If you are qualified to work at ArsDigita (you've got a CS degree from a top school and have done the problem sets from our course at MIT...
Just out of curiosity, are these problem sets available on the web?
No, I'm not looking for a new job - at least, not one where I'd have to relocate - but I'm always curious to see what people think are important qualifications.
(I had a job interview a few months back that featured a so-called "programming aptitude test", which amounted to testing your ability to follow algorithms specified in non-intuitive formal languages. I could have done it when I was in high school. What was scary was that I was apparently the first interviewee they'd ever had ace the stupid thing. I ask myself, is the general quality of programmers that low? Then I remember some of the code I've had to maintain...)
Mistakes are inevitable; If we are to sustain any pretense of 'fairness' in our courts-of-law, we can't smash every entity that makes a mistake to flinders; granted lots of people were damaged, but what good would blasting ICANN do?
That's why we have the concept of negliance in the first place.
Say Company X has a toxic waste spill. When we're deciding if we're going to let it go at "Whoops! Sorry d00ds!", or shoot the CEO and Board of Directors, we ask whether they took reasonable and prudent steps to prevent a spill from occuring, or whether they were storing their toxic waste in zip-lock bags in someone's backyard.
Offhand, I would say that any remotely competent admin would know enough to easily prevent this mistake; ICANN was negligent.
But they don't need to be nailed to the wall; simple restitution would serve. I think it would suffice to make ICANN send every spam victim $20 or so for their trouble.
Because, ICANN could have (hypothetically) easily hurt many more people than it's net worth could pay back;
Then they ought to be more fscking responsible.
If those people are due damages, should same be paid by the government, should ICANN be bankrupted?
Why not? Do we let Company X stay in business if they negligently cause more damage than they can pay?
(i.e. group and user attributes in the filesystem are a real waste on a handheld device)?
If I borrow your handheld, do you want me to be able to do the same stuff you can, or to be restricted to a guest account?
What if an organization maintains a pool of handhelds, and you grab a different one every day? Or for each task?
Even if you never loan it out and it's yours forever, having different users for administrative tasks is a Good Thing; you don't want to be root all the time.
It's presumption is that you can take ALL the children born within one year of each other in a given geographic region, and teach them the same subject at the same time at the same rate.
Is that the way schools work where you are? Around here, the public schools move kids ahead or keep them back if needed, and have accelerated and remedial programs in different subjects. (At least, that's the way it was 13+ years ago when I was in high school. I get the impression it still works that way today.)
I can't speak for how things are in other places, but I got a better education in the Baltimore County Public Schools than I could have gotten at private schools (which were all religious, or military-style academies) or through home schooling (my parents are intelligent, and taught me extra stuff outside of school, but by the time I was in high school I was well beyond subjects they were familiar with).
And polictical indoctination was kept to a minimum. Teachers can be surprizingly subversive - their boss may be the local government, but don't we all know how worthless our bosses are, and love to put one over on them?
But there's not one public school system in the US, there are hundreds, maybe thousands; and that's a status report from a decade and a half ago. Your mileage may vary.
Ideally, what computers can do is routinize the stuff that is trivial and allow students to focus on what's central and important.
Yes, but it's only trivial after you thoroughly understand it. Using a calculator (or a spreadsheet these days, I guess) to do the arithmetic on your high-school physics lab report makes sense; using one in first or second grade doesn't.
I had a nifty calculator-like gizmo when I was a kid that helped with learing arithmetic. It didn't give you the answer to a calculation, but it checked the answer you gave and told you if you were right or wrong. Instead of punching in 2 + 2 =and getting 4, you'd punch in 2 + 2 = 4 ?, and a green or red LED would light up. (Yes, this was in the days when calculators and watches had LED displays. I think this thing took a 9 volt battery. Heck, I used to have a TI programmable calculator with a rechargable battery and a wall wart! But I digress.) Maybe we need programs that work along that line.
Am I the only person who sees a major difference between a "community of trust" and "laws, rules, [and] regulations"?
No, I see it too. In fact, I see it's technical reflection in Zimmerman's software: contrast PGP's "web of trust" with attempts at a centralized, possibly state-backed, PKI.
In a who-is-the-most-evil-of-them-all contest between the government and the corporations I vote firmly for the government.
I've seen this point made several times in this thread, and I think it's misleading. Why does it matter which is the lesser evil? We're not - or at least we shouldn't - being asked to choose one or the other to run our lives. We should be looking at the problem of two evil forces and figuring out how to lessen the total evil.
