I just cannot believe the transcript. To hear the government talk, this kid is the next Tim McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden all rolled into one. They make him sound like a crazed lunatic who jumped into his Toyota and drove across the country to blow up New York... and might blow up the Olympics on his way back.
Then his lawyer talked and basically trashed all those distortions. When she presented the facts, all of the sudden a totally different picture emerges. He's not some violent fugitive... he's up on some misdemeanor charges. He wasn't even charged with a felony.
I think this is a preview of things to come... the government uses hyperbole and fear to push judges to smack down the most minor offenses. It's legal FUD.
The lusers I speak of were hardly Computer Scientists of any sort whatsoever. They were quite clearly in it for the money... they were the guys who wore suits to class, for God's sake. THey were about as remote from hackers or theoretical CS folks as you could be.
In other words (again), they knew *nothing*. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Probe them on a point outside the minute realm of what was handed to them on a plate by Microsoft or by the part of the textbooks they highlighted because it was going to be on the test, and they failed utterly.
You're proud because you learned something. Great. You should be! These guys learned *nothing*. I'm serious, I sat in classes with the same people year after year. I interviewed several of them for the on-campus lab. They were in the ACM, but they never read a white paper or argued about theoretical CS (the rest of us *did*).
My point (and I still stick with it) is that I'm not shocked to hear that 90% of Information Technology grads don't know jack-squat about Linux. These were always the folks who lacked the real underlying *interest* in the computer field -- they were just going through the motions.
...oh, and we're not clueless. We just hate you:-P. (*)
(*) It's a joke. Laugh. We're all a little bit of the BOFH at heart, aren't we?
No, I discounted the dumb people who didn't know anything, but still got A's. They did the coursework, but couldn't innovate or think. They just knew how to take good notes, studied by rote, and sucked up to profs.
Jaded? No, just realistic. Graduating with a CS degree does not, by itself, tell me anything about you. People who "get it" stand out in other ways. People who don't get it... well, they get to a certain level, and probably stay there the rest of their careers...:-)
I'm hardly shocked. This is just the next generation of suits that I saw cranked out in the late 90s... mindless Visual Basic drones who couldn't program their way out of a paper bag, the schlocks who got all As but couldn't think on their toes to solve real problems.
For the most part, we wouldn't hire them to work at the on-campus computer labs. They could never debug problems unless they had the manuals open, and even then... fat chance.
These are the future ineffectual middle-managers, the guys who got into computers because 4 years ago, they were told dot.com was the way to go... oops, sorry kids, no jobs for you! (*)
(*) unless your frat buddies get them for you, but we'll know that's how you got in, and we'll make you pay for it;-)
Let's insure this prediction turns out to be untrue:-). I say we all make sure to buy and return this sucker, preferably in a coordinated effort targeted on a certain day...
What idiots... we long ago ceased being "customers" to them, now they just expect us to roll over and play dead. Forget that.
``They've been testing this in Europe and they're experiencing less than a 1 percent return rate from consumers. It really has turned out to be nothing,'' said Jerry Kamiler, TransWorld Entertainment's division merchandise manger. ``If we get the same results here, as I imagine we would, I don't think it's going to manifest itself into a consumer problem.''
I've done this before, and it's a valid approach in a lot of cases. What you need is a situation where the strengths of the languages, and the differences between them, is so apparent that this makes sense.
Some cases where it works:
1) One part of the team is significantly less skilled or experienced than another
In this case, you may have a set of junior coders who aren't up to writing the complex, performance-sensitive portions of the application... but they understand basic programming practices and theory, and they can knock out small chunks of code in something like Perl, Python, etc. In that case, writing a C/C++ back end that can exec these scripts (or has a built-in interpreter) can be a real win.
2) The application itself is divided up into several logical parts that have very different needs.
This might be the case with the system above... it's a fast main driver program that can be customized via a scripting interface. Being able to write "plugins" in a simpler language can be a real win, both in development (allows rapid prototyping) and in production (more configurable for end users!)
3) The "application" is actually several disparate systems that are only loosely tied.
In this case, who cares what language you use? Focus on the interconnect points, make those robust, and you have a very flexible system.
4) You need as much performance as possible, or platform requirements dictate a certain language.
