...is that so many people jump up and claim "hey, the Bill of Rights only applies to the feds; your employer can do whatever they like to you." No doubt an urban legend in law as it seems to be widespread and generally accepted.
It also isn't true. The Fourth Amendment, for those who can't be bothered to read the Constitution or the attendant papers written by the people who actually crafted it:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Please note that nowhere does it say "but this only applies to the feds" or "corporations are exempt". In NONE of the papers written on the Constitution by the Founders does it specifically separate rights based upon who violates them, e.g., bad for government but okay for business. In fact, the it *never even occurred* to the people who wrote the Constitution that anyone would make such a distinction.
You see, the Constitution is the highest law of the land; these rights apply AT ALL TIMES. Or they did until our government started arguing for exemptions (e.g., mandatory drug testing).
Our government and courts might exempt certain entities from the provisions of the 4th Amendment; the 4th itself does no such thing nor was it supposed to be open to exemptions of any kind. The guys who wrote the thing specifically claimed that these rights couldn't be abridged, not by the government or anyone else. The fact that they are makes the exemptions ILLEGAL until such a time as the Constitution is amended to eliminate or change the 4th Amendment.
How the hell could anyone be afraid of being exposed? Even if the puds at work know that you post on slashdot under account name x, you can always go and get account name y.
There's no chance of anyone tracing back your account to reveal your real name. Therefore there's no dire need to post as an AC.
If you're having trouble wrapping your brain around this one, think about it: I'm maxpublic here on this post - how the hell do you know whether or not I have a second, or third, or fourth account?
Hey, those cameras are great for recording myself, my wife, and our various partners engaged in lustful orgies. A camera for every angle, straight to the computer to be recorded and cut for later viewing pleasure. Woohoo!
Sure they are. If they weren't they wouldn't be snooping on it.
Sure, it would allow them to look at it but it's no different than being able to tap your phone now. So what's the difference between tapping your phone and tapping your internet connection? Nothing. There is no difference. They'll need a wire-tapping order to do it, still..
No, they won't. The passage of a single act and they'll be able to tap the entire internet, recording every conversation and every piece of mail to use against you or not as they see fit.
According to the 4th Amendment, a warrant has to be issued for each specific search declaring in detail what is to be searched and what is to be seized. This makes getting a wiretap a real pain in the ass, especially since most judges require solid evidence of wrongdoing before they'll issue a warrant (hence the fact that the FBI set up 2,500 illegal wiretaps last year - they knew a judge would never approve of them).
The internet tap clearly violates the 4th Amendment. What's the catch? So far, the courts have declared that email and IM are not 'protected communication' like phone conversations are, and thus not subject to Constitutional review. So long as that's the prevailing opinion of the courts, the FBI needs no warrant to read your mail and use it against you as they see fit.
You don't have to be a criminal to fear the implications. Aside from the invasion of privacy, there's the fact that one could be engaged in non-criminal activities that one doesn't want published in a public arena. I can think of dozens of things that fall into this category; so could you, if you thought about.
Unless, of course, you actually trust the FBI not to use the information it gathers to pursue whatever ends it desires, regardless of the legality of the means. I sure as hell don't.
So no, we aren't protected by wiretap laws. We aren't protected by them right now for any internet-related communication. That's simple fact.
If Cox isn't willing to risk the heat, or at worst is lashing out against American kernel developers out of spite against American laws, then he's no longer qualified to run the changelog.
Linux programming should *never* be subverted to the political whims of a single individual. If this is the game that Cox is going to play under the rubric that he *might* be sued or arrested, then the logical step is *not* to exclude Americans but rather to pass the torch onto someone with bigger cojones. The fact that he refuses to do so is a clear indication that he's using his position to enforce his own political views at the expense of American programmers.
Screw him. If he wants to jerk around then he can do it alone with his right hand. Only an asshole would drag everyone else along on his own personal crusade.
Oooooh, that's a good one! My country is a democracy! Har har har! Who would've guessed? And for years I'd been thinking that we'd become a plutocracy or a corporate republic....
Them funny furriners. They think we can repeal laws we don't like. What comedians!
Max
Re:Reminder to self: must let PHB read this
on
Microsoft's Future
·
· Score: 1
'Focusing on the future'? Please define this vague term for those of us not equipped with your gift for intuition. Surely Bill isn't running a psychic hotline?
And how can Bill do *anything whatsoever* about the future if he isn't giving marching orders to Ballmer?
Microsoft evil? Naaaahh. Authoritarian, obsessed with power and control, willing to deceive and destroy to get its way, brazenly lying to courts and forging affidavits, convicted of monopoly power offenses - these are but a few of Microsofts characteristics.
'Evil', however, requires a conscious choice in action. TPTB at Microsoft wouldn't know right from wrong if it were slapped upside the head with a cluestick. MS is more like a ravening, ever-hungry beast that's never satisfied and always has to have MORE! no matter what the price might be to others. 'Sociopathic', perhaps, if you can assume that even a basic level of thought goes into the decision-making at Redmond.
Only a fuckwit would refer to a 12-year-old as a "greasy little punk". But I guess I shouldn't expect any better from a guy who goes by the name "Spooge Demon".
Max
Re:I think they should give the teachers laptops..
on
Technology and Society
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Just in case you somehow missed the beginning of the 21st century, learning how to use a computer *is* a basic skill these days. Relegating the use of the computer to a 'hobby' is a luxury only those already-established in the job market can afford; an example being the large group of boomers who rail, whine, and moan about the advance of computer technology and how it has no place in their childrens lives simply because it had no place in their own.