My suggestion: in the long run, reduce the state's power overall, and especally it's power to create corporations and to place wealth in the hands of a few (by giving away land use and mineral rights, creating intellectual "property" for corporations, etcetera). In the short term, divert more state power to fighting corporate power - let the two bad guys slug it out, that'll keep them busy and maybe they'll leave the rest of us alone.
If you reduce the power of the government, you let loose the only leash on the businesses. The corporate soldiers will arrive to enforce their policies on you, and you won't have ANY say in it...
Actually, the first government power I'd eliminate - or at least reduce - would be the chartering of corporations. What we need is not so much more regulation on powerful corporations, as governments that don't give much power to corporations in the first place.
As for guns, "assault rifle" is pretty much a meaningless term...
"Assault rifle" is a well-defined term; it's a rifle that used intermediate-size ammunition and can be set for automatic (one trigger pull=multiple shots) or semi-automatic (one trigger pull=one shot + reload and cock for next shot) operation. The classic examples are the AK-47 (the real deal, not "civilian" models) and the M16; in the U.S. these guns are generally available only to the military and police.
"Assault weapon" is a term with no real technical meaning - basically, it's whatever gun a legislator doesn't like the look of.
[BTW, before anyone gets me wrong and also IM(NS)HO, the right to own assault rifles, grenade launchers, semi-automatic pistols etc does not come under the heading of "fundamental human rights". Certainly not round here, anyway.]
Perhaps not. But they are the means by which basic human rights are secured. Restricting their possession to a groups that has, in the past, shown the human rights are not their top concern, does not strike me as wise.
So when is it OK to be anonymous? Is it OK to snitch on corporations when they're being bad, but not on people?
It's not a question of when it's ok to be anonymous , but when it's ok at act on anonymous information. to investigate, harass, arrest, or prosecute someone.
"Crude" is Superfriends, alright? "Crude" is Scooby Doo. "Crude" is artless animation done on the cheap for the express purpose of filling time between commercials. The Powerpuff Girls is frickin' ART, man. Do you understand the distinction here?
Ok, ok. I'll certainly take the animation of Dexter's Lab or the PPG over the old Superfriends cartoons any day. It definitely has a stylistic appeal to it. I just wanted to say that while they don't have the anime look, they've definitely learned from it and acknowledge that.
For the rest of us, sometimes we'll do as if we followed it, because it actually does make sense in a lot of cases, but it'll be because we coincide at that point, not because of accepting it as a principle.
It doesn't matter if you accept it as a principle or not: it's still a criterion of rationality. If in some given situation you act in a way that you would find abhorant for someone else to act, you're not behaving rationally. This is especially true when you're trying to influence the behavior of others. For example, a politician who preaches again recreatioal drug use while voluntarily using recreational drugs, or who stresses "family values" while screwing over his ex-wife, is not rational. "Do as I say, not as I do" are not the words of a rational being.
Now, how much value you place on rationality in ethics is another question! I think there's a lot of merit in the Taoist/Zen idea of transcending ethical theories and simply acting compassionately.
Ooh! Ooh! I do! I do! Mid to late 80's, I think it was even on right before or right after Robotech on the same channel around here. I think you're the first person I heard or read mention it in ten or fifteen years!
Now, please, someone tell me they remember Marine Boy...
Give me some Cow & Chicken or Powerpuff Girls anytime
Never got the appeal of Cow & Chicken, but the Powerpuff Girls are great. So's Dexter's Labratory - I really like the "Dial M for Monkey" and "Justice Friends" shorts.
While the animation on both Powerpuff Girls and Dexter's Lab is crude, they both pay homage to anime - Dexter's lab has a great "Speed Racer" take-off, and Powerpuff Girls do the giant robot vs. monster thing in one episode.
Of course, they still don't touch "What's Opera, Doc?" or "Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2th Century"! Classic Loony Tunes have all the wisdom we really need - Bugs Bunny has the Buddha nature, and Daffy Duck is obviously a avatar of Eris Discordia.
Big fallacy here: implicit assumption that what's good for one person is good for another person. Needs and values differ a lot.
While that's true enough, I have to make decisions for myself based on my values, not other people's. The question I'm seeking to answer is "What am I going to do?", not "What should we do?" (Of course, the answer might be "Try to influence others to do such-and-such, by pointing out that it is the rational choice under the categorical imperative.")
Besides, there are obvious limitations to this maxim...
