Let me just fire up the old time-traveling device, calibrate it for the "2600 and EG looses court case", and see what pops out...
Ah, here we are...
2600 - The Hacker Quarterly
Editor's Corner
Hello! This is the new editor, Jack Valenti, welcoming you to the exciting first issue of 2600 after the MPAA's recent Supreme Court victory over Mr. Corely (his real name wasn't Emmanuel Goldstein, you know). I think you'll be very excited about the changes. For one, we're switching to a full color format, at the request of our new advertisers from Verizon and Intel, and making the magazine much larger, so you can find it much easier on the store shelves. But not for long, soon we will be offering the magazine only by subscribtion, so, if you want to continue getting all this excellent news and information, please send your name, address, age, telephone number, email address, and a sample of hair to the address below, and we'll get you on the special supscriber list.
I think you'll be very excited about the quality of the new arctiles. We're no longer printing any random submission, only the best articles from giants of the technology world. Some of our upcoming articles:
Watermarking of Digital Music - You can help decide what can't be broken! (Hillary Rosen)
New Security features in Win2000 - It's no longer hackable! (Bill Gates)
How to get DSL (What houses are for sale within 100 ft of the Central Office)
Why would you surf naked? (Why open-source software is insecure)
...
...Sorry, I can't transcribe anymore. I have to call this number and get the new McAfee FireStorm Digital Baricade!!! They say it's completely hack-proof!!!
Excellent - you said everything I wanted to say, and more. But why did you post as an AC? None of the moderators will lay eyes on it, and the "DIY" message will end up being a +5, while this one sticks around 0.
I seem to remember a big campaign to lessen people's fears about filling out the forms. They were trying to ensure that everyone, including illegal aliens and those paranoid of privacy invasions, would fill out their census without fear of the information being used against them. They would often go on the air and state that it was illegal to share specific personal information with any other part of the government.
It may be that Honorable Gentleman from Florida is talking out of his ass, but this is disturbing, if he can get it to go through. It would be a direct violation of trust.
Confidentiality
Protection of Confidential Information -- Sections 9 and 214 of Title 13
Sec. 9. Information as confidential; exception
(a) Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer or employee of the
Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local government
census liaison may, except as provided in section 8 or 16 or chapter 10
of this title or section 210 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998.(1)
(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of
this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which
it is supplied; or
(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any
particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified;
or
(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees
of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual
reports. No department, bureau, agency, officer, or employee of the
Government, except the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of this title,
shall require, for any reason, copies of census reports which have been
retained by any such establishment or individual. Copies of census reports
which have been so retained shall be immune from legal process, and shall
not, without the consent of the individual or establishment concerned,
be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or
other judicial or administrative proceeding.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section relating to
the confidential treatment of data for particular individuals and establishments,
shall not apply to the censuses of governments provided for by subchapter
III of chapter 5 of this title, nor to interim current data provided for
by subchapter IV of chapter 5 of this title as to the subjects covered
by censuses of governments, with respect to any information obtained therefor
that is compiled from, or customarily provided in, public records.
Sec. 214. Wrongful disclosure of information
Whoever, being or having been an employee or staff member referred
to in subchapter II of chapter 1 of this title, having taken and subscribed
the oath of office, or having sworn to observe the limitations imposed
by section 9 of this title, or whoever, being or having been a census liaison
within the meaning of section 16(2) of
this title, publishes or communicates any information, the disclosure of
which is prohibited under the provisions of section 9 of this title, and
which comes into his possession by reason of his being employed (or otherwise
providing services) under the provisions of this title, shall be fined
not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
1. The Census Address List Improvement Act of
1994, P.L. 103-430 amends section 9(a) by inserting "or local government
census liaison" and adding references to section 16. P.L. 105-119, the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, adds the reference to section 210.
2. The Census Address List Improvement Act of
1994 (P.L. 103-430) amends section 214 making references to section 16
and "census liaisons."
So people, stop saying not voting is USEFUL for anything!
Saige is correct. As far as I know, only one candidate is trying for the vote of the "non-voters" (Nader), and his strategy seems to be to make the 5% goal rather than even try to win. The candidates are all going for the "undecided voter", the operative word being VOTER, even though the non-voters outnumber them 100 to 1. They will consistantly ignore the opinions of the non-voters, because it is a waste of time and energy. The declared non-voter's opinion would, from a political perspective, be about as worthless as a random foriegner's opinion.
There is even evidence that both sides like the low voter turnout. I've heard the opinion that the Clinton centrist strategy developed by Dick Morris works only in a low voter turnout situation, and that rain on election day hurts the candidates who are challenging incumbents (some people won't bother going out and voting during a storm).
I think it's noble to try to send a message, but these are politicians - subtlety doesn't work that well. Instead, send a message by voting for the candidate that best suits you - and then write letters or email, telling them what doesn't suit you. Anything else is an ivory (or electronic) tower idea, that may look good on the screen, but doesn't translate well to real life.
There has been a lot of talk about how the major candidates have basically ignored the issues that are important to us, or worse, came out with positions that are completely opposite to our own (such as Bush's statement about the Internet turning hearts dark, and both major candidates support of filters and monitoring devices).
There is a good reason for this - we don't vote. The other groups - senior citizens, minorities, unions, even the undecided idiots - will all go to the polls that Tuesday, and support the candidate that speak to them. Because they have an excellent track record for voting, the candidates actively seek their vote, and spend some time and money learning about the groups.
Young people, however, appear to have the shortest political attention span ever. They don't really seem to know what issues they want to fight for, and are only motivated for a short period of time. Any politician who has worked with young Americans quickly learn that there is a minority that will vote reliably and even help with campaigns, but that the majority will vote on gut feelings, for or against their parents, forget to go to the polls, or put it off until the last minute ("Maybe I'll go right after the Simpsons.")
Traditionally, young Americans are the doers rather than the voters. We love pitching in on a cause for a day, supporting rallies, going to war, and writing comments on online forums, but don't have the willpower to really do poltical acts with a lasting impact.
I'm fairly disheartened by the candidates, because, even though I intend to vote, I'll probably be voting against candidates rather than for candidates. Since I'm in Oklahoma, I can't even write in Nader to stage an effective protest vote. But I will vote, and I plan to vote in every election, and make sure my representives know that I'm a voter.
I'm encouraging all those out there to do the same, and to follow the lead of all those other political action groups out there - make yourself heard. This means voting, but it also means letting those you voted into office know who got them there. Everyone should have their representatives' email addresses in their address books. Everytime you get really angry about something you read here, you should fire off an email to your representative, knowing how one of his voters and taxpayers feels on the issues. Otherwise, we'll get what we have now - a political landscape formed by the retired, the "family guys", and the corporations.
Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox now. I'd love to hear any other ideas for getting the tech voice heard.
(I doubt anyone but you will actually see this, but here it goes...)
As for war, well, the most devestating wars we have known were propagated not by the youth, but by the elders in politics.
This is the common sense argument, that poets and young protesters love to throw around, but check this out: Two researchers, Mesquida and Wiener, have found that there is a strong correlation between the youth population in a country and it's propensity to go to war.
I haven't found a great link on the article, but try searchin g on Mesquida and Wiener, or look at this article,and skip ahead to "Young Men More Likely to Wage War". This last article states:
According to Weiner, a critical factor in the escalation from conflict to violence, is the percentage of young, unmarried males in a population. He and co-author Christian Mesquida studied the demographics of 153 nations since the 1960s, comparing those that have remained peaceful and those that have been at war. Turns out, there is a difference
"Whenever young people represent a relatively small portion of the population... times are relatively tranquil," they wrote in their study. "But when a large portion of a country's population is young there is likely to be turmoil and political violence."
Examples include the Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, even the former Yugoslavia.
Aggressive wars seem to happen when the percentage of young men -- ages 15 to 29 -- reaches 35 to 55 percent of the adult male population. "I think that young males are hard-wired to form groups... and under the right circumstances, to act aggressively in groups," Wiener says.
If Wiener is right, some areas ripe for conflict are China and India -- the world's two most populous nations -- as well as Pakistan, parts of the Middle East and Africa.
There is an enlightening set of numbers toward the end of the article, which shows the relative percentage of young males to the rest of the population, and demonstrates this strong correlation.
I think the "old men sending the young into battle" idea comes from the few politicians that recognize the youth unrest and ride it to power (look at the role of the Hitler Youth in Nazi Germany, the young men in most Middle East conflicts, and, to a certain extent, the students at Tienneman Square)
I was reading the Onion/AV Club interview with Emo Phillips (read it here), and he mentions a theory, that we still have that chimp portion of our brain that tells us, we may be the leader of the pack, until we get to middle age or so. Then the other monkeys perceive weakness, and tear apart the leader to make room for another. That particular gene memory turns on around middle age, and we start laying low, and getting out of the way.
I've been thinking about age issues lately (only 23 myself), and wondering why there are age limits built into the Constitution (I believe you have to be 40 or so). Originally, I thought it was because you were supposed to be older and wiser, but in light of this possible genetic memory, is it something else?