It's been my experience that the folks who piss away at computers are either the ones who already 'got theirs' and wish time would just up and stop (i.e., the aforementioned boomers) or the technologically illiterate who can't keep up with their peers and are bitter about it.
I currently work in a school district, and have for the last three years. Sure, there are problems with the school system, serious problems; but blaming these problems on computers ("our kids should be learning the 3 R's", bitch and moan) is the refuge of the simple-minded who pine for simple solutions.
Computer technology and the internet will be an integral part of these kids lives, far more so than any generation previous. Teaching them early, especially the poor who don't have computers or the internet at home, is far better than saying 'screw you, learn it on your own'. Regardless of how it panned out for you, it won't fly for future generations.
Max
things I'd like to see in the new game
on
Sid Meier on Civ III
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Just some things I'd like to see in the new game:
- better AI. Please, by all that's holy, a better AI. Better at *everything* - expansion, city development, conducting war, etc. One that doesn't break treaties every five turns and attack willy-nilly, even though I've beat on the damned computer player but good the last half-dozen times it decided to stab me in the back.
One of the things I really detest about all the Civ games is the fact that the AI continually starts wars, especially when it doesn't have a prayer of forcing even a minor victory. It slows the game down enormously having to deal with all these 'irritation' attacks. This almost forces you to go on a world-conquest rampage just to keep the game from bogging down and getting boring.
- much slower tech advancement. All the Civ games are cursed with tech advancement which races by so fast you don't have time to build all of the city improvements you might want, or even field an army before it becomes outdated. It's impossible to have 'period' warfare (e.g., musketeers and cannon) because once your army is created you'll already be producing the next great thing (e.g., riflemen). I 'fix' this by slowing down tech advances by a factor of 20 when I play the game, meaning that there'll be at least some measure of time spent in each 'period' before advancing to the next. I just hope the game gives you the option of doing this without having to monkey with the tech tree and rules.txt files.
- I liked CTP's replacement of the Settler units. I'm sorry to see Civ III will include Workers, pretty much the same thing. CTP cut out the micromanagement required by having Settler units and this made me a very happy camper. It's too bad that Civ III will add this annoying bit of micromanagement back into the game.
- Pollution: use some other model than having Workers clean it up. Like irritation attacks, having to direct your workers to all the spots that develop pollution each turn (because the AI is too stupid to do it properly on its own) is very time-consuming - and boooorring. Really, have a 'Superfund' or something along these lines instead.
- Age advancement: no one likes to see musketeers or even pikemen take on a tank and win. So why not incorporate age advancement in a more substantial way: when one civilization advances to a new age (with substantially different combat technology), they *all* do with immediate upgrades to field units. However - those civs that are behind the civ that triggered the event still have to research the various techs to get all the goodies/upgrades for that age.
- larger maps with smaller scale.
- better control of the terrain when randomly generating a map. For example, being able to specify 'no desert', or saying '20% of all squares will be mountains', or 'make 3 discrete continents'. Hand-crafting a map is dull and, of course, kills the element of surprise, but the map generator in all the Civs is crude and not very good at the job. I'd like to be able to set specific characteristics and let the generator do it's bit based upon the parameters I give it.
That about does it for my wish list. Everything else is gravy.
What you're railing against is something typical in the game industry. Somebody comes out with a revolutionary game that really makes a mark - and that's it. He's shot his creative wad. I could name quite a few games/designers where this has happened, but I'm sure you could too if you think about it.
If you're having trouble getting started here's one: Carmack/Romero and Doom. Everything after Doom was just a refinement of the same concept. Quake III is nothing more than Doom revved up to 3D standards.
There's nothing wrong with this, except perhaps that people come to think that *every* game put out by that designer is bound to be something new and exciting. If you come to accept that two strokes of genius from the same person are pretty rare, then you won't be disappointed if future offerings are just variations on the theme. Instead, you'll look to fresh talent for big changes rather than those who've already done their bit.
I'm going to buy Civ III, but I doubt it'll be that much different from Civ II or Civ I. I don't expect it to be and I won't really care if it isn't. Sid Meier has done his thing, made his mark, and I don't expect that Civ III will revolutionize anything. I'll look to others, yet untried, for the next new thing.
As an American I believe (believe, mind you; my own government has provided no empirical evidence whatsoever that what I believe is true) that Osama bin Laden, his followers, and many other folks loosely associated with fundamental Islamic terrorist groups were the prime participants in the four-plane hijacking attack on my country.
Please note: I said "prime participants", not "solely responsible".
Take a look at the evidence. Osama bin Laden, despite press claims to the contrary, is not a twisted genius. He's a rich, disaffected playboy from Saudi Arabia who has a keen desire to be worshipped, and he found satisfaction in this desire by hooking up with anti-American terrorist groups and giving them tons of cash. Not exactly original - people have been buying adulation since the dawn of history - and certainly not exceptional.
Bin Laden has been involved in two attacks that we know of - embassy bombings in Africa and an attack on an American warship. In the first case this involved all the skill and effort required to plant a car bomb close to the embassies (duuuh, even I could pull that one off), in the second all it took was one insane fanatic and a boatload of explosives, plus lax security on the warship (real complicated plan, that one). Neither attack was terribly effective in terms of American casualties, nor particularly impressive in their ability to inspire terror.
In effect, both of these 'operations' were incredibly amateurish. Even Timothy McVeigh, a single loony American, was capable of doing far more damage than bin Laden and all of his money, terrorist 'cells', and allies. In comparison to McVeigh, one might even think that bin Laden and his cronies extremely incompetent, more 'play-acting' terrorists with a few real followers than a highly-organized, very skilled group of killers.