Sure. I've simplified Kant's formulation a bit; his rule is actually "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." We can really only apply it meaningfully to certain categories of decisions - i.e., ethical decisions. I could will that it be a universal law that everyone choose chocolate over vanilla, or vanilla over chocolate - doesn't matter, it's not an ethical decision. And a homocidal maniac could will that everyone behave like a homocidal maniac, just to make life more interesting. But when asking "What ethical choice should I make?", the categorical imperative is very useful.
...to sleeping with your girlfriend...
Well, I can will it to be universal law that everyone try to sleep with my girlfriend (would you go to bed with someone that no one else wanted to?) - that doesn't mean that it be universal law that she say yes!
It's more useful, though, to abstract things out a bit and ask not "Should I try to sleep with Jane Doe?" but rather (for example) "Can I will that it be universal that a person X who has no interest in Y apart from sexual pleasure should try to sleep with Y, for all X and Y?" If I find that substituing "the jerk down the street" for X and "my little sister" for Y makes the proposition false, then I can't do it without behaving irrationally - it would be "do as I say, not as I do," which we all recognize as bogus.
Of course, abstracting the salient points of an ethical dillema can be non-trivial!
It's in my selfish best interest to purchase from A.
If and only if you believe that your action will influence manufacturer B -- otherwise you sacrificed something for nothing.
And I don't believe the shit about "If only everybody did this, then...."
Well, as a rational being - at least for purposes of this discussion B-) - I can only do as I wish others to do. (See Kant's categorical imperative.) Certainly if I want everyone to buy from A instead of B, I have to buy from A.
Whether others follow my lead or not, I can't control. (At least, not without using force. While using force to stop polluters is certainly justified, it's outside the scope of this discussion about market choices.) I am responsible for my own actions only; the actions of others don't release me from that responsibility.
Red Hat have a ton of IPO money and can afford to operate at a loss. Your favourite band doesn't and can't.
Actually, some of my favorite bands are local groups who do operate at a loss, or on the very fringe of profitability. I want a system that works better for them.
The fact that I see musicians playing for tips in the local bar who are far superior to what I hear on the radio is a strong indication that current system is not working to promote artistic progress.
Why give away software and sell support when you can lower your operating costs by not giving away software, and selling support?
Because you're not lowering you operating costs - you're shifting them onto the government. Copyright enforcement isn't free. Why should the rest of society subsidize your operating costs?
You want something for nothing and you want to get it by finding clever ways to circumvent compensating the author
You don't know jack shit about what I want, friend.
I want to be able to reward creators of work I like, with real US dollars, and not have 99% of that reward get eaten by corporate bastards. I want to be able to be rewarded for creating work other people like, without that reward going through a score of middlemen. I want to be able to share work I like with friends, and I want others to share my work with their friends. I want those friends to be able to reward the creator if they like it, or to say "Not my thing" and drop it in the bit bucket.
Can't you find a scheme that doesn't look like a thinly vieled attack on the authors right to compensation?
There is no "right" to compensation - even in the presence of copyright, authors have no guarantee of making a penny off their work. And I can read a book without paying the author a cent.
But I'm 100% in favor of authors of good stuff being compensated - that's an eminently practical matter, as I want authors I like to spend their time writing rather than flipping burgers. (And I'd like to get an occasional buck or two myself, if people like my stuff.) I'm just saying (again, and again, and again) that a government-granted monopoly on making copies is a piss-poor way to try to make that happen in a world where anyone can make and distribute an unlimited number of perfect duplicates of a work.
It doesnt matter.Im not going to buy a Pentium III instead of an Athlon because intel uses a less polutive fab or something.Is it fast?Stable?The epitome of PC power?Thats why I buy a product.
Ah, nothing like short-term short-sighted thinking.
Tell me, how much good does having the epitome of PC power do you when you're dying of cancer caused by the toxins released during fabrication of your CPU?
I like powerful CPUs. I also like being able to breathe the atmosphere. So if manufacturer A is doing a better job of keeping his toxins to himself than manufacturer B, it's in my selfish best interest to purchase from A.
If you don't like to think of it as "social responsibility", think of it as "long term global thinking".
Here's a whirlwind tour of the Orange Book categories.
D level systems have no security worth mentioning. Think DOS, Win95, MacOS - no real notion of separate users.
C level systems have DAC - discretionary access control. Essentially, they have ACLs (access control lists). You can determine who can have access to your stuff. There are two divisions here, C1 and C2, with C2 being more stringent.
Several Unix-type systems have been certified at C2 (though you have to add ACLs), as has WinNT.
