Calm down.. nobody as far as I can tell is blaming the drink. Did you read the article or did you just take a guess that the content might be sensationalist? I read the article, and I'm afraid I can't find the paragraph where they blame the drink. They mention some stuff about mixing the drink with alcohol being bad.. and that one of the victims had already had heart problems as a child.. nope, sorry, I can't see the part where the drink gets blamed at all. I'm guessing the people who modded you up didn't read the article either.
Re:Some FAR more interesting underwater structures
on
Pillars Underwater
·
· Score: 1
Didn't read my whole post before you replied, did you? Last sentence reads "we can be pretty sure we're the most technologically advanced yet". I'm fully in agreement with you. By "advanced" I was referring generally to things like math/science/astronomy disciplines and global trade routes.
Right.. these mysql.org people are so malicously attempting to illegally profit from the efforts of MySQL AB that they.. uh.. put a link to the MySQL AB company ON THEIR FRONT PAGE!? Come on.. thats hardly the behaviour of anyone with delibrate malicous intent. For example, do you think the people that ran amazom.com would have put up a link to amazon.com on their main page? I don't think so - there, the intent was deliberate. The mysql.org people probably just didn't think it through very well.
I must say I can't really see bad intentions from visiting the site myself. Right on the front page they even have:
"If you are looking for the MySQL AB company, click here."
If they really had specific negative intentions regarding MySQL AB, why would they have done this? This seems more to me like they probably just didn't think very clearly about who they might be offending, and I think that MySQL AB should have first tried to work with these people before issuing a nasty, attacking press release (which appears specifically designed to turn people against mysql.org site, given its title). This is outright wrong of them - they are just being bullies here - a reasonable company would have first tried to work things out without going to the press first.
Of course, I'm making the assumption that the link to MySQL AB was up there before this incident occurred. Anyone know if it was?
Re:Some FAR more interesting underwater structures
on
Pillars Underwater
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps it also has to do with modern western cultures preference to rejecting the idea that we may not have been the first civilizations with advanced global trade systems.. people like to believe that ealier civilizations must have been very primitive and not common. It sort of makes our advances seem a little less impressive when we're just one of many advanced civilizations that have come and gone over many thousands of years. Although we can be pretty sure we're the most technologically advanced yet.
It costs phone and bandwidth companies money to maintain the infrastructure and provide bandwidth, so I can sort of understand pay-per-use there (or at least, pay-to-keep-system-working). Its the same if you pay a monthly fee for a gym - that equipment falls apart through use by "wear and tear", and must be maintained. For newspaper and magazine subscriptions, they have to produce something entirely new every time you pay. But when you rent software, theoretically, Microsoft doesn't have to do a single thing after that - you get your copy of the software, establish a monthly or annual payment system through the bank, and voila - a subscription for no service. Sure, they're supposed to fix bugs - but bugs are defects in products, its not something you pay for, its something that by law has to be part of a product that is sold (fitness of purpose). This is why I disagree with the concept of renting software - it is not the same (as MS would like you to believe) as existing rent-based products - and MS can only do it because of the lack of competition in the marketplace. Sure, it may not be nice for Microsoft that once they've written and sold the software they don't get a continuous revenue stream from the users of that software - but that doesn't mean they have a right to a continual revenue stream. Its money for nothing. Once a month you give Microsoft some money and say "gee thanks Microsoft for letting me use the product", and in exchange for the money, each month you get - uh, gee - NOTHING from them (except maybe a receipt). There is no "wear and tear" on software while you're using it (except maybe if you spill coffee on the installation CD).
I think your algorithm is generally correct, but generally I would add the part where they wait a few months for the public to get used to a horrible idea, then slam them with it. People will accept any BS as long as you allow them to get used to the idea, and that you introduce the horrible ideas gradually enough. When a concept is "unheard of" its a shocker. So MS "shocks" people with it initially, then pulls back.. but within a few months, after people have been talking about it for a while, the idea is no longer "unheard of", so it starts to sound less unreasonable... acceptable even.
I've configured our proxy to not feed a transparent image, but a very prominent image of the word "AD" in a red circle with a big red stripe through it (a bit like a 'no parking' sign). Just as big a kick, trust me.
What you're suggesting (perhaps not explicitly) is that because these systems are currently (note: no forward thinking to technology ten to twenty years from now, where it may no longer be as easy) easy to beat by wearing hats and sunglasses, that its OK to allow these systems to be put into place. In other words, treat the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself, which is that these systems should not exist in the first place (or, at the very least, if they are to exist, the system should be very transparent, people must be able to "watch the watchers".) The underlying message in allowing these systems to be put into place "because they can be easily beaten" is that it is actually OK to have these surveillance systems.. thus people accept it, and thus gradually accept more and more future encroaches on their freedom (frog in boiling water analogy). Quite frankly, I DONT WANT to wear sunglassses and hats everywhere I go, all the time. We should be sending a message that a 'surveillance society' is not acceptable at all to begin with. Yes, there are some powerful possible benefits to installing these systems - but as far as I can tell, they are currently rampantly being installed with little or no regard for accountability, responsibility, freedom of individuals etc - that is, there are few or no mechanisms in place to ensure that these systems are only used for the good of the public.
