There seem to be rather obvious flaws in this entire concept. First off, how do you determine the extent of a security exploit? In the worst-case scenario, you're not going to even be *aware* of having been cracked, and it's precisely those attacks that you don't know about that can be the most dangerous.
Secondly, I don't think there's any way of coming up with an objective standard, a base line by which such a meantime could be judged. No two servers are alike, and even within broadly comparable applications it's more complex than just measuring traffic to the server, average load, etc. Some servers are more visible, or more desirable (from a cracker's perspective) -- either from a kudos point of view, or in terms of the potential use that can be obtained from a cracked server. It's pretty meaningless to say "my server's been up for months without being cracked" if it's some no-name machine that nobody knows or cares about.
Security's also not just to do with the software -- the computing power of the machine also needs to be taken into account. You're not going to be able to crack a password list as quickly on a 486 as on the latest pentium machine, for example.
So: no, it can't be done, reasonably. And asking what kinds of mean times we'd expect to see is, frankly, trolling for a platform flamewar..
I tend to think that the most interesting aspect of such predictions is that they can serve as a guide to the ways in which we're -- still -- doing things wrongly, and to how we can improve our lives. Predictions of the future tend to be fairly utopian, and in particular people often expect the future to be cleaner, devoid of pollution, nicer.
Even beyond remarking that it's a shame that such sweeping changes to the ways in which we live haven't come about, it's interesting to note that even more manageable, less utopian changes also haven't come to pass. Isn't it a shame that we don't have cleaner cars? Isn't it a shame that we can't build houses rapidly and cheaply in order to house the homeless? Couldn't we have more specialised, efficient highways for different types of transport? Couldn't we make better use of public transport?
I don't mean to be making a particularly political point; it's just a shame that when we look back to more idealistic visions of the 21st Century, so many opportunities to make real change for the better have failed to come about. There _have_ of course been many improvements in the ways in which we all live; but at the same time, there are so many ways in which we could all be doing more to change the world...
I find it quite frightening; still more frightening is that so many people don't seem phased by the idea at all. I also think it's horribly naive of people to think that such cameras can only be used in the service of the innocent, that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
I was a gothy-type person -- long hair, long coat, "strange" clothing -- growing up in a middle-class, rather closed-minded small city in England. I've been harassed by people in town quite a few times -- strangely, no cameras brought anyone to my aid on those occasions. Stranger still, I was once walking into the town with a couple of friends, when we were stopped by police. We were then told that the police had seen us on camera throwing stones at a local building. We'd done nothing of the kind, of course -- it had apparently been used as a pretext to stop us, question us, and search us for drugs. I've been stopped and searched for drugs, for no reason (other than my appearance), quite a few times. Thankfully, I've always managed to leave my drugs at home on those occasions. =D^)..
I won't go on an anti-police rant: I dare say there're a few of them who're honest and who want to help the public. However, the point is that once we surrender to the mindset that allows us to be watched on camera in the high streets that _we own_, we surrender our freedoms in a very real way. Abuses of power may be rare, but they do happen, and we shouldn't open ourselves up to them.
It's difficult to know what the solution to violence may be, of course, and I can sympathise to some extent with those who think cameras can aid in bringing criminals to justice (whatever that means); however, I'd suggest that more efforts should be made instead to address poverty, ignorance, stupidity: in short, to deal with the causes of violence instead of making misguided attempts to deal with the symptoms.
--George
In my experience, most Christians act according to their own beliefs, which are moderated by the Bible. Indeed, since the New Testament in particular is full of ambiguity, it can be very interesting to witness the particular ways in which people find means of justifying by the Bible their own particular take on life. If this were not the case, how could you account for the number of different factions within the Christian faith?
I don't believe I know a single Christian who practices unthinking adherence to any dogma contained within the bible. Christ himself was quick to challenge such dogma which, he claimed, was more often born of man than of God. Indeed, if you're a Christian (I'm not, incidentally,) Christ came bearing not peace but a sword -- Christianity has been marked by division, by persecution; it is therefore naive and overly simplistic to think that Christianity is a crutch, or to rehash the old "opiate of the people" mantra. On the contrary -- in today's society I think it often demands considerable courage to become an avowed Christian.
Also, it's all very well to criticize the "it's in the Bible, it must be true" idea -- but one should also be willing to consider that the Bible contains many valuable lessons and teachings that might be useful to us all. Beware tarring everybody with the same brush and suggesting that all Christians needs must be mindless, subservient buffoons -- remember that many incredibly intelligent people have become Christians.
I agree, of course, that it's always useful to challenge assumptions and question what you've read. I think most Christians would also agree, though. And, again, remember that Christ did criticize much of what mankind had derived from the scriptures -- I think many of the Christians who exhibit the kinds of behaviour you hint at do so more because they seek fulfilment in symbols and tradition than because of anything the Bible might have taught them.