B level systems add MAC - mandatory access control. Every object (file, device) and subject (process) has a level (often something like unclassified, secret, top_secret) and a set of categories associated with it. If you're cleared for "secret/stealth_bomber, SDI, Area_51", you can't read stuff labeled "top_secret/who_killed_JFK" or "secret/Clintons_little_black_book". And you can't write something "unclassified/Area_51", so you can't spill the beans. (But you can write to objects at a higher level than you are.) There's B1, B2, and B3. I think you can still count the number of certified B-level operating systems on your fingers.
A1 level systems have been mathematically proven. IIRC there's only one that's ever been certified at this level.
There's also something called CMW (compartmented mode workstation), which is like the B levels but deals with "information labels" instead of "sensitivity labels" - i.e., it tries to track what's really in the object, so if you paste secret data into a file it gets upgraded.
It's a bitch to get something certified (I worked on Trusted Mach, which was intended to be B3 but never went anywhere); we're talking piles of documentation, many rounds of review, and a pile of money.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not looking for a new job - at least, not one where I'd have to relocate - but I'm always curious to see what people think are important qualifications.
(I had a job interview a few months back that featured a so-called "programming aptitude test", which amounted to testing your ability to follow algorithms specified in non-intuitive formal languages. I could have done it when I was in high school. What was scary was that I was apparently the first interviewee they'd ever had ace the stupid thing. I ask myself, is the general quality of programmers that low? Then I remember some of the code I've had to maintain...)
Say Company X has a toxic waste spill. When we're deciding if we're going to let it go at "Whoops! Sorry d00ds!", or shoot the CEO and Board of Directors, we ask whether they took reasonable and prudent steps to prevent a spill from occuring, or whether they were storing their toxic waste in zip-lock bags in someone's backyard.
Offhand, I would say that any remotely competent admin would know enough to easily prevent this mistake; ICANN was negligent.
But they don't need to be nailed to the wall; simple restitution would serve. I think it would suffice to make ICANN send every spam victim $20 or so for their trouble.
Then they ought to be more fscking responsible. Why not? Do we let Company X stay in business if they negligently cause more damage than they can pay?What if an organization maintains a pool of handhelds, and you grab a different one every day? Or for each task?
Even if you never loan it out and it's yours forever, having different users for administrative tasks is a Good Thing; you don't want to be root all the time.
Is that the way schools work where you are? Around here, the public schools move kids ahead or keep them back if needed, and have accelerated and remedial programs in different subjects. (At least, that's the way it was 13+ years ago when I was in high school. I get the impression it still works that way today.)
I can't speak for how things are in other places, but I got a better education in the Baltimore County Public Schools than I could have gotten at private schools (which were all religious, or military-style academies) or through home schooling (my parents are intelligent, and taught me extra stuff outside of school, but by the time I was in high school I was well beyond subjects they were familiar with).
And polictical indoctination was kept to a minimum. Teachers can be surprizingly subversive - their boss may be the local government, but don't we all know how worthless our bosses are, and love to put one over on them?
But there's not one public school system in the US, there are hundreds, maybe thousands; and that's a status report from a decade and a half ago. Your mileage may vary.
Yes, but it's only trivial after you thoroughly understand it. Using a calculator (or a spreadsheet these days, I guess) to do the arithmetic on your high-school physics lab report makes sense; using one in first or second grade doesn't.
I had a nifty calculator-like gizmo when I was a kid that helped with learing arithmetic. It didn't give you the answer to a calculation, but it checked the answer you gave and told you if you were right or wrong. Instead of punching in 2 + 2 =and getting 4, you'd punch in 2 + 2 = 4 ?, and a green or red LED would light up. (Yes, this was in the days when calculators and watches had LED displays. I think this thing took a 9 volt battery. Heck, I used to have a TI programmable calculator with a rechargable battery and a wall wart! But I digress.) Maybe we need programs that work along that line.
My suggestion: in the long run, reduce the state's power overall, and especally it's power to create corporations and to place wealth in the hands of a few (by giving away land use and mineral rights, creating intellectual "property" for corporations, etcetera). In the short term, divert more state power to fighting corporate power - let the two bad guys slug it out, that'll keep them busy and maybe they'll leave the rest of us alone.
"Assault weapon" is a term with no real technical meaning - basically, it's whatever gun a legislator doesn't like the look of.
Now, how much value you place on rationality in ethics is another question! I think there's a lot of merit in the Taoist/Zen idea of transcending ethical theories and simply acting compassionately.
