But when you actually try to adapt anything he does, one quickly find out that most of his examples of visualizing repetitive data are predicating on using high-resoltuion output -- like paper.
One of his points? Modern computer screens suck. The human eye is capable of distinguishing fairly high resolution data. He does have a bit of a fuzzy spot when thinking about modern computer displays. Fortunately there is still lots of need to make high quality displays of information on paper. And as he points out in PowerPoint, if the screen sucks, put it on a handout so people can appreciate the real thing.
Just like, uh, get a few sentances, put bullets next to them and *BAM*, you have a presentation for everybody. Just add some swirlin graphics and some sound, and the information really stands out. To boot, since you can spend less than a minute per slide, make like a 100 of them, and then, here's the kicker, make your audience print the whole damn thing! That way they don't have to take notes or think even.
An excellent summary. I recently read Tufte's book The Cognitive Style of
PowerPoint (His online article, "PowerPoint is
Evil" summarizes the book quite well).
It's a good book and forced me to rethink how I do presentations.
As Tufte says, PowerPoint is a fine slideshow program, but lining up your thoughts into slide after slide of bullet points leads to uninspired, hard to understand talks.
While discussing it with a coworker, he pointed out something Tufte only
briefly touches on. Sure, the rampant abuse of PowerPoint makes life less
pleasant for the audience. But that's not why PowerPoint caught on.
PowerPoint became popular because it makes life easy for the
presenter. When it's an hour before you're to present a talk it's not
the time to start assembling a handout of reference information. No, you need
something fast, something acceptable. Slide after slide of bullet points might
be crap, but it's crap that is accepted as the standard. Doing it the right
way takes more time.
While Tufte is definately interested in usability, he's no Nielsen. Nielsen focuses on the usability of computer interfaces. Tufte isn't terribly interested in computer interfaces (although he does discuss them), he is more generally interested in making high quality displays of information. Take a look at the majority of charts and graphs with a critical eye and you'll see deception, errors, and generally a waste of space. Tufte wants to show that a chart or a graph can be a powerful visualization tool, but we squander it. We create charts that can be understood by a first grade student, but fail to enlighten anyone.
This valuable informative post got modded down to -1 even though it is nothing but 100% informative, and I rarely ever post it. Therefore I will post it three times in case the apache-fanboy mods it down to -1 again
It probably got modded down because it's full of inaccuracies, falsehoods, and shoddy reasoning.
Sure, WebStar on MacOS 9.x might be really secure, but many of your arguments are spurious and stupid.
Because no mac in the history of the internet hosting a web server has ever been rooted or defaced remotely.
Why?
A more interesting question would be, "Can you back that up?"
If you insist on "Why?" and we assume it to be true, answers like, "because it's such a minority of the servers that people attack other, more popular servers" are likely.
Because not one version of Mac OS has ever had a single exploitable hole ever discovered. (classic mac os now up to version 9.2.2 on currenlty sold g4 tolwers). OpenBSD has had no less than 5 holes (not one) in the default install in the last two years. Mac OS has had ZERO in over 7 years, even when paired up with its preferred web server app.
OpenBSD has had several holes. Of course, several of those holes are
local exploits by non-root users. Those are serious holes, but to say
that MacOS 9.x lacks them is stupid. Everyone on MacOS 9.x has root-like
privledges. A more honest way of saying this is that OpenBSD has several
local user holes available, but MacOS 9.x has an infinite number since there is
no real local security.
In fact in the entire SecurityFocus (BugTraq) database history there has never been a Mac exploited over the internet remotely. Scan it yourself.
BugTraq doesn't contain a listing of all possible attacks ever. It contains a list of exploits that people actual bothered to find. One possibility is that MacOS 9 was largely ignored by the security community as uninteresting.
Also interesting is this claim of two remote attacks. Untrustworthy source? Possibly, but no less trustworthy than Mr. Coward above.
...I am talking about current Mac OS 9.x and earlier which are highly sophisticated abstract-OS models.
Highly sophisticated abstract-OS models? Moderators let that one slip by?
MacOS 9.x is from the dark ages of personal computers. One buggy program could
easily hang the system, muck about with other programs memory, and generally
hose your system. While it had an elegant user interface, it's kernel is from
the era of DOS.
2) No Root user. All mac developers know their code is always running at root. Nothing is higher (except undocumented microkernel stufff where you pass Gary Davidian's birthday into certain registers and make a special call). By always being root there is no false sense of security, and programming is done carefully.
