The gradual acceptence of Security Cameras by the public seems to be rather insidious. People are convinced that cameras make them safer and are willing to give up rights in order to be safe (yes, please don't quote me Ben Franklin). Where is the data by an independent source showing the overall reduction in crime due to the cameras? As I recall, the police (at least in our area) state that the problem doesn't disappear, it just moves where the cameras are NOT.
If crime is just moving around avoiding the cameras, then some will say that we need more cameras EVERYWHERE and then the evil criminals will have nowhere to hide. Is there any data showing that there is NO way this will happen (cost ineffective or otherwise) and that there would be no way that crime reduction would actually happen?
The rhetoric that we are losing rights doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the average person. How can we show them that cameras can be a BAD thing? Showing them why losing our civil liberties over time will lead to a worse life may help a little tiny bit.
Hell, if you know how to present your case even moderately well, you will be able to convince the average person that having a surveillance camera in their home is a GOOD thing.
First you need to ask them how they feel about the effectiveness of cameras to deter crime. They will probably answer "I think that they are effective."
Build on that. Ask them that if since they are so effective then they wouldn't mind more of them to monitor the idiots on the road and the areas that they go shopping and visiting at. They will probably answer "Yes".
Again, build on that. Ask them if they would like to make their streets safer in their neighborhood by installing cameras. They will bleat "Yes". Ask them about installing a camera in front of their house to keep it safe and they will again answer "Yes".
Inform them that the most common form of crime in the United States is domestic violence. Appeal to them how it rips apart families and causes pain and suffering. Ask them if they have watched the TV show "COPS" and cite examples.
Now convince them that since it is such a major problem and that there is no way to protect those people that it might be best to install the cameras for the interm in previous offenders homes, just for safety mind you. They will grudgingly answer that it might be prudent.
Now inform them that since there is no way to spot the offenders BEFORE or WHILE the first offense is comitted that it would be safest for the community for ALL people, including them, to have a camera in the house.
I have had a person answer (and I quote here), "Yes, I see what you mean. That might be an idea that I can live with."
Reread the previous quote. How in God's name are we going to get the average person to:
A) Think about the consequences of their actions or inactions.
B) Start caring about their civil liberties.
C) Understand HOW this technology can be misused.
D) Understand WHY this technology could be misused.
E) Understand the need for people to watch the watchers. And have the PEOPLE watch THEM.
How are we going to get the average person to start processing information with their brains rather than with their feelings?
They sent me an email saying that they'll be accepting credit card payments on the binary watch in "ten days". that was about four days ago. I hope it's true. I want one so bad.
Four days ago they said that they would be accepting credit cards in 10 days? Binary? Look again, they have probably started accepting credit card orders two days ago. You waited twice as long as necessary.
If you think that you have diabetes, you go to the physical doctor and have him check for physical symptoms to a physical problem. They can help you live with the problem, and in some of the mild forms, help you without having to take insulin. My dad is diabetic and I make sure to look for the signs regularly and go in to see the physical doctor once a year or so just to make sure.
If you think that you have some emotional trauma or problems from your past (think Titus on Fox for example) then you either:
A) Live in denial that there is a problem.
B) Go to see someone on learning HOW to deal with those problems.
Going to a psychologist or psychiatrist is not a bad thing. If you didn't learn in school how to do fractions, years later you would have a problem doing simple math. If you went to a math tutor you could diagnose what you DID NOT LEARN and go about fixing that problem.
Just giving someone the answer and telling them that everything is OK now that they know the answer cannot help in learning emotional responses, like learning math. Inevitably they will face a similar problem and not know how to cope with it. It is this that psychologists do. They don't tell you (or shouldn't) what the problem is. Rather they do what I call the circle dance. An example, using a physical problem, would be you go to the doctor because your foot hurts (bear with me, this takes a while):
Doctor: So, tell me about your foot.
You: It hurts.
Doctor: I gathered that. Does it hurt all of the time?
You: No, and I have looked quite a bit at my foot. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. It looks normal from the outside, I can push and prod it and it is just fine. And sometimes the other foot hurts. I don't know what is going on.
