Not only can it be biased, but it also does not assess other qualities, such as creativity, problem solving, and knowledge application. I say that it can be biased because the language used in the tests are often biased. The form of language typically used is suburban U.S. I've never quite gotten the hang of certain subtle phrasings and I can sympathize with anyone who misunderstood what was intended by the question on a test and, as a result, answered the wrong question.
This isn't to say that an interview is an inherently better solution because of the pitfalls that were mentioned. It does give someone an opportunity to better assess some of those intangibles that standardized testing misses.
I consider this Lego test to be sort of like an interview, except that the candidate and the assessor aren't directly interacting. Give the person a problem to solve and see what happens. Naturally, it's best to have several observers who don't interact with each other do the assessment. This way you might cut back on some of the pitfalls of an interview.
Overall, I'd think that the more information that can be gained about a candidate, the better. I therefore feel that all means of assessment should be used when possible. Multiple forms of assessment (rather than multiple standardized tests) can show which results were anomalous and give a better picture of what this person possesses in knowledge and potential.
I would think that minority groups would feel insulted by having tests that have lower standards then the average white kid. Doesn't just say that they are stupid? I know I would feel insulted if someone game me a test that was not as challenging as someone else.
I would agree with you except that I didn't get the impression that this was a special test for minority groups. I believe that article explicitly stated that race was not a factor in selecting who was taking the test. The majority who are initially taking it are black or Hispanic but this seems to be attributable to the demographics of NYC (the pool of students that they are drawing on).
I also take issue with your assertion that this sort of test is a lower standard. It is measuring other qualities. How well this test does that remains to be seen, but the testers are looking for leadership and the ability to work in groups. I could also see it indicating creativity and problem solving skills. These are valuable, non-quantifiable assets for which standardized tests tend to be poor indicators. I don't think I'd throw away all standardized testing, but I would balance them with other non-conventional tests, such as this, to better assess a candidate.
I really think that standards are declining if people use legos to get into college. I actually wanted to take the ACT test to get into college and I feel that it was worth it.
I've always felt that standardized test are quite flawed. I tend to show up quite erractly on them (aced the ACT, did OK on the SAT, blew away the college admission test), so I've lost faith in what those tests are supposed to stand for. Overall, we seem to be a little too preoccupied with quantifying education and skills when it is inappropriate to do this to either.
I can't realistically believe that anyone who can build with legos can actually be on par with someone who has actually shown a knowledge of the material through a standardized test.
That makes no sense. That's akin to saying, "I can't believe that anyone who can change the oil in a car can actually be on par with someone who can play a musical instrument." These are two completely separate skills. All that tests tell you, at best, is that this person was able to understand the question and knew enough about the subject matter to select the correct answer. It's a measure of things learned, not a measure for potential learning. It's a very poor measure of applying knowledge.
The lego test is a step in the right direction. We need to stop worrying about how well a person has scored and more about what sort of potential is in a person.
Actually, He can't use a computer by proxy either.
Obviously there must be limits to this, otherwise he couldn't have a bank accout since nearly all financial transactions are recorded through computers. Is it reasonable to forbid him from having someone else print out his Quicken ledger?
Is there any reason he can't go to a secluded island with an OC48 line where he can do all the cracking he wants to? I'm sure there is, but its funny to think about.
If he has an Internet connection, it doesn't matter where he is. He's still dangerous.
IMHO anybody who really is for this "FREE KEVIN" BS should really have their head checked. However, I'm all for things like decryption of DVDs, Music Piracy(Unless You really like the music), Borrowing of programs from friends, even fooling around with an old cell phone to listen to calls over the network. I think that fooling around with technology while breaking the law is OK, as long as you're learning. If you're learning about encryption systems while you run DeCSS, that's fine, but as for stealing credit card numbers, and large scale computer crime, they should be punished.
While I agree that the whole Free Kevin thing seems misguided, I can't say that I agree with media and software theft or eavesdropping. In the first case, you're stealing and theft is theft. It doesn't matter how much money is involved; it's the principal. If you want the functionality so bad, write it yourself. If it's too much trouble, then maybe the author of that software deserves to be paid. As for eavesdropping, it's a violation of privacy. Enough said.
OTOH, I don't see the sense in outlawing any and all forms of cracking, since tiger teams would then be illegal, not to mention it would be difficult to make advances in software security until the horse is already out of the barn. I have no problem with DeCSS since it can lead to better forms of security and it's inevitable that someone will break it whether it's legal or illegal. At least this way, the MPAA knows that their security is broken. The MPAA, naturally, does not see it this way since they are relying on it to minimize piracy. They have every right to be upset but they need to realize that all systems get cracked eventually and, once they do, a new system needs to be implemented to remain effective.
I was thinking about more personal things that most people keep on their computer, like their finances, or any legitimate software that he authored. Of course, it's pretty difficult to assess the value of such data without disclosing it. The best that I think he could hope for is that the court's present stipulation of disclosing the key but the contents would be kept under seal away from the eyes of the public.
I wonder then if Mitnick can sue to get the data (and any equipment) back, or is this something that this judge has final say over? I think he'd have a pretty strong case, based on the fact that the data in question was never used in this trial and the prosecution hasn't obtained a warrant to get the key from Mitnick. If they did manage to get a warrant, the prosecution would at least have something more than "it might be dangerous" to stand on.