While I dig what Loki's doing, and have bought a few of their games, I hardly see that it's the responsibility of the public to look out for the company's commercial interests. People will buy their ports while there's a market for them -- if there isn't, should we really be losing sleep over it? I'm interested in what's good for me as an individual, and if I can get a ready supply of games that'll work just fine on my linux box, I'm not especially concerned about the platform for which those games were originally written.
Nonetheless, I've little doubt that decent, well-ported native versions of the games will be a better proposition than anything running over WINE, however good it might become.
Does English communication itself need actually make sense in order to be protected under the US Constitution? If I were to string words together without 'meaning' in its conventional sense because, say, I liked the way in which they sounded, would that be protected? If I were to write a long rant that was meaningless to the casual listener, would that be?
Where would the line be drawn to what constitutes 'real' language of expression? If someone makes numerous spelling and grammatical errors, is his right to free speech restricted because he's not being altogether coherent?
The point I'm trying to get at is that while various people have suggested converting DeCSS into natural language (which has indeed been done), could source code not itself be considered simply an archaic, somewhat bizarre means of communicating in the English language? I would hope that someone speaking in a particular dialect wouldn't be restricted his or her right to free speech; equally, if I were to stand around saying "open curly bracket, unsigned char k open square bracket five close square bracket semi-colon", would the fact that I was making no real 'sense' to most people mean that I wasn't speaking English? I don't think so. Jabberwocky doesn't "make sense" in the conventional fashion, but it's still "in English"...
Clearly, the whole DeCSS issue is ridiculous, and should have been thrown out with extreme prejudice.
As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary (18k characters) program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying ``No'' to proprietary software
I'm far from a GPL expert -- what happens, though, if the code's author has incorporated code from elsewhere, which is itself GPL'd? Whose responsibility is it to ensure that the appropriate rights are granted by every author who has contributed to the code?
Also, why's it so bad and/or surprising if the GPL is "viral"? One would assume that RMS has sufficient belief in the GPL and the freedoms it provides to desire its widespread use; it seems to me that the GPL has reached a sufficient critical mass in terms of its use that it is effectively viral, and the constraints that it contains have contributed in no uncertain terms to this effect. As you suggest, there may be ways around it, so to speak, but I would guess that the GPL's viral nature is there by design. And a bloody good job it's doing, too.
In non-technical terms (I don't know the specifics): just before the commercials, a small signal is flashed in the top-right of the screen; this is trapped by the VCR. IIRC, various programmes are now avoiding the use of this signal, presumably in order to maximise ad revenue.
Overall, that's a pretty decent, well-argued round-up. There'll doubtless be numerous posts saying "how dare they leave out", by people who don't read the article properly, but by-and-large I'd say the gamespot piece does a good job.
Judging the influence of any game is always a difficult thing; I would argue that the classic Infocom adventures deserve a place in the list, and that Elite prefigures Wing Commander, but later games such as Quake and Half Life have arguably had a bigger impact upon the success of the PC as a gaming platform, set against the mac, consoles, etc.
So, a pretty well-compiled list. It's a bit of a shame that it'll probably get lots of people all worked up (such is the nature of these lists). What I find most interesting about the list, though, is that it's presented as much from a cultural/sales point of view as from a more critical perspective -- in other words, it includes Myst, Deer Hunter, Tomb Raider -- not games I'd consider classics when compared with some other releases, but certainly milestones in home computer gaming that have changed the landscape in some manner. There are games that perhaps have a greater influence in the minds of the developers and hardcore gamers, but these are the games that shifted units, spawned hundreds of clones, and developed good ideas into genres in their own right.
Re:School isn't just to get a job
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
When I was forced to decide between an English degree (studying my first, true love) and a Computer Science degree, I decided upon the latter, with the principal reason that job prospects were substantially better with a CS degree than with a degree in English. Was it the right decision to make? Well, I'm earning a fair sum doing things that interest me, although I'd never have thought I would become a programmer, and I enjoy my work. Nonetheless, I often regret not having opted for the English degree -- I found the study of Computer Science somewhatless than inspiring, often rather tedious, and less fulfilling than I believe I'd have found the English degree.
However -- I now earn enough to afford regular vacations, to buy books, to keep myself and my partner living in a comfortable fashion, and so forth. I also figure that once I've worked for a few more years I can kick back a little and, who knows, perhaps return to school to pursue that elusive English degree, or do something else entirely.
Ultimately, life isn't something that needs to be, or even can be, planned to the last detail. It's an oversimplification to suggest that such decisions as what to study at University should be made purely because of one factor or the other -- the need to find fulfilling employment is an entirely legitimate concern, as too is the need to find spiritual/educational/social gratification. In England, more perhaps than in the US, University is seen very much as a rite of passage -- as important as the learning that is accrued is the new exposure to different people, cultures, and alcoholic beverages. In that area, my years at University were hugely worthwhile.
