite behind a plan to make the Internet available only to the master race.
I think you're overreacting - all I'm after is a bit of politeness and less script-kiddies, not for some fascist dictatorship in control of the net.
Seriously, why are you so intent on kicking off users?
If you were in a restaurant and someone starting kicking tables over, they'd get thrown out. Same principle. Besides, prevention is always better than a cure, and it is prevention that I'm in favour of.
Another attack on anonymity from the very people responsible for the architecture of the net. Is this what the net is coming to? Unfortunately, I think it is - just look at the recent attack on kuro5hin for an example of the childish, vindictive behaviour some people seem to delight in.
Anonymity is a desirable feature online, but it is one that is ripe for abuse. Whilst it allows people to use the net without fear of some "Big Brother" organisation storing their every click it also allows 15 year-old kids to DDoS websites with impunity. Getting rid of anonymity is one solution, but it's one that will do more harm than good.
So what is to be done? Maybe it's time to restrict who has access to the net. Since services like AOL and CompuServe made it easy for Joe Sixpack and his family to get online we've seen an exponential growth in website defacings, DDoS's and general abusive behaviour. If people were not allowed to access the net unless they fit certain criteria we could reclaim it from the scipt-kiddies.
What criteria would be appropriate is the next question. Well firstly we need some kind of age limit - 16 or 18 would seem appropriate since there is a lot of offenisve material out there that we don't want our kids seeing. It would also restrict the net to people mature enough to take responsiblity for their own actions, which can only be a good thing.
Secondly there should be some kind of examination process to weed out those people who aren't desirable. This should allow us to ensure that people know to be polite and would also allow us to teach people things like "don't open every attachment you receive in the mail" which would make everybody's life better.
This isn't a perfect solution, but I doubt there is one. Still, we need to do something and this could be it.
Just out of interest, where would you obtain said penis birds? Is there a shop for them or do you have to get them delivered? Inquiring minds want to know.
Visual Basic (and was that VB or VBScript?) is such a base form of programming. VB is to Java(or C or any OOP Language) as fingerpaint is to watercolor.
So because you have this elitest view about the superiority of different programming languages that nothing of worth can accrue from VB? And there was me thinking "the right tool for the job". Maybe that's why I get paid to provide advice and you don't.
However, people get offended (and rightly) when you knock something that they have created.
I'm not knocking what they have created, I'm sure many people here have coded some genuinely useful and innovative programs. All I'm saying is that the act of programming is not expressive, just like building a wall isn't expressive. It's all about putting things together in a consistent and methodical manner so that it acheives its purpose.
There is usually more than one way to code a piece of software...how do you account for the way a programmer picks and chooses his or her way?
You can use more than one kind of brick, and you can put them together in different ways and still get a wall. Creative? Not really.
I'd say an elegantly-written program can be the artistic equivalant of an elegantly-written musical score.
No, because a piece of code is merely a series of instructions for an algorithm, not something designed to evoke emotion and thought. People are saying that code is, of itself, a thing of beauty which is blatent rubbish. Similarly a musical score by itself does not evoke emotion, it is the finished product!!
First, I really am curious if you actually are a programmer...
I'm an IT consultant, though I have done a fair bit of VB programming in the past. So yes, I suppose I am a programmer, if not a professional one.
Secondly, as to use of whitespace, I suppose its rather non-American of me, but I happen to find a quiet elegance in code that is well spaced, and where whitespace is used to create clear, clean segments of code.
And yet you say that you don't like languages like Python where such neatness is part of the language?
I have read code that made me laugh, code that made me think, and occaisionally, code that made me cry.
Well, I've read code that made me laugh and cry, but that wasn't anything to do with aesthetics, more to do with the quality...
Code is yet another extension of all of this. Not only in the elegance of algorithms, but also in how problems are approached and dealt with, and creative use (or lack thereof!) of whitespace. (No, I dont like whitespace delimited languages, for just that reason!)
You view the usage of whitespace as being creative? The only thing that whitespace is used for is to make code readable by people - there is nothing "creative" about it. Sure you could add enough whitespace to make your code in the shape of a smiley face or something, but that's not being creative, it's being a dick.
Please explain how hitting the space bar is being "creative".
I'm an IT consultant, although I have done some VB coding before and occasionally not. It has put me off of programming though, and it certainly isn't an "art form" as some seem to suggest.
It just bugs me to have programmers consider their work to be the equal in expressiveness of Bach or Van Gogh or other, true, artists. Anyone can see that there's a world of difference.