Many may have noticed that revolutionary, genius-level work seems to be done in a person's youth, and they become less revolutionary as adults. Linus invented Linux at a young age, Einstien discovered relativity fairly young, Alexander did all of his conquering before 30, and most of the slashdotter's are probably on the young end of the scale.
Is it possible that politics is the realm of the older types? That young people are much more self-assertive, interested in controlling themselves, and pushing their limits, rather than asserting control through cultural means? Think of just about any government, and it's the older who lead, and the younger who do stuff - go to war, innovate, riot, and act idealistically.
It's not just "artifical" governments like the US, but even natural ones - most primative tribes are lead by the elders, the Mafia bosses are often the oldest ones, the President of the company is often the oldest one there, etc.
Anyway, I don't have time right now to develop this line of thinking, but I would like some feedback, whether it strikes a chord or not. And, if you could, attach your age.
I don't personally have access to a filter program - can someone take a look at the official campaign site (www.georgebush.com) and see if if blocks out the "Dick" in Dick Cheney and the "Bush" in George Bush?
I apologize, I gave you my 2 minute debate answer and not my 10 minute essay answer, because I only had the two minutes to spare. I agree with your criticism and PK's , and I think moderation was working in this case - your comment got a 5, mine just has a 2. Anyway, I've got some more time, so here's the longer version:
Your experience is the experience of several other Slashdotters, including myself. I, too, was in the high-school classes that drilled actual knowledge and understanding instead of rote memorization and relying on developed tools. Often, however, the path to understanding was through memorization, and we were required for the math classes to have advanced calculator models (TI-82, though many opted for the more advanced versions). As I understand it, the best classes haven't changed - The teacher goes through the theory, creating the proofs along the way, and tries to determine if he or she explained it adequately. We then test this theoretical knowledge through problems, working from trivial problems to the advanced ones. The tests came in two flavors - endurance tests where we had to prove we could solve average problems in a timely manner, and brain twisters, that tested our knowledge of the theory.
Although this seems to describe a math class, it was the method used in other classes as well. In Chorus, we practiced the scales and learned harmonies for songs we already knew, but also had to practice reading sheet music cold, trying out for a part, and doing solo work. In English classes, we had to comment on classic works (often enlightened by the best of the critical essays), but also try our own hands at writing short stories. In history, we proved we had memorized the facts, but also that we understood the arguments, by trying to argue from their perspective (it was interesting to write a fictional letter from a papist official who agreed with the condemning of Galileo, and it was certainly enlightening). Those of us who recognize that we received a good education treasure these memories, and pity those whose memories of school were just trying to get through the day, either because the work was not challenging or incomprehensible.
Perhaps you had the same experience I had going to college - disappointment. I expected that only the best and brightest from high schools would make it, that it would be a place that, for once, learning would be the highest goal, and the lesser considerations - social life, athletics, and trouble-making were low on my personal list - would be put in their place. I found that college, in many respects, was worse than high school - at least in my freshman opinion.
I was appalled by the reliance on calculators and computers in my first few math classes (I retook calculus, because I thought it would be harder and/or purer in college - I should had known better after the first day). It seems there has been a "revolution" in higher math education, where the old theory-based style has been replaced with a greater reliance on graphs and computers, which are supposed to complement the material. In my opinion, your worst fear comes true - most students approach problems as a data-entry exercise, to try to get the tools to come up with the correct answer.
Now, I used the tools and the calculators, but I believe I was using them in the spirit first intended. For difficult problems, I could manipulate the tools to give me the right answer, then, secure in knowing my destination, I could work toward it, using the theory. If I had an intuitive insight, I could back it up by calculating several important points across the domain with relative ease. Finally, I could turn that math into pretty pictures, which is what the real world wants, anyway.
I've come to the realization that the same technology can be used as a crutch for the average guy, a tool for the above-average person, and a stepping stone for the gifted. In any engineering class, 75% of the people will be using those laptops to do the work for them, 20% will be using them in the spirit intended, and 5% will be writing the next generation of tools. If we went back to slide rulers, it would be the same way. (Feel free to play with those numbers to fit your own beliefs)
What the new tools does do is allow the average student to access much more difficult problems, the above average student to do the harder problems even more efficiently, and the gifted ones to create better tools and abstractions. And I believe this is a Good Thing, even if it causes the ranks of the average to swell. With the world the way it is, we need all those average folks, and, if we can give them better tools to make their data entry easier and more efficient, more power to them.
Further, I think it is unrealistic for us to expect that everyone has to be some sort of renaissance man or philosopher king. I'm very happy that I can program away without really understanding set theory or number theory, beyond what I need so that binary math makes sense. Someday, I may go back to school and pick up those missing pieces in Math and Physics, so that I really understand my tool of choice inside and out. But for now, I'm happy in state of partial ignorance, using computers I understand more than most but less than some. I'll leave it to the kernel programmers and the materials engineers at AMD for now, and pick up what I need when I need it.
At the same time, I understand that the true innovations come from vertical knowledge, and that most of my knowledge is in the horizontal dimension, and that some day I may change that (sorry if that made no sense).
Re-reading your initial comment, I realize I wasn't aiming my comment at you, but the extremist who thinks new tech is Bad because the users don't even understand what they are doing, because it gets results without work. I have to think that our opinions are a lot closer than I first thought.
Do you see why sometimes I go for the short answers?
Wow, they are still arguing that line? I've heard it before:
"Og, if we use speech, then others may hear what we are saying! In my day, hand signals were better."
"If we teach all the kids how to write, they will never develop their memory! It was a lot better when I was younger, and we could remember whole epics."
"If the people stop believing in the gods, then everyone will be immoral! It was a lot better in my day, when people had proper respect for the religion of their elders!"
"If we have a democracy, then people will loose their responsibility, and just vote themselves benefits! It was a lot better when we had a king, who could act in the state's best interests."
"If we teach that we came from animals, then people will act like animals! It was a lot better in my day, when it was something special to be a human..."
"Slide rules are cheating! In my day, we did long division by hand, and quickly!"
"Calculators are cheating! If a kid doesn't learn the slide rule, then he'll never get a good grasp on logarithms!!!"
Anyway, you can probably come up with your own list. I've heard it so many times, I'd like to give it a name, like "Flibbert", so, when I hear it, I can just say, "Oh, you're just being a Flibbert!", and they can say, "Well, you're just being a knee-jerk AntiFlibbert!", and someone else would say, "You know, you are both right...", and me and the Flibbert can just say "Syntha-Flibbert!" And so on...
(Sorry, drifted off into Marxist Thesis-Antithesis-Synthethis for a second there...)
Much has been said in the press and in the televised debates about the promise and perils of the Internet. As technology junkies, we are concerned that lawmakers and politicians may not have the same understanding of the technology as those "in the trenches".
How much time do you spend using computers, and what qualifies your technology advisors (assuming you have some)?
I work in aircraft simulation, and we have a saying - With enough money, we can make this building fly, but you may not like the bill. It's one of the standard lines we use when our customer asks for an unreasonably expensive feature. I think "unbreakable security" is one of these unreasonably expensive features, but it is possible. Consider:
For each music owner, hire six men. Three will guard the music collection itself, in 8 hour shifts (The media guards). The other three will guard the music owner (the personal guards). Each time the music owner requests to play music, the personal guard on duty requests the receipt, and, since he's been following the user around, he knows he didn't make a counterfeit. The personal guard then informs the media guard that he can start playing the media. The user can then enjoy his music, knowing that he is fully supporting the artist, the record company, and is gainfully employing at least six people.
Of course, this may get expensive. Let's put the hourly wage at $6.50, for 8 hours a day, 356 days a year, times 6 (no adjustment for inflation, no figuring of rising minimum wage. Let's say the RCIA encrypts the contract, so that it can't be broken). This comes to $18,980 a year per person, or $113,800 per year for the security system. Let's also assume an effective copyright of 50 years, which bring the total to $5,694,000. While this doesn't include travel expenses, benefits, health or dental, I'm assuming the record company could foot the bill, since they are reaping the benefits of lowered piracy. And this doesn't include the huge bonuses for informing on co-workers and owners, to lower the problems of bribery. Oh, and add $.56 for the cost of the media.
Now, $5,694,000.56 may sound like a lot for one CD, but you are buying the security system as well, to ensure that the record company is not the victim of piracy. Perhaps once you have the system, the incremental cost can go down, to, perhaps, $100 per CD (extra accounting costs to manage all those receipts). This way, once you've bought 100 CDs, the cost per CD is only $57,039.01, and you know the artists and record companies are being compensated for their work.
Remember, if they decide the implement the Totally Secure Media System (TSMS), I have prior art, and should get at least 1% royalty.
Politicians must think we are idiots. There is no other reason to explain why they keep pushing ideas like "Media violence causes real-life violence". And yes, I think both candidates are to blame.
