Was this kid ever *taught* he was going to get 38 years if he hacked into the school's computers? Shouldn't they be teaching *that* at school? The parents should sue for improper education.
You can't assume kids know right from wrong. It must be taught. And what are schools for?
There is a difference between being naughty and social suicide. He knows now, but this could have been prevented!
Some here cite tough love, but there is at time and place for everything.
It isn't like he stole money from your wallet, or beat up a kid at school and came home bragging.
The kid got caught, detained, jailed, and is facing a maximum sentence that surpasses your life expectancy. The kid already has no future, is scared to death, and will have no life for whatever his sentence turns out to be.
Ya, no bail. That'll teach em - teach em hard. That'll make him think twice before he hacks into any computer whenever he gets out. He hurt so many people's... feelings. He exposed the system for being what it is, err insecure. Cheating in the US is such an atrocious crime. It's like... taking steroids in the Major League.
If the parents couldn't afford bail, then I would sympathize. But if they really are just trying to be part of a lesson, then maybe they are part of why this kid fell off the deep end in the first place.
Think about the criminal mentality here... looking over someone's shoulder vs hacking into the teacher's computer... They are both means to the same end, and are both opportunities taken with similar intent. If we are to punish "evil" then these two are equal. The only difference is one kid was more efficient at it, thought outside the box, had a bigger vision, and accomplished a bigger goal.
He got caught, sure, but maybe he needs practice? He gets an A in my book.
Btw this reminds me of a great Southpark episode. Ya, how about think about how we can we help these childred!?
step 1) tivo/vcr step 2) pc video recorder step 3) youtube upload step 4) real ripper step 5) I get a copy!
In the end, tivo will get blocked by networks, pc software will just stop working as they are now with DVDs, youtube and real will get sued by the studios, and I will get arrested.
"Use at" is a given. Bandwidth always implies there is a speed be it 56kbps or 7mbps. Whether explicitly stated or not, the argument is the same. They say unlimited, but they don't have enough. Same difference.
When someone buys something that explicitly says is unlimited, but in actuality is capped, that is fraud, so these ISPs are in deep if that is what they have been doing. They are being forced to work on solutions never the less, and the article was all about those possible solutions.
Which brings me back to my first point which is that the article has nothing to do with the title of this slashdot submission.
Female code is more sensitive to errors and user input. They react, but often in ways unexpected, and there is a lot more going on than the users are made aware of.
There are also more dialogs, but most of them are just confirmations, with no option to cancel. Sometimes users are forced to read instructions or show concern for the programs wellbeing before being able to proceed.
Female code is also shorter and lighter, more often mutli-threaded, and tends to be harder to debug.
Female software tends to lock-in users with very strict and specific End User License Agreements. You also lose half of your harddrive if you switch to another program, or are caught making out in another window.
What is this anti-technology you talk of? I thought the article was related, but no, and you don't even introduce the concept. Use wireless bandwidth? Haven't you noticed wireless is *more* expensive? Bittorrent? What could they share that we all download? A lot of download sites already use nearest-server detection, and many of us already use bittorrent. None of your examples make sense, and you fail to define your concept of anti-technology technology.
FYI unlimited bandwidth does not mean unlimited bandwidth. Nothing is unlimited. Web hosts and ISPs do it as a marketing tactic, because they can safely assume the average usage will be tolerable. Some users will use more than others, but in the end, the sum is within their limit.
Now they are trying to solve a problem with over usage. They are exploring both infrastructure improvements and pricing plan strategies.
It isn't like ISPs are just trying to be a pain in the ass. Think about outages and performance problems with your connection. It could very well be due to too many file sharers in your neighborhood hogging bandwidth.
FYI the video that's been going around is a bit misleading. The guy talking in Japanese doesn't say the car ONLY needs water. He says with water, the car can keep running, not denying there are other factors. The translator made news where there really wasn't any, and the company obviously benefited from the mistranslation. They were probably even counting on it.
Any claims from the company carefully state their system, WES, uses water. And they never say WES doesn't need maintenance.
The company does repeatedly emphasize how the car doesn't need gas, and they basically lead anyone to think that: no gas + water = water powered car. Although, like many here have noticed, they never claim water itself is powering the car.
I don't have time to look for them, but apparently, like all inventions made public, there are already patents on file regarding this technology. And they are along the lines of using aluminium.
Hopefully there is innovation here in performance or efficiency, although it might be the case where they put some previous invention in a car for the first time.