In that case, you just bite the bullet and write that C++ native library to hook into your Java app (or link in the Fortran math libs you need). I tend to dislike this, simply because it can be such a nightmare when it goes wrong... again, the interconnect points and the chances of lib A crashing app B better be well understood.
I called the phone number (408 536 6000) and asked for Public Relations. I got someone's voicemail, and left a somewhat long message about how concerned I was.
The person answering on the main line said I was the third person who called, and he actually put me on hold to find out who in Corporate was actually supposed to get these calls. So keep calling!
I couldn't agree more. I went through a similar course -- I was under-motivated in my job at a Big Three AutoMaker That Rhymes With "Bored", and I was sure I was, without a doubt, God's very gift to programming.
Then I went to another company, where I was swiftly reduced to average. There were about 8 of us handling a boatload of Web programming, and in that pressure cooker I learned how to really program.
I left when the stress got to be too much... to find that now I really was one of the best people I could find at what I do. But somehow, the cocky attitude didn't come with me. Now I'm a manager and technical lead, and I have confidence. but I also know how to lead and mentor others.
Of course, I'm here at 9:30pm working late because I know I can code these servlets better and quicker than my team members can -- but hey, sometimes the cocky attitude is the best thing to have:-).
I don't think anyone is claiming that the backers of the DCMA actually care about academic freedom (or anything but money, let's be serious). However, the harm to their public face by being clearly seen to be squashing these things is pretty real.
It's one thing to push around hackers... the public still has little to no sympathy for the misunderstood minority they represent. But a lot more people can understand it when they're told "hey, the RIAA wants to stop research. What's the deal with that?".
It's all about bringing this out into the open, clarifying what the stakes are, and winning some real "hearts and minds" in this fight. Joe Six-Pack could care less otherwise.
I don't think XP is per se "dogmatic". However, as a methodology, it really works best when you follow all the practices. This isn't because it's The One True Way, but because things like Pair Programming, Collective Ownership, Merciless Refactoring, etc. all build on and reinforce each other. If you omit some of them, you don't get as much synergy (ugh, hate that word, shoot me for using it) where the strengths of one discipline help make up for the weaknesses/problems of another.
That having been said, use what works. If it doesn't work, try something else. I don't shoot people who write procedural code using Rational Unified Process... (I just pity them ).
Good programmers see the value in approaches that maximize the benefit they provide to the project as a whole. XP (via pair programming, which acts as a mentor/apprentice model often) encourages this.
Good programmers know enough to test and re-test. XP definately encourages this.
Good programmers know not to re-invent the wheel, and they also intuitively see larger patterns evolve over the course of hundreds of programming projects. Design Patterns simply make sense, they are not "formal", nor "rigid", it's simply a way to discuss something that already exists, and that you see clearly if you're a "good" programmer.
Actually, the "no overtime" is better stated as "don't work overtime two weeks in a row". In other words, if you pushed it one week, and that still wasn't enough, you have more problems than an extra week of over-work is going to fix.
The myth that 60/hrs a week constantly == a great project is utter BS. I've seen too many people worked into the ground when they really needed to admit that the entire project was flawed and needed to be re-examined.
Any Windows-heads out there have an idea how this might be implemented? I'm not sure if I see how this couldn't be circumvented by dropping in a new DLL on top of InTether that decrypts the file, but *doesn't* enforce the copy-protection scheme?
Plus, how does it control this in the first place? Where in the Win API is this level of control possible? Sounds almost like it must replace Windows kernel calls, which would mean it's hard for it to keep pace with Windows releases...
Forgive my cynicism, but what special-interest group is he fawning to with this? Who's paying him to have these opinions?
I'm just utterly shocked that any elected official would dare strike against the corps unless someone else more influential was convincing him to do so.
In this case, we all know "Sally" doesn't know what she did. It's clear that Windows presents the facade of protecting users from themselves (why else would you use it? ), but then fails in this regard by not at least saying:
"Hello, Sally. You seem to have just asked me to share your files to the world, but did not set a password. Did you really want to do that?"
Along with a nice help button that explains how this is Not A Good Thing(tm). I just tried this with Win2K, it didn't prompt me at all!