Let us assume that media violence does cause real life violence. There are then three logical solutions: self-censorship, targeted censorship, and broad censorship.
For self-censorship, the media providers would self-regulate, and not release products with a certain level of violence. The ratings system is a good example, but it primarily works for sex (in the US). If a filmmaker puts in a scene that it too "sexual", the ratings board threatens an NC-17 rating, and the film-makers self-censor for the R rating (with perhaps an unrated DVD for later release). In the UK, they have a similar scheme for violent films. Hollywood could promise to link ratings more closely to violence levels, but it seems doubtful they will do this, since violent flicks are fairly profitable.
In targeted censorship, the film industry would have to actively enforce ratings. This means you would have to show an ID at the movie theater and at Blockbuster to prove you are able to see a rated R or NC-17 movie. But it also means an ID system for kids, to prove the PG-13 level. To really enforce the ratings, they would have to be made law, which brings up all sorts of censorship problems (ACLU, anyone?). It wouldn't change much, since parents who care about rating wouldn't let their children see the movie anyway. For the parents that don't care, they would simply be annoyed when security calls them and says their kid was trying to sneak into the latest teen flick. Not to mention the strain on the juvenile justice system, if it has to handle cases of kids trying to get into rated R movies.
In broad censorship, the government would ban movies deemed too violent. If a federal ratings system is enacted, and violent movies were expanded to "X" ratings, so they could only be shown at "adult" theaters, then this would be effective censorship. Again, I doubt it will come to this, and I'd hate to see what kind of movies get made with this kind of system. I doubt it would survive a Supreme Court review.
Now, let's assume for a moment, that our president wants to pursue one of these options. He can't pass laws without Congress's approval, and, with the Democratic party getting a lot of money from the entertainment industry, I doubt a bill would even pass his desk. They wouldn't come out and say that they are doing it for money, but instead that they are doing it for Free Speech, and because of the weak statistical correlations. They might be right, but not for honest reasons.
He can't really pressure the industry into self-censorship or targeted censorship either, without the threat of law as an alternative.
So, it is A COMPLETELY SAFE ISSUE TO CAMPAIGN ON!!! It gets the voter riled up, makes people think you are the moral candidate, gets you points with the anti-media types, but with ZERO risk of having to fight for the issue! You can "fight" all day, taking the moral high road, knowing that you will never really have to put your ass on the line, or live with the consequences.
The other thing that really pisses me off is gun control. The one thing the executive office can do is enforce the laws on the books, and most gun control laws don't get enforced. This is the one thing Clinton could have done, but instead he attempts to pass new ones. Why? You pass a new law, you can claim credit for any larger society trends. You simply enforce laws, and, while there may be results, your opponents can claim you are taking credit for societal trends. So instead, choose visible signs, such as X thousand more cops, sign laws to close loopholes and enforce them for only 4 or 8 years, yada yada. End result - gun control issue of the day, but never real gun control.
As I said, I'm pretty sure that politicians assume we're idiots, and campaign on issues that they don't have to take risk on (Medicare / Social Security Good, Guns/Media Bad, Moral Values, Character, Rhetoric style), instead of coming up with the best solutions for the problem.
When will an engineer / computer science guy get elected president, rather than these marketing / legal / pointy-haired types?
The Word suicide wizard is quite funny. I loved it the first time I saw it, and had to fire up Word to see if it was really there. There's a letter wizard, of course, but not a Suicide Note wizard. I was sad.
Now, the second time I've seen it, I noticed something - the options are "Pills", "Jump", and "Pastry". Pastry? Not only do those guys at Microsoft add a suicide wizard, but they use one option no one would want to use, and leave off "gun"! It's an excellent paraody of the lame help the Clip gives you over time. I think it's an idea Microsoft may not even get right by version 3.0.
I actually agreed with a lot that Katz is saying, but I think he assumed too much - that his definition of flamers was the same as everyone else's, for instance, which cause many to disagree with his ideas. I would have liked a better definition of flaming, instead of just "see below for some examples".
I think there are different levels of free speech. I would categorize them by the morality of the message vs. the risk to the speaker. For instance:
The students at Tienneman Square: While these students were not protected by free speech, their message (at least to Westerners) was basically moral, while the risk was very great. One of the greatest images is the student standing in front of the tank, who was probably killed for his act of protest.
Martin Luther King, Ghandi: While their speech was, to a certain extent, protected by the government, they broke unjust laws, and were arrested, as part of their basically moral message. While not by the government, both were executed for their stances.
Larry Flynt: The guy's probably been in court more than King or Ghandi - although many disagree with what he's selling, he has fought for it, defended it, at great personal risk.
Winston Churchill: His message may have not been that moral, but if all flamers were as witty - also, when someone was insulted, they knew exactly who did it, and could respond in kind.
The Press: They definitely take some legal risk when they run a story on a private or public citizen. However, they are not on the same legal footing as the people they attack, so I have to say they are a bit low on the risk scale. For an example, see Salon on the Washington Post's handling of the Wen Ho Lee case.
Most Internet posts: People may think the world revolves on their discussions, but in reality, little changes. Little risk to the debaters, except to their online personas. With the weird, backwards laws, the host of the discussion takes more risk than the participants.
Anonymous Threats: May have something to say, but take no risk themselves, and don't try to attack on an equal footing with the victim.
Obviously, this is not a complete list, but gives us a way to compare flammers in response to, say, this article:
Jon Katz: A fair amount of risk, especially given his history as a flame target. And, I'm guessing, he's using his real name.
Respondents with real info: These people respond (flames or otherwise), with their real names and contact info, and take on a bit of risk, but not as much as the headliner.
Respondents without real info: They respond, but not even with a real email address. They take little risk to their online persona.
Anonymous Cowards: Zero risk, even to their online persona.
IMHO, flaming is OK if the flamer takes as much risk as the flamee, and that the two are on equal footing.
Great website! I'm suprised you resisted the temptation to classify Katz as a Profundus Maximus, a Philosopher, or just a Target. Since I'm an Eagle Scout, I won't even guess myself.
Had Rob said, "Signal 11 incorrectly believes that I implemented the karma cap to spite him. He's spreading false information that it's only applied to certain accounts." it would have been much different. Not only is it more informative than "Signal 11 is an idiot," it would also make Rob look like the better man.
If Rob was publishing some official statement on the "Signal 11 controversy", then perhaps I would expect him to use this language. However, this was an online chat, and, to a certain extent, I would expect it to follow the rules of regular conversations - always try to say things diplomatically, but a slip of the tongue or an outburst of emotion is regrettable but forgivable.
I find it disturbing that, even here, everyone's words are being used against them, like a court of law. I remember, back when I first discovered the Internet, I loved that you could put your best foot forward. I could think overnight about a response on a newsgroup, and really put my idea into the best words possible. I silently agreed with the flames against misspellers and those who didn't research the facts, not because I thought they were idiots, but because they didn't take full advantage of the medium, didn't use a spell checker, and didn't search on the web for 5 minutes to do a sanity check on their idea.
Even today, when a well-meaning co-worker sends out a virus alert or get-rich-quick-scheme, I quickly put out a rebuttal with the proper web site link, but then send a slightly longer personal message telling the originator how I found it was a hoax - I feel it's a duty of mine, to instruct others in the power of these new tools, rather to insult them as newbies and idiots.
However, I see more and more people trying to make others eat their words, simply because technology allows them to become etched in silicon. Al Gore is constantly harassed about saying he "created the Internet", while what he said was slightly different ("During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"), and
lots of folks have defended him since then, including Vinton Cerf. George Bush, Jr. gets his own ribbing for various slips of the tongue (including my favorite non-event from the campaign, the so-called "RATS" subliminal message). Indeed, most of politics seems to be an endurance race, to see who can go the longest without saying something wrong and/or stupid. Which may explain why so little gets said these days...
I guess it goes back to Nixon, when he was caught on tape saying some truly awful things. It had a dual political purpose - on one hand, it gave some evidence to the Watergate investigators, but on the other hand, it gave a window into the man's personal life, highlighting some deep flaws.
This may be where the problem is - the press has gotten the impression that it's in the slips of the tongue and the political mistakes that we find the true character of a person, and are constantly trying to get past the "surface" and find the flaws of the "true" person. We have bought into the idea, and are berating Rob for one statement, which may be damning out of context, but completely human if taken in context.
Stop playing the "I caught you!" game, and start treating people like humans, flawed but forgivable. (And sorry, dboyles, for a comment more directed to the community than your comment).
I have a bit of affection for the processed tree packets myself, but I'll be the first to buy an e-book reader, when it has the capabilities I'm looking for. I really think it's a matter of adding functionality to the written word, rather than just e-converting existing material.
Interactive fiction and all that sounds like the multimedia CDs that came out with the first CD-ROM drives - all fluff and "gee-whiz look at the new tech!!!" It wasn't for a while that people understood that flash and animations did not make content. E-books, once it becomes cheap enough, will go through a phase like that, trying to add web links and photos of the author, etc. Eventually, however, they should add the quality content that the better DVD's have - good packaging, behind-the-scenes stuff, maybe background notes or a volume specific dictionary. That volume of Crime and Punishment may look a lot like the romance novel, but you could look at the Russian side-by-side, maybe with some translator's notes to add to your experience.
