This article made me think of a slightly modified version of the question asked in the article yesterday about The True Story of Website Results: If you could press a button and kill a spammer on the other side of the world, would you do it? And would you even need to be paid the million dollars?;-)
I've skimmed both books in the bookstores and I have to say they really look worth the $$. Extreme Programming has always interested me, though I've never gotten to use it professionally. However, I've always been skeptical about the 2-coders-at-a-desk principle, but that's largely because anytime I'm looking over someone else's shoulder for an extended period of time, I fall asleep.
Oh, and on other thing: Some sad, pathetic bozo moderated the parent as offtopic, largely due to the moderator's inability to crasp the concept of humor. So, hopefully I've rectified the problem... I moderated the parent as "funny".
I'm not necessarily against your idea, but it seems to have been historically difficult to determine what constitutes porn. Most people will probably agree that images depicting sex are porn. What about nudes? Are all nudes porn? If so, what about "art" that contains nudes, or say illustrations showing how to nurse a baby or perform a self breast exam? What about girls in bikinis? What about nude people covering their naughty parts with their arms or potted plants? What about anthopology websites that have various images of stone-age tribes who wear little or no clothing?
And if we start moving "porn" to.prn domains, how long will it be before politically charged issues such as non-pornographic gay websites get tagged as "porn" and thus moved into the domain that would be banned in libraries?
Finally, even things like the Bible contain descriptions of masturbation and sex. Is the Bible going to get moved to the.prn domain?
Your apparent dislike of the news media seems to have rendered you oblivious to the fact the all of the "biased" quotes you listed in your post were not in fact made by CNN.
You apparently did not notice that "denies poor people..." was immediately preceded by "They [attorneys for the ALA and ACLU] say". You also seem to have missed the fact that it was the "critics of the law" who said that "the law takes an inappropriate one-size-fits-all approach", not CNN.
So, using these quotes as proof that this article is in some way biased is highly ineffective, considering it wasn't CNN who made those statements. Now, there might indeed be bias if CNN printed only those quotes and not quotes from the other side of the argument. Unfortunately, whatever political blinders you are wearing seem to have caused you to miss the fact that CNN did in fact print various quotes from the supporters of the law.
For example, in the paragraph that immediately follows the ones which contain the statements that you find so "biased", CNN writes:
"Justice Department lawyers defending the law argued that Internet smut is so pervasive that protections are necessary to keep it away from youngsters, and that the law simply calls for libraries to use the same care in selecting online content that they use for books and magazines."
To summarize: CNN did not directly state the opinions that you quoted. Those were statements made by opponents of the law. Furthermore, CNN printed quotes of the attorneys supporting the law. Therefore, CNN printed both sides of the issue. I must conclude two things: 1) this article is absolutely not biased either for or against the law in question or the decision to overturn it. 2) you either did not bother to read the article, or your own political biases prevented you from seeing the obvious.
As a programmer, I must say I dislike the entire "certification" philosophy. I do not think that being able to pass standardized multiple choice exams is a very meaningful measure of anyone's ability to perform analytical/problem solving tasks, especially programming. I've worked with various net admins with certs out the butt who simply could not analyze problems and solve them. I think real world experience is vastly more important.
When I was involved in the hiring process, I never ever cared about programmers' certifications (only a very low percentage of them even had certs). Instead, I looked at what they *did*. Also, I read the want ads quite a bit and I almost never see anyone asking for "certified" programmers.
So, if you want to write code, don't waste your time with programming certifications. They really don't help you, especially if your interviews are conducted by coders.
If you want to be in network administration, unfortunately it seems you need certs to get anywhere. Again, I disagree with the philosophy behind this, but that's the way it goes, I guess.
I realize that this has already been said in different ways on this board, but I don't see how one can be anti-spam and pro-Hamidi.
Hamidi sent unsolicited bulk email to a bunch of people. I realize that it probably wasn't commercial email and also that the number of recipients of his email almost certainly did not number in the millions, but to me it still qualifies as spam.
Spam is annoying whether it is an advertisement, a stupid chain letter, or just some digruntled ex-employee you never met.
I think a far better choice for Hamidi would have been to start his own anti-Intel webpage. Using that method he can still express his opinions without annoying anyone other than folks who intentionally visit his site.
I'm sincerely wondering if this is a hoax. As of 8:44 am EST 05/14/2002, the PanIP webpage has a ton of bad links. The Legal Disclaimer is 404, and so is the Company Background, Company Information, Patents Granted, one of the patent links, Choosing a Stock Portfolio, and A Case for Patent Citation Analysis in Litigation (huh??).
Furthermore, the site looks like it was done by an elementary school student.
If it is a hoax, maybe it was done in the spirit of the "humouse" we heard about on slashdot earlier this week.