At least with Unix, no claim is made -- if you're an idiot, and can't at least RTFM, don't come to play. Here, Windows claims to coddle the foolish user, and all it does it allow them to do stupid stuff... You can't have it both ways.
This isn't analogous to Napster, etc. In those cases, Party A & Party B clearly intended to exchange files. Here, they involve Party C, who never wanted to be at the party in the first place:-).
The tool may be legal, just as Napster should be legal (prosecute users, not vendors). It is hardly moral, since it encourages users to basically commit computer crime that isn't defensible by any "fair-use" doctrine at all.
Oh great. I read this report and thought "this can't be for real". But apparently it is. I never thought I'd see the day when such outright "cracking" activities are treated as a business model:-).
Clearly, this is not a good thing or a moral thing to do -- I can defend Bob and Joe trading MP3s, but if they do it via Sally's open share (and grab some of her files too), that's a totally different thing. The problem is, the corps are going to point to this and say: "See? These geeks are just a bunch of thieves and pirates!".
In this case, it seems fairly clear-cut that they are right:-). I sincerely hope this program falls flat on it's face, and these guys go out of business. If they presented their tool as a "security hardening" device to probe your own network, I could buy it. But they aren't even putting up that much of a facade (how stupid are they?).
How sad. They will continue to fight this at the effect level, and ignore the cause. The fact that people go to Napster et. al. for music is just an effect of the prime cause -- CDs are too damn expensive.
Until that is "fixed", any number of solutions will be pursued by those who love music, but think they are getting gouged paying for it.
...and this action is fruitless. So what if they shut down OpenNap (and as the article points out, overseas servers are going to make that a difficult proposition)? At the worst, I could set up a private anonymous service to put Bob in touch with Joe so they can exchange whole burned CDs of MP3s -- and then what is the RIAA going to do?
Uh oh, bad news:
>The patent application was filed in April 1997.
Hmm... have to dig back a little further to find examples, not that there aren't plenty of them, it's just that Slashdot probably doesn't have prior art in this area since it wasn't started until September 1997.
OK, so it's another stupid patent. So? These things have to be tested to stand up, it's obvious that the US Patent Office just hands them out like Everlasting Gobstoppers at the Willy Wonka factory, so let's stop getting our knickers in an uproar every time this happens.
So, I'd suggest we just let them be patent-happy idiots, and maybe amass some prior art citations for the time when they sue Cmdr. Taco for Slash's infringement of their American right to innovate.
> I really can't see the justification for linking > as speech.
Then you effectively ban me saying to someone: "Hey, I hear you can pick up a hooker on 8 Mile and Woodward". I'm allowed to do that now under the Constitution -- but I'm not allowed to do the technical equivalent on the Web?
No way. If this decision stays as a piece of prior case law, I'm all in favor of taking up arms and staging another revolution.
(Oh, I'm allowed to say that too... Nice thing, free speech).
There's no reason you can't pay someone to develop open-source software. Why would you think that open-source == not getting paid? It happens all the time, actually. You pay me to develop something you really, really need -- and it's boring or so application-specific that there is no existing interest in open-source solutions.
I take your money, and we both agree to release the end result as open-source, in hopes that once the hard part is done, people might be encouraged to build on that platform and improve it.
I mean, look at Mozilla. People are getting paid for that -- lots of people.:-)
>I wish I'd saved the article:
I suspect what you are looking for is here:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_dis play/0,3441,2129312,00.html.
The story is quite a hoot regardless of what Allchin himself says; this is a set of predictions for "NT 5.0 and higher" that is nowhere near what they've produced for Win2K or WinXP. FUD rules in all times and all places for Microsoft...:-)
Saith the good Lord Allchin:
''There is always something enamoring about
thinking you can get something for free.''
Indeed. There are several things:
1) It didn't cost me anything. Awesome, I can deal with that
2) More importantly, it's freedom, not lack of cost. I'm free to improve this thing I've gotten. I can understand how such a concept is alien to someone from Microsoft, but that's the real attraction.
This is just the worst case of "foot in mouth" disease I've seen in a while. The best response is to laugh this guy out of the room; the FUD must be up to people's knees in that room...