I do like the idea of having the main tank only needing water though. Like maybe have aluminium powder cells recycled every few weeks, while filling the tank every few days with water. Assuming the cells take less space, we could have them shipped to us, and stack them in our basement. That would end the need for gas stations and gas to hydrogen station conversions (which I doubt will ever happen).
Wouldn't they have to check the porn archives of any judge that takes over the case? Just because they don't advertise their tastes, it doesn't mean they don't have any.
Along the same lines, if priests are moral compasses then them molesting our children must be a benchmark to test the standards of the church and their faith.
Obviously no, and to even suggest that any authoritative figure naturally abides by their own rules is grossly overrating the human condition.
This used to be called dumping and was illegal. The tragedy is not in product A or B no longer selling, but in an entire market dying. Even now, we tax foreign imports to match domestic prices. Regulation is free market in its purest form, pragmatically speaking.
You say no, but you are agreeing with me. Yes, the information that someone went through, is available in seconds. You can get "information" from Wikipedia, CNN, Hoops magazine, etc. Whoever wrote the content, sure, could have spent days, weeks, years, or their entire lives writing it.
The post I replied to explicity said "process of analyzing data and turning it into information as academic journals do."
I was simply pointing out that they select information, not create or analyze it from raw data. Which is also what you said.
If you think journal articles are hard to understand, you should try wading through the raw data sometime. Scientists don't just summarize data into information. They are creative, and their creations are not something anyone wading through raw data would create. Journals you could say are there to validate these creations (theories, hypothesis, processes, etc). And to understand what a "smart" scientist "created" from what they saw in the "data" can be difficult, and require a thorough understanding of the topic, which not everyone has. Wading through raw data is a different problem, and if you find something worth publishing after doing so, you surely are a scientist and not just anyone.
Jouranls aren't analyzind data, they are analyzing information. They select what they think is valuable information, out of a stockpile. You make it sound like they're performing gif compression.
Data is what the electronic era makes available in milliseconds. Information is what is made available in seconds, after you read the data or the data is fed to you.
What is this information you speak of that magically makes you understand complex issues? If journals did that, we'd all understand what they said, and they wouldn't be so difficult, requiring analysis.
I am not against transportation. I am against throwing money into a lake. If you want to build a train, then do it practically. MegLev is not practical.
Remember, this is to connect Disneyland and Vegas. Not even DisneyWORLD, but DisneyLAND. This will do nothing for the economy. This project is wrong in so many ways.
You brought up a great example: The Big Dig. What a financial disaster. And to think there is *still* traffic in Boston. Again, so wrong is so many ways.
Even Amtrak has track maintenance issues, and how are we to expect anybody to be able to maintain a MagLev system in the US of A? If they've given up in Japan (where they are amazing with their trains), here this is like funding a ladder to the moon. Seriously.
Absolutely nothing. The hackers know what they are doing, and have too much help.
Technology is not to blame here. People are led to think computers are broken and inferior to paper. The problem is with knowledgeable people using them to achieve even superior goals, such as rigging votes. Its like a nuke in the wrong hands. That is why they need to be taken away. Not because computers are flawed, but because those that possess them are irresponsible.
I find it strange that a programmer is reviewing a "visual design" book and talking about interfaces, because UI is very different from "visual design".
1. Count the rules you depend on. A menu, a toolbar, and what else? The fewer rules the better. The more pre-existing rules the better.
2. Group what is related, and place functionality close to what they complement.
3. Make extensive use of hint blurbs for icons and buttons to describe what they do and show shortcuts. Delay is not necessary. Allow the user to turn them off, but make sure they're there.
4. Good documentation is as important as a good interface.
5. Autocorrection, input validation, and fault tolerance. Don't let users do things that cause errors. Provide ways to undo as much as possible.
6. Make sure things WORK. A great UI cannot fix a broken application, and bugs and quirks are often the most confusing to unsavy users. They might not recognize that something is broken, and blame their actions and panic.
The current UI paradigm is very simple, and innovation is not really that important. In fact, users are locked into many applications that have distinct UIs, primarily MS Office. So if you are building an application for a business, one of the best things you can do is make your app fit in with Office by sharing the same UI widgets. Even MS fails to do this by adopting different UIs for different application groups, and this is very disturbing.
"The best interface is the one you do not notice."
computers are unreal. Virtual-reality and real-reality is only a distinction they would make. Artificial flavoring is still reality, and so are artificially simulated computer environments.