I would suggest that you take balance of all the aspects that might come into play, and then ignore all that and do what your gut tells you.
It might be argued that the 'best' employees are those who take an active interest in the success in the company for which they work, even over-and-above their own self-interest. Management is often maligned, accused of being inept and ignorant; it would seem pragmatic, therefore, for talented developers to be promoted to management positions in order to address these issues; after all, I think it's fair to say that good coders are more easily come by than managers who understand the real issues.
Seen in this light, the case for promotion -- even enforced promotion -- seems to me to hold water. The technician who is unwilling to move up to a management decision might be seen to be indicating that he or she is unwilling to make sacrifices or compromises for the good of the company. Obviously, there might be legitimate reasons for not wanting to make the move -- a lack of confidence in one's people skills, inexperience in managing projects, and so forth -- but the original question provided rather more selfish motives -- satisfaction with the current level of responsibility, etc. That's all very well, but it's important to undertand that the primary purpose of a company is not purely keeping its employees happy, and damning the consequences. I think it's quite legitimate for a company to conclude that a lack of desire from an individual to help the company by taking on a more senior role is incongruous with the aims and concerns of the company in question.
Companies do succeed or fail, in a very real way, on the strength of their workforce, on the "fit". But it's important to understand that maintaining the ideal workforce is not merely a case of making sure everyone's happy, but rather of making sure that the right people are doing the right jobs, and that those people are dedicated employees with a real desire for the success of the company. Even now, with the growing disillusionment with the "new economy", there's the feeling amongst many techies that the "right thing" to do is to jump from job to job, going for whatever benefits are available and kicking up a fuss whenever things get a little awkard -- the success of the company is seldom considered. I personally think this is a dangerous attitude. Better, surely, to work for a company in which you have a real belief, and for which you'll work nail-and-tooth, even if that means a change from what you've been doing. Oh, and I do think it's naive to think of management's role as a superfluous one: while all the meetings, documents and other stuff that come as a part of management can doubtless be something of a pain, they're also often a very necessary evil. Besides, with responsibility comes opportunity to change the way things work -- so grab the bull by the horns, and do something to make the company you work for a better place with better product. You might even enjoy it... and it'll look great on the resume..
Is it any real surprise that more public attention is paid to the poor, the kids, the needy? Why *should* the government give too much of a toss about the "working young adult in a high-tech field"?
For all that so many/. readers tend to criticise SUV-driving suburban mothers, there's a tendency to ignore the fact that we're mostly doing rather well for ourselves, act as though we own the planet, believe that all our whims should be pandered to, selfishly enjoy our good fortune: in short, we're the spiritual cousins of those Fulham Farmers.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm no hippy bastard -- but I do find it a little disturbing that so many of you seem to believe that the government needs to spend more of its time working on behalf of those who are already plenty well of. Of *course* there are injustices perpetuated against us; of *course* the government does stupid things, is ignorant of technology and of the havok it so often wreaks - but the suggestion that these are the principal elements on which an election should be decided is rather callous, isn't it?
Fine, this is Slashdot - but still, too few questions have been asked about those more traditional concerns: what the government intends to do about poverty; about crime; about the environment; about essential human and animal rights. Yes, there are valid concerns about privacy and patent issues and the tech community and so forth - but I think a sense of perspective is needed...
Well, this story comes up all too often at/., and it's always the same mix of conjecture, paranoia, and xenophobia. If the majority were to be believed, H1-B visas would be nothing more than a simple means for companies to take advantage of foreigners at the expense of jobs for the Americans.
Too many myths are perpetrated by those who don't honestly know what they're talking about. As a UK citizen who's currently going through the rather gruelling process of getting the visa, I find it remarkable that so many of you seem to think that an H1-B is something readily obtained without paperwork, investigation, hassle, cost, and so forth. Apparently, if the opinions evinced here are to be believed, the H1-B allows US companies an easy source of slave labour; never mind the fact that companies pursuing an H1-B need to investigate the prevailing wage paid for the given job in the given area, and pay that wage. Never mind the fact that an accredited degree is a prerequisite for attaining an H1-B. (Okay, so "equivalent experience" is an alternative but, as I recall, the length of experience that is considered equivalent to a degree would preclude the attainment of an H1-B by the foreign kids you all seem so terrified by).
Now, to be fair, the study mentioned in the paper does cover all of these issues with greater depth than the average/. post. When it comes to the fact that certain companies are taking advantage of H1-B workers and paying lower salaries: go figure. There will always be unscrupulous companies out there. We're hardly talking slave labour, though; perhaps all of the American brats are too taken in by the IT myth, and have started believing that they're worth what they're paid. Goodness knows I've worked with too many people on exorbitant salaries who didn't really know what they were doing.
At any rate - I honestly couldn't be bothered with reading through the entire testimony; what I did read seemed to rely on a few examples rather than any large-scale study.