Once we get past the liscensing problems, I'd like to see a general-purpose USB port as well. You could slide next to that cute girl, link up, and take a look at what she's reading, as well as get an email address. When I get kids, I could link my daughter's e-book, and read a children's book off my e-book while images and large-type words went by on her screen.
In short, e-books have a great deal of potential - but they are mostly just potential right now. Today, I'm on your side, happy with thumbing through the pages. Eventually though, I'll trade it in for a set of light LCD screens, and probably never look back.
To buy stock or not to buy stock. And, if you do, is it for good financial reasons based on industry knowledge, or should it be considered a charitable contribution for a good cause?
I'm in agreement that we may be working off a flawed assumption. But I doubt just changing where we are looking (in the EM spectrum) will make too much of a difference - the band we are using is probably good enough for our purposes.
The Scientific American article (which, by the way, was from a previous issue. If you are not subscribed, you are really missing out) mentions a rough classification of alien civilizations (see sidebar to the main article). Type I civiliations (like ours) have the resources of their home planet to use in sending out EM signals. Type II civs have the resources of the entire system (the solar system, in our case) for signals, and Type III have the entire galaxy to use to send out EM signals. If Type III civs were out there and sending our radio beams, we would know by now. Nearly the same for Type II, so now we are looking for Type I's, who are doing pretty much the same thing we are - sending out narrowly focused beams, sweeping the sky, or just leaking out signal (radio, TV, whatever).
The assumption that some of the signal would leak out or be intentionally aimed at us has guided most SETI projects. However, is this really the case? In the last century, we may have had unfocused EM signals spraying all over the place, but for how long? It appears that our communication channels are starting to become more focused and efficent through the use of cables and focused, line-of-site EM. Even cellular phones, which still use EM propagation in the air, are short-range devices. How many of the products sold today would, in normal operation, produce signals detectable from Pluto, much less from light-years away? With commuinication devices heading for higher-bandwidth applications, I don't see this trend abating. I can imagine, by this time next century, the whole planet is using cabled or focused communication, so that the aliens would have to wander between the Moon and Earth to discover a narrowly focused communication channel. They may notice runway lights first.
This reasoning may eliminate any hope of discovering everyday communication signals from alien civilizations. But we should still search, in the hope that other civilizations are as interested in making contact as us. We have to assume that their scientists are thinking the same way we are, and are searching in "logical" bandwidths for good carrier signals, as well as transmitting powerful signals on these channels. Although we may be looking in the wrong place now, eventually we will have the funding and technology for powerful, broadband searches across the spectrum. At the same time, we may just be lucky and find ET tommorrow.
These days, a majority of the computer experience has to do with acclimating yourself to the analogies and methods used by the operating system. The Windows user has to get used to a whole bunch of concepts, such as: windows, scroll bars, menus, the Help menu, shortcuts keys, left-clicking, right-clicking, dragging, double-clicking, minimizing, maximizing, folders, shortcuts, the desktop, the recycling bin, My Computer, Network Neighborhood, icons, the many power buttons, the Start menu, etc., etc.
This creates a learning curve that a person has to get over to use an operating system. My grandma still hasn't really gotten there, but she knows enough to check her email and write simple documents. Once she understands the basic concept, it isn't so much of a leap to learn a new piece of software. She knows how to start it (navigate through the Start Menu), she knows how to save her work (File->Save, or that little disk icon), and she knows where to get help (Help->Contents->Index, type keywords). She may still need help, but soon she's internalized the interface, and it gets easier.
It's not as hard as using your first computer, but it's HARD to try to use a new operating system. I am a wintel user, and had to support the school newspaper's Mac network, and had a hell of a time figuring out how to find online help, add items to the menus, buy network cables, and use that mouse (where the hell's my second button!?!). There were "new user" instructions, but they were for my Grandma. What I wanted were new user instructions for a real user of a wintel setup, answering my questions, such as "How do I transfer files to my wintel system?" and "Where is the control panel?". Yes, they are stupid questions, but I did want some hand-holding as I became a Mac and Wintel user.
Linux has a similar problem. It's written by Unix types, for Unix types, which is very different than Wintel types. I'm sure there are tech guys out there, like me, who want to try out Linux, but have to work their 8 hour days as well. That means a dual boot setup, with all the problems that implies. It took me a full day of limping my way through LILO documentation to figure out where my WinNT bootup had gone, and what I needed to do to get it back. Not to mention I had to reformat the drive to get Linux in the first 1024 blocks. All while using emacs for the first time while editing lilo.config ("Where the hell is the File menu? Why doesn't Alt-F work!?! I wish I had EDIT!).
Because of the new paradigms, and the learning curves for basic tools and concepts, Linux is as hard (if not harder) to learn than other operating systems. It is hard, even for tech guys, to learn a new system from scratch. Now try to get the mid-range or brain-dead users to do the same. It may be free, and be easier to maintain in the long run, but a business changing operating systems would loose a good two weeks of productivity, and may not see any gains for years. Until the path from Windows to Linux or Windows to Macs is better defined and proven, few will walk that path.
I thought something similar for a while. Except that the result is not just insulting, but damaging.
Back when this whole thing started, Judge Kaplan ordered 2600 to remove the DeCSS code from the web site. Emmanuel Goldstein made a hard decision to comply with the order. The alternative would have been to practice civil disobedience, to refuse and get himself thrown in jail. Although it may have made people think of King or Ganhdi, it was more likely that the MPAA and Valenti would have successfully spun it in their favor. The media was certainly leaning that way, anyway, so 2600 had to appear to be fighting the good fight, keeping it nice and legal.
The same injunction scared off most of the other defendants, into settling separately and keeping themselves out of court. This ruling will now prohibit linking, despite the fact it may not hold up in a higher court. With the ruling, the MPAA has the clout it needs to go after other sites, which will probably bow out and let 2600 do all the fighting.
Judge Kaplan's decision gave the impression that the MPAA won, which gives them the freedom to say all sorts of things , such as that the DMCA has been proven to be constitutional, that DeCSS is only a tool for piracy, and that the 2600 group are just hackers, like the hackers that brought us the Melissa and Love Bug viruses. In the minds of many non-technical citizens (which is still the voting majority), as well as lawmakers, this is now the truth.
This is not a judge wimping out, or a sly tactical move. This move ignores the big issues (copyright, reverse engineering, Free Speech), and delivers a victory to the MPAA and corporate interests. It gains the MPAA a large slice of public opinion, and makes the opposition feel a little more desperate. Maybe Kaplan isn't hoping for the higher-ups to make the decision for him, but instead for some pissed-off teenager to start doing rash things, like breaking into the MPAA site, or posting movies to his web page with a message like "F**K MPAA! I USED DeCSS TO CRACK THE MATRIX! POWER TO 2600!", so that the MPAA will actually have evidence that DeCSS was used for pirating.
I hope 2600 wins the next round, and eventually in the Supreme Court, but I'm sure he's aware that his own fans may be his biggest liability. I hope they can restrain themselves.
"and it's hard to see the writing through the flames." - Flaming Lips
When I get the symptoms of burn out, I take a small time out, and start listing the tasks I have to complete. I often find that the problem is not the difficulty or complexity of the problem, but the sheer number of tasks. I read or heard somewhere that the human mind can only juggle 5 or 6 ideas at a time, and that more than that becomes overwhelming. I don't know about the rest of you, but it's very true for myself.
Often, I'll find that it's not even programming tasks, it's just I have too many other things. If my list looks like this:
1: Implement a file transfer mechanism to the machine older than me 2: Solve a defect in someone else's code 3: Bath the dogs 4: Get some milk 5: Renew my car tags 6: Get a haircut 7: Get my mom a birthday card
then the simple number of "everyday" tasks will overwhelm the programming tasks, and I'll get nothing done! The only thing to do is take a few hours, clear tasks off the list, and come back with a "managable" number of tasks. Or just make the list, so your brain isn't always swapping memory to disk.
That's why, while on site, I can write hundreds of lines of code a day, clear tons of errors, and write pages of documentation, but when I get back in the office, I find it hard to even make 1 line changes. It's a different world, when you have to do your own laundry, cook meals, be social, etc.
It's a shame life gets in the way of code sometimes, but you got to take a holistic approach.
I almost agree with this guy, rant or not. Except, when I move to a new system, and I can't figure out what the commands are.
For instance, the first few times I used Unix, I really wanted to delete temporary files. So I try "del file.txt". No luck. I remember that there's online help, if I type "man keyword" (who knows what man means). But "man delete" won't help, because it's expecting you to search for "remove"!