Ray Kurzweil and Neil Gershenfeld: Two Paths to the Singularity
For years, Dalrymple has been trying to reconcile these two visions of the future: Gershenfeld's future in which computers collapse and simply become part of reality, and Kurzweil's future in which reality as we know it collapses and simply becomes part of computers. In an e-mail exchange prompted by a lunchtime discussion in Gershenfeld's laboratory during which another student referred to Kurzweil's work, Dalrymple asked his mentors, "Is it possible for both to happen at the same time?" Why is it happening at the same time? Because they are working on it at the same time. And why do their paths meet? Because they are working on the same problem. The distinctions they make are distinctions within the realm of what they are doing, and outside of it, they are all the same.
This is the kind of science talk that makes an uninformed non-scientist believe in Terminators. Of course, they know that, and the overdramatization is only an act, or a "dance" if you will. Their conclusion is quite boring:
The result for me has been an increasingly close integration of physical science and computer science, bringing the programmability of the digital world to the physical world. But whether computers are merged with reality or reality is merged with computers, the result is the same: the boundary between bits and atoms disappears. Meaning, "We will advance, and eventually get there." But they won't say that, because that is already the underlying premise. Hence, it is about how you can make it sound interesting, not just for the reader, but for yourself, so you'd continue to find interest in what you are doing. Which of course is only natural. As is my dissertation on why this article is boring, just so I don't feel I wasted my time reading a boring article.
1. Users will just think IE8 broke their favorite web site, or their own web site. They will blame IE8 before going to help pages or trying to figure out what happened.
2. Most of the internet is an archive. They are no longer updated. This will break all of those pages.
3. IE *is* a standard. They are breaking their own standard.
Solution? If webmasters are suppose to update their site for IE8, then have them do that, but have them declare it in their code. Like, say, in the document declaration? Why not use the standard to solve your standard problems. That way IE8 will render like IE8 for those pages that updated for IE8. No need to mess with IE7 web pages whatsoever because they will not be updated period.
Ya, that is what I mean. Don't you think they *try* to innovate? I think they're trying. I'd give them credit for that.
Microsoft is so big though, even if 99.99% of what they patent or "invent" flops, they are bound to get something right, just by chance. When they do, I won't mind using it since hey, at least they owe us that much, and for all I know it will be pre-installed in something I buy anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Was this kid ever *taught* he was going to get 38 years if he hacked into the school's computers? Shouldn't they be teaching *that* at school? The parents should sue for improper education.
You can't assume kids know right from wrong. It must be taught. And what are schools for?
There is a difference between being naughty and social suicide. He knows now, but this could have been prevented!
took the knighthood, his criticisms would hold more weight!? Just guessing...
I find it unsurprising, but sad.
Some here cite tough love, but there is at time and place for everything.
It isn't like he stole money from your wallet, or beat up a kid at school and came home bragging.
The kid got caught, detained, jailed, and is facing a maximum sentence that surpasses your life expectancy. The kid already has no future, is scared to death, and will have no life for whatever his sentence turns out to be.
Ya, no bail. That'll teach em - teach em hard. That'll make him think twice before he hacks into any computer whenever he gets out. He hurt so many people's... feelings. He exposed the system for being what it is, err insecure. Cheating in the US is such an atrocious crime. It's like... taking steroids in the Major League.
If the parents couldn't afford bail, then I would sympathize. But if they really are just trying to be part of a lesson, then maybe they are part of why this kid fell off the deep end in the first place.
Think about the criminal mentality here... looking over someone's shoulder vs hacking into the teacher's computer... They are both means to the same end, and are both opportunities taken with similar intent. If we are to punish "evil" then these two are equal. The only difference is one kid was more efficient at it, thought outside the box, had a bigger vision, and accomplished a bigger goal.
He got caught, sure, but maybe he needs practice? He gets an A in my book.
Btw this reminds me of a great Southpark episode. Ya, how about think about how we can we help these childred!?
To not include him in any discussion of CS art is a travesty!
The terrorists have won.
step 1) tivo/vcr
step 2) pc video recorder
step 3) youtube upload
step 4) real ripper
step 5) I get a copy!
In the end, tivo will get blocked by networks, pc software will just stop working as they are now with DVDs, youtube and real will get sued by the studios, and I will get arrested.
"Use at" is a given. Bandwidth always implies there is a speed be it 56kbps or 7mbps. Whether explicitly stated or not, the argument is the same. They say unlimited, but they don't have enough. Same difference.
When someone buys something that explicitly says is unlimited, but in actuality is capped, that is fraud, so these ISPs are in deep if that is what they have been doing. They are being forced to work on solutions never the less, and the article was all about those possible solutions.