Doctor: Are you in a particular place when your foot hurts or does it happen without warning?
You: Hmmm. (long pause) I guess that it only hurts when I am outside getting into my car. But not all of the time.
Doctor: What do you typically do with your feet?
You: Well, the first thing that I do is take a shower with them. Then I put on socks and shoes... Say, I've looked there before. I don't think this is being very productive.
Doctor: Trust me on this. What else do you do with them?
You: Ok, I've looked at my feet and nothing is wrong. I've looked at my shoes and socks and there is nothing wrong. I don't get it.
Doctor: Tell me about getting into your car. What do you do with your feet?
You: I put one foot in front of the other, open the car door, and get in.
Doctor: Do your feet hurt when you are in the car?
You: Sometimes they are still throbbing when I get in the car, but the pain subsides after a minute or two.
Doctor: So your feet hurt when you are standing next to the car?
You: Yes, I guess that might be it. Do you think that I have a problem with getting into the car?
Doctor: That might be something to think about. Let's go to your house and watch you get into the car.
You: Ok, I'm standing right next to my car at my house. My left foot hurts. Can I move it?
Doctor: In a minute. I know it hurts, but you need to work through this. What do you know about your feet.
You: Well, they are in my socks, which are in my shoes, which cushion me from the ground... Damn my foot hurts.
Doctor: Can you just lift up that foot and balance there for a second? Good. Since your foot doesn't hurt now, can you think of anything that might be causing the pain?
You: Much better, thank you. Um, no.
Doctor: You walk on the ground, right?
You: Yes.
Doctor: Is there any possibility that the ground might make your foot hurt?
You: No. I am wearing all sorts of cushioning and the ground is flat. Nothing can cause the pain.
Doctor: Are you sure the ground is flat?
You: Yes. Let me show you. Look down here at the ground. See how everything is flat except for that... pointy... rock...
Doctor: Go on.
You: I can't believe it. My foot hurt because there was a rock on the ground next to where I park my car. I feel so stupid.
Doctor: We've made good progress. I'll see you next week to work through your feelings of tennis elbow.
That is it. That is a therapy session, or at least one like I go through.
It wasn't the guy's fault that he didn't know to look down. He lacked the skills to work through the problem himself. He didn't know that looking down was a possibility. Now that he knows that, he can find things like nails, wood, and other obstacles and steer clear of them, or know how to deal with them if there is a problem.
There is no shame in having a problem. The shame is in never doing anything to try to solve it.
I am not a security expert. Just a laid off SysAdmin.
What you are reffering to is called "Air Gap Security" and is used by the Government on all of their most sensitive computers. Do you think that the President's laptop that he uses to connect to the Internet is the same one that he uses to compose high-level briefings on?
No, of course not. Any computer that you are TRUELY paranoid about keeping the data secure would be:
1. In a seperate room with no possible network connection. The power outlet and the lights are the only wires coming near the room. No wall in the room is an external wall in the building.
2. That room is shielded against stray EM frequencies. Slashdot had an article on Tempest a while back on it.
3. You should frequently search for bugs in that room and the surrounding rooms.
4. Have some form of security system in place.
It seems to me that if you went to all of that trouble to secure a computer system from monitoring, you either have a business that has really outrageous security needs, an organization that really wants it's members to remain confidential, a citizen who is just freakin' fed up with our rights getting trampled on, or someone who is up to no good.
Notice how in the above paragraph only ONE situation warrants a warrant? Without having to go to that extreme of measures to protect our privacy, what reasonable solution can be provided to the average citizen to ensure theirs?
I used to work for a company in the Seattle area a few years ago and word got around that I knew about computers. Well, things being what they are there, rather than promote me to the computer department I had to quit, work for A Large Aerospace Firm for two years doing System Analyst Stuff, and then talk with the IS Manager at my old company.
They hired me and I did the job well for about two years. I was laid off six months ago and haven't found a job since.
I guess that my first mistake was documenting how to do the job. My second mistake was telling them the truth (your vendor sucks and brought the system down for 6 hours). My third mistake telling them the truth (oh, I mentioned that one already).