By and large, though, my argument would be this: any software company worth its salt will aim to employ the best available, irrespective (within reason) of the salaries demanded. If people on H1-B visas accept substandard salaries, it's either because they're just not that good, or because they're allowing themselves to have the piss taken out of them. That's their problem, frankly. As I mentioned, I'm in the process of getting my visa sorted out; my arranged salary is above that of the other (American) employees working at the company, because my skills are better developed. I know that the company in question has spent many months in trying to employ developers, without any real success - the one (American) programmer that was brought on board proved to have significantly overplayed his skills, and was little more than a poor HTML coder. This is in the Chicago office - hardly a back-water, although a city admittedly without the tech community of certain others. Point being, though, that it's all very well to stand around arguing that there's no job shortage - but it's quite another thing to fill the jobs. If I'm being paid no less than my American counterparts, and if there's a significant effort required in getting all of the visa paperwork arranged, why is the company in question willing to go through with it if there is no skill shortage in America?
I don't necessarily doubt that the visa system does lead to some abuse -- such abuse is endemic in business affairs in general, as well as with the entire immigration issue. What irritates me is the blanket statements made by too many people who are either too bitter, too stupid, or too arrogant to get the jobs that they see going to their foreign counterparts. Well, those people are right to be concerned: as someone with an American girlfriend, I'm very proud to be stealing both your jobs and your women.
My point isn't that people necessarily should act in an obnoxious manner, nor that it'll be in their best interests to do so: more that if people should be able to do so if they so desire. More specifically, though, I think that feeling as though one can speak frankly -- even at the risk of seeming rude -- can often be a good thing, and it's something that is less common "IRL" because of the social taboos that have been adopted. I have more respect for people who say what they mean, even if it's controversial, than for people who are simply nice to one another all of the time. On IRC, I find it very tiresome when people spend all of their time forging supposed relationships with people and *cuddling* and *kissing* and all of that crap; far better to try to get a rise out of people in the hope that they'll retort with something intelligent, humourous, or whathaveyou.
I think people should have the freedom to act in precisely whatever manner they require -- I'm no great believer in social constraints, nor in the need to avoid offending people if one disagrees with what they're saying. Other people are, of course, free to find you offensive and to stop talking to you if they don't like the way in which you're acting -- that's fine. But if an online persona provides the means for experimenting with one's personality, trying new ideas, entertaining oneself, or whatever, then I'm all for it. Just ask the people in efnet's #gothik..
Of course. However, I try to avoid Katz-bashing for its own sake: more tiresome than his stories is the number of people who slag the man off purely because it's deemed fashionable and cool to do so. And, to be fair, his stories do invariably get people talking, even if it's only to contradict everything he says. Somebody needs to come up with the stuff he comes up with -- while it's generally the kind of issue most of us find pretty obvious, it's only when we start discussing the issues that we begin to question our own assumptions and just maybe come up with something new.
You're touching upon a key element of the current state of the "virtual community", though: people are more free to be whoever they want to be, rather than whoever they've always been. In real life, people are forced to contend with being shy, being ugly, being disabled, or whatever; online, these things are (currently) less of an issue. In many cases, of course, this does lead to people acting in an obnoxious manner -- I do it myself, fairly often, in an ironic fashion. What we need to decide, though, is whether there's anything intrinsically more "real" about "real life" -- after all, the characters that people show face-to-face are not necessarily either a) a representation of how they see themselves, or b) the way they would be were it not for the various sociological pressures that're placed upon them. Many people can be heard better online; they can circumvent their shyness, or their physical difficulties, or whathaveyou.
If someone wants to be an annoying little brat rather than quiet and reserved, shouldn't that be their prerogative? If someone wants to live out a power fantasy, or to use the mask of relative anonymity to say something that might be considered taboo in real life, is that necessarily a bad thing? It's really the same argument as that about AC's; on the one hand, you do wind up with a lot more noise and bitching and trolling -- on the other, people are more free to do as they will, and (occasionally, admittedly) to speak out with insight that might otherwise not have come to light.
So: yes, so-called virtual communities may lead to a change in the way in which we see ourselves and others (on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog) -- but that's not necessarily a bad thing, is it?
In many respects, the virtual community has come to pass: we're sitting here reading and discussing this, aren't we? People shop online, read news online, chat online, rob, cheat and steal online. The fact that not everybody is a part of this community as yet is hardly surprising; however, the community continues to grow at an incredible, sometimes frightening, rate. That there are technophobes and critics within this community is also no contradiction: in every society there exist those who would change it, destroy it, or deny it, and in some respects these components are essential for the success of any community.