I don't think Kevin should turn over the key. As far as the legality of the government not returning it, I don't know. He doesn't have the right to use a computer, so what would he do with it??
The government will ultimately be forced to give it back or will have to compensate him for it. They might try to get a court order to try to force Mitnick to turn over the key. That would perhaps set some sort of precendent. I expect that if that were to happen, he'd probably refuse and face the consequences. But at least there might be some clarification. As it is, the prosecution is playing a risky game since the data in question was not used in this trial. That's sort of like the prosecution taking possession of a car that belongs to the accused, not using any part of it in evidence, and then refusing to give it back because the accused might use it to commit a crime.
Keep in mind that just because Mitnick isn't allowed to use a computer, doesn't mean that he can't have someone else give him hardcopies. Besides, as long as the equipment and the data belongs to him, it doesn't matter whether or not he can use it.
did anyone else notice that the Recommendation itself was authored in XHTML 1.0?
Yes, my browser (iCab) rendered all of the text (I think). iCab also has the ability to generate an error log. It was really, really long. But, then again, I've never found a page in the wild that didn't have at least one error on it.
Standards lag behind the technology They used to, back in the days of HTML 2.0->4.0. I think it's a bit different these days, since the CSS/DOM people have built quite a big bunch of standard which is way beyond what most browsers support, and the browser writers are playing catch-up. Of course Microsoft are adding all sorts of weird extended style-sheet stuff, but I've never seen any of it actually used, probably because no-one really understands it. They still do. At least, my company still does because a significant enough percentage of our visitors use NN 3.0. Even when I have the chance to use HTML 4, I find myself restricted because I must support current versions of Communicator and IE on Windows and the Mac. My company want the content to look a certain way and I try my best to get consistant results across all of the browsers that they choose to support. I know that this is way outside of what HTML was intended to do, but try explaining that to management. Plus, I think about things like PDAs, phone browsers, and web page readers for the blind. I try hard to not cut these folks off from the content, especially for the sake of asthetics. Sometimes. I think in more cases, they just don't really know standards are even there to be followed. I think most content on the web is hacked up by people who've learnt HTML from reading other people's HTML, or from a woefully inaccurate "HTML for Tossers" book. Or they're using FrontPage, God help 'em. That's a big part of it. But I think alot of them wouldn't care even if they did know. It's enough for them that it works on their web browser. Why make more work for yourself by trying it under other circumstances? I guess most of the folks making web pages just don't think like programmers. -Jennifer
I think Kaspersky may have the future audience of Linux in mind, rather than the present audience. As Linux becomes more popular, it is likely that the average Linux user will be less technically savvy. This would mean that the user may be more likely to log in as superuser (so he doesn't have to worry about not being able to install apps) and certainly wouldn't dream of downloading source to create his own binaries. Under these circumstances, a virus is quite easy sneak into a binary distribution, just as it is on other platforms.
I think what he's most concerned about is the fact that a malicious hacker can construct a more potent virus since he has access to the OS's source. Linux is most definitely more popular than it was a couple years ago, which makes it more interesting to virus writers, or certain other OS companies who may benefit in discrediting Linux.
What Kaspersky overlooks is that Linux is a constantly evolving OS. As long as that remains the case, Linux could evolve an immune system to counteract viruses, either by seeking them out or by fixing weaknesses that virus writers find.
Why target a group that makes up less than one percent of your buyers?
And why should females use the computer for entertainment? An understandable, but vicious, cycle. Perhaps if society is so concerned about getting females into computers, they need to take a more comprehensive look at what would interest them, instead of guessing that it's Cosmo or Barbie.
The truth is that games are easier to program for boys. We like points, action, motion, and triggers. Women (stereotypically, but also truthfully) like conversations, complex rewards, stories, and...thinking. My sister, for instance, doesn't see the point of Quake: in her mind, you get killed only to come back again. What's the point of getting killed if there are no repercutions?
I think that you may have oversimplified. Both genders like all of these things (points, (inter)action, motion, complex story, (stimulates) thinking). Some elements may appeal more to men than women or vice versa. A game that possesses all of these is sure winner. As I think about it, that's why I like Myth and Myth II so much. But, many games do not have all of these elements or only have very simplistic beginnings of these elements, but substitute fantastic graphics so that it's a bit more like an interactive movie. To boot, many of the most popular games on the market are just varients on the same engines. It's much easier to wrap an engine in a new skin, maybe add a few new effects/weapons/modes/etc. and resell it (see Unreal or Doom).
Many of these games, perhaps to sell the dangerous adventure aspect, are violent. It seems like the same themes over and over (some war is going on and you have to save the day). For some reason, there are alot of women who are turned off by violence. This isn't to say that the stories that appeal to women must be violence-free, but extraneous and ultra-graphic violence doesn't tend to be appreciated.
For years I've thought about doing a "game for girls" but had no idea what to put into it. I don't have the same interests that most women have and lack the conversation gene. I know what _not_ to put into it and it some of it seems to overlap with edutainment (cute, fluffy, non-confrontational, dumb, narrow focus). Unfortunately, this would be the wrong forum to ask what should go into it.
Contrary to what may have been inferred from my post, I am very uncomforatable dealing with others, sometimes to the point of bringing on anxiety attacks. I even find internet conversation to be a little intimidating, so I do understand the line of thinking. But I leave the house to try to relieve boredom. It's certainly not to interact with others. Rather, I like to walk through the woods and look at the trees (or if I'm in the city, walk through the streets and visit hole-in-the-wall shops or museums). I've found that there's alot that one can do solitarily, even in a crowd.