If you look forward to getting called at 1:30am from people on the graveyard shift complaining that they can't use the system because it crashed and 50 people are sitting around with their thumbs in their butts, if you dream of solving computer problems related to OPEN accounts, not being allowed to shut them down, and people not knowing how to LOG OUT without locking crap up, then become a SysAdmin.
I have no formal education, but at the prompting years ago by the IS manager I taught myself Linux using Slackware 96 in about a week. I knew that it was time for me to leave when their current SysAdmin at the time didn't know how to shutdown the system in order to move it upstairs. I typed in one line, hit enter, and walked away before anything happened on the screen to the howl of "You mean you have to type in 'NOW'!!!"
If anyone in the Seattle area needs a SysAdmin, I wish you good luck. If you REALLY need one, contact me at navilor@hotmail.com and I will start tomorrow.
I believe that Slashdot had an article on a related subject. There is a link or two about this on the 'net.
According to some of the work done in the field, some of their largest problems have to do with the location of the person, the direction that the person is facing, and the angle that their head is at to properly display WHERE the graphics are going to be put.
Read the links posted above as they describe more effectively that I ever could what is going on.
Great. Freaking wonderful even. Now we get to experience the joy of listing to that damned "cha cha cah Chia!" commercial song and having us unable to resist it. Changing it to "chusssh shusssh chusssh Chia!"
Of course now when our phones ring they will have embedded in the ring the sound. Our car horns will be made more noticable. So will your:
Car alarm
Door ajar alarm
Alarm clock
Home alarm system
Microwave timer
Doorbell
Fire engines
Ambulances
Crosswalks with disables sounds (I wonder if blind people will "look" to the sound as well?)
Fast food restaurant timers
etc, etc, etc...
I should become a rap star and sample the sound into something really lame, like a rap version of "Over the Rainbow" or something. According to this guy, you won't be able to ignore it. It will be more obnoxious than [insert currently most annoying song here].
Better yet, perhaps I should go into medicine with a specialty in whiplash treatment.
I see that you are a System Administrator (or at least you should be). BOFH? I thought so.
I tend to make sure that, as well as what you posted, the piece of hardware meet the following criteria:
1). Run under multiple operating systems so my computer won't puke.
2). Not tied to one vendor (i.e. Zip Drives) so there is at least a little bit of competition.
3). Can get a nifty extended warranty (for monitors only) so I can check out their true refresh rates in linux.
Call me old fashioned, but I like not having to turn my system into a LART because I want to tear the lousy piece of hardware out of it just to bring sanity back into my life.
My stupidity will become apparent in this post. I have never had the need to use CloneCD or BlindRead or any of those types of programs.
How long will it be before someone comes up with an enhancement to CloneCD or BlindRead that will take a CD that you have with scratches galore and bad data and the such and REBUILD the thing with the correct information on it? I have a few CDs that need fixing already and that feature would help out immensely.
Now that you have a repaired ISO image on your hard-drive, would it be possible to burn your MP3s straight from that rather than from a CD-ROM?
Doing that will do two things:
1). Let you burn a copy for listening to on your laptop, computer, or car stereo.
2). Let you burn a copies of your favorite songs into MP3 for archiving.
I am so far from being a hacker it isn't funny. Sometimes I get a clue and can see how well something will work. All of us here can see that it will be a matter of days before the copy protection scheme is broken.
If a program comes out that is used to BLATENTLY break copy protection, it will become inconvienent to distribute. The DMCA will be invoked and the the program will be "squashed".
If a program comes out with features that are useful to repairing your damaged product but also produce the side effect of bypassing the copy protection, it will be more difficult to squash.
Having the repairing done in in a UNIX style stream that:
1). Reads the data bit by bit. (OK, a little more complicated than that.)
2). Fixes the data bit by bit. (Again a little more difficult than that.)
3). Outputs the fixed data to the device of your choice (let's say a file or/dev/cdrom).
You will have your auto-repair program that can double as your MP3 burner or CD-ROM burner.
But what do I know. I am not, and unfortunately will probably never be, a hacker.