Slashdot Mirror
I just cannot believe the transcript. To hear the government talk, this kid is the next Tim McVeigh and Osama Bin Laden all rolled into one. They make him sound like a crazed lunatic who jumped into his Toyota and drove across the country to blow up New York... and might blow up the Olympics on his way back.
Then his lawyer talked and basically trashed all those distortions. When she presented the facts, all of the sudden a totally different picture emerges. He's not some violent fugitive... he's up on some misdemeanor charges. He wasn't even charged with a felony.
I think this is a preview of things to come... the government uses hyperbole and fear to push judges to smack down the most minor offenses. It's legal FUD.
The lusers I speak of were hardly Computer Scientists of any sort whatsoever. They were quite clearly in it for the money... they were the guys who wore suits to class, for God's sake. THey were about as remote from hackers or theoretical CS folks as you could be.
:-P. (*)
In other words (again), they knew *nothing*. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Probe them on a point outside the minute realm of what was handed to them on a plate by Microsoft or by the part of the textbooks they highlighted because it was going to be on the test, and they failed utterly.
You're proud because you learned something. Great. You should be! These guys learned *nothing*. I'm serious, I sat in classes with the same people year after year. I interviewed several of them for the on-campus lab. They were in the ACM, but they never read a white paper or argued about theoretical CS (the rest of us *did*).
My point (and I still stick with it) is that I'm not shocked to hear that 90% of Information Technology grads don't know jack-squat about Linux. These were always the folks who lacked the real underlying *interest* in the computer field -- they were just going through the motions.
...oh, and we're not clueless. We just hate you
(*) It's a joke. Laugh. We're all a little bit of the BOFH at heart, aren't we?
No, I discounted the dumb people who didn't know anything, but still got A's. They did the coursework, but couldn't innovate or think. They just knew how to take good notes, studied by rote, and sucked up to profs.
:-)
Jaded? No, just realistic. Graduating with a CS degree does not, by itself, tell me anything about you. People who "get it" stand out in other ways. People who don't get it... well, they get to a certain level, and probably stay there the rest of their careers...
I'm hardly shocked. This is just the next generation of suits that I saw cranked out in the late 90s... mindless Visual Basic drones who couldn't program their way out of a paper bag, the schlocks who got all As but couldn't think on their toes to solve real problems.
;-)
For the most part, we wouldn't hire them to work at the on-campus computer labs. They could never debug problems unless they had the manuals open, and even then... fat chance.
These are the future ineffectual middle-managers, the guys who got into computers because 4 years ago, they were told dot.com was the way to go... oops, sorry kids, no jobs for you! (*)
(*) unless your frat buddies get them for you, but we'll know that's how you got in, and we'll make you pay for it
Let's insure this prediction turns out to be untrue :-). I say we all make sure to buy and return this sucker, preferably in a coordinated effort targeted on a certain day...
What idiots... we long ago ceased being "customers" to them, now they just expect us to roll over and play dead. Forget that.
``They've been testing this in Europe and they're experiencing less than a 1 percent return rate from consumers. It really has turned out to be nothing,'' said Jerry Kamiler, TransWorld Entertainment's division merchandise manger. ``If we get the same results here, as I imagine we would, I don't think it's going to manifest itself into a consumer problem.''
I've done this before, and it's a valid approach in a lot of cases. What you need is a situation where the strengths of the languages, and the differences between them, is so apparent that this makes sense.
Some cases where it works:
1) One part of the team is significantly less skilled or experienced than another
In this case, you may have a set of junior coders who aren't up to writing the complex, performance-sensitive portions of the application... but they understand basic programming practices and theory, and they can knock out small chunks of code in something like Perl, Python, etc. In that case, writing a C/C++ back end that can exec these scripts (or has a built-in interpreter) can be a real win.
2) The application itself is divided up into several logical parts that have very different needs.
This might be the case with the system above... it's a fast main driver program that can be customized via a scripting interface. Being able to write "plugins" in a simpler language can be a real win, both in development (allows rapid prototyping) and in production (more configurable for end users!)
3) The "application" is actually several disparate systems that are only loosely tied.
In this case, who cares what language you use? Focus on the interconnect points, make those robust, and you have a very flexible system.
4) You need as much performance as possible, or platform requirements dictate a certain language.