What on earth is this man David Touretzky saying? Whilst it may serve to win this case, the very idea that computer code constitutes a form of "expressive" work is rediculous. A piece of code is no more expressive than an accountant's books or a differential equation.
Computing is not an art, it is a science governed by mathematical laws and logical premises. There is no creativity involved, merely a process of logical deduction and algorithmic optimization. Programmers aren't artists - they're much more like engineers. Anyone who goes on about how coding is a "creative exercise" is lacking something in their life and probably needs to get out some more - go to an art gallery and see something that is expressive.
No matter how you try and put it, a piece of code does not share any similatities to a poem, and a programmer does not share any similarities to a poet. Coding is just a process, not a work of art.
BTW can you suck your testicles up into your body cavity at will? The ancient Romans could. But since it no longer serves a purpose, the ability has been "bred out" of humans (as is the ability to wiggle you ears) so that today, almost no one can do it.
Do you have a link for the testicles thing? Never heard of that before...
No it's not, it's a theory. Special relativity, something with a much firmer scientific background and base of evidence, is also a theory. Of course, if you have an undisputable proof of evolution then please share it with us.
It has been PROVEN to exist. We've WATCHED IT HAPPEN.
No, you've watched natural selection occur. From what I know of the theory, evolution is supposed to take place across thousands of years. I very much doubt you are old enough to have watched it happen.
Whether or not you are able to accept the proof of your eyes, the truth of the Creation is out there for all to see. If your precious "evolution" is true, then explain to me how it can account for both the human eye and the human soul.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as it may pain download-happy net users, I think that the IOC is right to prevent websites from broadcasting the Olympics, and even more right to be worried about people sneaking in with digital cameras and mobile phones for live broadcasts.
When you think about carefully, the Olympics rests upon a huge infrastructure, and this, unsuprisingly enough, costs a lot of money. How else are they going to obtain this money without licensing and sponsership deals with major corporations? Selling drugs? Running arms?
The Olympics is the greatest sporting event in the world, and since it's only once every 4 years anyway I don't think it's unfair of the IOC to use it finance themselves. After all, its for the good of every country in the world that competes in the Olympics.
Unfortunately what with the attitude of most /.ers that everything should be "free" and online, I'm sure that there'll be attmepts to get pirate coverage, sneak people in and the like. I wish they wouldn't - it's just selfish to think about yourself before an event that brings the whole world together.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Could you please enlighten us what do you recommend to your customers in terms of keeping our personal data secure. Do you insist that all data is kept encrypted? Do you suggest that the encrypted data is stored on a separate machine, with audited security?
That's not my area of expertise - I'm an ideas guy rather than an implentation guy. If they want to get these things sorted out then they'll need to hire a security consultant to go over the details and implement a working security policy.
I do recommend that they do it though, its always bad for business when one of your customers gets hacked into and their customer databases stolen.
---
Jon E. Erikson
We just keep our money under a stolen mattress as we have no use for it.
Since wages are so low in the UK and taxes so high, I very much doubt that anyone has enough money to hide under matresses, stolen or not. Luckily I'm earning good money being here, but I suppose that's because I'm on contract work for an American company...
---
Jon E. Erikson
Of course most Slashdot readers probably don't opt out, they just fill in absolute rubbish to try and skew your statistics. Or is that just me?
Well, since most /.ers would rather not pay for anything anyway, their contribution to commercial issues is negligible. The false statistics generated by them being "clever" is not something most companies would care about - it can be removed using standard statistical techniques.
---
Jon E. Erikson
As a top flight professional consultant who has worked with many companies attempting to leverage their business onto the net, I generally recommend that companies obtain as much information as they possibly can, but allow an "opt out" policy for customers for whom privacy is a concern. After all, it costs them nothing (well apart from some of my rather expensive time) and satisfies the small number of people paranoid about letting people know which browser they're using.
The information gained by online businesses in this way forms a valuable resource for them to react to what their customers want, even when the customer doesn't realise it. After all, the more information you can obtain the better the service you can provide - personalisation is the key to a happy customer and lots of business when many companies are all offering the same product at very similar prices.
Still, privacy concerns are overrated here and I think your're being overly concerned about what Tesco will do with your information. They're not going to sell it to other people - information like that is valuable to them - and they're not going to spy on the not-so-sordid details of your life with it.
My recommendation - give a little, get a little. Don't worry so much about giving out such inconsequential details online. There's a lot of hype and FUD around at the moment about privacy, and invasions of it, and falling for it simply limits your options and decreases the enjoyment of your net experiance.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Laws are meant to protect _everybody_.