There is of course another aspect to this, the psychological aspect - when people know they are being watched all the time (and not too far in the future, everything will be recorded permanently too), they behave differently, e.g. behaviour becomes more subdued and "politically correct" (just look at the difference in the way people post e.g. on Usenet who know posts are recorded permanently compared to how those same people would have posted years ago when it was not known). If your life was being recorded, wouldn't you do at least some things differently? I know I would.
Not really a bother, I highly doubt they're calculating speed from two samples alone. They'll definitely be running the samples through some sort of filter (123etc) to smooth the noise and eliminate 'outliers'. Moreover, they'll probably be also looking at average distance travelled over some time, e.g. it would be very easy to see that you drove, say, 5 miles on some particular stretch of highway in 4 minutes and 22 seconds, which means you drove on average 68 MPH for that stretch. Hardly rocket science.
I've indirectly "tested" the strength of both MS and Logitech mice (the "cheap" MS mice, as well as the "cheap" logitechs), as I have played Quake3 using both, and I used to have a nasty habit of bashing my mouse down on the table whenever I was losing badly. The Microsoft mouse usually can only take one single blow and they are permanently stuffed. Of the logitech mice, the first one I bashed probably between 30 and 50 times before it broke, and its still usable (it's just a little wonky when the mouse lifts off the mousepad). The second logitech has taken a couple dozen smashes and is still going strong. I've destroyed 3 MS mice in less than 5 smashes total.
Many companies I know (specifically big companies) block access to any "unauthorized" web sites, you have to get permission to access specific websites, and explain why you need to for your work. I don't work at one of those places though.
Neither the employee running it nor TVA management has the faintest idea what it really does. Therefore the TVA can reasonably be paranoid about it.
While this is true, this isn't what happened here. If you read the article, you get the extremely distinct impression that the TVA management is paranoid here because they are clueless, not because they have any sort of realistic perception of where the risk really lies. Look at the following paragraph:
Don Hickman, a senior manager in the TVA inspector general's office, said the staff knew the SETI program could allow hackers into a computer system and pointed to a news story showing at least one successful infiltration of SETI's Web site
And the following one:
Richard Chambers, TVA's inspector general, said: "If you're allowing others to tap into your computer"
Mr Hickman very clearly seems to think that hackers can infiltrate a system running the seti client, simply because of an exploit whereby the hackers sniffed some traffic and figured out how to extract some email addresses from the data (it was not an infiltration of the web site - which would have been less serious anyway). This demonstrates an extremely vague and obfuscated understanding of networks, I'm not sure this guy even understands the difference between client and server, and between "web" and "internet".
And "tap into your computer"? Sounds like this guy's understanding of hacking is limited to having read a couple of mainstream CNN media articles on hacking. These people seem to somehow think that the seti@home server connects to the clients and not the other way round.
I agree that running any "blackbox" software on PCs is an unknown security risk. But the same can be said of any such software, including Microsoft Windows, which is already known to connect to the Internet and send information (as seti does). Yet nobody seems worried about running Windows. Chances are much better that hackers would use known Windows exploits to attack the TVA's computers than going through seti@home. I know GetRight connects to the Internet automatically and sends information without letting the user know, for example, and many people install GetRight without even being aware of this. Plenty of other commonly used software such as RealPlayer also apparently is guilty of this.
Seti@home is a client. It doesn't run any listen ports whatsoever. You can't "get into a system" by going through seti. The only possible risk is potential malice from the authors of the client. But then why aren't these guys worried about all the other client software they use? I mean, precisely the same arguments apply to email clients and http clients.
I think the world at large is slowly maturing to an understanding of the CSS risk, though management types will see it in "toys" like SETI@home before they see it in their precious COTS applications
I don't think this article is indicative of any trend toward a "maturing" understanding of the issues. My impression is quite the opposite, this seems to be a trend toward draconian, knee-jerk paranoia in policies stemming from fear which stems from a lack of understanding of the technology.
You are correct that there is some reason to be paranoid about seti@home (which, as you say, extends to all COTS software). But I think in this case this is not the reasoning used by the managers at all. If these guys were paranoid about security for the right reasons, then why the hell wouldn't they already be running a firewall? While I'm not very experienced with firewalls, I'm pretty sure any reasonable default firewall config will block seti@home ports. These guys don't even have a firewall and they blindly trust all their "precious COTS" software. Doesn't sound to me like "maturing understanding" at all.