Ok, let's be real: MS *really* violated the law. One judge and an appeals court *really* found them guilty. The US judicial system *really* has the right to penalize convicted lawbreakers.
I wonder if the members of the MIT board of trustees or their CompSci department are at all embarassed about this guy. I bet there are more than a few folks around the country scratcing their heads thinking "If this man is an example of the intellect one can expect from MIT professors, how in the world did they reject my enrollment application???"
Does anyone have any idea if the EFF is aware of this case, and if so, are they considering taking it? This case is perfect for them. If ever there was a SLAPP happy jerk, this PetsWarehouse.com guy is it.
Darn... I notice that BoycottPetsWarehouse.com has already been snatched up. Hope they do a good job with it.
I don't understand what Michael thinks is wrong with this (other than the astronomical pricetag).
Using GPS to protect your children is a great idea. If your child is abducted, having a GPS on them would make it more likely that they can be located before anything happens, and makes it easier to prosecute the abductor. As a father, I can imagine the anguish parents whose children have been abducted must go through. It must be absolutely horrible to not know what happened to your child. Even in the worst case scenario where something bad does happen to the child, this technology would at least give the parents some small comfort by locating them quickly, instead of putting them through days, months, or years of anguish and worry.
Some people may argue that this is an invasion of privacy, but I don't see it that way. Does a 6 year old really have a right to go anywhere she wants without her parents knowing about it? Absolutely not. Certainly older kids (say teenagers) should be given a certain amount of privacy, but kids of that age could probably easily disable or cut off a GPS wristwatch. So, I really see no problem with this technology at all. Except that subscription price. Ouch.
What's even sadder is that nobody seems to have noticed that your "good friend" cscx totally ripped off The Onion and tried to pass it off as his own. Maybe when he writes something original he'll get modded up.
I don't see how a techno-savvy gap illustrates a failure in anything. Sure there's a gap. Big deal. Every industry in the universe has people who are knowledgeable about it, and those who are not. For example, what about the Tax Law Savvy gap? What about the Accounting Savvy Gap? What about the Skilled At Making Apple Pie gap?
There are always going to be folks who know how to do something, and those who don't. Is it a "monumental failure of our arrogant and elitist" confections industry that I am not capable of making a delicious apple pie? Of course not. My inability to craft wonderful desserts is completely unimportant, and does not in any way indicate that the dessert industry is arrogant or elitist.
If people want to learn something, they can pick up a book, take a class, or go ask someone. I bet there are a hell of a lot more ways to learn about computers than there are about making apple pie.
Brin's argues that we should be screaming for more oversight, not for more privacy protections.
This argument seems a bit overly optimistic. Even if we have oversight, how do we know the government (or corporate America) is really disclosing everything they are doing with our private information. If Enron has taught us anything it's that corporations do not do what is in the best interest of even their own shareholders, let alone the random Joe Schmoe. Brin points to the Freedom of Information act as being a good example of oversight of the government. Is it? A lot of what people ask for comes back highly redacted.
Furthermore, his solution seems like it would be expensive. How much would all these oversight committees cost? Who's going to want to raise taxes to pay for them?
The simplest solution is to just protect people's privacy. I really don't see why Brin has a problem with that.
Several times, Brin also talks about how our Liberties are not based on controlling what the government knows about us. Really? Well, he must be ignoring those handy laws about the government not being able to search our homes unwarranted, and that people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. What he is advocating is a police state, where anything that is yours is the government's right to know about ("I cannot believe how many sincere civil libertarians have actually convinced themselves that freedom is best preserved by blinding government. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how we acquired our present liberties."). Wrong David. That has everything to do with it.
One cannot forget that the Right to Privacy is not a constitutional right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that American citizens have a right to privacy.
This does not imply that Americans therefore do not have a right to privacy. In fact, many framers of the constitution were wary of including a "Bill of Rights" in our constitution, because they feared that making a list of people's rights would cause future generations to infer that anything not listed is not a right. Looks like they were right.
I agree, dead tree books are preferred. Though a nice searchable, indexed online reference is very useful too.
I really find it sad that someone moderated this person's original post as flamebait, when in fact it is a perfectly cogent response to the article, framed in terms of the article's own wording ("do you even want dead-tree books"). Hopefully, this particular moderator won't be chosen ever again.
The perfect item to add to the LindowsOS "list of Windows Apps" is X Windows.
MIT created the X Windows windowed operating environment in 1984. Doesn't that predate MS Windows by a few years?? Even if it doesn't, I've seen no reports that MS is suing MIT over trademark infringement.
Interesting Sidenote: Maybe MIT should sue MS over the term Xbox... doesn't that infringe on MIT's "X" in X Windows?;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why this issue would be giving teachers headaches. How hard is it to draw a red "F" on a piece of paper? ;-)
Now if only someone would make a similar donation to fight idiotic software patents.