I don't think there's a such thing as a "natural" interface, CLI or GUI, just like there's no such thing as ideal beauty - while there may be some general absolutes, it's often just a cultural thing. It's more important to offer clean interfaces, where power is exchanged for simplicity. I'd much rather have a multi-level operating system, where the top level is very user friendly, but a power user could dive down to the level he or she wanted and was most comfortable at. The user could also determine what level they wanted to be at by default (sometimes I can get useful info out of a GPF). And any time a user has to dive through two levels to complete a task, it should be considered a failure of the interface.
Anyone who thinks differently should spend the weekend getting an elderly relative to try to use a computer for the first time. Then they'll get a real taste of how simple their interface is. Windows doesn't even have a mouse tutorial!
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, here we are...
Editor's Corner
Hello! This is the new editor, Jack Valenti, welcoming you to the exciting first issue of 2600 after the MPAA's recent Supreme Court victory over Mr. Corely (his real name wasn't Emmanuel Goldstein, you know). I think you'll be very excited about the changes. For one, we're switching to a full color format, at the request of our new advertisers from Verizon and Intel, and making the magazine much larger, so you can find it much easier on the store shelves. But not for long, soon we will be offering the magazine only by subscribtion, so, if you want to continue getting all this excellent news and information, please send your name, address, age, telephone number, email address, and a sample of hair to the address below, and we'll get you on the special supscriber list.
I think you'll be very excited about the quality of the new arctiles. We're no longer printing any random submission, only the best articles from giants of the technology world. Some of our upcoming articles:
Watermarking of Digital Music - You can help decide what can't be broken! (Hillary Rosen)
New Security features in Win2000 - It's no longer hackable! (Bill Gates)
How to get DSL (What houses are for sale within 100 ft of the Central Office)
Why would you surf naked? (Why open-source software is insecure)
Excellent - you said everything I wanted to say, and more. But why did you post as an AC? None of the moderators will lay eyes on it, and the "DIY" message will end up being a +5, while this one sticks around 0.
It may be that Honorable Gentleman from Florida is talking out of his ass, but this is disturbing, if he can get it to go through. It would be a direct violation of trust.
There is a direct answer to privacy concerns on the Census website, and, on another website, they quote the relevant US law:
Confidentiality Protection of Confidential Information -- Sections 9 and 214 of Title 13
Sec. 9. Information as confidential; exception
(a) Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local government census liaison may, except as provided in section 8 or 16 or chapter 10 of this title or section 210 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998.(1)
(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or
(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or
(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports. No department, bureau, agency, officer, or employee of the Government, except the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of this title, shall require, for any reason, copies of census reports which have been retained by any such establishment or individual. Copies of census reports which have been so retained shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the individual or establishment concerned, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section relating to the confidential treatment of data for particular individuals and establishments, shall not apply to the censuses of governments provided for by subchapter III of chapter 5 of this title, nor to interim current data provided for by subchapter IV of chapter 5 of this title as to the subjects covered by censuses of governments, with respect to any information obtained therefor that is compiled from, or customarily provided in, public records.
Sec. 214. Wrongful disclosure of information
Whoever, being or having been an employee or staff member referred to in subchapter II of chapter 1 of this title, having taken and subscribed the oath of office, or having sworn to observe the limitations imposed by section 9 of this title, or whoever, being or having been a census liaison within the meaning of section 16(2) of this title, publishes or communicates any information, the disclosure of which is prohibited under the provisions of section 9 of this title, and which comes into his possession by reason of his being employed (or otherwise providing services) under the provisions of this title, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
1. The Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994, P.L. 103-430 amends section 9(a) by inserting "or local government census liaison" and adding references to section 16. P.L. 105-119, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, adds the reference to section 210.
2. The Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-430) amends section 214 making references to section 16 and "census liaisons."
So people, stop saying not voting is USEFUL for anything!
Saige is correct. As far as I know, only one candidate is trying for the vote of the "non-voters" (Nader), and his strategy seems to be to make the 5% goal rather than even try to win. The candidates are all going for the "undecided voter", the operative word being VOTER, even though the non-voters outnumber them 100 to 1. They will consistantly ignore the opinions of the non-voters, because it is a waste of time and energy. The declared non-voter's opinion would, from a political perspective, be about as worthless as a random foriegner's opinion.
There is even evidence that both sides like the low voter turnout. I've heard the opinion that the Clinton centrist strategy developed by Dick Morris works only in a low voter turnout situation, and that rain on election day hurts the candidates who are challenging incumbents (some people won't bother going out and voting during a storm).
I think it's noble to try to send a message, but these are politicians - subtlety doesn't work that well. Instead, send a message by voting for the candidate that best suits you - and then write letters or email, telling them what doesn't suit you. Anything else is an ivory (or electronic) tower idea, that may look good on the screen, but doesn't translate well to real life.
There has been a lot of talk about how the major candidates have basically ignored the issues that are important to us, or worse, came out with positions that are completely opposite to our own (such as Bush's statement about the Internet turning hearts dark, and both major candidates support of filters and monitoring devices).
There is a good reason for this - we don't vote. The other groups - senior citizens, minorities, unions, even the undecided idiots - will all go to the polls that Tuesday, and support the candidate that speak to them. Because they have an excellent track record for voting, the candidates actively seek their vote, and spend some time and money learning about the groups.
Young people, however, appear to have the shortest political attention span ever. They don't really seem to know what issues they want to fight for, and are only motivated for a short period of time. Any politician who has worked with young Americans quickly learn that there is a minority that will vote reliably and even help with campaigns, but that the majority will vote on gut feelings, for or against their parents, forget to go to the polls, or put it off until the last minute ("Maybe I'll go right after the Simpsons.")
Traditionally, young Americans are the doers rather than the voters. We love pitching in on a cause for a day, supporting rallies, going to war, and writing comments on online forums, but don't have the willpower to really do poltical acts with a lasting impact.
I'm fairly disheartened by the candidates, because, even though I intend to vote, I'll probably be voting against candidates rather than for candidates. Since I'm in Oklahoma, I can't even write in Nader to stage an effective protest vote. But I will vote, and I plan to vote in every election, and make sure my representives know that I'm a voter.
I'm encouraging all those out there to do the same, and to follow the lead of all those other political action groups out there - make yourself heard. This means voting, but it also means letting those you voted into office know who got them there. Everyone should have their representatives' email addresses in their address books. Everytime you get really angry about something you read here, you should fire off an email to your representative, knowing how one of his voters and taxpayers feels on the issues. Otherwise, we'll get what we have now - a political landscape formed by the retired, the "family guys", and the corporations.
Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox now. I'd love to hear any other ideas for getting the tech voice heard.
(I doubt anyone but you will actually see this, but here it goes...)
... times are relatively tranquil," they wrote in their study. "But when a large portion of a country's population is young there is likely to be turmoil and political violence."
... and under the right circumstances, to act aggressively in groups," Wiener says.
As for war, well, the most devestating wars we have known were propagated not by the youth, but by the elders in politics.
This is the common sense argument, that poets and young protesters love to throw around, but check this out: Two researchers, Mesquida and Wiener, have found that there is a strong correlation between the youth population in a country and it's propensity to go to war.
I haven't found a great link on the article, but try searchin g on Mesquida and Wiener, or look at this article,and skip ahead to "Young Men More Likely to Wage War". This last article states:
According to Weiner, a critical factor in the escalation from conflict to violence, is the percentage of young, unmarried males in a population. He and co-author Christian Mesquida studied the demographics of 153 nations since the 1960s, comparing those that have remained peaceful and those that have been at war. Turns out, there is a difference
"Whenever young people represent a relatively small portion of the population
Examples include the Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, even the former Yugoslavia.
Aggressive wars seem to happen when the percentage of young men -- ages 15 to 29 -- reaches 35 to 55 percent of the adult male population. "I think that young males are hard-wired to form groups
If Wiener is right, some areas ripe for conflict are China and India -- the world's two most populous nations -- as well as Pakistan, parts of the Middle East and Africa.
There is an enlightening set of numbers toward the end of the article, which shows the relative percentage of young males to the rest of the population, and demonstrates this strong correlation.
I think the "old men sending the young into battle" idea comes from the few politicians that recognize the youth unrest and ride it to power (look at the role of the Hitler Youth in Nazi Germany, the young men in most Middle East conflicts, and, to a certain extent, the students at Tienneman Square)
...if it sticks.
I was reading the Onion/AV Club interview with Emo Phillips (read it here), and he mentions a theory, that we still have that chimp portion of our brain that tells us, we may be the leader of the pack, until we get to middle age or so. Then the other monkeys perceive weakness, and tear apart the leader to make room for another. That particular gene memory turns on around middle age, and we start laying low, and getting out of the way.
I've been thinking about age issues lately (only 23 myself), and wondering why there are age limits built into the Constitution (I believe you have to be 40 or so). Originally, I thought it was because you were supposed to be older and wiser, but in light of this possible genetic memory, is it something else?
Many may have noticed that revolutionary, genius-level work seems to be done in a person's youth, and they become less revolutionary as adults. Linus invented Linux at a young age, Einstien discovered relativity fairly young, Alexander did all of his conquering before 30, and most of the slashdotter's are probably on the young end of the scale.