In that case, you just bite the bullet and write that C++ native library to hook into your Java app (or link in the Fortran math libs you need). I tend to dislike this, simply because it can be such a nightmare when it goes wrong... again, the interconnect points and the chances of lib A crashing app B better be well understood.
Alanis Morrisette isn't a dumb American.
;-)
She's a dumb Canadian.
I called the phone number (408 536 6000) and asked for Public Relations. I got someone's voicemail, and left a somewhat long message about how concerned I was.
The person answering on the main line said I was the third person who called, and he actually put me on hold to find out who in Corporate was actually supposed to get these calls. So keep calling!
I couldn't agree more. I went through a similar course -- I was under-motivated in my job at a Big Three AutoMaker That Rhymes With "Bored", and I was sure I was, without a doubt, God's very gift to programming.
:-).
Then I went to another company, where I was swiftly reduced to average. There were about 8 of us handling a boatload of Web programming, and in that pressure cooker I learned how to really program.
I left when the stress got to be too much... to find that now I really was one of the best people I could find at what I do. But somehow, the cocky attitude didn't come with me. Now I'm a manager and technical lead, and I have confidence. but I also know how to lead and mentor others.
Of course, I'm here at 9:30pm working late because I know I can code these servlets better and quicker than my team members can -- but hey, sometimes the cocky attitude is the best thing to have
I don't think anyone is claiming that the backers of the DCMA actually care about academic freedom (or anything but money, let's be serious). However, the harm to their public face by being clearly seen to be squashing these things is pretty real.
It's one thing to push around hackers... the public still has little to no sympathy for the misunderstood minority they represent. But a lot more people can understand it when they're told "hey, the RIAA wants to stop research. What's the deal with that?".
It's all about bringing this out into the open, clarifying what the stakes are, and winning some real "hearts and minds" in this fight. Joe Six-Pack could care less otherwise.
I don't think XP is per se "dogmatic". However, as a methodology, it really works best when you follow all the practices. This isn't because it's The One True Way, but because things like Pair Programming, Collective Ownership, Merciless Refactoring, etc. all build on and reinforce each other. If you omit some of them, you don't get as much synergy (ugh, hate that word, shoot me for using it) where the strengths of one discipline help make up for the weaknesses/problems of another.
That having been said, use what works. If it doesn't work, try something else. I don't shoot people who write procedural code using Rational Unified Process... (I just pity them ).
Then you're not a good programmer. You suck. ;-)
;-)
There, I got it out.
Good programmers see the value in approaches that maximize the benefit they provide to the project as a whole. XP (via pair programming, which acts as a mentor/apprentice model often) encourages this.
Good programmers know enough to test and re-test. XP definately encourages this.
Good programmers know not to re-invent the wheel, and they also intuitively see larger patterns evolve over the course of hundreds of programming projects. Design Patterns simply make sense, they are not "formal", nor "rigid", it's simply a way to discuss something that already exists, and that you see clearly if you're a "good" programmer.
So what are you afraid of?
Actually, the "no overtime" is better stated as "don't work overtime two weeks in a row". In other words, if you pushed it one week, and that still wasn't enough, you have more problems than an extra week of over-work is going to fix.
The myth that 60/hrs a week constantly == a great project is utter BS. I've seen too many people worked into the ground when they really needed to admit that the entire project was flawed and needed to be re-examined.
Any Windows-heads out there have an idea how this might be implemented? I'm not sure if I see how this couldn't be circumvented by dropping in a new DLL on top of InTether that decrypts the file, but *doesn't* enforce the copy-protection scheme?
Plus, how does it control this in the first place? Where in the Win API is this level of control possible? Sounds almost like it must replace Windows kernel calls, which would mean it's hard for it to keep pace with Windows releases...
Forgive my cynicism, but what special-interest group is he fawning to with this? Who's paying him to have these opinions?
I'm just utterly shocked that any elected official would dare strike against the corps unless someone else more influential was convincing him to do so.
In this case, we all know "Sally" doesn't know what she did. It's clear that Windows presents the facade of protecting users from themselves (why else would you use it? ), but then fails in this regard by not at least saying:
"Hello, Sally. You seem to have just asked me to share your files to the world, but did not set a password. Did you really want to do that?"
Along with a nice help button that explains how this is Not A Good Thing(tm). I just tried this with Win2K, it didn't prompt me at all!