So, I'm not really sure what Katz is getting at. Of course the "community" needs to change and will change -- however, I find it difficult to believe that this will happen as a result of a considered, planned process. Like other communities, this "virtual" one will continue to morph with the whims of its members -- and to ask whether it will "survive the growth, size and commercialization of the Net [etc]" is to miss the point. Commercialization is an essential requisite of a truly successful online community, just as trade is an essential element of any "real life" community. Over time, as the problem of scarcity becomes less of an issue, this may of course change -- but, rest assured, there will always be a "dark side" to this community as with any other. And, far from being a problem, it will be what continues to provide this society with much of its zest and many of its successes.
What we might do is embrace these disparate elements of our new community, and avoid making the same mistakes we've made elsewhere: waging pointless "wars" on what we consider the less desirable elements of society; alienating the most useful differences by embracing conformity; running scared from change in a desire to maintain the status quo. Whether we'll succeed in this is to be seen: I'm hoping.
Fair enough. I should of course have known better than to criticize someone's literacy, since doing so always backfires; I should also have made better use of that nifty "Preview" functionality.
However, while I agree with you about the difficulty that's to be found in finding competent managers, and in encouraging able programmers to move to management positions, I do think it's important to avoid the knee-jerk reaction that's so common on/. whereby the management is _always_ seen as inept and the coder _always_ considers himself The Law.
The recent Ask Slashdot on this issue highlights some of the problems to which you allude; as I commented in that discussion, though, too many programers seem(IMHO) to be satisfied with resting on their laurels and knocking the management.
Nonetheless, I don't mean to suggest that all consultants are brilliant (I've certainly worked with a few idiots); however, I think/. has a tendency to oversimplify and churn out trite arguments without considering that there might be greater considerations than the happiness of individual coders, who might just occasionally not be right about everything. And, with respect, I do think that Sinsterian makes too many of these oversimplifications: the Dilbert analogy is funny because it's true, but it's also often not true. As it were.
I guess it depends. A "methodology" is the principles and practices concerned with the analysis of the methods appropriate to the field of study, in this case project development. Some of these "methodologies" are indeed concerned with evaluating the suitability of a particular approach, of determining the best way in which to proceed with a project, and so forth. On the other hand, some so-called "methodologies" are, as you suggest, merely the methods by which the project is developed. It's a fairly subtle distinction, but I think in many areas the term "methodology" is appropriate.
Yes, they are -- but people show an incredible facility for missing or ignoring what others might consider obvious. Setting expectations down in stone, even if those expectations seem self-evident, can be a very important process. Oh, and many things that seem obvious and self-evident may often turn out to be entirely wrong approaches...
Slashdot Mirror
None of which invalidates anything he's done. The risk of effective "social cracks" is probably the _largest_ security concern out there..
Secondly, I don't think there's any way of coming up with an objective standard, a base line by which such a meantime could be judged. No two servers are alike, and even within broadly comparable applications it's more complex than just measuring traffic to the server, average load, etc. Some servers are more visible, or more desirable (from a cracker's perspective) -- either from a kudos point of view, or in terms of the potential use that can be obtained from a cracked server. It's pretty meaningless to say "my server's been up for months without being cracked" if it's some no-name machine that nobody knows or cares about.
Security's also not just to do with the software -- the computing power of the machine also needs to be taken into account. You're not going to be able to crack a password list as quickly on a 486 as on the latest pentium machine, for example.
So: no, it can't be done, reasonably. And asking what kinds of mean times we'd expect to see is, frankly, trolling for a platform flamewar..
Even beyond remarking that it's a shame that such sweeping changes to the ways in which we live haven't come about, it's interesting to note that even more manageable, less utopian changes also haven't come to pass. Isn't it a shame that we don't have cleaner cars? Isn't it a shame that we can't build houses rapidly and cheaply in order to house the homeless? Couldn't we have more specialised, efficient highways for different types of transport? Couldn't we make better use of public transport?
I don't mean to be making a particularly political point; it's just a shame that when we look back to more idealistic visions of the 21st Century, so many opportunities to make real change for the better have failed to come about. There _have_ of course been many improvements in the ways in which we all live; but at the same time, there are so many ways in which we could all be doing more to change the world...
I find it quite frightening; still more frightening is that so many people don't seem phased by the idea at all. I also think it's horribly naive of people to think that such cameras can only be used in the service of the innocent, that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. I was a gothy-type person -- long hair, long coat, "strange" clothing -- growing up in a middle-class, rather closed-minded small city in England. I've been harassed by people in town quite a few times -- strangely, no cameras brought anyone to my aid on those occasions. Stranger still, I was once walking into the town with a couple of friends, when we were stopped by police. We were then told that the police had seen us on camera throwing stones at a local building. We'd done nothing of the kind, of course -- it had apparently been used as a pretext to stop us, question us, and search us for drugs. I've been stopped and searched for drugs, for no reason (other than my appearance), quite a few times. Thankfully, I've always managed to leave my drugs at home on those occasions. =D^) ..