But then, we've already established that bin Laden is a rich, disaffected playboy, so the first two attempts at terrorism are what we might expect from him. Very simple, very straight-forward bungled efforts.
People say "well, Iraqi intelligence had a hand in helping him out". I'm sure they did; but no one has ever claimed that Iraqi intelligence was one of the shining lights in the covert ops community. In fact, Iraqi intelligence has suffered some hard hits because Sadam, in fits of paranoia, has at times taken to executing everyone with even an ounce of competence anywhere in his general vicinity, claiming that they were "plotting a coup against him". Iraqi intelligence isn't the worst in the world, but it's a far cry from excellence.
In order to blame September 11 solely on bin Laden, the Iraqis, and a few other terrorist organizations, we have to posit the following:
- that bin Laden suddenly became a 'twisted genius' overnight;
- that Iraqi intelligence has been fooling us all along, and is even better than the KGB once was;
- that various terrorist groups managed to cooperate on a plan bigger than any in history without someone letting the cat out the bag or betraying one another, as they often do;
- and that every single intelligence agency in the U.S. and the rest of the First World fell flat on its face all at the same time.
Frankly, although our government seems to think this makes perfect sense I find it a bit too much to swallow. 'Incredible' doesn't begin to cover it.
It makes alot more sense if you add in one additional factor: that bin Laden and his cronies had serious help from within the U.S., from people with the power to hoodwink all of these intelligence agencies long enough to pull the plan off. If bin Laden had the assistance of strong, powerful allies inside the U.S. the simultaneous successful hijacking of four planes and the subsequent destruction that followed - without any single part of this operation being compromised - becomes much more believable.
Imagine if bin Laden, sitting in Afghanistan surrounded by devoted worshippers had someone whisper into his ear "O Great One, I have a plan....". And this plan filled him with glee; even more so that the plan was supported by hidden allies within the Country of Satan itself. How could he resist?
But then the plan succeeded beyond his wildest expectations, as everyone in the world saw on TV. And rather than doing the traditional terrorist thing by claiming responsibility for this feat, bin Laden watched the CNN footage and said to himself "oh shit...." as it belatedly occurred to him that he now had just become the most hunted man on the planet, and that soon American Special Forces would be gunning for him wherever he went. How could he know that such a daring, wild plan would actually succeed? Surely the Americans weren't *that* stupid, that *none* of his groups would be caught? Most likely bin Laden thought that the best that could be achieved was a fight with airport security and front page news for another few days, another annoying bin Laden-esque attempt at being a thorn in the American backside. But to actually destroy the World Trade Center? Who could've believed that the allies in the U.S. would be *that* powerful?
Not exactly the dream of a rich playboy, to be on the run from expert assassins for the rest of your life. It's one thing to play at being a terrorist, it's quite another to be the most infamous terrorist in history with a lifespan measured by how far you can keep ahead of American fury.
I'm also willing to bet that at this point bin Laden realized that he hadn't thought this plan up, it had been brought to him; and that he had been played for a patsy. The real threat, the people who actually made all of this happen, would be safe and secure in the U.S., never suspected and never hunted. Osama would pay for them, and a nation of very pissed-off Americans would only be appeased by bin Laden's head on a pole. And that's where it would end, of course; with all the rampant patriotism and whatnot very few Americans would be inclined to ask suspicious questions, as I'm doing here.
Very conspiracy-theory like, I'll admit; and while an avid fan of the X-Files I like the show because it's all crap fiction with no bearing whatsoever to real life (there aren't any UFO's, assholes; get over it already). But I've been turning this over and over in my head and without the strong allies in the U.S. the whole thing just doesn't ring true - my bullshit detector goes crazy when the government explanation is taken at face value.
So what exactly is achieved by the destruction of the WTC? Two things: a concentration of more power into the presidents hands (a never-ending state of war); and more restrictions on civil liberties. Okay, this makes sense. But who gains?
That's my unanswered question in all of this: Who gains? Who within the U.S. would benefit from expanding the powers of the president and reigning in civil liberties? I don't know myself, and until I figure this out the government explanation in and of itself seems like a fairy tale, while mine seems more likely but still part-and-parcel of X-File-land. And that doesn't sit well with a skeptic like me who doesn't believe in aliens, the supernatural, psychics, or successful conspiracies.
This is especially annoying when, putting aside the 'cute' graphical toys like mousover dropdowns, you can do anything (and more) running Perl CGI's that you can do with Java. And with Perl CGI's every bit of code is executed on the server, meaning that they have none of the bugs associated with Java across different platforms.
Putting the load onto the client instead of the server was a concern 5 years when the fastest PC was a P90, but right now I can buy an AMD 1.4 ghz processor for $149 and a half-gig of DDR RAM for $150, and that's retail. The question of transferring load to improve server speed is no longer an issue even for tiny ISPs.
So why use Java, which can and will break depending on the browser used and how the code is written, when you can use Perl, which is 100% browser-independent? Simply because you can do 'stupid graphical computer tricks'?
I sometimes wonder if Java wasn't invented for people who couldn't figure out Perl....
I don't see a problem using blacklists so long as:
- the ISP informs its customers it uses blacklists;
- the ISP provides the complete blacklist on demand (e.g., a downloadable flat file of blacklisted IPs and their associated domain names)
- the ISP includes a REASON next to each IP/domain name (e.g., short like 'SPAM').
As a user I'd love to have my ISP blacklisting every spamming asshole under the sun. But as a user I also want to know that they *only* block spammers and not folks that they happen to dislike for political or personal reasons (e.g., an IP associated with pro-choice users).