Which brings me back to my first point which is that the article has nothing to do with the title of this slashdot submission.
Female code is more sensitive to errors and user input. They react, but often in ways unexpected, and there is a lot more going on than the users are made aware of.
There are also more dialogs, but most of them are just confirmations, with no option to cancel. Sometimes users are forced to read instructions or show concern for the programs wellbeing before being able to proceed.
Female code is also shorter and lighter, more often mutli-threaded, and tends to be harder to debug.
Female software tends to lock-in users with very strict and specific End User License Agreements. You also lose half of your harddrive if you switch to another program, or are caught making out in another window.
And so on and so forth.
What is this anti-technology you talk of? I thought the article was related, but no, and you don't even introduce the concept. Use wireless bandwidth? Haven't you noticed wireless is *more* expensive? Bittorrent? What could they share that we all download? A lot of download sites already use nearest-server detection, and many of us already use bittorrent. None of your examples make sense, and you fail to define your concept of anti-technology technology.
FYI unlimited bandwidth does not mean unlimited bandwidth. Nothing is unlimited. Web hosts and ISPs do it as a marketing tactic, because they can safely assume the average usage will be tolerable. Some users will use more than others, but in the end, the sum is within their limit.
Now they are trying to solve a problem with over usage. They are exploring both infrastructure improvements and pricing plan strategies.
It isn't like ISPs are just trying to be a pain in the ass. Think about outages and performance problems with your connection. It could very well be due to too many file sharers in your neighborhood hogging bandwidth.
of the inside of the box.
FYI the video that's been going around is a bit misleading. The guy talking in Japanese doesn't say the car ONLY needs water. He says with water, the car can keep running, not denying there are other factors. The translator made news where there really wasn't any, and the company obviously benefited from the mistranslation. They were probably even counting on it.
Any claims from the company carefully state their system, WES, uses water. And they never say WES doesn't need maintenance.
The company does repeatedly emphasize how the car doesn't need gas, and they basically lead anyone to think that: no gas + water = water powered car. Although, like many here have noticed, they never claim water itself is powering the car.
I don't have time to look for them, but apparently, like all inventions made public, there are already patents on file regarding this technology. And they are along the lines of using aluminium.
Hopefully there is innovation here in performance or efficiency, although it might be the case where they put some previous invention in a car for the first time.
I do like the idea of having the main tank only needing water though. Like maybe have aluminium powder cells recycled every few weeks, while filling the tank every few days with water. Assuming the cells take less space, we could have them shipped to us, and stack them in our basement. That would end the need for gas stations and gas to hydrogen station conversions (which I doubt will ever happen).
Wouldn't they have to check the porn archives of any judge that takes over the case? Just because they don't advertise their tastes, it doesn't mean they don't have any.
Along the same lines, if priests are moral compasses then them molesting our children must be a benchmark to test the standards of the church and their faith.
Obviously no, and to even suggest that any authoritative figure naturally abides by their own rules is grossly overrating the human condition.
Study links Katrina to Columbian drug cartels!
This used to be called dumping and was illegal. The tragedy is not in product A or B no longer selling, but in an entire market dying. Even now, we tax foreign imports to match domestic prices. Regulation is free market in its purest form, pragmatically speaking.
It is free as in freedom, not free-of-cost.
The post I replied to explicity said "process of analyzing data and turning it into information as academic journals do."
I was simply pointing out that they select information, not create or analyze it from raw data. Which is also what you said. If you think journal articles are hard to understand, you should try wading through the raw data sometime. Scientists don't just summarize data into information. They are creative, and their creations are not something anyone wading through raw data would create. Journals you could say are there to validate these creations (theories, hypothesis, processes, etc). And to understand what a "smart" scientist "created" from what they saw in the "data" can be difficult, and require a thorough understanding of the topic, which not everyone has. Wading through raw data is a different problem, and if you find something worth publishing after doing so, you surely are a scientist and not just anyone.
Jouranls aren't analyzind data, they are analyzing information. They select what they think is valuable information, out of a stockpile. You make it sound like they're performing gif compression.
Data is what the electronic era makes available in milliseconds. Information is what is made available in seconds, after you read the data or the data is fed to you.
What is this information you speak of that magically makes you understand complex issues? If journals did that, we'd all understand what they said, and they wouldn't be so difficult, requiring analysis.
I am not against transportation. I am against throwing money into a lake. If you want to build a train, then do it practically. MegLev is not practical.