Assuming that a person is defined only by their physical attributes, yes we could get a really intelligent copy of Albert Einstien.
What about his childhood? Did the fact that he didn't complete secondary school, failed an exam to become an electrical engineer, and worked in a patent office influence him at all?
What about cloning Nikolai Tesla? His childhood in Serbia, his father who was an Orthodox priest, his mother who was quite intelligent but unschooled, his standing atop a hill watching a lightning storm and having an epiphany on the nature of electricity? He looked at electricity from a most different perspective that any other person in history, probably different that anyone alive today for that matter.
What chance could we have of "ensuring" the brilliance of those two men in a day where their very influence is felt in everyday life?
Many of the posts here in/. are posted by people who are active, and I mean really active, in the Linux community. Programmers, System Administrators, Tech Support, etc... With few exceptions most feel that Linux is the superior operating system and that Windows should be banned under international amnesty laws for cruelty to users. Taunting them with stability yet crashing quite often (BSOD and the like), giving them bells and whistles that blow up in their faces (Outlook, Word macros, and other virus catchers), and the promise of working with everything, provided it is accepted (i.e. created) by Microsoft.
I use Windows mostly to play games at home and to compose letters at work. If I want to get on the Internet I will take a Linux box, preferably slackware, any day of the week. The stability of the system is wonderful, the security tools are quite good (If you haven't yet, try SAINT), and the look is nicely customizable.
Well, it would appear that the stability and reliability of Linux isn't really in question. We are already used to using the command line and the GUI that we chose (KDE, GNOME, being macho and just running X with a minimal front end). As we feel that since we are running the system just fine, shouldn't other people? We got it to work, shouldn't they?
There is a wonderful thing called a bell curve. It is used to show a statistical sampling of properties across time, space, population, etc... Let us look at the bell curve for intelligence. Many of the posters here in/. are at the right side of the bell curve, some are at the extreme right. If you don't know what a bell curve is, you probably aren't reading this post. As most people here are at the right side of the curve, this would imply that most people NOT here and are at the other end. With the right side of the bell curve showing people who exhibit above average intelligence, the left side should probably show the 'average' user.
If we as a community ever expect the 'average' user to adopt Linux, Linux must be able to survive in their world. In other words, if we don't make Linux friendly to those on the left side of the bell curve, the only people we can truly blame for the non-acceptance of Linux is us. The makers.
If we decide that we don't want Linux to become more common on the desktop, then we should cease and desist all complaining regarding the inability of the 'average' user community (you know, the ones who are, by definition, not as smart as you) to use Linux.
Personally, I would love to have Linux on the desktop where I work. I could reduce my workload quite substantially in support calls and concentrate on system stability and the like. The only two things stopping me are:
1). User acceptance. The managers in the departments would object to using it because it is unfamiliar to them. If I were able to show them that it is as easy for them to use as Windows, or even ALMOST, I could get my foot in the door with a few stations.
2). Program incompatibility. We have a few programs that just won't run under Linux. Yes, I could run VM Ware or a similar product, but that would still be running Windows. Suffice to say, many vendors just don't currently write software that supports Linux users. None write what we need.
I love the fact that I can install Linux on even the weakest of systems and have it perform adequately. The cost of the system is nil and runs on hardware that would be thrown out due to its obsolescence. Justifying the user training required for them to be infused with a clue, even a loaner clue, is another story altogether.
While point number two stated above is a large problem that I am faced with, how many companies would ignore an operating system that addressed my number one point, user acceptance.
It would appear that our options are thus:
1). Cave into the 'average' user and make a module for your GUI (GNOME, KDE, etc) that would empower the user with helpful (real helpful not guru level, that is a separate module called man pages) information and dispel their fears about the system.
2). Ignore the user and accept that the 'average' user just won't be able to get it.
The choice is yours.
-- More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
- Woody Allen
Slashdot Mirror
Is Michael Robertson truly e-mailing bill gates and Ccing Steve Ballmer? It looks like a fricking joke,
No, Windows is the joke.