At least with Unix, no claim is made -- if you're an idiot, and can't at least RTFM, don't come to play. Here, Windows claims to coddle the foolish user, and all it does it allow them to do stupid stuff... You can't have it both ways.
This isn't analogous to Napster, etc. In those cases, Party A & Party B clearly intended to exchange files. Here, they involve Party C, who never wanted to be at the party in the first place :-).
The tool may be legal, just as Napster should be legal (prosecute users, not vendors). It is hardly moral, since it encourages users to basically commit computer crime that isn't defensible by any "fair-use" doctrine at all.
Oh great. I read this report and thought "this can't be for real". But apparently it is. I never thought I'd see the day when such outright "cracking" activities are treated as a business model :-).
:-). I sincerely hope this program falls flat on it's face, and these guys go out of business. If they presented their tool as a "security hardening" device to probe your own network, I could buy it. But they aren't even putting up that much of a facade (how stupid are they?).
Clearly, this is not a good thing or a moral thing to do -- I can defend Bob and Joe trading MP3s, but if they do it via Sally's open share (and grab some of her files too), that's a totally different thing. The problem is, the corps are going to point to this and say: "See? These geeks are just a bunch of thieves and pirates!".
In this case, it seems fairly clear-cut that they are right
How sad. They will continue to fight this at the effect level, and ignore the cause. The fact that people go to Napster et. al. for music is just an effect of the prime cause -- CDs are too damn expensive.
Until that is "fixed", any number of solutions will be pursued by those who love music, but think they are getting gouged paying for it.
...and this action is fruitless. So what if they shut down OpenNap (and as the article points out, overseas servers are going to make that a difficult proposition)? At the worst, I could set up a private anonymous service to put Bob in touch with Joe so they can exchange whole burned CDs of MP3s -- and then what is the RIAA going to do?
Uh oh, bad news:
>The patent application was filed in April 1997.
Hmm... have to dig back a little further to find examples, not that there aren't plenty of them, it's just that Slashdot probably doesn't have prior art in this area since it wasn't started until September 1997.
OK, so it's another stupid patent. So? These things have to be tested to stand up, it's obvious that the US Patent Office just hands them out like Everlasting Gobstoppers at the Willy Wonka factory, so let's stop getting our knickers in an uproar every time this happens.
So, I'd suggest we just let them be patent-happy idiots, and maybe amass some prior art citations for the time when they sue Cmdr. Taco for Slash's infringement of their American right to innovate.
> I really can't see the justification for linking > as speech.
Then you effectively ban me saying to someone: "Hey, I hear you can pick up a hooker on 8 Mile and Woodward". I'm allowed to do that now under the Constitution -- but I'm not allowed to do the technical equivalent on the Web?
No way. If this decision stays as a piece of prior case law, I'm all in favor of taking up arms and staging another revolution.
(Oh, I'm allowed to say that too... Nice thing, free speech).
There's no reason you can't pay someone to develop open-source software. Why would you think that open-source == not getting paid? It happens all the time, actually. You pay me to develop something you really, really need -- and it's boring or so application-specific that there is no existing interest in open-source solutions.
:-)
I take your money, and we both agree to release the end result as open-source, in hopes that once the hard part is done, people might be encouraged to build on that platform and improve it.
I mean, look at Mozilla. People are getting paid for that -- lots of people.
>I wish I'd saved the article:s play/0,3441,2129312,00.html.
:-)
I suspect what you are looking for is here:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_di
The story is quite a hoot regardless of what Allchin himself says; this is a set of predictions for "NT 5.0 and higher" that is nowhere near what they've produced for Win2K or WinXP. FUD rules in all times and all places for Microsoft...
Saith the good Lord Allchin:
''There is always something enamoring about
thinking you can get something for free.''
Indeed. There are several things:
1) It didn't cost me anything. Awesome, I can deal with that
2) More importantly, it's freedom, not lack of cost. I'm free to improve this thing I've gotten. I can understand how such a concept is alien to someone from Microsoft, but that's the real attraction.
This is just the worst case of "foot in mouth" disease I've seen in a while. The best response is to laugh this guy out of the room; the FUD must be up to people's knees in that room...