It is in this respect that the case could be made that Microsoft, while selling products that are not necessarily better than the alternatives, should be commended. Microsoft provides a non-exploitive means of employment for thousands of people all across the world and in doing so fulfills a social contract that is very valuable indeed
So an oversized monopoly with no incentive to become more efficient or improve its services is good simply because "it provides jobs"? Sounds suspicously much like a socialist government, actually. Which, it has been shown, are NOT overall better a country's wealth - quite the opposite, in fact. And its exactly the reason why I'm dialling in on a metred 28.8 modem connection in my country, and people in the USA have always-on cable connections with more than ten times the bandwidth for about the same price I pay per month. (Luckily we recently became a democracy with capitalist policies, so our local Telco monopoly is due to run out next year).
"In this case the reporter missed that point entirely
No he didn't. Read the next paragraph:
Microsoft, though, hasn't previously suggested that there were benign forms of open-source software, and while singling out Linux for special criticism, has tended to criticize all open-source with the same broad brush.
So you're saying, basically, is that its excusable for corporations to gouge consumers, simply because its still a better option for the consumer than using nothing at all? Come on. Theres no excuse for buggy software, and theres no excuse for gouging and artificial upgrade-cycle lock-in.
Because Microsoft does not make the source available, there is no way for the technically-minded professional writer to add any of those features that would REALLY make life easier
Not to mention fix the f%@$#$%@ bugs. I don't even want to think about how much of my time has been wasted on the f@#$%@$# bugs - particularly those related to master documents - master documents JUST DO NOT WORK, and MS doesn't give a shit - many of the bugs in Word 2000 were present already in Office 97. Try generate a TOC in a master document when *any* of the subdocument files are marked read-only - Word hangs, occupying 100% of the CPU and needs to be manually killed. Or page numbering, headers/footers and figure/table numbering in master documents - results are pretty much random as far as I can tell. Or if you move a seperator that is directly *between* two subdocuments, Word can neither "undo" the action nor have the seperator manually moved back, because it thinks you're trying to manipulate a subdocument when you do so. Or sometimes you save a master document, and when you open the file again, every single subdocument has been removed from the master document. Its a fscking joke. Don't ever tell me "Microsoft Word is the most successful because its the best" - anyone who says that has obviously never used it for anything more advanced than writing a few letters or something.
Re:Nothing like the heat sensor case
on
Carnivore To Die?
·
· Score: 2
So Carnivore may only be used on individuals. Perhaps you can explain then why the software needs to have the functionality to log entire blocks of IP addresses? You shouldn't even need functionality like that to snoop individuals.
And why keep the workings of Carnivore so secret it is only being used in ways that are legal? What, exactly, have they got to hide?
What about the fact that in order to use the Carnivore system at all, you need Administrator priviledges on the machine? That means that whoever is sitting at the console can do WHATEVER THEY WANT, regardless of whether or not a court warrant has been issued.
Sorry, too many flaws, too much just doesn't add up. Who's watching the watchers? Carnivore should die. I don't believe for a second that its going to (I wouldn't believe them if they did claim that they dismantled the system, the FBI is not about to give up that much power so easily), but for the sake of freedom, it should be killed.
In my first year at University we had an introductory assembler course that used a "virtual" assembly language. There isn't really such a piece of hardware, the assembly was a simplified, generic assembly language, and applications were provided that could compile and execute programs. Everything was very simplified, e.g. the "machine" had something like 256 bytes of addressable memory, the IP and other registers were 1 byte, etc. I think thats a pretty useful way to learn the concepts, more advanced courses in 2nd year did x86 assembly. Which, as you say, isn't optimal for beginners, esp. with all the legacy 16-bit mode cruft (e.g. segment:offset for the 640K banked memory accessing, with a bunch of "arb" registers like CS, DS)
I also know of one (more advanced) assembly course where the platform was the JVM! So they wrote Java programs in Java assembly language:)
I agree that you need to know how a computer works at the low level. But this does extremely little to help you design software with typical real-world requirements - you need to also have experience thinking at a high-level, where the design of software systems takes place. I know many programmers (usually with electronic engineering background, where software development isn't emphasized) who know assembly etc very well, but don't know even the most basic things about object oriented programming, and it really shows through in the software they produce (e.g. having the base class know about ALL types of derived classes and using a "type" variable combined with lots of switch statements in functions to call derived-class-specific code - exactly what virtual functions are there for!). Likewise, I've seen people who have only learned about programming at a high-level, and their coding shows problems, because they don't understand whats going on when their code gets compiled (e.g. not understanding the difference between heap allocation and stack allocation - try "char array[10000000];" inside a function!)