The gradual acceptence of Security Cameras by the public seems to be rather insidious. People are convinced that cameras make them safer and are willing to give up rights in order to be safe (yes, please don't quote me Ben Franklin). Where is the data by an independent source showing the overall reduction in crime due to the cameras? As I recall, the police (at least in our area) state that the problem doesn't disappear, it just moves where the cameras are NOT.
If crime is just moving around avoiding the cameras, then some will say that we need more cameras EVERYWHERE and then the evil criminals will have nowhere to hide. Is there any data showing that there is NO way this will happen (cost ineffective or otherwise) and that there would be no way that crime reduction would actually happen?
The rhetoric that we are losing rights doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the average person. How can we show them that cameras can be a BAD thing? Showing them why losing our civil liberties over time will lead to a worse life may help a little tiny bit.
Hell, if you know how to present your case even moderately well, you will be able to convince the average person that having a surveillance camera in their home is a GOOD thing.
First you need to ask them how they feel about the effectiveness of cameras to deter crime. They will probably answer "I think that they are effective."
Build on that. Ask them that if since they are so effective then they wouldn't mind more of them to monitor the idiots on the road and the areas that they go shopping and visiting at. They will probably answer "Yes".
Again, build on that. Ask them if they would like to make their streets safer in their neighborhood by installing cameras. They will bleat "Yes". Ask them about installing a camera in front of their house to keep it safe and they will again answer "Yes".
Inform them that the most common form of crime in the United States is domestic violence. Appeal to them how it rips apart families and causes pain and suffering. Ask them if they have watched the TV show "COPS" and cite examples.
Now convince them that since it is such a major problem and that there is no way to protect those people that it might be best to install the cameras for the interm in previous offenders homes, just for safety mind you. They will grudgingly answer that it might be prudent.
Now inform them that since there is no way to spot the offenders BEFORE or WHILE the first offense is comitted that it would be safest for the community for ALL people, including them, to have a camera in the house.
I have had a person answer (and I quote here), "Yes, I see what you mean. That might be an idea that I can live with."
Reread the previous quote. How in God's name are we going to get the average person to:
A) Think about the consequences of their actions or inactions.
B) Start caring about their civil liberties.
C) Understand HOW this technology can be misused.
D) Understand WHY this technology could be misused.
E) Understand the need for people to watch the watchers. And have the PEOPLE watch THEM.
How are we going to get the average person to start processing information with their brains rather than with their feelings?
They sent me an email saying that they'll be accepting credit card payments on the binary watch in "ten days". that was about four days ago. I hope it's true. I want one so bad.
Four days ago they said that they would be accepting credit cards in 10 days? Binary? Look again, they have probably started accepting credit card orders two days ago. You waited twice as long as necessary.
If you think that you have diabetes, you go to the physical doctor and have him check for physical symptoms to a physical problem. They can help you live with the problem, and in some of the mild forms, help you without having to take insulin. My dad is diabetic and I make sure to look for the signs regularly and go in to see the physical doctor once a year or so just to make sure.
If you think that you have some emotional trauma or problems from your past (think Titus on Fox for example) then you either:
A) Live in denial that there is a problem.
B) Go to see someone on learning HOW to deal with those problems.
Going to a psychologist or psychiatrist is not a bad thing. If you didn't learn in school how to do fractions, years later you would have a problem doing simple math. If you went to a math tutor you could diagnose what you DID NOT LEARN and go about fixing that problem.
Just giving someone the answer and telling them that everything is OK now that they know the answer cannot help in learning emotional responses, like learning math. Inevitably they will face a similar problem and not know how to cope with it. It is this that psychologists do. They don't tell you (or shouldn't) what the problem is. Rather they do what I call the circle dance. An example, using a physical problem, would be you go to the doctor because your foot hurts (bear with me, this takes a while):
Doctor: So, tell me about your foot.
You: It hurts.
Doctor: I gathered that. Does it hurt all of the time?
You: No, and I have looked quite a bit at my foot. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. It looks normal from the outside, I can push and prod it and it is just fine. And sometimes the other foot hurts. I don't know what is going on.