Is it possible that politics is the realm of the older types? That young people are much more self-assertive, interested in controlling themselves, and pushing their limits, rather than asserting control through cultural means? Think of just about any government, and it's the older who lead, and the younger who do stuff - go to war, innovate, riot, and act idealistically.
It's not just "artifical" governments like the US, but even natural ones - most primative tribes are lead by the elders, the Mafia bosses are often the oldest ones, the President of the company is often the oldest one there, etc.
Anyway, I don't have time right now to develop this line of thinking, but I would like some feedback, whether it strikes a chord or not. And, if you could, attach your age.
I don't personally have access to a filter program - can someone take a look at the official campaign site (www.georgebush.com) and see if if blocks out the "Dick" in Dick Cheney and the "Bush" in George Bush?
I apologize, I gave you my 2 minute debate answer and not my 10 minute essay answer, because I only had the two minutes to spare. I agree with your criticism and PK's , and I think moderation was working in this case - your comment got a 5, mine just has a 2. Anyway, I've got some more time, so here's the longer version:
Your experience is the experience of several other Slashdotters, including myself. I, too, was in the high-school classes that drilled actual knowledge and understanding instead of rote memorization and relying on developed tools. Often, however, the path to understanding was through memorization, and we were required for the math classes to have advanced calculator models (TI-82, though many opted for the more advanced versions). As I understand it, the best classes haven't changed - The teacher goes through the theory, creating the proofs along the way, and tries to determine if he or she explained it adequately. We then test this theoretical knowledge through problems, working from trivial problems to the advanced ones. The tests came in two flavors - endurance tests where we had to prove we could solve average problems in a timely manner, and brain twisters, that tested our knowledge of the theory.
Although this seems to describe a math class, it was the method used in other classes as well. In Chorus, we practiced the scales and learned harmonies for songs we already knew, but also had to practice reading sheet music cold, trying out for a part, and doing solo work. In English classes, we had to comment on classic works (often enlightened by the best of the critical essays), but also try our own hands at writing short stories. In history, we proved we had memorized the facts, but also that we understood the arguments, by trying to argue from their perspective (it was interesting to write a fictional letter from a papist official who agreed with the condemning of Galileo, and it was certainly enlightening). Those of us who recognize that we received a good education treasure these memories, and pity those whose memories of school were just trying to get through the day, either because the work was not challenging or incomprehensible.
Perhaps you had the same experience I had going to college - disappointment. I expected that only the best and brightest from high schools would make it, that it would be a place that, for once, learning would be the highest goal, and the lesser considerations - social life, athletics, and trouble-making were low on my personal list - would be put in their place. I found that college, in many respects, was worse than high school - at least in my freshman opinion.
I was appalled by the reliance on calculators and computers in my first few math classes (I retook calculus, because I thought it would be harder and/or purer in college - I should had known better after the first day). It seems there has been a "revolution" in higher math education, where the old theory-based style has been replaced with a greater reliance on graphs and computers, which are supposed to complement the material. In my opinion, your worst fear comes true - most students approach problems as a data-entry exercise, to try to get the tools to come up with the correct answer.
Now, I used the tools and the calculators, but I believe I was using them in the spirit first intended. For difficult problems, I could manipulate the tools to give me the right answer, then, secure in knowing my destination, I could work toward it, using the theory. If I had an intuitive insight, I could back it up by calculating several important points across the domain with relative ease. Finally, I could turn that math into pretty pictures, which is what the real world wants, anyway.
I've come to the realization that the same technology can be used as a crutch for the average guy, a tool for the above-average person, and a stepping stone for the gifted. In any engineering class, 75% of the people will be using those laptops to do the work for them, 20% will be using them in the spirit intended, and 5% will be writing the next generation of tools. If we went back to slide rulers, it would be the same way. (Feel free to play with those numbers to fit your own beliefs)
What the new tools does do is allow the average student to access much more difficult problems, the above average student to do the harder problems even more efficiently, and the gifted ones to create better tools and abstractions. And I believe this is a Good Thing, even if it causes the ranks of the average to swell. With the world the way it is, we need all those average folks, and, if we can give them better tools to make their data entry easier and more efficient, more power to them.
Further, I think it is unrealistic for us to expect that everyone has to be some sort of renaissance man or philosopher king. I'm very happy that I can program away without really understanding set theory or number theory, beyond what I need so that binary math makes sense. Someday, I may go back to school and pick up those missing pieces in Math and Physics, so that I really understand my tool of choice inside and out. But for now, I'm happy in state of partial ignorance, using computers I understand more than most but less than some. I'll leave it to the kernel programmers and the materials engineers at AMD for now, and pick up what I need when I need it.
At the same time, I understand that the true innovations come from vertical knowledge, and that most of my knowledge is in the horizontal dimension, and that some day I may change that (sorry if that made no sense).
Re-reading your initial comment, I realize I wasn't aiming my comment at you, but the extremist who thinks new tech is Bad because the users don't even understand what they are doing, because it gets results without work. I have to think that our opinions are a lot closer than I first thought.
Do you see why sometimes I go for the short answers?
Wow, they are still arguing that line? I've heard it before:
"Og, if we use speech, then others may hear what we are saying! In my day, hand signals were better."
"If we teach all the kids how to write, they will never develop their memory! It was a lot better when I was younger, and we could remember whole epics."
"If the people stop believing in the gods, then everyone will be immoral! It was a lot better in my day, when people had proper respect for the religion of their elders!"
"If we have a democracy, then people will loose their responsibility, and just vote themselves benefits! It was a lot better when we had a king, who could act in the state's best interests."
"If we teach that we came from animals, then people will act like animals! It was a lot better in my day, when it was something special to be a human..."
"Slide rules are cheating! In my day, we did long division by hand, and quickly!"
"Calculators are cheating! If a kid doesn't learn the slide rule, then he'll never get a good grasp on logarithms!!!"
Anyway, you can probably come up with your own list. I've heard it so many times, I'd like to give it a name, like "Flibbert", so, when I hear it, I can just say, "Oh, you're just being a Flibbert!", and they can say, "Well, you're just being a knee-jerk AntiFlibbert!", and someone else would say, "You know, you are both right...", and me and the Flibbert can just say "Syntha-Flibbert!" And so on...
(Sorry, drifted off into Marxist Thesis-Antithesis-Synthethis for a second there...)
Much has been said in the press and in the televised debates about the promise and perils of the Internet. As technology junkies, we are concerned that lawmakers and politicians may not have the same understanding of the technology as those "in the trenches".
How much time do you spend using computers, and what qualifies your technology advisors (assuming you have some)?
I work in aircraft simulation, and we have a saying - With enough money, we can make this building fly, but you may not like the bill. It's one of the standard lines we use when our customer asks for an unreasonably expensive feature. I think "unbreakable security" is one of these unreasonably expensive features, but it is possible. Consider:
For each music owner, hire six men. Three will guard the music collection itself, in 8 hour shifts (The media guards). The other three will guard the music owner (the personal guards). Each time the music owner requests to play music, the personal guard on duty requests the receipt, and, since he's been following the user around, he knows he didn't make a counterfeit. The personal guard then informs the media guard that he can start playing the media. The user can then enjoy his music, knowing that he is fully supporting the artist, the record company, and is gainfully employing at least six people.
Of course, this may get expensive. Let's put the hourly wage at $6.50, for 8 hours a day, 356 days a year, times 6 (no adjustment for inflation, no figuring of rising minimum wage. Let's say the RCIA encrypts the contract, so that it can't be broken). This comes to $18,980 a year per person, or $113,800 per year for the security system. Let's also assume an effective copyright of 50 years, which bring the total to $5,694,000. While this doesn't include travel expenses, benefits, health or dental, I'm assuming the record company could foot the bill, since they are reaping the benefits of lowered piracy. And this doesn't include the huge bonuses for informing on co-workers and owners, to lower the problems of bribery. Oh, and add $.56 for the cost of the media.
Now, $5,694,000.56 may sound like a lot for one CD, but you are buying the security system as well, to ensure that the record company is not the victim of piracy. Perhaps once you have the system, the incremental cost can go down, to, perhaps, $100 per CD (extra accounting costs to manage all those receipts). This way, once you've bought 100 CDs, the cost per CD is only $57,039.01, and you know the artists and record companies are being compensated for their work.
Remember, if they decide the implement the Totally Secure Media System (TSMS), I have prior art, and should get at least 1% royalty.
Politicians must think we are idiots. There is no other reason to explain why they keep pushing ideas like "Media violence causes real-life violence". And yes, I think both candidates are to blame.
Let us assume that media violence does cause real life violence. There are then three logical solutions: self-censorship, targeted censorship, and broad censorship.