You absolutely need both, no question. My 1st year CS course at university included introductory assembly as well as object-oriented programming. Personally I think Java is quite a good introductory language, C++ is too complex for beginners, you want to teach the design principles without all the pointer problems etc getting in the way.
I don't see how you can claim that "teaching java to beginning programmers only encourages sloppy programming". If anything, only teaching assembly would encourage some seriously sloppy programming. You cannot learn good high-level design from only doing low-level programming, thats like saying that you can learn good social skills by studying how neurons in the brain function.
Bottom line: even if children aren't stupid, they don't have the innate ability to make good decisions
Yes.. I agree. Thats largely where that thing called "parenting" comes in, I guess. Freedoms should be introduced gradually. At University I stayed in one of the university residences. Quite a lot of the students there came from fairly strict homes (more conservative portion of population), and all of a sudden they had complete, total 100% freedom. Some of them don't handle it very well - they run amok, go out drinking all the time, fail all of their subjects, smash their cars while drunk-driving etc. Some of them learn their lesson, others don't seem to. One guy I know who failed every single one of his subjects in his first year did come back, and seemed to do OK. Some just drop out after a while though.
In the US I believe you can drive at 16 but need to be 21 to buy alcohol.. in my country, you need to be 18 for both of these. I remember there was one guy way back when I was in school who got his drivers license, and went out drinking to celebrate - when coming home, he smashed the car into a tree and killed his best friend. Perhaps a case of "too much freedom at once". Or perhaps he was just a stupid spoiled idiot. Anyway, it doesn't happen very often, thats not a typical situation by any measure. Perhaps my judgment of children is skewed somewhat, because I've always been fairly mature/responsible, as long as I can remember. Sure, I've made some mistakes, and my parents have helped me prevent make a few mistakes ("inexperience" mistakes). But on the whole, my mental decision making process (at 24) is pretty much the same as it was when I was 16, and wasn't all that much different at around 13/14. I don't think people change much after age 18. Perhaps other kids really are more stupid in general, and need to be protected from themselves, I don't know. I tend to prefer the idea that other kids just seem stupid because adults have treated them like they are stupid. Kids respond to how you treat them, I think.
you know, you really aren't too open minded. opened mindedness goes both ways and you aren't even trying to see the other person's point, and it really shows
No. I am. I am really trying. I am really really trying, but I cannot see it. Its not that I don't want to. But for the life of me, I cannot come up with ANY logical path of reasoning that can be followed that may result in the conclusion that sex or nudity should be hidden from children. Whether or not they are capable of it has nothing to do with whether or not they are capable of learning about it and understanding it.
sex can be a wonderful thing, but is tough to explain to an 11 year old
I disagree. I can't remember a time when I didn't know how sex worked, why it was there, or why it might be pleasurable. While it wasn't openly discussed in my house when growing up, it wasn't hidden away either. We had some (decently illustrated) books (e.g. 'how babies are made' or something like that) explaining sex, how it works, that thats explaining that adults get pleasure out of it etc. I read it long before I was 11. I understood it. I didn't get confused. I understood that adults enjoyed it (as the book explained, in the context of a loving relationship). None of it was confusing or tough to understand at all. Maybe the topic makes parents uncomfortable when explaining it, which makes it difficult to explain, but that has little to do with whether children may be able to handle the topic. Additionally, when I was 12, we had some sex education classes at school. We learnt about STDs, contraceptives etc (although most kids at age 12 already know about these things (myself included), its useful to have it explained in the context of a sex education class - its a good overview, and by treating the topic maturely with children, children handle it in a mature manner.)
third, porn is distasteful to a lot of intelligent adults
Yes, a lot of porn is just plain stupid/crap. I have to agree with you there. But that isn't something that children can't understand. And children who understand pregnancy/STDs already are capable of reasoning past the lame lack of such problems in porn movies. I know a fair proportion of the guys at school even back at the age of 10 to 13 (and often younger - despite what you say, children are capable of sexual urges years before typical puberty age - myself, I can remember getting "aroused" (e.g. erection) at around 10 years old, I only hit puberty at 14)) who were already watching porn movies (perhaps 30%). Of those that I still know, all of them are capable now of having decent, stable relationships (+/- age 25 now). Children in general are capable of a lot more reasoning than people give them credit for. That is, the potential is there.
you cannot get away from nudity == sex == pornography
No. Nudity != sex. Although those raised in conservative Christian homes usually believe it is, it isn't. Western culture's belief that it is purely cultural, its a learned idea, not an absolute truth. Apart from nudists, there are also a number of other non-Western human cultures where nudity is not equated with sex. That is some abstract idea that you were taught.