If the ISP uses a blacklist generated by a third party, then I want that third party to make it easy for me to retrieve the list and see why each address was blocked.
"Information anarchy"? And yet no post I've seen so far challenges the terminology as being inherently useless PR. Microsoft is damned good at dreaming up push-button catch-phrases that become subconciously accepted even by it's detractors as viable descriptors. It's the same sort of tactic that convinces people that EULA's are *actual laws*, when they're nothing of the sort - insofar as I know no court of law has even supported them as valid contractual agreements.
The phrase "information anarchy" has no coherent meaning other than that defined through MS's statement, and even there it seems to mean "any public publication of security weaknesses in MS products". Yet MS pushes the phrase over and over again in the attempt to link security reports with the word "anarchy" in the hopes that the average idiot will associate publication of flaws in MS software with irresponsible, undemocratic behavior.
Most of us geeks catch this sort of thing right off (e.g., "viral software") but notice - this one slipped under the wire with nary a comment that I could see.
One of MS's greatest weapons is the introduction of language which precludes one mindset and reinforces another - social programming at it's finest. Accepting the phrase "information anarchy" as valid substantiates the idea that such a thing actually exists, even if you argue that the security reports don't constitute an example of this nebulous "information anarchy".
There's no such animal. It's a buzzword with zero meaning other than a poor attempt to lay the blame for MS security holes on people other than those employed at MS.
Perhaps we should retaliate with terminology of our own that's intimately associated with a Microsoft argument or product. Any ideas (other than the "Microsoft worms" phrase of some days back)?
You don't, they just don't support Linux. I use Linux with @home and it wasn't at all difficult to configure. You just have to do it yourself. Fortunately, there's quite a bit of step-by-step info on the net on how to do this.
The clueless reps, however, might not even know what Linux is, hence the "duuuuh...." response.
The end result of Mozilla 1.0 seems to achieve the goals of 1996, not of 2002. It's 6 years beyond the point when "standards compliant" and "non-buggy" would be enough to attract a significant number of users.
And yet that, coupled with speed, are the primary reasons several million people have downloaded and installed Opera. Standards compliant, non-buggy, and fast.
Over time, I've observed that the folks most critical of the process used to implement changes or improvements in the kernel are those that either:
a) have a personal beef with Linus, Linux, or one of the senior developers;
b) just don't understand the process, can't wrap their brains around the entire concept of the bizarre, and insist on something more cathedral-like to satisfy their sense or order;
c) think that if their way of doing things (each of which is different) were implemented then the kernel would somehow be better (e.g., if *they* were at the helm everything wouldn't be so 'chaotic'); or
d) are irked by the fact that ultimately there's a dictator running the show (Linus), benevolent though he is, and that *they aren't it*.
The proof is in the pudding. The Linux kernel outperforms every other commercial kernel on the market, and does so entirely through volunteer effort. Obviously the process works, and works well. No changes are necessary - "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
Don't be an idiot. Knowing the life history of Babbage won't do thing one to improve my Perl or C++ programming skills. Only a fool would say otherwise.
I can easily refute your belief. Last year millions of mp3s were downloaded; and yet cd sales *increased* by 5% overall. Some preliminary studies linked mp3 downloads to purchases (people heard something they otherwise wouldn't have noticed, liked it, decided they wanted a cd-quality copy rather than an mp3). I did this (sampled, then bought), as did just about everyone else I know.
If the mp3 were the same quality as a straight cd track there might not be an incentive to buy. But the mp3 isn't that good so the incentive to purchase a better product exists.
Knee-jerk extrapolations of personal or clique behavior to the entire U.S. population is not only damned silly but in this case not borne out by the available evidence. It's my suspicion that the people who shout the loudest "everyone does this" or "everyone would do this if they had the balls" are those with the largest pirate collections of mp3s, trying to justify their behavior by spreading the (potential) blame.
I personally don't have a big problem with people pirating mp3s so long as they admit to it ("yep, I steal") and stop trying to avoid responsibility. All this "everyone does it" or "everyone would do it" crap is so Boomerish in its attempt to avoid blame it makes my stomache roll.
No, it won't have any effect whatsoever on your technical skills. Some of the history is mildly interesting, but the only people who seem to think it absolutely crucial are those who grew up during the time...kinda like Boomers raving about Elvis or the Beatles.
Based on the vague generalities of the patent, I think I could claim prior art based on Perl programs I wrote back in 1997 that did this very thing. User goes to web site, has a variety of templates they can choose from, inputs some information for the web page, format, etc., and presto! The new page is uploaded directly to a web site that hosts the user under a unique name, along with all the other users that made their own pages. In addition, the user could go back and modify the page later if desired. Completely automated from start to finish, no HTML required.
I wrote several versions of this program for different companies, none of which (to my knowledge) managed to survive the dot-bomb. But I know for a fact that my idea wasn't an original one; several other sites were doing the same thing. I visited these sites to see what they did so that I could 'one-up' them with my own program and improve on what they had to offer.
So unless I've got the wrong take on IBM's patent *I* can prove prior art. I might even have the programs backed up somewhere in storage. But there are others that can prove prior art to *my* claim as well.
How can IBM expect to enforce this claim? This wasn't something new and innovative at the time the patent was submitted.
Which implies that the folks that work on Linux or Linux apps are mutually exclusive to the term 'professionals'. Even if they work in the industry they don't work for Microsoft, and therefore don't qualify as 'professionals' - that's your take on it?
Slashdot Mirror
...is that so many people jump up and claim "hey, the Bill of Rights only applies to the feds; your employer can do whatever they like to you." No doubt an urban legend in law as it seems to be widespread and generally accepted.