That's a bloody stupid claim "It's more secure because it's less secure."
I'm going to demand that the military stops putting locks on their doors, after
all it means that the guards will be more vigilant. The best security is
defense in depth, having your web server run as a restricted user is part of a
good security system. You can carefully write secure code even with additional
defense.
3) Pascal strings. ANSI C Strings are the number one way people exploit Linux and Wintel boxes. The mac avoids C strings historically in most of all of its OS. In fact even its roms originally used Pascal strings. As you know pascal strings are faster than C (because they have the length delimiter in the front and do not have to endlessly hunt for NULL), but the side effect is less buffer exploits. Individual 3rd party products may use C stings and bind to ANSI libraries, but many do not. In case you are not aware of what a "pascal string" is, it usu
What happens when Free software conquers all and all the software companies are put out of business, letting their programmers go?
Open source software doesn't feed the family so what do all those out of work developers do? It seems to me that OSS is like a virus that eventually consumes its host, thus ending its own life.
The short answer is that the market will figure it out.
First, it's important to note that the vast majority of software engineers don't write products that are sold. They write software for in-house use in a business, on on a contract for another business. Nothing will change. Those businesses still need specialized software and will pay for them. So even if Free Software destroys the market for off-the-shelf software, the majority of programming jobs will continue to exist.
Second, someone still needs the software. If there is damand, someone will figure out how to charge for it. Perhaps companies will pool their money to fund projects that they can all use. Perhaps individual companies will hire someone to add a feature or set of features that they need. Some enterprising person or company might try the Street Performer Protocol. Companies might develop the software to support non-free data set (The Doom VIII source is free, but the game levels cost money. Movie studios might fund video encoders and players so that they can distribute trailers.) Companies might sell support and use the revenue to keep the authors of the Free Software around (who better to provide the support). Many of these ideas are already in place and work just fine. I expect we'd see some combination of all of the above, plus some more ideas I haven't thought of.
Ultimately I don't know. It's possible (maybe even likely) that the market for software engineers will shrink. I do worry about that. But the industry won't be destroyed. There is a market for the product and the market will figure something out. The replacement might not be as profitable, it might not support as many developers, but something will appear. There is no risk of software development ending forever.
Oh yeah, I already know that I am an idiot and most likely a facist, capitalist, bozo, insertyourlabelhere so save those type of comments for your high school classmates and please seek to address the question.
A bit defensive, aren't we? It's Slashdot. Just mellow out and ignore the stupid people.
...the old Napster, in which users could not only steal from each other...
This is a stunning example of why using steal and theft is problematic for describing copyright infringement. The author uses the terms several times, but when trying to concretely apply it to what Napster ends up making serious complaint. How exactly did Napster users steal from each other? One user chose to make a file available to others and other users chose to take advantage of that offer. Neither user stole from the other. Stealing and theft are sloppy, inaccurate words for describing copyright infringement and end up confusing the conversation.
Also ask yourself why you really need to mention these names...
Specific company names provide your claims with credibility. It's supporting evidence that you really did the work and aren't padding your resume with made up information. It provides accountability, a potential employer can actually call up your old company and confirm that you worked there. There is no way for someone in HR skimming resumes can distinguish between someone who needs to be non-specific for NDA reasons and someone who is simply lying about their career. 99% of the resumes they get will have specific company names. If yours doesn't it's going to stick out as suspicious.
Too bad there's historically no such thing as "Palistinians," and has never been a soveriegn nation called "Palistine."
Historically there's no such thing as Midwesterners, and there has never been a sovereign nation called "The Mid-West." Yet I'm darn well a Midwesterner and live in the Mid-West.
There are a bunch of people in a place who feel that they are a distinct group. They need a name, if only because it's shorter than summarizing their status every time you mention them and the region. Palistinians works well enough.
Historically there wasn't a United States, but things changed. Historically Israel was a long dead idea, but things changed.
Now, whether or not Palistine should become an independent nation, or be aborbed by one or more nations surrounding it is an interesting discussion. Attempting to define Palsitine out of existance is just sticking your head in the sand.
Too bad that the Six Day War didn't go the way you think it should have. Since when does regions conquered in wartime count as "stolen?" It was won, fair and square.
Egad, to suggest that taking land by force is "fair and square" is a scary idea.
Iraq managed to take and hold Kuwait over six months. Should Kuwait simply have been ceeded to Saddam? Germany managed to hold large portions of Europe for a long, long time, were the Allies so horrible to force them back? Are we to return to Might Makes Right, if you can take it, it's yours?