I would not think there need be much debate on the matter anyways, it is rather self-evident
I'm sorry, I'm just really struggling very
hard to try grasp this somewhat common notion that sex (or even nudity for that matter) is bad. I don't know what your upbringing is, but I don't see it as "self-evident" at all. If you assume that sex is bad, then yes, it might be self-evident. But I don't see any logical path of reasoning that might lead to the idea that sex is bad (or "dirty" or "filthy" or any other such commonly ascribed negative attribute).
Slashdot Mirror
Calm down .. nobody as far as I can tell is blaming the drink. Did you read the article or did you just take a guess that the content might be sensationalist? I read the article, and I'm afraid I can't find the paragraph where they blame the drink. They mention some stuff about mixing the drink with alcohol being bad .. and that one of the victims had already had heart problems as a child .. nope, sorry, I can't see the part where the drink gets blamed at all. I'm guessing the people who modded you up didn't read the article either.
Didn't read my whole post before you replied, did you? Last sentence reads "we can be pretty sure we're the most technologically advanced yet". I'm fully in agreement with you. By "advanced" I was referring generally to things like math/science/astronomy disciplines and global trade routes.
Right .. these mysql.org people are so malicously attempting to illegally profit from the efforts of MySQL AB that they .. uh .. put a link to the MySQL AB company ON THEIR FRONT PAGE!? Come on .. thats hardly the behaviour of anyone with delibrate malicous intent. For example, do you think the people that ran amazom.com would have put up a link to amazon.com on their main page? I don't think so - there, the intent was deliberate. The mysql.org people probably just didn't think it through very well.
I must say I can't really see bad intentions from visiting the site myself. Right on the front page they even have:
"If you are looking for the MySQL AB company, click here."
If they really had specific negative intentions regarding MySQL AB, why would they have done this? This seems more to me like they probably just didn't think very clearly about who they might be offending, and I think that MySQL AB should have first tried to work with these people before issuing a nasty, attacking press release (which appears specifically designed to turn people against mysql.org site, given its title). This is outright wrong of them - they are just being bullies here - a reasonable company would have first tried to work things out without going to the press first.
Of course, I'm making the assumption that the link to MySQL AB was up there before this incident occurred. Anyone know if it was?
Perhaps it also has to do with modern western cultures preference to rejecting the idea that we may not have been the first civilizations with advanced global trade systems .. people like to believe that ealier civilizations must have been very primitive and not common. It sort of makes our advances seem a little less impressive when we're just one of many advanced civilizations that have come and gone over many thousands of years. Although we can be pretty sure we're the most technologically advanced yet.
It costs phone and bandwidth companies money to maintain the infrastructure and provide bandwidth, so I can sort of understand pay-per-use there (or at least, pay-to-keep-system-working). Its the same if you pay a monthly fee for a gym - that equipment falls apart through use by "wear and tear", and must be maintained. For newspaper and magazine subscriptions, they have to produce something entirely new every time you pay. But when you rent software, theoretically, Microsoft doesn't have to do a single thing after that - you get your copy of the software, establish a monthly or annual payment system through the bank, and voila - a subscription for no service. Sure, they're supposed to fix bugs - but bugs are defects in products, its not something you pay for, its something that by law has to be part of a product that is sold (fitness of purpose). This is why I disagree with the concept of renting software - it is not the same (as MS would like you to believe) as existing rent-based products - and MS can only do it because of the lack of competition in the marketplace. Sure, it may not be nice for Microsoft that once they've written and sold the software they don't get a continuous revenue stream from the users of that software - but that doesn't mean they have a right to a continual revenue stream. Its money for nothing. Once a month you give Microsoft some money and say "gee thanks Microsoft for letting me use the product", and in exchange for the money, each month you get - uh, gee - NOTHING from them (except maybe a receipt). There is no "wear and tear" on software while you're using it (except maybe if you spill coffee on the installation CD).
I think your algorithm is generally correct, but generally I would add the part where they wait a few months for the public to get used to a horrible idea, then slam them with it. People will accept any BS as long as you allow them to get used to the idea, and that you introduce the horrible ideas gradually enough. When a concept is "unheard of" its a shocker. So MS "shocks" people with it initially, then pulls back .. but within a few months, after people have been talking about it for a while, the idea is no longer "unheard of", so it starts to sound less unreasonable ... acceptable even.
I've configured our proxy to not feed a transparent image, but a very prominent image of the word "AD" in a red circle with a big red stripe through it (a bit like a 'no parking' sign). Just as big a kick, trust me.