It also isn't true. The Fourth Amendment, for those who can't be bothered to read the Constitution or the attendant papers written by the people who actually crafted it:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Please note that nowhere does it say "but this only applies to the feds" or "corporations are exempt". In NONE of the papers written on the Constitution by the Founders does it specifically separate rights based upon who violates them, e.g., bad for government but okay for business. In fact, the it *never even occurred* to the people who wrote the Constitution that anyone would make such a distinction.
You see, the Constitution is the highest law of the land; these rights apply AT ALL TIMES. Or they did until our government started arguing for exemptions (e.g., mandatory drug testing).
Our government and courts might exempt certain entities from the provisions of the 4th Amendment; the 4th itself does no such thing nor was it supposed to be open to exemptions of any kind. The guys who wrote the thing specifically claimed that these rights couldn't be abridged, not by the government or anyone else. The fact that they are makes the exemptions ILLEGAL until such a time as the Constitution is amended to eliminate or change the 4th Amendment.
Max
How the hell could anyone be afraid of being exposed? Even if the puds at work know that you post on slashdot under account name x, you can always go and get account name y.
There's no chance of anyone tracing back your account to reveal your real name. Therefore there's no dire need to post as an AC.
If you're having trouble wrapping your brain around this one, think about it: I'm maxpublic here on this post - how the hell do you know whether or not I have a second, or third, or fourth account?
Max
Hey, those cameras are great for recording myself, my wife, and our various partners engaged in lustful orgies. A camera for every angle, straight to the computer to be recorded and cut for later viewing pleasure. Woohoo!
Max
Also, the FBI isn't interested in your e-mail.
Sure they are. If they weren't they wouldn't be snooping on it.
Sure, it would allow them to look at it but it's no different than being able to tap your phone now. So what's the difference between tapping your phone and tapping your internet connection? Nothing. There is no difference. They'll need a wire-tapping order to do it, still..
No, they won't. The passage of a single act and they'll be able to tap the entire internet, recording every conversation and every piece of mail to use against you or not as they see fit.
According to the 4th Amendment, a warrant has to be issued for each specific search declaring in detail what is to be searched and what is to be seized. This makes getting a wiretap a real pain in the ass, especially since most judges require solid evidence of wrongdoing before they'll issue a warrant (hence the fact that the FBI set up 2,500 illegal wiretaps last year - they knew a judge would never approve of them).
The internet tap clearly violates the 4th Amendment. What's the catch? So far, the courts have declared that email and IM are not 'protected communication' like phone conversations are, and thus not subject to Constitutional review. So long as that's the prevailing opinion of the courts, the FBI needs no warrant to read your mail and use it against you as they see fit.
You don't have to be a criminal to fear the implications. Aside from the invasion of privacy, there's the fact that one could be engaged in non-criminal activities that one doesn't want published in a public arena. I can think of dozens of things that fall into this category; so could you, if you thought about.
Unless, of course, you actually trust the FBI not to use the information it gathers to pursue whatever ends it desires, regardless of the legality of the means. I sure as hell don't.
So no, we aren't protected by wiretap laws. We aren't protected by them right now for any internet-related communication. That's simple fact.
Max
If Cox isn't willing to risk the heat, or at worst is lashing out against American kernel developers out of spite against American laws, then he's no longer qualified to run the changelog.
Linux programming should *never* be subverted to the political whims of a single individual. If this is the game that Cox is going to play under the rubric that he *might* be sued or arrested, then the logical step is *not* to exclude Americans but rather to pass the torch onto someone with bigger cojones. The fact that he refuses to do so is a clear indication that he's using his position to enforce his own political views at the expense of American programmers.
Screw him. If he wants to jerk around then he can do it alone with his right hand. Only an asshole would drag everyone else along on his own personal crusade.
Max
It's a democratic country, isn't it ?
Oooooh, that's a good one! My country is a democracy! Har har har! Who would've guessed? And for years I'd been thinking that we'd become a plutocracy or a corporate republic....
Them funny furriners. They think we can repeal laws we don't like. What comedians!
Max
'Focusing on the future'? Please define this vague term for those of us not equipped with your gift for intuition. Surely Bill isn't running a psychic hotline?
And how can Bill do *anything whatsoever* about the future if he isn't giving marching orders to Ballmer?
Max
Microsoft evil? Naaaahh. Authoritarian, obsessed with power and control, willing to deceive and destroy to get its way, brazenly lying to courts and forging affidavits, convicted of monopoly power offenses - these are but a few of Microsofts characteristics.
'Evil', however, requires a conscious choice in action. TPTB at Microsoft wouldn't know right from wrong if it were slapped upside the head with a cluestick. MS is more like a ravening, ever-hungry beast that's never satisfied and always has to have MORE! no matter what the price might be to others. 'Sociopathic', perhaps, if you can assume that even a basic level of thought goes into the decision-making at Redmond.
Max
Only a fuckwit would refer to a 12-year-old as a "greasy little punk". But I guess I shouldn't expect any better from a guy who goes by the name "Spooge Demon".
Max
Just in case you somehow missed the beginning of the 21st century, learning how to use a computer *is* a basic skill these days. Relegating the use of the computer to a 'hobby' is a luxury only those already-established in the job market can afford; an example being the large group of boomers who rail, whine, and moan about the advance of computer technology and how it has no place in their childrens lives simply because it had no place in their own.
It's been my experience that the folks who piss away at computers are either the ones who already 'got theirs' and wish time would just up and stop (i.e., the aforementioned boomers) or the technologically illiterate who can't keep up with their peers and are bitter about it.