...there's a patch available to block Verisign's wildcard lookups.
Great, I'm sure some packager I trust will build a version of djbdns with the patch included so I can just install it and go...
Oh, wait, that will never happen be cause DJB's license forbids it.
Feh.
Of course, it's not really relevant since the problem isn't with BIND's patch, it's with users mis-configuring the new option that the BIND patch provides.
The BIND patch is way more flexible, the djbdns patch requires you to keep updating it if the registratar changes the IP returned for wildcard results. The danger of this flexibility is that there is a "Shoot self in foot" option. Fortunately every example of how to use it that I've seen does the right thing.
If you hate C++, it's unfair to suggest you read a book on it. But if you have any fondess for C++, or use C++ (even if you dislike it), Design and Evolution of C++ is probably worth your time. You learn why C++ is the slightly confusing mess that it is, and why Stroustrup believes it's the only way it could have succeeded. Having a grasp on why C++ is C++ (and not Objective C or Java) can improve your C++ coding abilities. And understanding why behavior you don't like is there can at least help minimize the suffering ("This is stupid, but there really isn't any way to change it.").
The first version of C++, before templates and the STL, was terrible.
It was so terrible that it had an amazingly fast adaptation rate and today has largely replaced it predecessor, C.
The early versions of C++ had many faults, but it was largely backward
compatible with C (a key element in convincing people to switch) while adding
many features that were clear improvements to C (notably classes). It may suck
(all languages suck), but it definately moving forward. Heck, if you all you
get from C++ is basically C With Classes, life is still significantly better.
Strostrup used to have great hostility to run-time type information, which led to unchecked downcasts all over the place.
First, things changed. Now C++ has RTTI. It's old news. In fact, a number of your complaints are old news. It's odd to complain that Stroustrup is ignoring problems that have largely been solved for years.
Second, if you're relying on RTTI "all over the place," you need to step
back and seriously reconsider your design. Use of RTTI is one of those
"Occasionally you really need it, but it probably means you have a design flaw"
features.
Attempts have been made to fix the language by adding another layer of rote ritual ("patterns") on top of it...
The hell? Patterns aren't an attempt to magically fix C++. Heck, the
definitative design patterns book points out that many of the patterns were
originally found or codified in a variety of languages. Patterns are just a
useful way of discussing common design elements, to provide a useful way of
thinking about problems. Design patterns are useful for any object
oriented work, regardless of language.
Private function members appear in header files so that vtables can be built at compile time.... And Strostrup refuses to fix it.
Regardless of reasoning, ultimately this is an issue for compilers to sort out. You're welcome to implement a compiler that handles it different, Stroustrup isn't going to stop you.
Meanwhile, C++ is being abandoned for Java, C#, C, and scripting languages.
Abandoning C++ for C? On which planet? One of the nice things about C++ is
you can basically code C and get all of the benefits, then just use little
smatterings of C++ where they really pay off.
As for people moving to higher level languages like Java, C#, and various
scripting languages, it might just be time to move on. We're continually
moving to higher and higher level languages. Trying to move C++ into that
realm will be like trying to make assembly language competitive with C. All
you'll do is drive off your core users, the ones who really need the low level
power, while failing to successfully complete with other languages designed
from scratch to serve at a higher level. We'll be seeing C++ for a long time.
This guy is an amazing tool. My favorite line so far? He claims that open source puts you at more risk for litagation. But doesn't proprietary software have the same risk? No, and here's his claim why:
The pain associated with getting hold of proprietary source code is one of the things that limits intellectual property lawsuits for commercial software. But with open source software, the code is already available, out in the open.
So apparently it's all okay, because you're less likely to get caught.
Humorously, he claims the moral high ground because he argues on logic, not emotion, but his arguments are heavily tainted by his emotional attachment to Microsoft. He attacks strawmen arguments for the Open Source side, real nice debating.
He releases a PTP system that is so inherently unthought out and stupidly illegal and try to make a go of it.
He released a (kinda) distributed P2P system that worked in ways no system
before it did. It was the first of its kind. He made mistakes, but there
wasn't really a roadmap of successful systems to emulate. He was just a
college kid trying to make something neat.
At first he didn't worry about "trying to make a go of it," that came later,
after the initial popularity and with many people around him telling him that
it would work. If he has any fault it was believing that people.