What you're suggesting (perhaps not explicitly) is that because these systems are currently (note: no forward thinking to technology ten to twenty years from now, where it may no longer be as easy) easy to beat by wearing hats and sunglasses, that its OK to allow these systems to be put into place. In other words, treat the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself, which is that these systems should not exist in the first place (or, at the very least, if they are to exist, the system should be very transparent, people must be able to "watch the watchers".) The underlying message in allowing these systems to be put into place "because they can be easily beaten" is that it is actually OK to have these surveillance systems .. thus people accept it, and thus gradually accept more and more future encroaches on their freedom (frog in boiling water analogy). Quite frankly, I DONT WANT to wear sunglassses and hats everywhere I go, all the time. We should be sending a message that a 'surveillance society' is not acceptable at all to begin with. Yes, there are some powerful possible benefits to installing these systems - but as far as I can tell, they are currently rampantly being installed with little or no regard for accountability, responsibility, freedom of individuals etc - that is, there are few or no mechanisms in place to ensure that these systems are only used for the good of the public.
There is of course another aspect to this, the psychological aspect - when people know they are being watched all the time (and not too far in the future, everything will be recorded permanently too), they behave differently, e.g. behaviour becomes more subdued and "politically correct" (just look at the difference in the way people post e.g. on Usenet who know posts are recorded permanently compared to how those same people would have posted years ago when it was not known). If your life was being recorded, wouldn't you do at least some things differently? I know I would.
Did you read the parent post at all?
That would totally screw up the stats
Not really a bother, I highly doubt they're calculating speed from two samples alone. They'll definitely be running the samples through some sort of filter (1 2 3 etc) to smooth the noise and eliminate 'outliers'. Moreover, they'll probably be also looking at average distance travelled over some time, e.g. it would be very easy to see that you drove, say, 5 miles on some particular stretch of highway in 4 minutes and 22 seconds, which means you drove on average 68 MPH for that stretch. Hardly rocket science.
Light and weak plastic
I've indirectly "tested" the strength of both MS and Logitech mice (the "cheap" MS mice, as well as the "cheap" logitechs), as I have played Quake3 using both, and I used to have a nasty habit of bashing my mouse down on the table whenever I was losing badly. The Microsoft mouse usually can only take one single blow and they are permanently stuffed. Of the logitech mice, the first one I bashed probably between 30 and 50 times before it broke, and its still usable (it's just a little wonky when the mouse lifts off the mousepad). The second logitech has taken a couple dozen smashes and is still going strong. I've destroyed 3 MS mice in less than 5 smashes total.
Many companies I know (specifically big companies) block access to any "unauthorized" web sites, you have to get permission to access specific websites, and explain why you need to for your work. I don't work at one of those places though.
Neither the employee running it nor TVA management has the faintest idea what it really does. Therefore the TVA can reasonably be paranoid about it.
While this is true, this isn't what happened here. If you read the article, you get the extremely distinct impression that the TVA management is paranoid here because they are clueless, not because they have any sort of realistic perception of where the risk really lies. Look at the following paragraph:
And the following one:Mr Hickman very clearly seems to think that hackers can infiltrate a system running the seti client, simply because of an exploit whereby the hackers sniffed some traffic and figured out how to extract some email addresses from the data (it was not an infiltration of the web site - which would have been less serious anyway). This demonstrates an extremely vague and obfuscated understanding of networks, I'm not sure this guy even understands the difference between client and server, and between "web" and "internet".
And "tap into your computer"? Sounds like this guy's understanding of hacking is limited to having read a couple of mainstream CNN media articles on hacking. These people seem to somehow think that the seti@home server connects to the clients and not the other way round.
I agree that running any "blackbox" software on PCs is an unknown security risk. But the same can be said of any such software, including Microsoft Windows, which is already known to connect to the Internet and send information (as seti does). Yet nobody seems worried about running Windows. Chances are much better that hackers would use known Windows exploits to attack the TVA's computers than going through seti@home. I know GetRight connects to the Internet automatically and sends information without letting the user know, for example, and many people install GetRight without even being aware of this. Plenty of other commonly used software such as RealPlayer also apparently is guilty of this.
Seti@home is a client. It doesn't run any listen ports whatsoever. You can't "get into a system" by going through seti. The only possible risk is potential malice from the authors of the client. But then why aren't these guys worried about all the other client software they use? I mean, precisely the same arguments apply to email clients and http clients.
I think the world at large is slowly maturing to an understanding of the CSS risk, though management types will see it in "toys" like SETI@home before they see it in their precious COTS applications
I don't think this article is indicative of any trend toward a "maturing" understanding of the issues. My impression is quite the opposite, this seems to be a trend toward draconian, knee-jerk paranoia in policies stemming from fear which stems from a lack of understanding of the technology.
You are correct that there is some reason to be paranoid about seti@home (which, as you say, extends to all COTS software). But I think in this case this is not the reasoning used by the managers at all. If these guys were paranoid about security for the right reasons, then why the hell wouldn't they already be running a firewall? While I'm not very experienced with firewalls, I'm pretty sure any reasonable default firewall config will block seti@home ports. These guys don't even have a firewall and they blindly trust all their "precious COTS" software. Doesn't sound to me like "maturing understanding" at all.