I currently work in a school district, and have for the last three years. Sure, there are problems with the school system, serious problems; but blaming these problems on computers ("our kids should be learning the 3 R's", bitch and moan) is the refuge of the simple-minded who pine for simple solutions.
Computer technology and the internet will be an integral part of these kids lives, far more so than any generation previous. Teaching them early, especially the poor who don't have computers or the internet at home, is far better than saying 'screw you, learn it on your own'. Regardless of how it panned out for you, it won't fly for future generations.
Max
Just some things I'd like to see in the new game:
- better AI. Please, by all that's holy, a better AI. Better at *everything* - expansion, city development, conducting war, etc. One that doesn't break treaties every five turns and attack willy-nilly, even though I've beat on the damned computer player but good the last half-dozen times it decided to stab me in the back.
One of the things I really detest about all the Civ games is the fact that the AI continually starts wars, especially when it doesn't have a prayer of forcing even a minor victory. It slows the game down enormously having to deal with all these 'irritation' attacks. This almost forces you to go on a world-conquest rampage just to keep the game from bogging down and getting boring.
- much slower tech advancement. All the Civ games are cursed with tech advancement which races by so fast you don't have time to build all of the city improvements you might want, or even field an army before it becomes outdated. It's impossible to have 'period' warfare (e.g., musketeers and cannon) because once your army is created you'll already be producing the next great thing (e.g., riflemen). I 'fix' this by slowing down tech advances by a factor of 20 when I play the game, meaning that there'll be at least some measure of time spent in each 'period' before advancing to the next. I just hope the game gives you the option of doing this without having to monkey with the tech tree and rules.txt files.
- I liked CTP's replacement of the Settler units. I'm sorry to see Civ III will include Workers, pretty much the same thing. CTP cut out the micromanagement required by having Settler units and this made me a very happy camper. It's too bad that Civ III will add this annoying bit of micromanagement back into the game.
- Pollution: use some other model than having Workers clean it up. Like irritation attacks, having to direct your workers to all the spots that develop pollution each turn (because the AI is too stupid to do it properly on its own) is very time-consuming - and boooorring. Really, have a 'Superfund' or something along these lines instead.
- Age advancement: no one likes to see musketeers or even pikemen take on a tank and win. So why not incorporate age advancement in a more substantial way: when one civilization advances to a new age (with substantially different combat technology), they *all* do with immediate upgrades to field units. However - those civs that are behind the civ that triggered the event still have to research the various techs to get all the goodies/upgrades for that age.
- larger maps with smaller scale.
- better control of the terrain when randomly generating a map. For example, being able to specify 'no desert', or saying '20% of all squares will be mountains', or 'make 3 discrete continents'. Hand-crafting a map is dull and, of course, kills the element of surprise, but the map generator in all the Civs is crude and not very good at the job. I'd like to be able to set specific characteristics and let the generator do it's bit based upon the parameters I give it.
That about does it for my wish list. Everything else is gravy.
Max
What you're railing against is something typical in the game industry. Somebody comes out with a revolutionary game that really makes a mark - and that's it. He's shot his creative wad. I could name quite a few games/designers where this has happened, but I'm sure you could too if you think about it.
If you're having trouble getting started here's one: Carmack/Romero and Doom. Everything after Doom was just a refinement of the same concept. Quake III is nothing more than Doom revved up to 3D standards.
There's nothing wrong with this, except perhaps that people come to think that *every* game put out by that designer is bound to be something new and exciting. If you come to accept that two strokes of genius from the same person are pretty rare, then you won't be disappointed if future offerings are just variations on the theme. Instead, you'll look to fresh talent for big changes rather than those who've already done their bit.
I'm going to buy Civ III, but I doubt it'll be that much different from Civ II or Civ I. I don't expect it to be and I won't really care if it isn't. Sid Meier has done his thing, made his mark, and I don't expect that Civ III will revolutionize anything. I'll look to others, yet untried, for the next new thing.
Max
Um, and exactly what *can* you tell us? Like the rest of us, you haven't seen the movie yet.
Max
As an American I believe (believe, mind you; my own government has provided no empirical evidence whatsoever that what I believe is true) that Osama bin Laden, his followers, and many other folks loosely associated with fundamental Islamic terrorist groups were the prime participants in the four-plane hijacking attack on my country.
Please note: I said "prime participants", not "solely responsible".
Take a look at the evidence. Osama bin Laden, despite press claims to the contrary, is not a twisted genius. He's a rich, disaffected playboy from Saudi Arabia who has a keen desire to be worshipped, and he found satisfaction in this desire by hooking up with anti-American terrorist groups and giving them tons of cash. Not exactly original - people have been buying adulation since the dawn of history - and certainly not exceptional.
Bin Laden has been involved in two attacks that we know of - embassy bombings in Africa and an attack on an American warship. In the first case this involved all the skill and effort required to plant a car bomb close to the embassies (duuuh, even I could pull that one off), in the second all it took was one insane fanatic and a boatload of explosives, plus lax security on the warship (real complicated plan, that one). Neither attack was terribly effective in terms of American casualties, nor particularly impressive in their ability to inspire terror.
In effect, both of these 'operations' were incredibly amateurish. Even Timothy McVeigh, a single loony American, was capable of doing far more damage than bin Laden and all of his money, terrorist 'cells', and allies. In comparison to McVeigh, one might even think that bin Laden and his cronies extremely incompetent, more 'play-acting' terrorists with a few real followers than a highly-organized, very skilled group of killers.