Without Napster we would not have the RIAA court cases. We would have Gnutella systems, Bit Torrent etc free from lawyers and everyone would be happy.
What happy horse-shit is this? Napster inspired Gnutella and the like. Sure, it was time for the technology to arrive, but in all likelyhood the first non-Napster system would have suffered most of the same problems. Being the First Mover means you get to make the First Mistakes.
And the lawyers would have come anyway.
When it became clear that lots of people were illegally acquiring their music, they would have shown up. There might not have been such an easy target, but they would have found someone to sue. Perhaps individual users, like they are now.
Heck, the lawyers are one of the
reasons that Bittorrent sites specializing in illegally redistributing
copyright protected works tend to get shut down.
Napster was a lowest common denominator PTP system.
Unsurprising for what really was a trendsetter and a trendsetter originally
written by college kid on lark.
It stole MP3's.
It did? Did it break into homes and take CDs of MP3s?
No, it provided a tool that made it easy to infringe copyright. The Napster
company was stupid and encouraged this illegal use.
Napster was made to steal music.
I never quite figured out how to do this. Perhaps there was a a menu I was missing? File > Steal > Shoplift CD From Local Store perhaps?
Napster was designed to make it easy to share your music with others, and
for others to find and receive copies of that music. They knew that most of
the music in question would be illegally copied. The best you can claim is that Napster was designed to to make it easy to infringe copyright.
Many people thought of simple systems like this that the masses could use but most knew better than to damage PTP credibility before this.
Ummmm, the hell? Yeah, I'm sure lots of people considered it, but stopped
themselves, "Well, I could implement a distributed file sharing system so I can
trade music without paying for it, but I might damage the credibility of a idea
that only exists in in a primal form so far." Bullshit.
As I have pointed out at conferences and in papers the difference between an advanced civilization and the human civilization is ~10^24 Ops. The difference between a single human and and a nematode worm is ~10^15 Ops. We don't talk to worms and advanced civilizations don't talk to us!
There are a number of problems here.
First, ultimately you're guessing. We just don't know because
extra-terrestrial life hasn't wandered by to say hello. Comparing guesses
against each other is a risky activity and not proof of any sort. It's a valid
argument, but it isn't the ultimate truth.
Second, you assume that an advanced civilization would be willing to speak
to such a lowly race as ourselves. Why not? If I thought nematode worms were
sentient I'd strongly support studying and interacting with them. We do this
already for life forms on our own planet (notably apes and dolphins). Heck, I'm sure that somewhere on this planet someone is studying how (if at all) nematode worms communicate.
If this
advanced civilization evolved as we did, they might be interested in studying a
more primative version of themselves. The advanced civilization might just get in touch to be nice.
"Gosh, it really sucked when we were so primative and thought we were alone in
the universe, let's say hi to the silly monkey men, it's cheer them up."
Finally, who says we're looking for an advanced civilization? Maybe we'll
find a civilization at roughly the same technological level as we are now (or
at least was at that level when the signals were generated). We might
not be able to feasibly establish contact with such a race, but just hearing
thier long lost messages would be fascinating.
Personally I think SETI@Home is interesting, but not really worth my time.
I would rather suppport things like Folding@Home. But I respect their vision, I think it's unlikely, but I must conceed that it is feasible. Your attack is just mean spirited and not very convincing.
That's not a review, that's the book description off Amazon. A description isn't a review, especially when it looks like it was written by the publisher. (The description was presumably written before the book's release, thus explaining the cryptic references to what the book will do instead of what the book does.)
This guy has a very interesting write up about chess and probability. Worth a read.
Actually, it has very little to do with Chess. Instead it's a really iffy argument against an omniscient God. Not worth a read if you're just interested in chess. If you're interested in philosphy, maybe, and then only if you're interested in a study of flawed logic and questionable assumptions.
I mean, it's kinda like calling the wrong 800 number and the person who answers says "Oh this happens all the time, the number you actually want is...". This is a nice feature!
It's more like calling a phone number that doesn't exist. You used to get magic tones followed by, "The number you have dialed does not exist. Please check the number and try again. 4.2.1." But it's been replaced by an answering service that offers guesses as to who you wanted to call. Sure, it seems beneficial to the average person, but for services that rely on the magic tones to determine that there was an error (Automatic dialers, or systems that don't understand humans (like a fax machine or modem), they have no way to cope. If the magic tones continued, phone manufacturers could, if there was demand, sell phones that attempted auto correction by redirecting you to an 800 number that would offer suggestions. Different phones could offer different services (This one is cheap but doesn't offer the service, that one is expense and offers a computer run service, this other one has a monthly fee but offers a human run service). This sort of service already existed for web browsers! But by removing the well known error code and behaving like the number exists, those services stop working and new services cannot be created.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but doesn't it seem odd that we're all expecting the cable companies to allow competition on a physical network that they built and own? If someone wants to compete with them, let them build their own network.