Why should the guilty be allowed the same rights as everybody else? They've gone out of their way to invade other people's rights - they deserve everything they get. Protecting criminals only leads to them getting away with it and comitting more crime.
Heck, the way you put it, we might as well just shoot anybody that we think might have committed a crime.
Don't be silly. The punishment must fit the crime.
The definition of crime evolves like everything else.
Yes, according to the wonders of liberal "philosophy" you're correct. But for those of us with a more enlightened outlook, morality has dictated what is a crime since Moses received the Commandments, and those definitions are eternal.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Although osm has been quiet recently, but it's not because we've given up. It's just that thanks to morons spamming every story in sight we've all got user accounts how, with which we whore for the +1 bonus and then troll with.
On this story I can spot two troll accounts, you just need to look a bit harder...
But yeah, all of these spamming pricks need to be shot.
-- spiralx
---
Jon E. Erikson
Attacking? Thats a load of crap; he was merely telling the common people (most could not read nor write, while the wealthy church however...) about his findings.
Exactly, attacking the church's authority. Whether or not the church was correct is irrelevent to the argument. The greatest good is served by allowing the church to see to the good of its member's souls, and this mission is harmed if the authority of the church is undermined. Galileo should have waited until he had the church's backing before proceeding.
Ehmz, offcourse not. I do have some confidence in the people working on this matter. science is nothing more then to study, come up with theories and backup those theories with proof.
But by this measure you would believe in Newtons' theory of gravity, yet Einstein proved Newtonian gravity to be wrong! So much for the sanctity of scientific "proof" eh? In reality you do have "faith" in science since you have obviously not proven every result yourself have you?
I take serious offence in the way you morons threaten the rest of the community with this loaded piece of crap.
*sigh* It's not a threat, it's just how it is. Read the Bible if you don't believe me.
Its the same old story and I guess you dumbo's will never grow up; you can't force people anymore into believing the things you seem fit.
Of course you can, you just need to convince them it is in their own best interests, which it is. After all it is far better than to suffer on Earth and go to heaven than to life a comfortable life here and then suffer eternal damnation in Hell isn't it?
---
Jon E. Erikson
Egads... More blind people spewing out their Christian Mythology.
Hah! I think it is obvious I see further than you my deluded friend.
For hundreds of years science has been chipping away at religion. The church was ready to execute Galileo in the name of a god. Only recently did the Pope apologize.
You are in error. The church did not execute Galileo because of his calculations, but instead because he was using them to attack religion. If he had just stuck with using them to obtain results he would have been fine. There's a fine distinction there, but an important one.
I'm always amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent people that believe in ghosts, goblins, and invisible deities.
I'm always amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent people that believe in quarks, gluons, leptons and invisible forces.
Saying one must have faith simply acknowledges the fact that religion can't stand up on it's own merits.
Nonsense. You have "faith" in science don't you? Whether or not you believed in science would make no difference to its objective truth. Similarly, whether or not people have faith makes no difference to the Truth. Faith is required for following the path of the Lord and being allowed into Heaven. It's not required, but the consequences of its lack is eternal damnation.
---
Jon E. Erikson
While I, as a Christian myself, respect the princples of Jesus Christ and the words of the Bible, I must take offense at the way in which you abuse them through reference. You honestly think God will penalize humanity for paying attention to space exploration and questioning the sciences?
Indeed, for such things go against what the Lord has taught us and attempt to mislead humanity into believing such lies as the "Big Bang" and evolution. People like yourself shouldn't call themselves Christians, your liberal theology is no kind of belief at all in truth, and you are little better than the most limp-wristed of agnostics.
It is not being suggested that there is no God, and even if so, I hardly see fit to punish those who differ in our beliefs of the world.
Nonsense. It's for their own good - if you do not follow the path of righteousness then you cannot go to Heaven when you die. It's for the sake of others that true believers are sometimes forced into extreme measures. We are doing the work of the Lord, and in doing so we cannot do any wrong. There can be no sin in doing the Lord's work by saving the souls of heathens.
Our pope has revealed it that Christians may believe in evolution.
Aaah, now that explains a lot. If you are a Catholic then you are no Christian at all! Your worship of idols and the Virgin Whore is directly against one of God's Commandments, and means that you cannot be a Christian if you are a Catholic! All Catholics are bound by their "religion" for eternal damnation, and the pope as the head of this cult is second only to the Anti-Christ in the harvesting of souls for Satan!