But then, we've already established that bin Laden is a rich, disaffected playboy, so the first two attempts at terrorism are what we might expect from him. Very simple, very straight-forward bungled efforts.
People say "well, Iraqi intelligence had a hand in helping him out". I'm sure they did; but no one has ever claimed that Iraqi intelligence was one of the shining lights in the covert ops community. In fact, Iraqi intelligence has suffered some hard hits because Sadam, in fits of paranoia, has at times taken to executing everyone with even an ounce of competence anywhere in his general vicinity, claiming that they were "plotting a coup against him". Iraqi intelligence isn't the worst in the world, but it's a far cry from excellence.
In order to blame September 11 solely on bin Laden, the Iraqis, and a few other terrorist organizations, we have to posit the following:
- that bin Laden suddenly became a 'twisted genius' overnight;
- that Iraqi intelligence has been fooling us all along, and is even better than the KGB once was;
- that various terrorist groups managed to cooperate on a plan bigger than any in history without someone letting the cat out the bag or betraying one another, as they often do;
- and that every single intelligence agency in the U.S. and the rest of the First World fell flat on its face all at the same time.
Frankly, although our government seems to think this makes perfect sense I find it a bit too much to swallow. 'Incredible' doesn't begin to cover it.
It makes alot more sense if you add in one additional factor: that bin Laden and his cronies had serious help from within the U.S., from people with the power to hoodwink all of these intelligence agencies long enough to pull the plan off. If bin Laden had the assistance of strong, powerful allies inside the U.S. the simultaneous successful hijacking of four planes and the subsequent destruction that followed - without any single part of this operation being compromised - becomes much more believable.
Imagine if bin Laden, sitting in Afghanistan surrounded by devoted worshippers had someone whisper into his ear "O Great One, I have a plan....". And this plan filled him with glee; even more so that the plan was supported by hidden allies within the Country of Satan itself. How could he resist?
But then the plan succeeded beyond his wildest expectations, as everyone in the world saw on TV. And rather than doing the traditional terrorist thing by claiming responsibility for this feat, bin Laden watched the CNN footage and said to himself "oh shit...." as it belatedly occurred to him that he now had just become the most hunted man on the planet, and that soon American Special Forces would be gunning for him wherever he went. How could he know that such a daring, wild plan would actually succeed? Surely the Americans weren't *that* stupid, that *none* of his groups would be caught? Most likely bin Laden thought that the best that could be achieved was a fight with airport security and front page news for another few days, another annoying bin Laden-esque attempt at being a thorn in the American backside. But to actually destroy the World Trade Center? Who could've believed that the allies in the U.S. would be *that* powerful?
Not exactly the dream of a rich playboy, to be on the run from expert assassins for the rest of your life. It's one thing to play at being a terrorist, it's quite another to be the most infamous terrorist in history with a lifespan measured by how far you can keep ahead of American fury.
I'm also willing to bet that at this point bin Laden realized that he hadn't thought this plan up, it had been brought to him; and that he had been played for a patsy. The real threat, the people who actually made all of this happen, would be safe and secure in the U.S., never suspected and never hunted. Osama would pay for them, and a nation of very pissed-off Americans would only be appeased by bin Laden's head on a pole. And that's where it would end, of course; with all the rampant patriotism and whatnot very few Americans would be inclined to ask suspicious questions, as I'm doing here.
Very conspiracy-theory like, I'll admit; and while an avid fan of the X-Files I like the show because it's all crap fiction with no bearing whatsoever to real life (there aren't any UFO's, assholes; get over it already). But I've been turning this over and over in my head and without the strong allies in the U.S. the whole thing just doesn't ring true - my bullshit detector goes crazy when the government explanation is taken at face value.
So what exactly is achieved by the destruction of the WTC? Two things: a concentration of more power into the presidents hands (a never-ending state of war); and more restrictions on civil liberties. Okay, this makes sense. But who gains?
That's my unanswered question in all of this: Who gains? Who within the U.S. would benefit from expanding the powers of the president and reigning in civil liberties? I don't know myself, and until I figure this out the government explanation in and of itself seems like a fairy tale, while mine seems more likely but still part-and-parcel of X-File-land. And that doesn't sit well with a skeptic like me who doesn't believe in aliens, the supernatural, psychics, or successful conspiracies.
Who gains? Answer me that, if you can.
Max
This is especially annoying when, putting aside the 'cute' graphical toys like mousover dropdowns, you can do anything (and more) running Perl CGI's that you can do with Java. And with Perl CGI's every bit of code is executed on the server, meaning that they have none of the bugs associated with Java across different platforms.
Putting the load onto the client instead of the server was a concern 5 years when the fastest PC was a P90, but right now I can buy an AMD 1.4 ghz processor for $149 and a half-gig of DDR RAM for $150, and that's retail. The question of transferring load to improve server speed is no longer an issue even for tiny ISPs.
So why use Java, which can and will break depending on the browser used and how the code is written, when you can use Perl, which is 100% browser-independent? Simply because you can do 'stupid graphical computer tricks'?
I sometimes wonder if Java wasn't invented for people who couldn't figure out Perl....
Max
I don't see a problem using blacklists so long as:
- the ISP informs its customers it uses blacklists;
- the ISP provides the complete blacklist on demand (e.g., a downloadable flat file of blacklisted IPs and their associated domain names)
- the ISP includes a REASON next to each IP/domain name (e.g., short like 'SPAM').
As a user I'd love to have my ISP blacklisting every spamming asshole under the sun. But as a user I also want to know that they *only* block spammers and not folks that they happen to dislike for political or personal reasons (e.g., an IP associated with pro-choice users).