It is in this respect that the case could be made that Microsoft, while selling products that are not necessarily better than the alternatives, should be commended. Microsoft provides a non-exploitive means of employment for thousands of people all across the world and in doing so fulfills a social contract that is very valuable indeed
So an oversized monopoly with no incentive to become more efficient or improve its services is good simply because "it provides jobs"? Sounds suspicously much like a socialist government, actually. Which, it has been shown, are NOT overall better a country's wealth - quite the opposite, in fact. And its exactly the reason why I'm dialling in on a metred 28.8 modem connection in my country, and people in the USA have always-on cable connections with more than ten times the bandwidth for about the same price I pay per month. (Luckily we recently became a democracy with capitalist policies, so our local Telco monopoly is due to run out next year).
"In this case the reporter missed that point entirely
No he didn't. Read the next paragraph:
I think he got the point right 'on the nose'.
So you're saying, basically, is that its excusable for corporations to gouge consumers, simply because its still a better option for the consumer than using nothing at all? Come on. Theres no excuse for buggy software, and theres no excuse for gouging and artificial upgrade-cycle lock-in.
Because Microsoft does not make the source available, there is no way for the technically-minded professional writer to add any of those features that would REALLY make life easier
Not to mention fix the f%@$#$%@ bugs. I don't even want to think about how much of my time has been wasted on the f@#$%@$# bugs - particularly those related to master documents - master documents JUST DO NOT WORK, and MS doesn't give a shit - many of the bugs in Word 2000 were present already in Office 97. Try generate a TOC in a master document when *any* of the subdocument files are marked read-only - Word hangs, occupying 100% of the CPU and needs to be manually killed. Or page numbering, headers/footers and figure/table numbering in master documents - results are pretty much random as far as I can tell. Or if you move a seperator that is directly *between* two subdocuments, Word can neither "undo" the action nor have the seperator manually moved back, because it thinks you're trying to manipulate a subdocument when you do so. Or sometimes you save a master document, and when you open the file again, every single subdocument has been removed from the master document. Its a fscking joke. Don't ever tell me "Microsoft Word is the most successful because its the best" - anyone who says that has obviously never used it for anything more advanced than writing a few letters or something.
I'm hoping this post is either a troll or a joke.
So Carnivore may only be used on individuals. Perhaps you can explain then why the software needs to have the functionality to log entire blocks of IP addresses? You shouldn't even need functionality like that to snoop individuals.
And why keep the workings of Carnivore so secret it is only being used in ways that are legal? What, exactly, have they got to hide?
What about the fact that in order to use the Carnivore system at all, you need Administrator priviledges on the machine? That means that whoever is sitting at the console can do WHATEVER THEY WANT, regardless of whether or not a court warrant has been issued.
Sorry, too many flaws, too much just doesn't add up. Who's watching the watchers? Carnivore should die. I don't believe for a second that its going to (I wouldn't believe them if they did claim that they dismantled the system, the FBI is not about to give up that much power so easily), but for the sake of freedom, it should be killed.
In my first year at University we had an introductory assembler course that used a "virtual" assembly language. There isn't really such a piece of hardware, the assembly was a simplified, generic assembly language, and applications were provided that could compile and execute programs. Everything was very simplified, e.g. the "machine" had something like 256 bytes of addressable memory, the IP and other registers were 1 byte, etc. I think thats a pretty useful way to learn the concepts, more advanced courses in 2nd year did x86 assembly. Which, as you say, isn't optimal for beginners, esp. with all the legacy 16-bit mode cruft (e.g. segment:offset for the 640K banked memory accessing, with a bunch of "arb" registers like CS, DS)
I also know of one (more advanced) assembly course where the platform was the JVM! So they wrote Java programs in Java assembly language :)
I agree that you need to know how a computer works at the low level. But this does extremely little to help you design software with typical real-world requirements - you need to also have experience thinking at a high-level, where the design of software systems takes place. I know many programmers (usually with electronic engineering background, where software development isn't emphasized) who know assembly etc very well, but don't know even the most basic things about object oriented programming, and it really shows through in the software they produce (e.g. having the base class know about ALL types of derived classes and using a "type" variable combined with lots of switch statements in functions to call derived-class-specific code - exactly what virtual functions are there for!). Likewise, I've seen people who have only learned about programming at a high-level, and their coding shows problems, because they don't understand whats going on when their code gets compiled (e.g. not understanding the difference between heap allocation and stack allocation - try "char array[10000000];" inside a function!)
You absolutely need both, no question. My 1st year CS course at university included introductory assembly as well as object-oriented programming. Personally I think Java is quite a good introductory language, C++ is too complex for beginners, you want to teach the design principles without all the pointer problems etc getting in the way.