---
Jon E. Erikson
Unlike the police the customs people don't need a license and can enter your home whenever they feel like it. Interestingly enough the Fedaration Against Software Theft (FAST) (IIRC) were extended the same priviliges a while back, even though they weren't officially part of the C&E.
---
Jon E. Erikson
It's about time somebody stood up to the legions of open source zealots and told them that their cherished view of "many eyes makes bugs shallow" is little more than McCarthy-like jingoism rather than a solid foundation for security.
I'm not saying that obscurity is good for security either mind you, but the fact is that when you have the source code to a product at hand, it becomes a hell of a lot easier to find exploits with a debugger and a bit of patience than it would be with a raw binary. And thanks to the "efforts" of system administrators who would rather spend their time playing Quake than downloading the latest patches and bug-fixes these exploits put thousands of sites that rely on open source software at risk.
The many eyes mantra only applies when many eyes are actually looking at the code. In most cases there are about two people (the programmers) who actually look through the code to fix it, and everyone else is hackers looking for their latest backdoor penetration.
This is an area in which there is so much FUD, from both sides, that a reasoned debate is next to impossible. Until the zealots stop and think, security is going to be something that is argued about rather than realised.
---
Jon E. Erikson
fact, most often I feel more comfortable with people calling me by my nickname.
Isn't it a bit of a mouthful for people to be constantly calling you "Anonymous Coward"? :)
---
Jon E. Erikson
... it's just that my name seems to have been eternally linked to the concept of Trolling on /. even though spiralx is not a troll account - that's what this is for :)
I don't think anyone really thinks /. and k5 are at war - all three posts you linked were trolls. And I hope k5 gets back up since it was definitely getting some interesting stories recently and I was getting more into reading it.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Maybe it's time to restrict who has access to the roads.
Isn't that what driving licenses are for? I'm suggesting a similar thing for the net. You wouldn't let your 5 year old son drive a car, why let him online? Both are dangerous in their own ways.
You further make the insiduous claim that average AOL users are script kiddies; this is a cheap, elitist attack that doesn't in the least help your argument: AOL users aren't anonymous.
What have AOLers ever added to the net? Even if they're not all hackers and script-kiddies, they're certainly a drain on bandwidth. Remember how the net was ten years ago?
We don't want our kids to read about bomb-making until they reach the age of 18 and are magically wise.
Well frankly, no. Kids can't be trusted to make the right decisions until they grow up. Why do you think we have age limits on things?
the nations of the world would unite behind a plan to make the Internet available only to the master race.
I think you're overreacting - all I'm after is a bit of politeness and less script-kiddies, not for some fascist dictatorship in control of the net.
Seriously, why are you so intent on kicking off users?
If you were in a restaurant and someone starting kicking tables over, they'd get thrown out. Same principle. Besides, prevention is always better than a cure, and it is prevention that I'm in favour of.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Another attack on anonymity from the very people responsible for the architecture of the net. Is this what the net is coming to? Unfortunately, I think it is - just look at the recent attack on kuro5hin for an example of the childish, vindictive behaviour some people seem to delight in.
Anonymity is a desirable feature online, but it is one that is ripe for abuse. Whilst it allows people to use the net without fear of some "Big Brother" organisation storing their every click it also allows 15 year-old kids to DDoS websites with impunity. Getting rid of anonymity is one solution, but it's one that will do more harm than good.
So what is to be done? Maybe it's time to restrict who has access to the net. Since services like AOL and CompuServe made it easy for Joe Sixpack and his family to get online we've seen an exponential growth in website defacings, DDoS's and general abusive behaviour. If people were not allowed to access the net unless they fit certain criteria we could reclaim it from the scipt-kiddies.
What criteria would be appropriate is the next question. Well firstly we need some kind of age limit - 16 or 18 would seem appropriate since there is a lot of offenisve material out there that we don't want our kids seeing. It would also restrict the net to people mature enough to take responsiblity for their own actions, which can only be a good thing.
Secondly there should be some kind of examination process to weed out those people who aren't desirable. This should allow us to ensure that people know to be polite and would also allow us to teach people things like "don't open every attachment you receive in the mail" which would make everybody's life better.
This isn't a perfect solution, but I doubt there is one. Still, we need to do something and this could be it.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Just out of interest, where would you obtain said penis birds? Is there a shop for them or do you have to get them delivered? Inquiring minds want to know.
And who trains them? I don't envy that person...