Doctor: Are you in a particular place when your foot hurts or does it happen without warning?
You: Hmmm. (long pause) I guess that it only hurts when I am outside getting into my car. But not all of the time.
Doctor: What do you typically do with your feet?
You: Well, the first thing that I do is take a shower with them. Then I put on socks and shoes... Say, I've looked there before. I don't think this is being very productive.
Doctor: Trust me on this. What else do you do with them?
You: Ok, I've looked at my feet and nothing is wrong. I've looked at my shoes and socks and there is nothing wrong. I don't get it.
Doctor: Tell me about getting into your car. What do you do with your feet?
You: I put one foot in front of the other, open the car door, and get in.
Doctor: Do your feet hurt when you are in the car?
You: Sometimes they are still throbbing when I get in the car, but the pain subsides after a minute or two.
Doctor: So your feet hurt when you are standing next to the car?
You: Yes, I guess that might be it. Do you think that I have a problem with getting into the car?
Doctor: That might be something to think about. Let's go to your house and watch you get into the car.
You: Ok, I'm standing right next to my car at my house. My left foot hurts. Can I move it?
Doctor: In a minute. I know it hurts, but you need to work through this. What do you know about your feet.
You: Well, they are in my socks, which are in my shoes, which cushion me from the ground... Damn my foot hurts.
Doctor: Can you just lift up that foot and balance there for a second? Good. Since your foot doesn't hurt now, can you think of anything that might be causing the pain?
You: Much better, thank you. Um, no.
Doctor: You walk on the ground, right?
You: Yes.
Doctor: Is there any possibility that the ground might make your foot hurt?
You: No. I am wearing all sorts of cushioning and the ground is flat. Nothing can cause the pain.
Doctor: Are you sure the ground is flat?
You: Yes. Let me show you. Look down here at the ground. See how everything is flat except for that... pointy... rock...
Doctor: Go on.
You: I can't believe it. My foot hurt because there was a rock on the ground next to where I park my car. I feel so stupid.
Doctor: We've made good progress. I'll see you next week to work through your feelings of tennis elbow.
That is it. That is a therapy session, or at least one like I go through.
It wasn't the guy's fault that he didn't know to look down. He lacked the skills to work through the problem himself. He didn't know that looking down was a possibility. Now that he knows that, he can find things like nails, wood, and other obstacles and steer clear of them, or know how to deal with them if there is a problem.
There is no shame in having a problem. The shame is in never doing anything to try to solve it.
I am not a security expert. Just a laid off SysAdmin.
What you are reffering to is called "Air Gap Security" and is used by the Government on all of their most sensitive computers. Do you think that the President's laptop that he uses to connect to the Internet is the same one that he uses to compose high-level briefings on?
No, of course not. Any computer that you are TRUELY paranoid about keeping the data secure would be:
1. In a seperate room with no possible network connection. The power outlet and the lights are the only wires coming near the room. No wall in the room is an external wall in the building.
2. That room is shielded against stray EM frequencies. Slashdot had an article on Tempest a while back on it.
3. You should frequently search for bugs in that room and the surrounding rooms.
4. Have some form of security system in place.
It seems to me that if you went to all of that trouble to secure a computer system from monitoring, you either have a business that has really outrageous security needs, an organization that really wants it's members to remain confidential, a citizen who is just freakin' fed up with our rights getting trampled on, or someone who is up to no good.
Notice how in the above paragraph only ONE situation warrants a warrant? Without having to go to that extreme of measures to protect our privacy, what reasonable solution can be provided to the average citizen to ensure theirs?
I used to work for a company in the Seattle area a few years ago and word got around that I knew about computers. Well, things being what they are there, rather than promote me to the computer department I had to quit, work for A Large Aerospace Firm for two years doing System Analyst Stuff, and then talk with the IS Manager at my old company.
They hired me and I did the job well for about two years. I was laid off six months ago and haven't found a job since.
I guess that my first mistake was documenting how to do the job. My second mistake was telling them the truth (your vendor sucks and brought the system down for 6 hours). My third mistake telling them the truth (oh, I mentioned that one already).