For self-censorship, the media providers would self-regulate, and not release products with a certain level of violence. The ratings system is a good example, but it primarily works for sex (in the US). If a filmmaker puts in a scene that it too "sexual", the ratings board threatens an NC-17 rating, and the film-makers self-censor for the R rating (with perhaps an unrated DVD for later release). In the UK, they have a similar scheme for violent films. Hollywood could promise to link ratings more closely to violence levels, but it seems doubtful they will do this, since violent flicks are fairly profitable.
In targeted censorship, the film industry would have to actively enforce ratings. This means you would have to show an ID at the movie theater and at Blockbuster to prove you are able to see a rated R or NC-17 movie. But it also means an ID system for kids, to prove the PG-13 level. To really enforce the ratings, they would have to be made law, which brings up all sorts of censorship problems (ACLU, anyone?). It wouldn't change much, since parents who care about rating wouldn't let their children see the movie anyway. For the parents that don't care, they would simply be annoyed when security calls them and says their kid was trying to sneak into the latest teen flick. Not to mention the strain on the juvenile justice system, if it has to handle cases of kids trying to get into rated R movies.
In broad censorship, the government would ban movies deemed too violent. If a federal ratings system is enacted, and violent movies were expanded to "X" ratings, so they could only be shown at "adult" theaters, then this would be effective censorship. Again, I doubt it will come to this, and I'd hate to see what kind of movies get made with this kind of system. I doubt it would survive a Supreme Court review.
Now, let's assume for a moment, that our president wants to pursue one of these options. He can't pass laws without Congress's approval, and, with the Democratic party getting a lot of money from the entertainment industry, I doubt a bill would even pass his desk. They wouldn't come out and say that they are doing it for money, but instead that they are doing it for Free Speech, and because of the weak statistical correlations. They might be right, but not for honest reasons.
He can't really pressure the industry into self-censorship or targeted censorship either, without the threat of law as an alternative.
So, it is A COMPLETELY SAFE ISSUE TO CAMPAIGN ON!!! It gets the voter riled up, makes people think you are the moral candidate, gets you points with the anti-media types, but with ZERO risk of having to fight for the issue! You can "fight" all day, taking the moral high road, knowing that you will never really have to put your ass on the line, or live with the consequences.
The other thing that really pisses me off is gun control. The one thing the executive office can do is enforce the laws on the books, and most gun control laws don't get enforced. This is the one thing Clinton could have done, but instead he attempts to pass new ones. Why? You pass a new law, you can claim credit for any larger society trends. You simply enforce laws, and, while there may be results, your opponents can claim you are taking credit for societal trends. So instead, choose visible signs, such as X thousand more cops, sign laws to close loopholes and enforce them for only 4 or 8 years, yada yada. End result - gun control issue of the day, but never real gun control.
As I said, I'm pretty sure that politicians assume we're idiots, and campaign on issues that they don't have to take risk on (Medicare / Social Security Good, Guns/Media Bad, Moral Values, Character, Rhetoric style), instead of coming up with the best solutions for the problem.
When will an engineer / computer science guy get elected president, rather than these marketing / legal / pointy-haired types?
(Sorry, had to rant)
The Word suicide wizard is quite funny. I loved it the first time I saw it, and had to fire up Word to see if it was really there. There's a letter wizard, of course, but not a Suicide Note wizard. I was sad.
Now, the second time I've seen it, I noticed something - the options are "Pills", "Jump", and "Pastry". Pastry? Not only do those guys at Microsoft add a suicide wizard, but they use one option no one would want to use, and leave off "gun"! It's an excellent paraody of the lame help the Clip gives you over time. I think it's an idea Microsoft may not even get right by version 3.0.
I think there are different levels of free speech. I would categorize them by the morality of the message vs. the risk to the speaker. For instance:
The students at Tienneman Square: While these students were not protected by free speech, their message (at least to Westerners) was basically moral, while the risk was very great. One of the greatest images is the student standing in front of the tank, who was probably killed for his act of protest.
Martin Luther King, Ghandi: While their speech was, to a certain extent, protected by the government, they broke unjust laws, and were arrested, as part of their basically moral message. While not by the government, both were executed for their stances.
Larry Flynt: The guy's probably been in court more than King or Ghandi - although many disagree with what he's selling, he has fought for it, defended it, at great personal risk.
Winston Churchill: His message may have not been that moral, but if all flamers were as witty - also, when someone was insulted, they knew exactly who did it, and could respond in kind.
The Press: They definitely take some legal risk when they run a story on a private or public citizen. However, they are not on the same legal footing as the people they attack, so I have to say they are a bit low on the risk scale. For an example, see Salon on the Washington Post's handling of the Wen Ho Lee case.
Most Internet posts: People may think the world revolves on their discussions, but in reality, little changes. Little risk to the debaters, except to their online personas. With the weird, backwards laws, the host of the discussion takes more risk than the participants.
Anonymous Threats: May have something to say, but take no risk themselves, and don't try to attack on an equal footing with the victim.
Obviously, this is not a complete list, but gives us a way to compare flammers in response to, say, this article:
Jon Katz: A fair amount of risk, especially given his history as a flame target. And, I'm guessing, he's using his real name.
Respondents with real info: These people respond (flames or otherwise), with their real names and contact info, and take on a bit of risk, but not as much as the headliner.
Respondents without real info: They respond, but not even with a real email address. They take little risk to their online persona.
Anonymous Cowards: Zero risk, even to their online persona.
IMHO, flaming is OK if the flamer takes as much risk as the flamee, and that the two are on equal footing.
Flame Warriors Explaned
Great website! I'm suprised you resisted the temptation to classify Katz as a Profundus Maximus, a Philosopher, or just a Target. Since I'm an Eagle Scout, I won't even guess myself.
Had Rob said, "Signal 11 incorrectly believes that I implemented the karma cap to spite him. He's spreading false information that it's only applied to certain accounts." it would have been much different. Not only is it more informative than "Signal 11 is an idiot," it would also make Rob look like the better man.
If Rob was publishing some official statement on the "Signal 11 controversy", then perhaps I would expect him to use this language. However, this was an online chat, and, to a certain extent, I would expect it to follow the rules of regular conversations - always try to say things diplomatically, but a slip of the tongue or an outburst of emotion is regrettable but forgivable.
I find it disturbing that, even here, everyone's words are being used against them, like a court of law. I remember, back when I first discovered the Internet, I loved that you could put your best foot forward. I could think overnight about a response on a newsgroup, and really put my idea into the best words possible. I silently agreed with the flames against misspellers and those who didn't research the facts, not because I thought they were idiots, but because they didn't take full advantage of the medium, didn't use a spell checker, and didn't search on the web for 5 minutes to do a sanity check on their idea.
Even today, when a well-meaning co-worker sends out a virus alert or get-rich-quick-scheme, I quickly put out a rebuttal with the proper web site link, but then send a slightly longer personal message telling the originator how I found it was a hoax - I feel it's a duty of mine, to instruct others in the power of these new tools, rather to insult them as newbies and idiots.
However, I see more and more people trying to make others eat their words, simply because technology allows them to become etched in silicon. Al Gore is constantly harassed about saying he "created the Internet", while what he said was slightly different ("During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"), and lots of folks have defended him since then, including Vinton Cerf. George Bush, Jr. gets his own ribbing for various slips of the tongue (including my favorite non-event from the campaign, the so-called "RATS" subliminal message). Indeed, most of politics seems to be an endurance race, to see who can go the longest without saying something wrong and/or stupid. Which may explain why so little gets said these days...
I guess it goes back to Nixon, when he was caught on tape saying some truly awful things. It had a dual political purpose - on one hand, it gave some evidence to the Watergate investigators, but on the other hand, it gave a window into the man's personal life, highlighting some deep flaws.
This may be where the problem is - the press has gotten the impression that it's in the slips of the tongue and the political mistakes that we find the true character of a person, and are constantly trying to get past the "surface" and find the flaws of the "true" person. We have bought into the idea, and are berating Rob for one statement, which may be damning out of context, but completely human if taken in context.
Stop playing the "I caught you!" game, and start treating people like humans, flawed but forgivable. (And sorry, dboyles, for a comment more directed to the community than your comment).
I have a bit of affection for the processed tree packets myself, but I'll be the first to buy an e-book reader, when it has the capabilities I'm looking for. I really think it's a matter of adding functionality to the written word, rather than just e-converting existing material.
Interactive fiction and all that sounds like the multimedia CDs that came out with the first CD-ROM drives - all fluff and "gee-whiz look at the new tech!!!" It wasn't for a while that people understood that flash and animations did not make content. E-books, once it becomes cheap enough, will go through a phase like that, trying to add web links and photos of the author, etc. Eventually, however, they should add the quality content that the better DVD's have - good packaging, behind-the-scenes stuff, maybe background notes or a volume specific dictionary. That volume of Crime and Punishment may look a lot like the romance novel, but you could look at the Russian side-by-side, maybe with some translator's notes to add to your experience.