This article made me think of a slightly modified version of the question asked in the article yesterday about The True Story of Website Results: If you could press a button and kill a spammer on the other side of the world, would you do it? And would you even need to be paid the million dollars?
For those who enjoy this kind of thing, there's also the Where's George site that let's you track where your money goes.
I've skimmed both books in the bookstores and I have to say they really look worth the $$. Extreme Programming has always interested me, though I've never gotten to use it professionally. However, I've always been skeptical about the 2-coders-at-a-desk principle, but that's largely because anytime I'm looking over someone else's shoulder for an extended period of time, I fall asleep.
... I moderated the parent as "funny".
Oh, and on other thing: Some sad, pathetic bozo moderated the parent as offtopic, largely due to the moderator's inability to crasp the concept of humor. So, hopefully I've rectified the problem
I'm not necessarily against your idea, but it seems to have been historically difficult to determine what constitutes porn. Most people will probably agree that images depicting sex are porn. What about nudes? Are all nudes porn? If so, what about "art" that contains nudes, or say illustrations showing how to nurse a baby or perform a self breast exam? What about girls in bikinis? What about nude people covering their naughty parts with their arms or potted plants? What about anthopology websites that have various images of stone-age tribes who wear little or no clothing?
.prn domains, how long will it be before politically charged issues such as non-pornographic gay websites get tagged as "porn" and thus moved into the domain that would be banned in libraries?
.prn domain?
And if we start moving "porn" to
Finally, even things like the Bible contain descriptions of masturbation and sex. Is the Bible going to get moved to the
You apparently did not notice that "denies poor people
So, using these quotes as proof that this article is in some way biased is highly ineffective, considering it wasn't CNN who made those statements. Now, there might indeed be bias if CNN printed only those quotes and not quotes from the other side of the argument. Unfortunately, whatever political blinders you are wearing seem to have caused you to miss the fact that CNN did in fact print various quotes from the supporters of the law.
For example, in the paragraph that immediately follows the ones which contain the statements that you find so "biased", CNN writes:
To summarize: CNN did not directly state the opinions that you quoted. Those were statements made by opponents of the law. Furthermore, CNN printed quotes of the attorneys supporting the law. Therefore, CNN printed both sides of the issue. I must conclude two things: 1) this article is absolutely not biased either for or against the law in question or the decision to overturn it. 2) you either did not bother to read the article, or your own political biases prevented you from seeing the obvious.
As a programmer, I must say I dislike the entire "certification" philosophy. I do not think that being able to pass standardized multiple choice exams is a very meaningful measure of anyone's ability to perform analytical/problem solving tasks, especially programming. I've worked with various net admins with certs out the butt who simply could not analyze problems and solve them. I think real world experience is vastly more important.
When I was involved in the hiring process, I never ever cared about programmers' certifications (only a very low percentage of them even had certs). Instead, I looked at what they *did*. Also, I read the want ads quite a bit and I almost never see anyone asking for "certified" programmers.
So, if you want to write code, don't waste your time with programming certifications. They really don't help you, especially if your interviews are conducted by coders.
If you want to be in network administration, unfortunately it seems you need certs to get anywhere. Again, I disagree with the philosophy behind this, but that's the way it goes, I guess.
I realize that this has already been said in different ways on this board, but I don't see how one can be anti-spam and pro-Hamidi.
Hamidi sent unsolicited bulk email to a bunch of people. I realize that it probably wasn't commercial email and also that the number of recipients of his email almost certainly did not number in the millions, but to me it still qualifies as spam.
Spam is annoying whether it is an advertisement, a stupid chain letter, or just some digruntled ex-employee you never met.
I think a far better choice for Hamidi would have been to start his own anti-Intel webpage. Using that method he can still express his opinions without annoying anyone other than folks who intentionally visit his site.
Update (9:18 am05/14/2002):
Now ALL of the links on the PanIp website are 404.
I'm sincerely wondering if this is a hoax. As of 8:44 am EST 05/14/2002, the PanIP webpage has a ton of bad links. The Legal Disclaimer is 404, and so is the Company Background, Company Information, Patents Granted, one of the patent links, Choosing a Stock Portfolio, and A Case for Patent Citation Analysis in Litigation (huh??).
Furthermore, the site looks like it was done by an elementary school student.
If it is a hoax, maybe it was done in the spirit of the "humouse" we heard about on slashdot earlier this week.
Ok, let's be real: MS *really* violated the law. One judge and an appeals court *really* found them guilty. The US judicial system *really* has the right to penalize convicted lawbreakers.
Is that enough *reality* for you?
I wonder if the members of the MIT board of trustees or their CompSci department are at all embarassed about this guy. I bet there are more than a few folks around the country scratcing their heads thinking "If this man is an example of the intellect one can expect from MIT professors, how in the world did they reject my enrollment application???"