My apologies if anyone construed my post to mean that I was telling them to "get a life". Defining your life is a very personal thing and no one has the right to tell you what should or shouldn't be in it. To clarify what I was trying to say:
Reading is one way of experiencing life. There are many other ways to experience life that can make it much fuller. These ways shouldn't be written off lightly.
The only movie that I remember that this even remotely resembles is "You've Got Mail", which better reminds me of "Sleepless in Seattle".
Then you said:
Well that's really not that interesting at all. Geeks by their very nature are not lonely but are a social amalgm between computers and humans. I for one if I had a good enough computer would never leave my house only for the most basic of necessities.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought "Geeks" would be like "Sleepless in Seattle". Rather, I meant that I could only think of one movie that even remotely resembled "Geeks", but not very closely.
I wonder if you truly would be happy to never leave the house if you could help it (providing sufficient computer support of course). There are some experiences that can't be made up for on the computer, such as a change of scenery.
Reminds me of a short story we read in high school. I think it was called "The Bet" by Saki. It's about a banker and a lawyer who make a bet that the banker can remain devoid of human contact for twenty years. If he succeeds, the lawyer will give to him a large fortune. The banker isolates himself in a specially built room. It is equipped with all of the finer things in life and he has plenty of reading material. The room is not locked and he is perfectly free to leave if he wishes, but he will lose the bet. Servants are able to provide meals and laundry through a special door that prevents contact. The banker lasts all the way up to the last day, but the isolation has deeply changed him. With just hours to go, he leaves the room.
I know that it's not quite the same thing, but I think there's something to be said for living life, rather than reading it.
Do you know something about this book/movie that the rest of us don't? I only ask because all that I know about either is that it's a nonfictional account of two people from Idaho who meet over the internet. That's _really_ vague. The only movie that I remember that this even remotely resembles is "You've Got Mail", which better reminds me of "Sleepless in Seattle".
I can't say that watching a couple of lonely geeks using usenet and e-mail makes for an intriguing plot, though. Nevertheless, I hope that I'm underestimating it.
It represents the joining of two resources (media and medium) and creates all sorts of efficiencies that will disallow competing viewpoints to emerge from the media.
Actually, that kind of reminds me of the Rockerfeller Steel case where the steel company owned the only practical means of delivering it (the railroad). All well and good that AOL still backs opening the cable lines to other ISPs on consumer end, but what about the content providing end? Would AOL block a rival content provider to their customer base? Then again, media outlets all seems so homogenized right now, I wonder if it would make much difference.
If you talk to any serious biologist, you'd find that evolutionary theory is accepted to almost the same degree as Newtons Laws are to a physicist. 95% of modern biological science simply doesn't make any sense except in the context of evolution
It is equally dangerous to rule out remote possibilities, even outrageous ones, when we do not have 100% certainty. It is quite reasonable to operate under the assumption that Darwinian evolution is pretty accurate because, so far, that theory fits what we know the best. But, I've seen too many situations where the general acceptance of a theory is the basis for rejecting competing theories. Or a lack of evidence (as opposed to contradictory evidence) is taken as grounds for rejecting a theory. That's bad science. What I'm basically saying is that, although the notion that non-Earth origins of life is an outrageous theory, there is no evidence that contradicts it.
It does seem more likely that life formed here, though. It had to have started somewhere, and since it's here now, odds are better that it started here.
Actually, when I refering to the forums in an urban area, I wasn't talking about school. I was refering to the distractions that one can use to mentally unwind, such as the village or museums in NY. The trick is to make time for these distractions. I think that it's part of a healthy mental diet.
While I agree that school and work life are very different, I disagree that an office inherently segragate based on activity. My desk may be among the programmers, but I tend to interact with artists, writers, and managers just as much as other programmers. With the exception of one job that I had where just about everyone in the office was a programmer, I tended to interact with non-IS at least as often as IS.
But, I wouldn't recommend using one's office as a dating pool. It can really interfere with work and odds are that you're less likely to find someone who is right for you.
The problem that I see here is that the threat of litigation does not seem to hold enough disincentive to MS to curb it's behavior. I know collusion is illegal. I bet they do too, but it didn't stop them from attempting it with Netscape. Actually, MSApps would be subject to the same blackmail that other vendors are, so MSWin could have their way with them, but would probably make an offer where MSApps would get something out of it.
I just don't believe that the illegality of an action will have an impact on MS's decisions. They'll just go to court again. There has to be very serious consequences this time around so that they'll be much more hesitant in the future to risk losing another court case.
Regarding your other question: MS can't forced to just open up the API. It's considered property and they are supposed to compensated for it. Some think that it would be impossible to compensate them for it's value, but I think that the value should be discounted because it's inflated due to their illegal activities.
Even if they were forced to open it up, who would be the keeper of the standard?
Actually, it's ironic that you said something about Apple building support into the OS so that the Windows version of Office runs on the Mac. From what I understand, alot of the shared libs that go with Office for the Mac are glue that does something like this.
The best way that this story could have been handled would be to look at the 'new' business and social environment and interaction in Silicon Valley. I know nothing about it, as I work as I work in Ireland -- mix business with pleasure, anyone?
This story seems to have been written by someone outside of the culture who wanted to appear like they were inside the culture. And what better than a candid, behind closed-door look at a high profile, shy culture.