Once we get past the liscensing problems, I'd like to see a general-purpose USB port as well. You could slide next to that cute girl, link up, and take a look at what she's reading, as well as get an email address. When I get kids, I could link my daughter's e-book, and read a children's book off my e-book while images and large-type words went by on her screen.
In short, e-books have a great deal of potential - but they are mostly just potential right now. Today, I'm on your side, happy with thumbing through the pages. Eventually though, I'll trade it in for a set of light LCD screens, and probably never look back.
To buy stock or not to buy stock. And, if you do, is it for good financial reasons based on industry knowledge, or should it be considered a charitable contribution for a good cause?
The Scientific American article (which, by the way, was from a previous issue. If you are not subscribed, you are really missing out) mentions a rough classification of alien civilizations (see sidebar to the main article). Type I civiliations (like ours) have the resources of their home planet to use in sending out EM signals. Type II civs have the resources of the entire system (the solar system, in our case) for signals, and Type III have the entire galaxy to use to send out EM signals. If Type III civs were out there and sending our radio beams, we would know by now. Nearly the same for Type II, so now we are looking for Type I's, who are doing pretty much the same thing we are - sending out narrowly focused beams, sweeping the sky, or just leaking out signal (radio, TV, whatever).
The assumption that some of the signal would leak out or be intentionally aimed at us has guided most SETI projects. However, is this really the case? In the last century, we may have had unfocused EM signals spraying all over the place, but for how long? It appears that our communication channels are starting to become more focused and efficent through the use of cables and focused, line-of-site EM. Even cellular phones, which still use EM propagation in the air, are short-range devices. How many of the products sold today would, in normal operation, produce signals detectable from Pluto, much less from light-years away? With commuinication devices heading for higher-bandwidth applications, I don't see this trend abating. I can imagine, by this time next century, the whole planet is using cabled or focused communication, so that the aliens would have to wander between the Moon and Earth to discover a narrowly focused communication channel. They may notice runway lights first.
This reasoning may eliminate any hope of discovering everyday communication signals from alien civilizations. But we should still search, in the hope that other civilizations are as interested in making contact as us. We have to assume that their scientists are thinking the same way we are, and are searching in "logical" bandwidths for good carrier signals, as well as transmitting powerful signals on these channels. Although we may be looking in the wrong place now, eventually we will have the funding and technology for powerful, broadband searches across the spectrum. At the same time, we may just be lucky and find ET tommorrow.
These days, a majority of the computer experience has to do with acclimating yourself to the analogies and methods used by the operating system. The Windows user has to get used to a whole bunch of concepts, such as: windows, scroll bars, menus, the Help menu, shortcuts keys, left-clicking, right-clicking, dragging, double-clicking, minimizing, maximizing, folders, shortcuts, the desktop, the recycling bin, My Computer, Network Neighborhood, icons, the many power buttons, the Start menu, etc., etc.
This creates a learning curve that a person has to get over to use an operating system. My grandma still hasn't really gotten there, but she knows enough to check her email and write simple documents. Once she understands the basic concept, it isn't so much of a leap to learn a new piece of software. She knows how to start it (navigate through the Start Menu), she knows how to save her work (File->Save, or that little disk icon), and she knows where to get help (Help->Contents->Index, type keywords). She may still need help, but soon she's internalized the interface, and it gets easier.
It's not as hard as using your first computer, but it's HARD to try to use a new operating system. I am a wintel user, and had to support the school newspaper's Mac network, and had a hell of a time figuring out how to find online help, add items to the menus, buy network cables, and use that mouse (where the hell's my second button!?!). There were "new user" instructions, but they were for my Grandma. What I wanted were new user instructions for a real user of a wintel setup, answering my questions, such as "How do I transfer files to my wintel system?" and "Where is the control panel?". Yes, they are stupid questions, but I did want some hand-holding as I became a Mac and Wintel user.
Linux has a similar problem. It's written by Unix types, for Unix types, which is very different than Wintel types. I'm sure there are tech guys out there, like me, who want to try out Linux, but have to work their 8 hour days as well. That means a dual boot setup, with all the problems that implies. It took me a full day of limping my way through LILO documentation to figure out where my WinNT bootup had gone, and what I needed to do to get it back. Not to mention I had to reformat the drive to get Linux in the first 1024 blocks. All while using emacs for the first time while editing lilo.config ("Where the hell is the File menu? Why doesn't Alt-F work!?! I wish I had EDIT!).
Because of the new paradigms, and the learning curves for basic tools and concepts, Linux is as hard (if not harder) to learn than other operating systems. It is hard, even for tech guys, to learn a new system from scratch. Now try to get the mid-range or brain-dead users to do the same. It may be free, and be easier to maintain in the long run, but a business changing operating systems would loose a good two weeks of productivity, and may not see any gains for years. Until the path from Windows to Linux or Windows to Macs is better defined and proven, few will walk that path.
Back when this whole thing started, Judge Kaplan ordered 2600 to remove the DeCSS code from the web site. Emmanuel Goldstein made a hard decision to comply with the order. The alternative would have been to practice civil disobedience, to refuse and get himself thrown in jail. Although it may have made people think of King or Ganhdi, it was more likely that the MPAA and Valenti would have successfully spun it in their favor. The media was certainly leaning that way, anyway, so 2600 had to appear to be fighting the good fight, keeping it nice and legal.
The same injunction scared off most of the other defendants, into settling separately and keeping themselves out of court. This ruling will now prohibit linking, despite the fact it may not hold up in a higher court. With the ruling, the MPAA has the clout it needs to go after other sites, which will probably bow out and let 2600 do all the fighting.
Judge Kaplan's decision gave the impression that the MPAA won, which gives them the freedom to say all sorts of things , such as that the DMCA has been proven to be constitutional, that DeCSS is only a tool for piracy, and that the 2600 group are just hackers, like the hackers that brought us the Melissa and Love Bug viruses. In the minds of many non-technical citizens (which is still the voting majority), as well as lawmakers, this is now the truth.
This is not a judge wimping out, or a sly tactical move. This move ignores the big issues (copyright, reverse engineering, Free Speech), and delivers a victory to the MPAA and corporate interests. It gains the MPAA a large slice of public opinion, and makes the opposition feel a little more desperate. Maybe Kaplan isn't hoping for the higher-ups to make the decision for him, but instead for some pissed-off teenager to start doing rash things, like breaking into the MPAA site, or posting movies to his web page with a message like "F**K MPAA! I USED DeCSS TO CRACK THE MATRIX! POWER TO 2600!", so that the MPAA will actually have evidence that DeCSS was used for pirating.
I hope 2600 wins the next round, and eventually in the Supreme Court, but I'm sure he's aware that his own fans may be his biggest liability. I hope they can restrain themselves.
"and it's hard to see the writing through the flames." - Flaming Lips
When I get the symptoms of burn out, I take a small time out, and start listing the tasks I have to complete. I often find that the problem is not the difficulty or complexity of the problem, but the sheer number of tasks. I read or heard somewhere that the human mind can only juggle 5 or 6 ideas at a time, and that more than that becomes overwhelming. I don't know about the rest of you, but it's very true for myself.
Often, I'll find that it's not even programming tasks, it's just I have too many other things. If my list looks like this:
1: Implement a file transfer mechanism to the machine older than me
2: Solve a defect in someone else's code
3: Bath the dogs
4: Get some milk
5: Renew my car tags
6: Get a haircut
7: Get my mom a birthday card
then the simple number of "everyday" tasks will overwhelm the programming tasks, and I'll get nothing done! The only thing to do is take a few hours, clear tasks off the list, and come back with a "managable" number of tasks. Or just make the list, so your brain isn't always swapping memory to disk.
That's why, while on site, I can write hundreds of lines of code a day, clear tons of errors, and write pages of documentation, but when I get back in the office, I find it hard to even make 1 line changes. It's a different world, when you have to do your own laundry, cook meals, be social, etc.
It's a shame life gets in the way of code sometimes, but you got to take a holistic approach.
I almost agree with this guy, rant or not. Except, when I move to a new system, and I can't figure out what the commands are.
For instance, the first few times I used Unix, I really wanted to delete temporary files. So I try "del file.txt". No luck. I remember that there's online help, if I type "man keyword" (who knows what man means). But "man delete" won't help, because it's expecting you to search for "remove"!
I don't think there's a such thing as a "natural" interface, CLI or GUI, just like there's no such thing as ideal beauty - while there may be some general absolutes, it's often just a cultural thing. It's more important to offer clean interfaces, where power is exchanged for simplicity. I'd much rather have a multi-level operating system, where the top level is very user friendly, but a power user could dive down to the level he or she wanted and was most comfortable at. The user could also determine what level they wanted to be at by default (sometimes I can get useful info out of a GPF). And any time a user has to dive through two levels to complete a task, it should be considered a failure of the interface.
Anyone who thinks differently should spend the weekend getting an elderly relative to try to use a computer for the first time. Then they'll get a real taste of how simple their interface is. Windows doesn't even have a mouse tutorial!
Is that Unibomber treatise still on-line? I think it would do the job nicely.