You wouldn't happen to have any hermaphroditic monkeys in your department, would you?
Does anyone have any idea if the EFF is aware of this case, and if so, are they considering taking it? This case is perfect for them. If ever there was a SLAPP happy jerk, this PetsWarehouse.com guy is it.
... I notice that BoycottPetsWarehouse.com has already been snatched up. Hope they do a good job with it.
Darn
My desk is messy and I've done nothing but goof off for months. ;-)
A messy desk is only a sign of being too lazy to organize your crap.
I don't understand what Michael thinks is wrong with this (other than the astronomical pricetag).
Using GPS to protect your children is a great idea. If your child is abducted, having a GPS on them would make it more likely that they can be located before anything happens, and makes it easier to prosecute the abductor. As a father, I can imagine the anguish parents whose children have been abducted must go through. It must be absolutely horrible to not know what happened to your child. Even in the worst case scenario where something bad does happen to the child, this technology would at least give the parents some small comfort by locating them quickly, instead of putting them through days, months, or years of anguish and worry.
Some people may argue that this is an invasion of privacy, but I don't see it that way. Does a 6 year old really have a right to go anywhere she wants without her parents knowing about it? Absolutely not. Certainly older kids (say teenagers) should be given a certain amount of privacy, but kids of that age could probably easily disable or cut off a GPS wristwatch. So, I really see no problem with this technology at all. Except that subscription price. Ouch.
What's even sadder is that nobody seems to have noticed that your "good friend" cscx totally ripped off The Onion and tried to pass it off as his own. Maybe when he writes something original he'll get modded up.
I don't see how a techno-savvy gap illustrates a failure in anything. Sure there's a gap. Big deal. Every industry in the universe has people who are knowledgeable about it, and those who are not. For example, what about the Tax Law Savvy gap? What about the Accounting Savvy Gap? What about the Skilled At Making Apple Pie gap?
There are always going to be folks who know how to do something, and those who don't. Is it a "monumental failure of our arrogant and elitist" confections industry that I am not capable of making a delicious apple pie? Of course not. My inability to craft wonderful desserts is completely unimportant, and does not in any way indicate that the dessert industry is arrogant or elitist.
If people want to learn something, they can pick up a book, take a class, or go ask someone. I bet there are a hell of a lot more ways to learn about computers than there are about making apple pie.
Brin's argues that we should be screaming for more oversight, not for more privacy protections.
This argument seems a bit overly optimistic. Even if we have oversight, how do we know the government (or corporate America) is really disclosing everything they are doing with our private information. If Enron has taught us anything it's that corporations do not do what is in the best interest of even their own shareholders, let alone the random Joe Schmoe. Brin points to the Freedom of Information act as being a good example of oversight of the government. Is it? A lot of what people ask for comes back highly redacted.
Furthermore, his solution seems like it would be expensive. How much would all these oversight committees cost? Who's going to want to raise taxes to pay for them?
The simplest solution is to just protect people's privacy. I really don't see why Brin has a problem with that.
Several times, Brin also talks about how our Liberties are not based on controlling what the government knows about us. Really? Well, he must be ignoring those handy laws about the government not being able to search our homes unwarranted, and that people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. What he is advocating is a police state, where anything that is yours is the government's right to know about ("I cannot believe how many sincere civil libertarians have actually convinced themselves that freedom is best preserved by blinding government. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how we acquired our present liberties."). Wrong David. That has everything to do with it.
One cannot forget that the Right to Privacy is not a constitutional right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that American citizens have a right to privacy.
This does not imply that Americans therefore do not have a right to privacy. In fact, many framers of the constitution were wary of including a "Bill of Rights" in our constitution, because they feared that making a list of people's rights would cause future generations to infer that anything not listed is not a right. Looks like they were right.
Is it too late to patent the middle finger gesture? ;-)
I agree, dead tree books are preferred. Though a nice searchable, indexed online reference is very useful too.
I really find it sad that someone moderated this person's original post as flamebait, when in fact it is a perfectly cogent response to the article, framed in terms of the article's own wording ("do you even want dead-tree books"). Hopefully, this particular moderator won't be chosen ever again.
The perfect item to add to the LindowsOS "list of Windows Apps" is X Windows.
... doesn't that infringe on MIT's "X" in X Windows? ;-)
MIT created the X Windows windowed operating environment in 1984. Doesn't that predate MS Windows by a few years?? Even if it doesn't, I've seen no reports that MS is suing MIT over trademark infringement.
Interesting Sidenote: Maybe MIT should sue MS over the term Xbox
I'm glad they dumped the n-sync cameo, but I'd rather have them in the movie than Jar Jar Binks.