Now, please, someone tell me they remember Marine Boy...
While the animation on both Powerpuff Girls and Dexter's Lab is crude, they both pay homage to anime - Dexter's lab has a great "Speed Racer" take-off, and Powerpuff Girls do the giant robot vs. monster thing in one episode.
Of course, they still don't touch "What's Opera, Doc?" or "Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2th Century"! Classic Loony Tunes have all the wisdom we really need - Bugs Bunny has the Buddha nature, and Daffy Duck is obviously a avatar of Eris Discordia.
It's more useful, though, to abstract things out a bit and ask not "Should I try to sleep with Jane Doe?" but rather (for example) "Can I will that it be universal that a person X who has no interest in Y apart from sexual pleasure should try to sleep with Y, for all X and Y?" If I find that substituing "the jerk down the street" for X and "my little sister" for Y makes the proposition false, then I can't do it without behaving irrationally - it would be "do as I say, not as I do," which we all recognize as bogus.
Of course, abstracting the salient points of an ethical dillema can be non-trivial!
Whether others follow my lead or not, I can't control. (At least, not without using force. While using force to stop polluters is certainly justified, it's outside the scope of this discussion about market choices.) I am responsible for my own actions only; the actions of others don't release me from that responsibility.
Actually, some of my favorite bands are local groups who do operate at a loss, or on the very fringe of profitability. I want a system that works better for them.
The fact that I see musicians playing for tips in the local bar who are far superior to what I hear on the radio is a strong indication that current system is not working to promote artistic progress.
Because you're not lowering you operating costs - you're shifting them onto the government. Copyright enforcement isn't free. Why should the rest of society subsidize your operating costs?
You don't know jack shit about what I want, friend.
I want to be able to reward creators of work I like, with real US dollars, and not have 99% of that reward get eaten by corporate bastards. I want to be able to be rewarded for creating work other people like, without that reward going through a score of middlemen. I want to be able to share work I like with friends, and I want others to share my work with their friends. I want those friends to be able to reward the creator if they like it, or to say "Not my thing" and drop it in the bit bucket.
There is no "right" to compensation - even in the presence of copyright, authors have no guarantee of making a penny off their work. And I can read a book without paying the author a cent.But I'm 100% in favor of authors of good stuff being compensated - that's an eminently practical matter, as I want authors I like to spend their time writing rather than flipping burgers. (And I'd like to get an occasional buck or two myself, if people like my stuff.) I'm just saying (again, and again, and again) that a government-granted monopoly on making copies is a piss-poor way to try to make that happen in a world where anyone can make and distribute an unlimited number of perfect duplicates of a work.
Tell me, how much good does having the epitome of PC power do you when you're dying of cancer caused by the toxins released during fabrication of your CPU?
I like powerful CPUs. I also like being able to breathe the atmosphere. So if manufacturer A is doing a better job of keeping his toxins to himself than manufacturer B, it's in my selfish best interest to purchase from A.
If you don't like to think of it as "social responsibility", think of it as "long term global thinking".
Here's a whirlwind tour of the Orange Book categories.
D level systems have no security worth mentioning. Think DOS, Win95, MacOS - no real notion of separate users.
C level systems have DAC - discretionary access control. Essentially, they have ACLs (access control lists). You can determine who can have access to your stuff. There are two divisions here, C1 and C2, with C2 being more stringent.
Several Unix-type systems have been certified at C2 (though you have to add ACLs), as has WinNT.
B level systems add MAC - mandatory access control. Every object (file, device) and subject (process) has a level (often something like unclassified, secret, top_secret) and a set of categories associated with it. If you're cleared for "secret/stealth_bomber, SDI, Area_51", you can't read stuff labeled "top_secret/who_killed_JFK" or "secret/Clintons_little_black_book". And you can't write something "unclassified/Area_51", so you can't spill the beans. (But you can write to objects at a higher level than you are.) There's B1, B2, and B3. I think you can still count the number of certified B-level operating systems on your fingers.
A1 level systems have been mathematically proven. IIRC there's only one that's ever been certified at this level.
There's also something called CMW (compartmented mode workstation), which is like the B levels but deals with "information labels" instead of "sensitivity labels" - i.e., it tries to track what's really in the object, so if you paste secret data into a file it gets upgraded.
It's a bitch to get something certified (I worked on Trusted Mach, which was intended to be B3 but never went anywhere); we're talking piles of documentation, many rounds of review, and a pile of money.