I'm curious as to just how people interact, meet each other and what not in an environment that seems insanely pressurised to me, from the congested traffic to the high rent and long hours.
I went to college in Newark, NJ (not far from NYC). There is a large population in the Northeastern US and an exceptionally high concentration in this particular area. I found that you can still be very much alone in the middle of all that humanity, but it's likely that you will run into someone along the line that is interesting enough that you'll want to talk to them. There are so many forums to provide an opportunity to find someone with similar interests.
When I'm really engrossed in a project, I know that my social interaction comes with the project team and, occasionally, bystanders, for the most part. Does this occur in Silicon Valley, as well, where friendships and romances arise from convenience? If so, I'm sure the same ramifications exist for work romances, but what's the social view of, say, a millionaire CEO dating his secretary?
That engrossment is usually temporary. Otherwise, you'd crack. City life provides a huge variety of outlets for getting away. University life (especially if you live on-campus) provides the best of both worlds: housemate hackers. Many of my friends are from college. Nearly all of the rest are friends of friends. I presume that can carry over to work (maybe not the living together thing). Hard for me to say, since I no longer live in the NYC area and I haven't encountered a local hacker culture.
And that would be illegal. This is precisely what the current case is about. A monopoly by itself is perfectly legal, but using the power that monopoly gives you to get an unfair advantage in other areas is not.
The law didn't seem to get in their way the first time. Even though it's a different law, I don't see why they would be any more law abiding after the breakup.
AT&T break up was done the way you say. The goverment turned one big monopoly into several little ones, that eventually became big again. This was because the users didn't have a choice in what company they delt with. I went from only a AT&T choice to an only Bell Atlantic choice. Smaller monopoly but still a monopoly.
That's because they did it stupidly. This is not really a comparable example because the companies that came from AT&T are only just beginning to compete with each other. Competition was supposed the whole point of the breakup, but they botched it.
I agree that a horizontal split in MS's case doesn't go far enough, though. Having multiple identical MS's is likely to result in having one winner, whichever one can grab the most control over the market. This is why I think both a horizontal and vertical split and a change in leadership are key. OEMs need to be able to choose among vendors for the OS, and their contract for the OS should not involve other apps. The leadership needs to change because I think that current MS leadership is too likely to collude which would defeat the point of any breakup.
The trial wasn't about MS being having a monopoly because they are the market leader. It was about MS using their market dominance to lock out competitors. It was about making people who offer Windows offer Office too. This is what the trial was about, and this is what the ruling is meant to fix.
But it doesn't fix most of the problems. MSApps can still say to Apple, if you don't make IE the default, we won't support Office. All it would take is an arrangement between MSWin and MSApps (say, access to the OS source or other exclusive goodies) to make it worthwhile to MSApps. And does nothing about the OEM situation. They still have only one company that can give them Windows.
Being a monopoly isn't about being on the most systems, or being the de facto standard, it's about keeping your competitors from even having a chance in the market, and that is what this is meant to fix.
A monopoly is, by definition, having the overwhelming majority of the market. This tends to establish the standard. But, again, having a monopoly is not illegal. Using the power that comes from the monopoly status is illegal. There is nothing that says that MSApps and MSWin would try to use their monopoly power, but unless leadership changes, I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't use it.
The real question in my mind is how do they plan to address the personality of Microsoft. Wouldn't any offspring companies resulting from a break up have the same mentality (win at any cost)? I'd like to know who would run these companies. Gates? Ballmer? Kempin? Aren't these the same guys who made those decisions that got them in trouble in the first place? I realize that most corporations are not much better, but they at least tend to think before breaking the law. If they do continue to break the law, we just go through another one of these long litigations.
The reason that this behavior worries me is that the OS company would still have too much power. They would still be the "only game in town". Part of this is the fault of the OEMs for not having any backbone, but some of it is a fiscal reality. Why should an OEM ship Linux or BeOS when they have to pay MS for every machine out the door? And why do they have to pay for every machine out the door? Because there are many OEMs but only one company who can provide the OS. Stripping the other assets from the OS company takes away some of their influence, but it still leaves them in a very powerful position. I suspect that they're trying right now to tie as much of their apps as they can into Windows, so they don't have to give up too much control.
Why bother porting? They can have a more cost effective solution by simply sticking to their current Windows and Mac support. No one would blame them because no one really expects a mainstream developer to support anything beyond these two (and the Mac support is actually considered icing).
I think that if geeks expect that they will be able to find romance at work, there's nothing like an engineering company for that not to come true. Yeah, I guess it'd be nerdvana to have someone that actually understands what you do, but from my experience, that's probably not going to happen due to the abysmal M/F ratio.
The problem then becomes where does the average geek find someone. Many, if not most, are too shy/introverted/socially awkward to go to social situations for the purpose of meeting people. And it is important that a programmer's mate understands and is able to live with the life that goes with being a programmer. This is not a quality that I see in the general public.
But even more important, IMHO, is that you don't want to find romance at work....
This is true, regardless of profession. Sometimes it's worth the risk, but it would have to be pretty convincing for me (not that I'm looking; I'm married). But, that doesn't mean that you can't look within the industry or on the net.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only can it be biased, but it also does not assess other qualities, such as creativity, problem solving, and knowledge application. I say that it can be biased because the language used in the tests are often biased. The form of language typically used is suburban U.S. I've never quite gotten the hang of certain subtle phrasings and I can sympathize with anyone who misunderstood what was intended by the question on a test and, as a result, answered the wrong question.