---
Jon E. Erikson
Visual Basic (and was that VB or VBScript?) is such a base form of programming. VB is to Java(or C or any OOP Language) as fingerpaint is to watercolor.
So because you have this elitest view about the superiority of different programming languages that nothing of worth can accrue from VB? And there was me thinking "the right tool for the job". Maybe that's why I get paid to provide advice and you don't.
However, people get offended (and rightly) when you knock something that they have created.
I'm not knocking what they have created, I'm sure many people here have coded some genuinely useful and innovative programs. All I'm saying is that the act of programming is not expressive, just like building a wall isn't expressive. It's all about putting things together in a consistent and methodical manner so that it acheives its purpose.
There is usually more than one way to code a piece of software...how do you account for the way a programmer picks and chooses his or her way?
You can use more than one kind of brick, and you can put them together in different ways and still get a wall. Creative? Not really.
---
Jon E. Erikson
I'd say an elegantly-written program can be the artistic equivalant of an elegantly-written musical score.
No, because a piece of code is merely a series of instructions for an algorithm, not something designed to evoke emotion and thought. People are saying that code is, of itself, a thing of beauty which is blatent rubbish. Similarly a musical score by itself does not evoke emotion, it is the finished product!!
---
Jon E. Erikson
First, I really am curious if you actually are a programmer...
I'm an IT consultant, though I have done a fair bit of VB programming in the past. So yes, I suppose I am a programmer, if not a professional one.
Secondly, as to use of whitespace, I suppose its rather non-American of me, but I happen to find a quiet elegance in code that is well spaced, and where whitespace is used to create clear, clean segments of code.
And yet you say that you don't like languages like Python where such neatness is part of the language?
I have read code that made me laugh, code that made me think, and occaisionally, code that made me cry.
Well, I've read code that made me laugh and cry, but that wasn't anything to do with aesthetics, more to do with the quality...
---
Jon E. Erikson
Code is yet another extension of all of this. Not only in the elegance of algorithms, but also in how problems are approached and dealt with, and creative use (or lack thereof!) of whitespace. (No, I dont like whitespace delimited languages, for just that reason!)
You view the usage of whitespace as being creative? The only thing that whitespace is used for is to make code readable by people - there is nothing "creative" about it. Sure you could add enough whitespace to make your code in the shape of a smiley face or something, but that's not being creative, it's being a dick.
Please explain how hitting the space bar is being "creative".
---
Jon E. Erikson
Do you really believe this?
Well, yes, I posted it didn't I?
May I inquire if you are a coder yourself?
I'm an IT consultant, although I have done some VB coding before and occasionally not. It has put me off of programming though, and it certainly isn't an "art form" as some seem to suggest.
It just bugs me to have programmers consider their work to be the equal in expressiveness of Bach or Van Gogh or other, true, artists. Anyone can see that there's a world of difference.
---
Jon E. Erikson
What on earth is this man David Touretzky saying? Whilst it may serve to win this case, the very idea that computer code constitutes a form of "expressive" work is rediculous. A piece of code is no more expressive than an accountant's books or a differential equation.
Computing is not an art, it is a science governed by mathematical laws and logical premises. There is no creativity involved, merely a process of logical deduction and algorithmic optimization. Programmers aren't artists - they're much more like engineers. Anyone who goes on about how coding is a "creative exercise" is lacking something in their life and probably needs to get out some more - go to an art gallery and see something that is expressive.
No matter how you try and put it, a piece of code does not share any similatities to a poem, and a programmer does not share any similarities to a poet. Coding is just a process, not a work of art.
---
Jon E. Erikson
BTW can you suck your testicles up into your body cavity at will? The ancient Romans could. But since it no longer serves a purpose, the ability has been "bred out" of humans (as is the ability to wiggle you ears) so that today, almost no one can do it.
Do you have a link for the testicles thing? Never heard of that before...
---
Jon E. Erikson
Evolution is a FACT.
No it's not, it's a theory. Special relativity, something with a much firmer scientific background and base of evidence, is also a theory. Of course, if you have an undisputable proof of evolution then please share it with us.
It has been PROVEN to exist. We've WATCHED IT HAPPEN.
No, you've watched natural selection occur. From what I know of the theory, evolution is supposed to take place across thousands of years. I very much doubt you are old enough to have watched it happen.
Whether or not you are able to accept the proof of your eyes, the truth of the Creation is out there for all to see. If your precious "evolution" is true, then explain to me how it can account for both the human eye and the human soul.
---
Jon E. Erikson