I won't go on an anti-police rant: I dare say there're a few of them who're honest and who want to help the public. However, the point is that once we surrender to the mindset that allows us to be watched on camera in the high streets that _we own_, we surrender our freedoms in a very real way. Abuses of power may be rare, but they do happen, and we shouldn't open ourselves up to them.
It's difficult to know what the solution to violence may be, of course, and I can sympathise to some extent with those who think cameras can aid in bringing criminals to justice (whatever that means); however, I'd suggest that more efforts should be made instead to address poverty, ignorance, stupidity: in short, to deal with the causes of violence instead of making misguided attempts to deal with the symptoms.
--George
In my experience, most Christians act according to their own beliefs, which are moderated by the Bible. Indeed, since the New Testament in particular is full of ambiguity, it can be very interesting to witness the particular ways in which people find means of justifying by the Bible their own particular take on life. If this were not the case, how could you account for the number of different factions within the Christian faith? I don't believe I know a single Christian who practices unthinking adherence to any dogma contained within the bible. Christ himself was quick to challenge such dogma which, he claimed, was more often born of man than of God. Indeed, if you're a Christian (I'm not, incidentally,) Christ came bearing not peace but a sword -- Christianity has been marked by division, by persecution; it is therefore naive and overly simplistic to think that Christianity is a crutch, or to rehash the old "opiate of the people" mantra. On the contrary -- in today's society I think it often demands considerable courage to become an avowed Christian. Also, it's all very well to criticize the "it's in the Bible, it must be true" idea -- but one should also be willing to consider that the Bible contains many valuable lessons and teachings that might be useful to us all. Beware tarring everybody with the same brush and suggesting that all Christians needs must be mindless, subservient buffoons -- remember that many incredibly intelligent people have become Christians. I agree, of course, that it's always useful to challenge assumptions and question what you've read. I think most Christians would also agree, though. And, again, remember that Christ did criticize much of what mankind had derived from the scriptures -- I think many of the Christians who exhibit the kinds of behaviour you hint at do so more because they seek fulfilment in symbols and tradition than because of anything the Bible might have taught them.
Nonetheless, I've little doubt that decent, well-ported native versions of the games will be a better proposition than anything running over WINE, however good it might become.
Where would the line be drawn to what constitutes 'real' language of expression? If someone makes numerous spelling and grammatical errors, is his right to free speech restricted because he's not being altogether coherent?
The point I'm trying to get at is that while various people have suggested converting DeCSS into natural language (which has indeed been done), could source code not itself be considered simply an archaic, somewhat bizarre means of communicating in the English language? I would hope that someone speaking in a particular dialect wouldn't be restricted his or her right to free speech; equally, if I were to stand around saying "open curly bracket, unsigned char k open square bracket five close square bracket semi-colon", would the fact that I was making no real 'sense' to most people mean that I wasn't speaking English? I don't think so. Jabberwocky doesn't "make sense" in the conventional fashion, but it's still "in English"...
Clearly, the whole DeCSS issue is ridiculous, and should have been thrown out with extreme prejudice.
As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary (18k characters) program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying ``No'' to proprietary software
Also, why's it so bad and/or surprising if the GPL is "viral"? One would assume that RMS has sufficient belief in the GPL and the freedoms it provides to desire its widespread use; it seems to me that the GPL has reached a sufficient critical mass in terms of its use that it is effectively viral, and the constraints that it contains have contributed in no uncertain terms to this effect. As you suggest, there may be ways around it, so to speak, but I would guess that the GPL's viral nature is there by design. And a bloody good job it's doing, too.
In non-technical terms (I don't know the specifics): just before the commercials, a small signal is flashed in the top-right of the screen; this is trapped by the VCR. IIRC, various programmes are now avoiding the use of this signal, presumably in order to maximise ad revenue.
Judging the influence of any game is always a difficult thing; I would argue that the classic Infocom adventures deserve a place in the list, and that Elite prefigures Wing Commander, but later games such as Quake and Half Life have arguably had a bigger impact upon the success of the PC as a gaming platform, set against the mac, consoles, etc.
So, a pretty well-compiled list. It's a bit of a shame that it'll probably get lots of people all worked up (such is the nature of these lists). What I find most interesting about the list, though, is that it's presented as much from a cultural/sales point of view as from a more critical perspective -- in other words, it includes Myst, Deer Hunter, Tomb Raider -- not games I'd consider classics when compared with some other releases, but certainly milestones in home computer gaming that have changed the landscape in some manner. There are games that perhaps have a greater influence in the minds of the developers and hardcore gamers, but these are the games that shifted units, spawned hundreds of clones, and developed good ideas into genres in their own right.
However -- I now earn enough to afford regular vacations, to buy books, to keep myself and my partner living in a comfortable fashion, and so forth. I also figure that once I've worked for a few more years I can kick back a little and, who knows, perhaps return to school to pursue that elusive English degree, or do something else entirely.