This isn't to say that an interview is an inherently better solution because of the pitfalls that were mentioned. It does give someone an opportunity to better assess some of those intangibles that standardized testing misses.
I consider this Lego test to be sort of like an interview, except that the candidate and the assessor aren't directly interacting. Give the person a problem to solve and see what happens. Naturally, it's best to have several observers who don't interact with each other do the assessment. This way you might cut back on some of the pitfalls of an interview.
Overall, I'd think that the more information that can be gained about a candidate, the better. I therefore feel that all means of assessment should be used when possible. Multiple forms of assessment (rather than multiple standardized tests) can show which results were anomalous and give a better picture of what this person possesses in knowledge and potential.
-Jennifer
I would think that minority groups would feel insulted by having tests that have lower standards then the average white kid. Doesn't just say that they are stupid? I know I would feel insulted if someone game me a test that was not as challenging as someone else.
I would agree with you except that I didn't get the impression that this was a special test for minority groups. I believe that article explicitly stated that race was not a factor in selecting who was taking the test. The majority who are initially taking it are black or Hispanic but this seems to be attributable to the demographics of NYC (the pool of students that they are drawing on).
I also take issue with your assertion that this sort of test is a lower standard. It is measuring other qualities. How well this test does that remains to be seen, but the testers are looking for leadership and the ability to work in groups. I could also see it indicating creativity and problem solving skills. These are valuable, non-quantifiable assets for which standardized tests tend to be poor indicators. I don't think I'd throw away all standardized testing, but I would balance them with other non-conventional tests, such as this, to better assess a candidate.
-Jennifer
I really think that standards are declining if people use legos to get into college. I actually wanted to take the ACT test to get into college and I feel that it was worth it.
I've always felt that standardized test are quite flawed. I tend to show up quite erractly on them (aced the ACT, did OK on the SAT, blew away the college admission test), so I've lost faith in what those tests are supposed to stand for. Overall, we seem to be a little too preoccupied with quantifying education and skills when it is inappropriate to do this to either.
I can't realistically believe that anyone who can build with legos can actually be on par with someone who has actually shown a knowledge of the material through a standardized test.
That makes no sense. That's akin to saying, "I can't believe that anyone who can change the oil in a car can actually be on par with someone who can play a musical instrument." These are two completely separate skills. All that tests tell you, at best, is that this person was able to understand the question and knew enough about the subject matter to select the correct answer. It's a measure of things learned, not a measure for potential learning. It's a very poor measure of applying knowledge.
The lego test is a step in the right direction. We need to stop worrying about how well a person has scored and more about what sort of potential is in a person.
-Jennifer
Obviously there must be limits to this, otherwise he couldn't have a bank accout since nearly all financial transactions are recorded through computers. Is it reasonable to forbid him from having someone else print out his Quicken ledger?
Is there any reason he can't go to a secluded island with an OC48 line where he can do all the cracking he wants to? I'm sure there is, but its funny to think about.
If he has an Internet connection, it doesn't matter where he is. He's still dangerous.
IMHO anybody who really is for this "FREE KEVIN" BS should really have their head checked. However, I'm all for things like decryption of DVDs, Music Piracy(Unless You really like the music), Borrowing of programs from friends, even fooling around with an old cell phone to listen to calls over the network. I think that fooling around with technology while breaking the law is OK, as long as you're learning. If you're learning about encryption systems while you run DeCSS, that's fine, but as for stealing credit card numbers, and large scale computer crime, they should be punished.
While I agree that the whole Free Kevin thing seems misguided, I can't say that I agree with media and software theft or eavesdropping. In the first case, you're stealing and theft is theft. It doesn't matter how much money is involved; it's the principal. If you want the functionality so bad, write it yourself. If it's too much trouble, then maybe the author of that software deserves to be paid. As for eavesdropping, it's a violation of privacy. Enough said.OTOH, I don't see the sense in outlawing any and all forms of cracking, since tiger teams would then be illegal, not to mention it would be difficult to make advances in software security until the horse is already out of the barn. I have no problem with DeCSS since it can lead to better forms of security and it's inevitable that someone will break it whether it's legal or illegal. At least this way, the MPAA knows that their security is broken. The MPAA, naturally, does not see it this way since they are relying on it to minimize piracy. They have every right to be upset but they need to realize that all systems get cracked eventually and, once they do, a new system needs to be implemented to remain effective.
-Jennifer
I was thinking about more personal things that most people keep on their computer, like their finances, or any legitimate software that he authored. Of course, it's pretty difficult to assess the value of such data without disclosing it. The best that I think he could hope for is that the court's present stipulation of disclosing the key but the contents would be kept under seal away from the eyes of the public.
-Jennifer
I wonder then if Mitnick can sue to get the data (and any equipment) back, or is this something that this judge has final say over? I think he'd have a pretty strong case, based on the fact that the data in question was never used in this trial and the prosecution hasn't obtained a warrant to get the key from Mitnick. If they did manage to get a warrant, the prosecution would at least have something more than "it might be dangerous" to stand on.
-Jennifer
I don't think Kevin should turn over the key. As far as the legality of the government not returning it, I don't know. He doesn't have the right to use a computer, so what would he do with it??