If the ISP uses a blacklist generated by a third party, then I want that third party to make it easy for me to retrieve the list and see why each address was blocked.
Max
"Information anarchy"? And yet no post I've seen so far challenges the terminology as being inherently useless PR. Microsoft is damned good at dreaming up push-button catch-phrases that become subconciously accepted even by it's detractors as viable descriptors. It's the same sort of tactic that convinces people that EULA's are *actual laws*, when they're nothing of the sort - insofar as I know no court of law has even supported them as valid contractual agreements.
The phrase "information anarchy" has no coherent meaning other than that defined through MS's statement, and even there it seems to mean "any public publication of security weaknesses in MS products". Yet MS pushes the phrase over and over again in the attempt to link security reports with the word "anarchy" in the hopes that the average idiot will associate publication of flaws in MS software with irresponsible, undemocratic behavior.
Most of us geeks catch this sort of thing right off (e.g., "viral software") but notice - this one slipped under the wire with nary a comment that I could see.
One of MS's greatest weapons is the introduction of language which precludes one mindset and reinforces another - social programming at it's finest. Accepting the phrase "information anarchy" as valid substantiates the idea that such a thing actually exists, even if you argue that the security reports don't constitute an example of this nebulous "information anarchy".
There's no such animal. It's a buzzword with zero meaning other than a poor attempt to lay the blame for MS security holes on people other than those employed at MS.
Perhaps we should retaliate with terminology of our own that's intimately associated with a Microsoft argument or product. Any ideas (other than the "Microsoft worms" phrase of some days back)?
Max
You don't, they just don't support Linux. I use Linux with @home and it wasn't at all difficult to configure. You just have to do it yourself. Fortunately, there's quite a bit of step-by-step info on the net on how to do this.
The clueless reps, however, might not even know what Linux is, hence the "duuuuh...." response.
Max
The end result of Mozilla 1.0 seems to achieve the goals of 1996, not of 2002. It's 6 years beyond the point when "standards compliant" and "non-buggy" would be enough to attract a significant number of users.
And yet that, coupled with speed, are the primary reasons several million people have downloaded and installed Opera. Standards compliant, non-buggy, and fast.
Max
Over time, I've observed that the folks most critical of the process used to implement changes or improvements in the kernel are those that either:
a) have a personal beef with Linus, Linux, or one of the senior developers;
b) just don't understand the process, can't wrap their brains around the entire concept of the bizarre, and insist on something more cathedral-like to satisfy their sense or order;
c) think that if their way of doing things (each of which is different) were implemented then the kernel would somehow be better (e.g., if *they* were at the helm everything wouldn't be so 'chaotic'); or
d) are irked by the fact that ultimately there's a dictator running the show (Linus), benevolent though he is, and that *they aren't it*.
The proof is in the pudding. The Linux kernel outperforms every other commercial kernel on the market, and does so entirely through volunteer effort. Obviously the process works, and works well. No changes are necessary - "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
Max
Don't be an idiot. Knowing the life history of Babbage won't do thing one to improve my Perl or C++ programming skills. Only a fool would say otherwise.
Straw men to the sidelines where they belong.
Max
I can easily refute your belief. Last year millions of mp3s were downloaded; and yet cd sales *increased* by 5% overall. Some preliminary studies linked mp3 downloads to purchases (people heard something they otherwise wouldn't have noticed, liked it, decided they wanted a cd-quality copy rather than an mp3). I did this (sampled, then bought), as did just about everyone else I know.
If the mp3 were the same quality as a straight cd track there might not be an incentive to buy. But the mp3 isn't that good so the incentive to purchase a better product exists.
Knee-jerk extrapolations of personal or clique behavior to the entire U.S. population is not only damned silly but in this case not borne out by the available evidence. It's my suspicion that the people who shout the loudest "everyone does this" or "everyone would do this if they had the balls" are those with the largest pirate collections of mp3s, trying to justify their behavior by spreading the (potential) blame.
I personally don't have a big problem with people pirating mp3s so long as they admit to it ("yep, I steal") and stop trying to avoid responsibility. All this "everyone does it" or "everyone would do it" crap is so Boomerish in its attempt to avoid blame it makes my stomache roll.
Max
No, it won't have any effect whatsoever on your technical skills. Some of the history is mildly interesting, but the only people who seem to think it absolutely crucial are those who grew up during the time...kinda like Boomers raving about Elvis or the Beatles.
Max
Based on the vague generalities of the patent, I think I could claim prior art based on Perl programs I wrote back in 1997 that did this very thing. User goes to web site, has a variety of templates they can choose from, inputs some information for the web page, format, etc., and presto! The new page is uploaded directly to a web site that hosts the user under a unique name, along with all the other users that made their own pages. In addition, the user could go back and modify the page later if desired. Completely automated from start to finish, no HTML required.
I wrote several versions of this program for different companies, none of which (to my knowledge) managed to survive the dot-bomb. But I know for a fact that my idea wasn't an original one; several other sites were doing the same thing. I visited these sites to see what they did so that I could 'one-up' them with my own program and improve on what they had to offer.
So unless I've got the wrong take on IBM's patent *I* can prove prior art. I might even have the programs backed up somewhere in storage. But there are others that can prove prior art to *my* claim as well.
How can IBM expect to enforce this claim? This wasn't something new and innovative at the time the patent was submitted.
Max
Which implies that the folks that work on Linux or Linux apps are mutually exclusive to the term 'professionals'. Even if they work in the industry they don't work for Microsoft, and therefore don't qualify as 'professionals' - that's your take on it?
So, how long have you been blowing Bill Gates?
Max