Ultimately, life isn't something that needs to be, or even can be, planned to the last detail. It's an oversimplification to suggest that such decisions as what to study at University should be made purely because of one factor or the other -- the need to find fulfilling employment is an entirely legitimate concern, as too is the need to find spiritual/educational/social gratification. In England, more perhaps than in the US, University is seen very much as a rite of passage -- as important as the learning that is accrued is the new exposure to different people, cultures, and alcoholic beverages. In that area, my years at University were hugely worthwhile.
I would suggest that you take balance of all the aspects that might come into play, and then ignore all that and do what your gut tells you.
Seen in this light, the case for promotion -- even enforced promotion -- seems to me to hold water. The technician who is unwilling to move up to a management decision might be seen to be indicating that he or she is unwilling to make sacrifices or compromises for the good of the company. Obviously, there might be legitimate reasons for not wanting to make the move -- a lack of confidence in one's people skills, inexperience in managing projects, and so forth -- but the original question provided rather more selfish motives -- satisfaction with the current level of responsibility, etc. That's all very well, but it's important to undertand that the primary purpose of a company is not purely keeping its employees happy, and damning the consequences. I think it's quite legitimate for a company to conclude that a lack of desire from an individual to help the company by taking on a more senior role is incongruous with the aims and concerns of the company in question.
Companies do succeed or fail, in a very real way, on the strength of their workforce, on the "fit". But it's important to understand that maintaining the ideal workforce is not merely a case of making sure everyone's happy, but rather of making sure that the right people are doing the right jobs, and that those people are dedicated employees with a real desire for the success of the company. Even now, with the growing disillusionment with the "new economy", there's the feeling amongst many techies that the "right thing" to do is to jump from job to job, going for whatever benefits are available and kicking up a fuss whenever things get a little awkard -- the success of the company is seldom considered. I personally think this is a dangerous attitude. Better, surely, to work for a company in which you have a real belief, and for which you'll work nail-and-tooth, even if that means a change from what you've been doing. Oh, and I do think it's naive to think of management's role as a superfluous one: while all the meetings, documents and other stuff that come as a part of management can doubtless be something of a pain, they're also often a very necessary evil. Besides, with responsibility comes opportunity to change the way things work -- so grab the bull by the horns, and do something to make the company you work for a better place with better product. You might even enjoy it... and it'll look great on the resume..
bzzt. An apostrophe would be used with the possessive, as in "the OS' dominance", but not in this case. OSes is correct. IMHO.
For all that so many /. readers tend to criticise SUV-driving suburban mothers, there's a tendency to ignore the fact that we're mostly doing rather well for ourselves, act as though we own the planet, believe that all our whims should be pandered to, selfishly enjoy our good fortune: in short, we're the spiritual cousins of those Fulham Farmers.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm no hippy bastard -- but I do find it a little disturbing that so many of you seem to believe that the government needs to spend more of its time working on behalf of those who are already plenty well of. Of *course* there are injustices perpetuated against us; of *course* the government does stupid things, is ignorant of technology and of the havok it so often wreaks - but the suggestion that these are the principal elements on which an election should be decided is rather callous, isn't it?
Fine, this is Slashdot - but still, too few questions have been asked about those more traditional concerns: what the government intends to do about poverty; about crime; about the environment; about essential human and animal rights. Yes, there are valid concerns about privacy and patent issues and the tech community and so forth - but I think a sense of perspective is needed...
Too many myths are perpetrated by those who don't honestly know what they're talking about. As a UK citizen who's currently going through the rather gruelling process of getting the visa, I find it remarkable that so many of you seem to think that an H1-B is something readily obtained without paperwork, investigation, hassle, cost, and so forth. Apparently, if the opinions evinced here are to be believed, the H1-B allows US companies an easy source of slave labour; never mind the fact that companies pursuing an H1-B need to investigate the prevailing wage paid for the given job in the given area, and pay that wage. Never mind the fact that an accredited degree is a prerequisite for attaining an H1-B. (Okay, so "equivalent experience" is an alternative but, as I recall, the length of experience that is considered equivalent to a degree would preclude the attainment of an H1-B by the foreign kids you all seem so terrified by).
Now, to be fair, the study mentioned in the paper does cover all of these issues with greater depth than the average /. post. When it comes to the fact that certain companies are taking advantage of H1-B workers and paying lower salaries: go figure. There will always be unscrupulous companies out there. We're hardly talking slave labour, though; perhaps all of the American brats are too taken in by the IT myth, and have started believing that they're worth what they're paid. Goodness knows I've worked with too many people on exorbitant salaries who didn't really know what they were doing.
At any rate - I honestly couldn't be bothered with reading through the entire testimony; what I did read seemed to rely on a few examples rather than any large-scale study.