The government will ultimately be forced to give it back or will have to compensate him for it. They might try to get a court order to try to force Mitnick to turn over the key. That would perhaps set some sort of precendent. I expect that if that were to happen, he'd probably refuse and face the consequences. But at least there might be some clarification. As it is, the prosecution is playing a risky game since the data in question was not used in this trial. That's sort of like the prosecution taking possession of a car that belongs to the accused, not using any part of it in evidence, and then refusing to give it back because the accused might use it to commit a crime.
Keep in mind that just because Mitnick isn't allowed to use a computer, doesn't mean that he can't have someone else give him hardcopies. Besides, as long as the equipment and the data belongs to him, it doesn't matter whether or not he can use it.
-Jennifer
did anyone else notice that the Recommendation itself was authored in XHTML 1.0?
Yes, my browser (iCab) rendered all of the text (I think). iCab also has the ability to generate an error log. It was really, really long. But, then again, I've never found a page in the wild that didn't have at least one error on it.
-Jennifer
Standards lag behind the technology They used to, back in the days of HTML 2.0->4.0. I think it's a bit different these days, since the CSS/DOM people have built quite a big bunch of standard which is way beyond what most browsers support, and the browser writers are playing catch-up. Of course Microsoft are adding all sorts of weird extended style-sheet stuff, but I've never seen any of it actually used, probably because no-one really understands it. They still do. At least, my company still does because a significant enough percentage of our visitors use NN 3.0. Even when I have the chance to use HTML 4, I find myself restricted because I must support current versions of Communicator and IE on Windows and the Mac. My company want the content to look a certain way and I try my best to get consistant results across all of the browsers that they choose to support. I know that this is way outside of what HTML was intended to do, but try explaining that to management. Plus, I think about things like PDAs, phone browsers, and web page readers for the blind. I try hard to not cut these folks off from the content, especially for the sake of asthetics. Sometimes. I think in more cases, they just don't really know standards are even there to be followed. I think most content on the web is hacked up by people who've learnt HTML from reading other people's HTML, or from a woefully inaccurate "HTML for Tossers" book. Or they're using FrontPage, God help 'em. That's a big part of it. But I think alot of them wouldn't care even if they did know. It's enough for them that it works on their web browser. Why make more work for yourself by trying it under other circumstances? I guess most of the folks making web pages just don't think like programmers. -Jennifer
I think Kaspersky may have the future audience of Linux in mind, rather than the present audience. As Linux becomes more popular, it is likely that the average Linux user will be less technically savvy. This would mean that the user may be more likely to log in as superuser (so he doesn't have to worry about not being able to install apps) and certainly wouldn't dream of downloading source to create his own binaries. Under these circumstances, a virus is quite easy sneak into a binary distribution, just as it is on other platforms.
I think what he's most concerned about is the fact that a malicious hacker can construct a more potent virus since he has access to the OS's source. Linux is most definitely more popular than it was a couple years ago, which makes it more interesting to virus writers, or certain other OS companies who may benefit in discrediting Linux.
What Kaspersky overlooks is that Linux is a constantly evolving OS. As long as that remains the case, Linux could evolve an immune system to counteract viruses, either by seeking them out or by fixing weaknesses that virus writers find.
-Jennifer
Why target a group that makes up less than one percent of your buyers?
And why should females use the computer for entertainment? An understandable, but vicious, cycle. Perhaps if society is so concerned about getting females into computers, they need to take a more comprehensive look at what would interest them, instead of guessing that it's Cosmo or Barbie.
The truth is that games are easier to program for boys. We like points, action, motion, and triggers. Women (stereotypically, but also truthfully) like conversations, complex rewards, stories, and ...thinking. My sister, for instance, doesn't see the point of Quake: in her mind, you get killed only to come back again. What's the point of getting killed if there are no repercutions?
I think that you may have oversimplified. Both genders like all of these things (points, (inter)action, motion, complex story, (stimulates) thinking). Some elements may appeal more to men than women or vice versa. A game that possesses all of these is sure winner. As I think about it, that's why I like Myth and Myth II so much. But, many games do not have all of these elements or only have very simplistic beginnings of these elements, but substitute fantastic graphics so that it's a bit more like an interactive movie. To boot, many of the most popular games on the market are just varients on the same engines. It's much easier to wrap an engine in a new skin, maybe add a few new effects/weapons/modes/etc. and resell it (see Unreal or Doom).
Many of these games, perhaps to sell the dangerous adventure aspect, are violent. It seems like the same themes over and over (some war is going on and you have to save the day). For some reason, there are alot of women who are turned off by violence. This isn't to say that the stories that appeal to women must be violence-free, but extraneous and ultra-graphic violence doesn't tend to be appreciated.
For years I've thought about doing a "game for girls" but had no idea what to put into it. I don't have the same interests that most women have and lack the conversation gene. I know what _not_ to put into it and it some of it seems to overlap with edutainment (cute, fluffy, non-confrontational, dumb, narrow focus). Unfortunately, this would be the wrong forum to ask what should go into it.
-Jennifer
Contrary to what may have been inferred from my post, I am very uncomforatable dealing with others, sometimes to the point of bringing on anxiety attacks. I even find internet conversation to be a little intimidating, so I do understand the line of thinking. But I leave the house to try to relieve boredom. It's certainly not to interact with others. Rather, I like to walk through the woods and look at the trees (or if I'm in the city, walk through the streets and visit hole-in-the-wall shops or museums). I've found that there's alot that one can do solitarily, even in a crowd.