Many cities and other locales have specific laws limiting the ability of arbitrary companies to start running cables. Running any sort of cross city wiring is a major project that will create disruptions, the cost of which is, at least in part, be covered by the city. In some cities there are simply very complex laws making it very difficult to do the work (much more difficult than the original cable company faced). In some cities the cable company has an explicit monopoly on running the system. It's a giant mess and government's hand (and money) are already entangled in it.
I thought the cable companies totally funded the construction (or purchase of pre-existing) system, and had no government assistance financially or otherwise?
It varies from place to place. Here in Madison when another company tried to come in they faced a large number of onerous requirements (like "You must wire the entire city within two years") that the incumbant cable company didn't have to face while it slowly grew up. In other places the cable company is explicitly a monopoly, I'm not entirely sure on why. Perhaps it has to do with limiting the number of companies running all over and tearing up streets (a cost which is often covered by the city).
i think at least some internet users will find Site Finder a good service, especially when you're not too sure about a URL, or mistyped one.
Let the web browser provide the service. That way we can have lots of healthy competition (Buy my web browser, it's got SiteFinder! No, but my web browser, it's got something better than SiteFinder! No, use anyones web browser, but but my plugin thats even better and works with every browser!) By providing the server on the DNS level you effectively lock out all other options.
It doesn't matter where the SiteFinder points, be it dmoz or Overture, it's a bad idea.
I used to work for a software company. I registered a domain for that software company through register.com and *MY* name was on the domain registration. I never actually transferred ownership to that software company, but leased the domain to them under a verbal arrangment.
What an amazingly bad idea. Why in the world would a company let someone else own the domain name that they use? Why as an employee did you allow your employer to enter such a bad deal? Why did you only go with a verbal agreement?
You set yourself up for a fall and are lucky that the company just gave up.
You need much less (including current ones that have up to a three foot range) if your goal is to simply install a hidden transceiver on the sidewalk in front of the library and log the results.
The "man" can track your book useage by your library card anyway.
Yes, and librarians, eager to protect our democracy by protecting your right to anonymously read are very afraid of this. This is why librarians fought the PATRIOT Act clauses allowing secret library record searches. This is why many libraries purge their records as soon as a book is returned.
(Right to anonymously read? Given a strong shift in public opinion (it sometimes happens), we might end up with book burnings again. And after you burn the books, you'll have to burn everyone who read them.)
I use something called an EZ-Pass,...Yeah. I know they could use it to track me. They could somehow link it back to my bank account.
As a general rule I don't worry as much about the government. If the government is out to get me, I'm boned.
However, consider the ramifications of an individual out to get you. If the government has the information, you have to consider
that a dirty government agent might sell it
Of course, who might attack you?
Now, maybe you live the boring life and have no potential enemies. Good for you, everyone should be so lucky. But many people do have to worry. Get into a messy divorce? Your ex-spouse may be interested in whatever dirt they can dig up on you. Perhaps your religious views are unpopular where you live, but you can't afford to move. Someone who hates your religion might notice that the times and locations of your trips correspond to visiting a religious site.
jeeze, remember standing in line at the bank to get a check cashed?
Not really. I only started banking after ATMs were moderately common. Thanks to people using ATMs, my bank usually has no lines. I find it funny to occasionally pass busy ATMs to arrive at my line-free bank.
He has no spare or leisure time because the very housekeeping of life takes him twice or three times as long as it does the rest of us.
I find that surprising. I do most (but not all) of the same things he does and I find it has little to no impact on my life. It really doesn't take any longer. I'm a bit baffled as to how not using an affinity card takes more time.
That said, maybe those remaining things he does make the difference...
He no longer uses his home computer because he's convinced that his ISP (Verizon) has nothing better to do than to track his every move online.... doesn't visit ATM's
I suspect your brother is getting a bit unhinged. Part of making decisions like these is seriously considering what the risk is. There aren't any real privacy implications of using an ATM provided you consistently use a small set in locations already associated with you. Using the ATM in your grocery store links you to the grocery store. But using the ATM nearest to your home or office just links you to using convient ATMs. Not using his computer? At all? Or just online? There are solutions, and if you're completely unwilling to trust anyone, well, he needs some help.