If you look forward to getting called at 1:30am from people on the graveyard shift complaining that they can't use the system because it crashed and 50 people are sitting around with their thumbs in their butts, if you dream of solving computer problems related to OPEN accounts, not being allowed to shut them down, and people not knowing how to LOG OUT without locking crap up, then become a SysAdmin.
I have no formal education, but at the prompting years ago by the IS manager I taught myself Linux using Slackware 96 in about a week. I knew that it was time for me to leave when their current SysAdmin at the time didn't know how to shutdown the system in order to move it upstairs. I typed in one line, hit enter, and walked away before anything happened on the screen to the howl of "You mean you have to type in 'NOW'!!!"
If anyone in the Seattle area needs a SysAdmin, I wish you good luck. If you REALLY need one, contact me at navilor@hotmail.com and I will start tomorrow.
I believe that Slashdot had an article on a related subject. There is a link or two about this on the 'net.
According to some of the work done in the field, some of their largest problems have to do with the location of the person, the direction that the person is facing, and the angle that their head is at to properly display WHERE the graphics are going to be put.
Read the links posted above as they describe more effectively that I ever could what is going on.
Great. Freaking wonderful even. Now we get to experience the joy of listing to that damned "cha cha cah Chia!" commercial song and having us unable to resist it. Changing it to "chusssh shusssh chusssh Chia!"
Of course now when our phones ring they will have embedded in the ring the sound. Our car horns will be made more noticable. So will your:
Car alarm
Door ajar alarm
Alarm clock
Home alarm system
Microwave timer
Doorbell
Fire engines
Ambulances
Crosswalks with disables sounds (I wonder if blind people will "look" to the sound as well?)
Fast food restaurant timers
etc, etc, etc...
I should become a rap star and sample the sound into something really lame, like a rap version of "Over the Rainbow" or something. According to this guy, you won't be able to ignore it. It will be more obnoxious than [insert currently most annoying song here].
Better yet, perhaps I should go into medicine with a specialty in whiplash treatment.
I see that you are a System Administrator (or at least you should be). BOFH? I thought so.
I tend to make sure that, as well as what you posted, the piece of hardware meet the following criteria:
1). Run under multiple operating systems so my computer won't puke.
2). Not tied to one vendor (i.e. Zip Drives) so there is at least a little bit of competition.
3). Can get a nifty extended warranty (for monitors only) so I can check out their true refresh rates in linux.
Call me old fashioned, but I like not having to turn my system into a LART because I want to tear the lousy piece of hardware out of it just to bring sanity back into my life.
The website Coming Attractions has links on The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King. It gives TONS of information on who is in it, where it is being filmed, etc...
They also have good information on movies like:
The Matrix Reloaded (Matrix 2)
The Matrix 3
Men In Black 2
and many other movies. If you are interested, they are a great site.
My stupidity will become apparent in this post. I have never had the need to use CloneCD or BlindRead or any of those types of programs.
/dev/cdrom).
How long will it be before someone comes up with an enhancement to CloneCD or BlindRead that will take a CD that you have with scratches galore and bad data and the such and REBUILD the thing with the correct information on it? I have a few CDs that need fixing already and that feature would help out immensely.
Now that you have a repaired ISO image on your hard-drive, would it be possible to burn your MP3s straight from that rather than from a CD-ROM?
Doing that will do two things:
1). Let you burn a copy for listening to on your laptop, computer, or car stereo.
2). Let you burn a copies of your favorite songs into MP3 for archiving.
I am so far from being a hacker it isn't funny. Sometimes I get a clue and can see how well something will work. All of us here can see that it will be a matter of days before the copy protection scheme is broken.
If a program comes out that is used to BLATENTLY break copy protection, it will become inconvienent to distribute. The DMCA will be invoked and the the program will be "squashed".
If a program comes out with features that are useful to repairing your damaged product but also produce the side effect of bypassing the copy protection, it will be more difficult to squash.
Having the repairing done in in a UNIX style stream that:
1). Reads the data bit by bit. (OK, a little more complicated than that.)
2). Fixes the data bit by bit. (Again a little more difficult than that.)