My apologies if anyone construed my post to mean that I was telling them to "get a life". Defining your life is a very personal thing and no one has the right to tell you what should or shouldn't be in it. To clarify what I was trying to say:
Reading is one way of experiencing life. There are many other ways to experience life that can make it much fuller. These ways shouldn't be written off lightly.
-Jennifer
I said:
The only movie that I remember that this even remotely resembles is "You've Got Mail", which better reminds me of "Sleepless in Seattle".
Then you said:
Well that's really not that interesting at all. Geeks by their very nature are not lonely but are a social amalgm between computers and humans. I for one if I had a good enough computer would never leave my house only for the most basic of necessities.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought "Geeks" would be like "Sleepless in Seattle". Rather, I meant that I could only think of one movie that even remotely resembled "Geeks", but not very closely.
I wonder if you truly would be happy to never leave the house if you could help it (providing sufficient computer support of course). There are some experiences that can't be made up for on the computer, such as a change of scenery.
Reminds me of a short story we read in high school. I think it was called "The Bet" by Saki. It's about a banker and a lawyer who make a bet that the banker can remain devoid of human contact for twenty years. If he succeeds, the lawyer will give to him a large fortune. The banker isolates himself in a specially built room. It is equipped with all of the finer things in life and he has plenty of reading material. The room is not locked and he is perfectly free to leave if he wishes, but he will lose the bet. Servants are able to provide meals and laundry through a special door that prevents contact. The banker lasts all the way up to the last day, but the isolation has deeply changed him. With just hours to go, he leaves the room.
I know that it's not quite the same thing, but I think there's something to be said for living life, rather than reading it.
-Jennifer
Do you know something about this book/movie that the rest of us don't? I only ask because all that I know about either is that it's a nonfictional account of two people from Idaho who meet over the internet. That's _really_ vague. The only movie that I remember that this even remotely resembles is "You've Got Mail", which better reminds me of "Sleepless in Seattle".
I can't say that watching a couple of lonely geeks using usenet and e-mail makes for an intriguing plot, though. Nevertheless, I hope that I'm underestimating it.
-Jennifer
It represents the joining of two resources (media and medium) and creates all sorts of efficiencies that will disallow competing viewpoints to emerge from the media.
Actually, that kind of reminds me of the Rockerfeller Steel case where the steel company owned the only practical means of delivering it (the railroad). All well and good that AOL still backs opening the cable lines to other ISPs on consumer end, but what about the content providing end? Would AOL block a rival content provider to their customer base? Then again, media outlets all seems so homogenized right now, I wonder if it would make much difference.
-Jennifer
If you talk to any serious biologist, you'd find that evolutionary theory is accepted to almost the same degree as Newtons Laws are to a physicist. 95% of modern biological science simply doesn't make any sense except in the context of evolution
It is equally dangerous to rule out remote possibilities, even outrageous ones, when we do not have 100% certainty. It is quite reasonable to operate under the assumption that Darwinian evolution is pretty accurate because, so far, that theory fits what we know the best. But, I've seen too many situations where the general acceptance of a theory is the basis for rejecting competing theories. Or a lack of evidence (as opposed to contradictory evidence) is taken as grounds for rejecting a theory. That's bad science. What I'm basically saying is that, although the notion that non-Earth origins of life is an outrageous theory, there is no evidence that contradicts it.
It does seem more likely that life formed here, though. It had to have started somewhere, and since it's here now, odds are better that it started here.
-Jennifer
Actually, when I refering to the forums in an urban area, I wasn't talking about school. I was refering to the distractions that one can use to mentally unwind, such as the village or museums in NY. The trick is to make time for these distractions. I think that it's part of a healthy mental diet.
While I agree that school and work life are very different, I disagree that an office inherently segragate based on activity. My desk may be among the programmers, but I tend to interact with artists, writers, and managers just as much as other programmers. With the exception of one job that I had where just about everyone in the office was a programmer, I tended to interact with non-IS at least as often as IS.
But, I wouldn't recommend using one's office as a dating pool. It can really interfere with work and odds are that you're less likely to find someone who is right for you.
-Jennifer
The problem that I see here is that the threat of litigation does not seem to hold enough disincentive to MS to curb it's behavior. I know collusion is illegal. I bet they do too, but it didn't stop them from attempting it with Netscape. Actually, MSApps would be subject to the same blackmail that other vendors are, so MSWin could have their way with them, but would probably make an offer where MSApps would get something out of it.
I just don't believe that the illegality of an action will have an impact on MS's decisions. They'll just go to court again. There has to be very serious consequences this time around so that they'll be much more hesitant in the future to risk losing another court case.
Regarding your other question:
MS can't forced to just open up the API. It's considered property and they are supposed to compensated for it. Some think that it would be impossible to compensate them for it's value, but I think that the value should be discounted because it's inflated due to their illegal activities.
Even if they were forced to open it up, who would be the keeper of the standard?
Actually, it's ironic that you said something about Apple building support into the OS so that the Windows version of Office runs on the Mac. From what I understand, alot of the shared libs that go with Office for the Mac are glue that does something like this.
-Jennifer
The best way that this story could have been handled would be to look at the 'new' business and social environment and interaction in Silicon Valley. I know nothing about it, as I work as I work in Ireland -- mix business with pleasure, anyone?