I don't see how you can claim that "teaching java to beginning programmers only encourages sloppy programming". If anything, only teaching assembly would encourage some seriously sloppy programming. You cannot learn good high-level design from only doing low-level programming, thats like saying that you can learn good social skills by studying how neurons in the brain function.
Bottom line: even if children aren't stupid, they don't have the innate ability to make good decisions
Yes .. I agree. Thats largely where that thing called "parenting" comes in, I guess. Freedoms should be introduced gradually. At University I stayed in one of the university residences. Quite a lot of the students there came from fairly strict homes (more conservative portion of population), and all of a sudden they had complete, total 100% freedom. Some of them don't handle it very well - they run amok, go out drinking all the time, fail all of their subjects, smash their cars while drunk-driving etc. Some of them learn their lesson, others don't seem to. One guy I know who failed every single one of his subjects in his first year did come back, and seemed to do OK. Some just drop out after a while though.
In the US I believe you can drive at 16 but need to be 21 to buy alcohol .. in my country, you need to be 18 for both of these. I remember there was one guy way back when I was in school who got his drivers license, and went out drinking to celebrate - when coming home, he smashed the car into a tree and killed his best friend. Perhaps a case of "too much freedom at once". Or perhaps he was just a stupid spoiled idiot. Anyway, it doesn't happen very often, thats not a typical situation by any measure. Perhaps my judgment of children is skewed somewhat, because I've always been fairly mature/responsible, as long as I can remember. Sure, I've made some mistakes, and my parents have helped me prevent make a few mistakes ("inexperience" mistakes). But on the whole, my mental decision making process (at 24) is pretty much the same as it was when I was 16, and wasn't all that much different at around 13/14. I don't think people change much after age 18. Perhaps other kids really are more stupid in general, and need to be protected from themselves, I don't know. I tend to prefer the idea that other kids just seem stupid because adults have treated them like they are stupid. Kids respond to how you treat them, I think.
you know, you really aren't too open minded. opened mindedness goes both ways and you aren't even trying to see the other person's point, and it really shows
No. I am. I am really trying. I am really really trying, but I cannot see it. Its not that I don't want to. But for the life of me, I cannot come up with ANY logical path of reasoning that can be followed that may result in the conclusion that sex or nudity should be hidden from children. Whether or not they are capable of it has nothing to do with whether or not they are capable of learning about it and understanding it.
sex can be a wonderful thing, but is tough to explain to an 11 year old
I disagree. I can't remember a time when I didn't know how sex worked, why it was there, or why it might be pleasurable. While it wasn't openly discussed in my house when growing up, it wasn't hidden away either. We had some (decently illustrated) books (e.g. 'how babies are made' or something like that) explaining sex, how it works, that thats explaining that adults get pleasure out of it etc. I read it long before I was 11. I understood it. I didn't get confused. I understood that adults enjoyed it (as the book explained, in the context of a loving relationship). None of it was confusing or tough to understand at all. Maybe the topic makes parents uncomfortable when explaining it, which makes it difficult to explain, but that has little to do with whether children may be able to handle the topic. Additionally, when I was 12, we had some sex education classes at school. We learnt about STDs, contraceptives etc (although most kids at age 12 already know about these things (myself included), its useful to have it explained in the context of a sex education class - its a good overview, and by treating the topic maturely with children, children handle it in a mature manner.)
third, porn is distasteful to a lot of intelligent adults
Yes, a lot of porn is just plain stupid/crap. I have to agree with you there. But that isn't something that children can't understand. And children who understand pregnancy/STDs already are capable of reasoning past the lame lack of such problems in porn movies. I know a fair proportion of the guys at school even back at the age of 10 to 13 (and often younger - despite what you say, children are capable of sexual urges years before typical puberty age - myself, I can remember getting "aroused" (e.g. erection) at around 10 years old, I only hit puberty at 14)) who were already watching porn movies (perhaps 30%). Of those that I still know, all of them are capable now of having decent, stable relationships (+/- age 25 now). Children in general are capable of a lot more reasoning than people give them credit for. That is, the potential is there.
you cannot get away from nudity == sex == pornography
No. Nudity != sex. Although those raised in conservative Christian homes usually believe it is, it isn't. Western culture's belief that it is purely cultural, its a learned idea, not an absolute truth. Apart from nudists, there are also a number of other non-Western human cultures where nudity is not equated with sex. That is some abstract idea that you were taught.
I would not think there need be much debate on the matter anyways, it is rather self-evident
I'm sorry, I'm just really struggling very hard to try grasp this somewhat common notion that sex (or even nudity for that matter) is bad. I don't know what your upbringing is, but I don't see it as "self-evident" at all. If you assume that sex is bad, then yes, it might be self-evident. But I don't see any logical path of reasoning that might lead to the idea that sex is bad (or "dirty" or "filthy" or any other such commonly ascribed negative attribute).