By and large, though, my argument would be this: any software company worth its salt will aim to employ the best available, irrespective (within reason) of the salaries demanded. If people on H1-B visas accept substandard salaries, it's either because they're just not that good, or because they're allowing themselves to have the piss taken out of them. That's their problem, frankly. As I mentioned, I'm in the process of getting my visa sorted out; my arranged salary is above that of the other (American) employees working at the company, because my skills are better developed. I know that the company in question has spent many months in trying to employ developers, without any real success - the one (American) programmer that was brought on board proved to have significantly overplayed his skills, and was little more than a poor HTML coder. This is in the Chicago office - hardly a back-water, although a city admittedly without the tech community of certain others. Point being, though, that it's all very well to stand around arguing that there's no job shortage - but it's quite another thing to fill the jobs. If I'm being paid no less than my American counterparts, and if there's a significant effort required in getting all of the visa paperwork arranged, why is the company in question willing to go through with it if there is no skill shortage in America?
I don't necessarily doubt that the visa system does lead to some abuse -- such abuse is endemic in business affairs in general, as well as with the entire immigration issue. What irritates me is the blanket statements made by too many people who are either too bitter, too stupid, or too arrogant to get the jobs that they see going to their foreign counterparts. Well, those people are right to be concerned: as someone with an American girlfriend, I'm very proud to be stealing both your jobs and your women.
--George.
Er, Undernet's #gothik, rather... as though anybody cared.
I think people should have the freedom to act in precisely whatever manner they require -- I'm no great believer in social constraints, nor in the need to avoid offending people if one disagrees with what they're saying. Other people are, of course, free to find you offensive and to stop talking to you if they don't like the way in which you're acting -- that's fine. But if an online persona provides the means for experimenting with one's personality, trying new ideas, entertaining oneself, or whatever, then I'm all for it. Just ask the people in efnet's #gothik ..
Just IMHO, of course.
If someone wants to be an annoying little brat rather than quiet and reserved, shouldn't that be their prerogative? If someone wants to live out a power fantasy, or to use the mask of relative anonymity to say something that might be considered taboo in real life, is that necessarily a bad thing? It's really the same argument as that about AC's; on the one hand, you do wind up with a lot more noise and bitching and trolling -- on the other, people are more free to do as they will, and (occasionally, admittedly) to speak out with insight that might otherwise not have come to light.
So: yes, so-called virtual communities may lead to a change in the way in which we see ourselves and others (on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog) -- but that's not necessarily a bad thing, is it?
So, I'm not really sure what Katz is getting at. Of course the "community" needs to change and will change -- however, I find it difficult to believe that this will happen as a result of a considered, planned process. Like other communities, this "virtual" one will continue to morph with the whims of its members -- and to ask whether it will "survive the growth, size and commercialization of the Net [etc]" is to miss the point. Commercialization is an essential requisite of a truly successful online community, just as trade is an essential element of any "real life" community. Over time, as the problem of scarcity becomes less of an issue, this may of course change -- but, rest assured, there will always be a "dark side" to this community as with any other. And, far from being a problem, it will be what continues to provide this society with much of its zest and many of its successes.
What we might do is embrace these disparate elements of our new community, and avoid making the same mistakes we've made elsewhere: waging pointless "wars" on what we consider the less desirable elements of society; alienating the most useful differences by embracing conformity; running scared from change in a desire to maintain the status quo. Whether we'll succeed in this is to be seen: I'm hoping.
However, while I agree with you about the difficulty that's to be found in finding competent managers, and in encouraging able programmers to move to management positions, I do think it's important to avoid the knee-jerk reaction that's so common on /. whereby the management is _always_ seen as inept and the coder _always_ considers himself The Law.
The recent Ask Slashdot on this issue highlights some of the problems to which you allude; as I commented in that discussion, though, too many programers seem(IMHO) to be satisfied with resting on their laurels and knocking the management.
Nonetheless, I don't mean to suggest that all consultants are brilliant (I've certainly worked with a few idiots); however, I think /. has a tendency to oversimplify and churn out trite arguments without considering that there might be greater considerations than the happiness of individual coders, who might just occasionally not be right about everything. And, with respect, I do think that Sinsterian makes too many of these oversimplifications: the Dilbert analogy is funny because it's true, but it's also often not true. As it were.
I guess it depends. A "methodology" is the principles and practices concerned with the analysis of the methods appropriate to the field of study, in this case project development. Some of these "methodologies" are indeed concerned with evaluating the suitability of a particular approach, of determining the best way in which to proceed with a project, and so forth. On the other hand, some so-called "methodologies" are, as you suggest, merely the methods by which the project is developed. It's a fairly subtle distinction, but I think in many areas the term "methodology" is appropriate.
Yes, they are -- but people show an incredible facility for missing or ignoring what others might consider obvious. Setting expectations down in stone, even if those expectations seem self-evident, can be a very important process. Oh, and many things that seem obvious and self-evident may often turn out to be entirely wrong approaches...