3). Outputs the fixed data to the device of your choice (let's say a file or
You will have your auto-repair program that can double as your MP3 burner or CD-ROM burner.
But what do I know. I am not, and unfortunately will probably never be, a hacker.
Assuming that a person is defined only by their physical attributes, yes we could get a really intelligent copy of Albert Einstien.
What about his childhood? Did the fact that he didn't complete secondary school, failed an exam to become an electrical engineer, and worked in a patent office influence him at all?
What about cloning Nikolai Tesla? His childhood in Serbia, his father who was an Orthodox priest, his mother who was quite intelligent but unschooled, his standing atop a hill watching a lightning storm and having an epiphany on the nature of electricity? He looked at electricity from a most different perspective that any other person in history, probably different that anyone alive today for that matter.
What chance could we have of "ensuring" the brilliance of those two men in a day where their very influence is felt in everyday life?
Many of the posts here in /. are posted by people who are active, and I mean really active, in the Linux community. Programmers, System Administrators, Tech Support, etc... With few exceptions most feel that Linux is the superior operating system and that Windows should be banned under international amnesty laws for cruelty to users. Taunting them with stability yet crashing quite often (BSOD and the like), giving them bells and whistles that blow up in their faces (Outlook, Word macros, and other virus catchers), and the promise of working with everything, provided it is accepted (i.e. created) by Microsoft.
/. are at the right side of the bell curve, some are at the extreme right. If you don't know what a bell curve is, you probably aren't reading this post. As most people here are at the right side of the curve, this would imply that most people NOT here and are at the other end. With the right side of the bell curve showing people who exhibit above average intelligence, the left side should probably show the 'average' user.
I use Windows mostly to play games at home and to compose letters at work. If I want to get on the Internet I will take a Linux box, preferably slackware, any day of the week. The stability of the system is wonderful, the security tools are quite good (If you haven't yet, try SAINT), and the look is nicely customizable.
Well, it would appear that the stability and reliability of Linux isn't really in question. We are already used to using the command line and the GUI that we chose (KDE, GNOME, being macho and just running X with a minimal front end). As we feel that since we are running the system just fine, shouldn't other people? We got it to work, shouldn't they?
There is a wonderful thing called a bell curve. It is used to show a statistical sampling of properties across time, space, population, etc... Let us look at the bell curve for intelligence. Many of the posters here in
If we as a community ever expect the 'average' user to adopt Linux, Linux must be able to survive in their world. In other words, if we don't make Linux friendly to those on the left side of the bell curve, the only people we can truly blame for the non-acceptance of Linux is us. The makers.
If we decide that we don't want Linux to become more common on the desktop, then we should cease and desist all complaining regarding the inability of the 'average' user community (you know, the ones who are, by definition, not as smart as you) to use Linux.
Personally, I would love to have Linux on the desktop where I work. I could reduce my workload quite substantially in support calls and concentrate on system stability and the like. The only two things stopping me are:
1). User acceptance. The managers in the departments would object to using it because it is unfamiliar to them. If I were able to show them that it is as easy for them to use as Windows, or even ALMOST, I could get my foot in the door with a few stations.
2). Program incompatibility. We have a few programs that just won't run under Linux. Yes, I could run VM Ware or a similar product, but that would still be running Windows. Suffice to say, many vendors just don't currently write software that supports Linux users. None write what we need.
I love the fact that I can install Linux on even the weakest of systems and have it perform adequately. The cost of the system is nil and runs on hardware that would be thrown out due to its obsolescence. Justifying the user training required for them to be infused with a clue, even a loaner clue, is another story altogether.
While point number two stated above is a large problem that I am faced with, how many companies would ignore an operating system that addressed my number one point, user acceptance.
It would appear that our options are thus:
1). Cave into the 'average' user and make a module for your GUI (GNOME, KDE, etc) that would empower the user with helpful (real helpful not guru level, that is a separate module called man pages) information and dispel their fears about the system.
2). Ignore the user and accept that the 'average' user just won't be able to get it.
The choice is yours.
--
More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
- Woody Allen