Remember, this is to connect Disneyland and Vegas. Not even DisneyWORLD, but DisneyLAND. This will do nothing for the economy. This project is wrong in so many ways.
You brought up a great example: The Big Dig. What a financial disaster. And to think there is *still* traffic in Boston. Again, so wrong is so many ways.
I won't even start on Iraq.
Even Amtrak has track maintenance issues, and how are we to expect anybody to be able to maintain a MagLev system in the US of A? If they've given up in Japan (where they are amazing with their trains), here this is like funding a ladder to the moon. Seriously.
of our money. Where is the approval process? Who said this was a good thing worth every penny?
Absolutely nothing. The hackers know what they are doing, and have too much help.
Technology is not to blame here. People are led to think computers are broken and inferior to paper. The problem is with knowledgeable people using them to achieve even superior goals, such as rigging votes. Its like a nuke in the wrong hands. That is why they need to be taken away. Not because computers are flawed, but because those that possess them are irresponsible.
I find it strange that a programmer is reviewing a "visual design" book and talking about interfaces, because UI is very different from "visual design".
1. Count the rules you depend on. A menu, a toolbar, and what else? The fewer rules the better. The more pre-existing rules the better.
2. Group what is related, and place functionality close to what they complement.
3. Make extensive use of hint blurbs for icons and buttons to describe what they do and show shortcuts. Delay is not necessary. Allow the user to turn them off, but make sure they're there.
4. Good documentation is as important as a good interface.
5. Autocorrection, input validation, and fault tolerance. Don't let users do things that cause errors. Provide ways to undo as much as possible.
6. Make sure things WORK. A great UI cannot fix a broken application, and bugs and quirks are often the most confusing to unsavy users. They might not recognize that something is broken, and blame their actions and panic.
The current UI paradigm is very simple, and innovation is not really that important. In fact, users are locked into many applications that have distinct UIs, primarily MS Office. So if you are building an application for a business, one of the best things you can do is make your app fit in with Office by sharing the same UI widgets. Even MS fails to do this by adopting different UIs for different application groups, and this is very disturbing.
"The best interface is the one you do not notice."
Ray Kurzweil and Neil Gershenfeld: Two Paths to the Singularity For years, Dalrymple has been trying to reconcile these two visions of the future: Gershenfeld's future in which computers collapse and simply become part of reality, and Kurzweil's future in which reality as we know it collapses and simply becomes part of computers. In an e-mail exchange prompted by a lunchtime discussion in Gershenfeld's laboratory during which another student referred to Kurzweil's work, Dalrymple asked his mentors, "Is it possible for both to happen at the same time?" Why is it happening at the same time? Because they are working on it at the same time. And why do their paths meet? Because they are working on the same problem. The distinctions they make are distinctions within the realm of what they are doing, and outside of it, they are all the same.
This is the kind of science talk that makes an uninformed non-scientist believe in Terminators. Of course, they know that, and the overdramatization is only an act, or a "dance" if you will. Their conclusion is quite boring: The result for me has been an increasingly close integration of physical science and computer science, bringing the programmability of the digital world to the physical world. But whether computers are merged with reality or reality is merged with computers, the result is the same: the boundary between bits and atoms disappears. Meaning, "We will advance, and eventually get there." But they won't say that, because that is already the underlying premise. Hence, it is about how you can make it sound interesting, not just for the reader, but for yourself, so you'd continue to find interest in what you are doing. Which of course is only natural. As is my dissertation on why this article is boring, just so I don't feel I wasted my time reading a boring article.
1. Users will just think IE8 broke their favorite web site, or their own web site. They will blame IE8 before going to help pages or trying to figure out what happened.
2. Most of the internet is an archive. They are no longer updated. This will break all of those pages.
3. IE *is* a standard. They are breaking their own standard.
Solution? If webmasters are suppose to update their site for IE8, then have them do that, but have them declare it in their code. Like, say, in the document declaration? Why not use the standard to solve your standard problems. That way IE8 will render like IE8 for those pages that updated for IE8. No need to mess with IE7 web pages whatsoever because they will not be updated period.
But I don't care because I use Firefox.
Ya, that is what I mean. Don't you think they *try* to innovate? I think they're trying. I'd give them credit for that.
Microsoft is so big though, even if 99.99% of what they patent or "invent" flops, they are bound to get something right, just by chance. When they do, I won't mind using it since hey, at least they owe us that much, and for all I know it will be pre-installed in something I buy anyway.