This story seems to have been written by someone outside of the culture who wanted to appear like they were inside the culture. And what better than a candid, behind closed-door look at a high profile, shy culture.
I'm curious as to just how people interact, meet each other and what not in an environment that seems insanely pressurised to me, from the congested traffic to the high rent and long hours.
I went to college in Newark, NJ (not far from NYC). There is a large population in the Northeastern US and an exceptionally high concentration in this particular area. I found that you can still be very much alone in the middle of all that humanity, but it's likely that you will run into someone along the line that is interesting enough that you'll want to talk to them. There are so many forums to provide an opportunity to find someone with similar interests.
When I'm really engrossed in a project, I know that my social interaction comes with the project team and, occasionally, bystanders, for the most part. Does this occur in Silicon Valley, as well, where friendships and romances arise from convenience? If so, I'm sure the same ramifications exist for work romances, but what's the social view of, say, a millionaire CEO dating his secretary?
That engrossment is usually temporary. Otherwise, you'd crack. City life provides a huge variety of outlets for getting away. University life (especially if you live on-campus) provides the best of both worlds: housemate hackers. Many of my friends are from college. Nearly all of the rest are friends of friends. I presume that can carry over to work (maybe not the living together thing). Hard for me to say, since I no longer live in the NYC area and I haven't encountered a local hacker culture.
-Jennifer
And that would be illegal. This is precisely what the current case is about. A monopoly by itself is perfectly legal, but using the power that monopoly gives you to get an unfair advantage in other areas is not.
The law didn't seem to get in their way the first time. Even though it's a different law, I don't see why they would be any more law abiding after the breakup.
-Jennifer
AT&T break up was done the way you say. The goverment turned one big monopoly into several little ones, that eventually became big again. This was because the users didn't have a choice in what company they delt with. I went from only a AT&T choice to an only Bell Atlantic choice. Smaller monopoly but still a monopoly.
That's because they did it stupidly. This is not really a comparable example because the companies that came from AT&T are only just beginning to compete with each other. Competition was supposed the whole point of the breakup, but they botched it.
I agree that a horizontal split in MS's case doesn't go far enough, though. Having multiple identical MS's is likely to result in having one winner, whichever one can grab the most control over the market. This is why I think both a horizontal and vertical split and a change in leadership are key. OEMs need to be able to choose among vendors for the OS, and their contract for the OS should not involve other apps. The leadership needs to change because I think that current MS leadership is too likely to collude which would defeat the point of any breakup.
-Jennifer
The trial wasn't about MS being having a monopoly because they are the market leader. It was about MS using their market dominance to lock out competitors. It was about making people who offer Windows offer Office too. This is what the trial was about, and this is what the ruling is meant to fix.
But it doesn't fix most of the problems. MSApps can still say to Apple, if you don't make IE the default, we won't support Office. All it would take is an arrangement between MSWin and MSApps (say, access to the OS source or other exclusive goodies) to make it worthwhile to MSApps. And does nothing about the OEM situation. They still have only one company that can give them Windows.
Being a monopoly isn't about being on the most systems, or being the de facto standard, it's about keeping your competitors from even having a chance in the market, and that is what this is meant to fix.
A monopoly is, by definition, having the overwhelming majority of the market. This tends to establish the standard. But, again, having a monopoly is not illegal. Using the power that comes from the monopoly status is illegal. There is nothing that says that MSApps and MSWin would try to use their monopoly power, but unless leadership changes, I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't use it.
-Jennifer
The real question in my mind is how do they plan to address the personality of Microsoft. Wouldn't any offspring companies resulting from a break up have the same mentality (win at any cost)? I'd like to know who would run these companies. Gates? Ballmer? Kempin? Aren't these the same guys who made those decisions that got them in trouble in the first place? I realize that most corporations are not much better, but they at least tend to think before breaking the law. If they do continue to break the law, we just go through another one of these long litigations.
The reason that this behavior worries me is that the OS company would still have too much power. They would still be the "only game in town". Part of this is the fault of the OEMs for not having any backbone, but some of it is a fiscal reality. Why should an OEM ship Linux or BeOS when they have to pay MS for every machine out the door? And why do they have to pay for every machine out the door? Because there are many OEMs but only one company who can provide the OS. Stripping the other assets from the OS company takes away some of their influence, but it still leaves them in a very powerful position. I suspect that they're trying right now to tie as much of their apps as they can into Windows, so they don't have to give up too much control.
-Jennifer
Why bother porting? They can have a more cost effective solution by simply sticking to their current Windows and Mac support. No one would blame them because no one really expects a mainstream developer to support anything beyond these two (and the Mac support is actually considered icing).
-Jennifer
I think that if geeks expect that they will be able to find romance at work, there's nothing like an engineering company for that not to come true. Yeah, I guess it'd be nerdvana to have someone that actually understands what you do, but from my experience, that's probably not going to happen due to the abysmal M/F ratio.
The problem then becomes where does the average geek find someone. Many, if not most, are too shy/introverted/socially awkward to go to social situations for the purpose of meeting people. And it is important that a programmer's mate understands and is able to live with the life that goes with being a programmer. This is not a quality that I see in the general public.
But even more important, IMHO, is that you don't want to find romance at work. ...
This is true, regardless of profession. Sometimes it's worth the risk, but it would have to be pretty convincing for me (not that I'm looking; I'm married). But, that doesn't mean that you can't look within the industry or on the net.
-Jennifer