For some reason, I place sneaky library books squarely in the "don't sweat this" category. At least for now.
Freedom to read is an essential element for democracy.
To ensure that everyone has this freedom, we have public libraries to help ensure that everyone, no matter how poor, can learn on their own.
To really have freedom to read, you need freedom to read anonymously. If you're afraid of the ramifications of reading something, you are effectively censoring it. Another wave of McCarthyism might drum up another irrational wave of hatred of communism. Suddenly a list of who has checked out and read Karl Marx's books would be very useful for tracking down people deemed to be unamerican. Perhaps the list was gained from library records (a reason many libraries do not maintain records longer than necessary), or through hidden RFID monitors on the sidewalk by the library scanning your books and your RFID library card (or one of the many other RFID items purchased on your credit card). As a friend pointed out, "Once you've burned the books, you have to track down everyone who read the books and burn them too."
It's highly unlikely, but government must be held to the highest standards.
People, these tags are readable up to a few inches. Maybe a foot at most.
From this site: "The majority of RFID transponders have a read range of less than 3 feet." That's a long enough range to surreptitiously scan people walking by a hidden transceiver on the sidewalk, or to do drivebys of your trash.
Do you use credit? Do you have a license? SIN? Bank card? Trust me, you have more things to worry about being tracked by than your stupid library purchases.
That's bizarre comparison. Those are all things that I have some level of control over. I chose to let someone know by credit card number (by using it). If I don't want someone to know my credit card number, I pay cash. If someone demands to see my driver's license, I consider if I really need the service.
Come to think of it, where do you live that you purchase things from your local library? I just borrow them.
Also, "SIN"? Who in the hell actually calls them SINs? I think you've been playing too much
Shadowrun. The only non-silly uses of SIN I can find are things no human being would have (Standard/Stock/Service Inventory/Identification Number).
Slashdot Mirror
True enough. Tufte discusses this a bit more in his book The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint . (It's summarized online in "PowerPoint is Evil".)
One of his points? Modern computer screens suck. The human eye is capable of distinguishing fairly high resolution data. He does have a bit of a fuzzy spot when thinking about modern computer displays. Fortunately there is still lots of need to make high quality displays of information on paper. And as he points out in PowerPoint, if the screen sucks, put it on a handout so people can appreciate the real thing.
An excellent summary. I recently read Tufte's book The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint (His online article, "PowerPoint is Evil" summarizes the book quite well). It's a good book and forced me to rethink how I do presentations. As Tufte says, PowerPoint is a fine slideshow program, but lining up your thoughts into slide after slide of bullet points leads to uninspired, hard to understand talks.
While discussing it with a coworker, he pointed out something Tufte only briefly touches on. Sure, the rampant abuse of PowerPoint makes life less pleasant for the audience. But that's not why PowerPoint caught on. PowerPoint became popular because it makes life easy for the presenter. When it's an hour before you're to present a talk it's not the time to start assembling a handout of reference information. No, you need something fast, something acceptable. Slide after slide of bullet points might be crap, but it's crap that is accepted as the standard. Doing it the right way takes more time.
I somehow doubt that a man who wrote the article "PowerPoint Is Evil," (itself a summary of his book The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint ) would be popular with "PowerPoint Jockies."
While Tufte is definately interested in usability, he's no Nielsen. Nielsen focuses on the usability of computer interfaces. Tufte isn't terribly interested in computer interfaces (although he does discuss them), he is more generally interested in making high quality displays of information. Take a look at the majority of charts and graphs with a critical eye and you'll see deception, errors, and generally a waste of space. Tufte wants to show that a chart or a graph can be a powerful visualization tool, but we squander it. We create charts that can be understood by a first grade student, but fail to enlighten anyone.
It probably got modded down because it's full of inaccuracies, falsehoods, and shoddy reasoning.
Sure, WebStar on MacOS 9.x might be really secure, but many of your arguments are spurious and stupid.
A more interesting question would be, "Can you back that up?"
If you insist on "Why?" and we assume it to be true, answers like, "because it's such a minority of the servers that people attack other, more popular servers" are likely.
OpenBSD has had several holes. Of course, several of those holes are local exploits by non-root users. Those are serious holes, but to say that MacOS 9.x lacks them is stupid. Everyone on MacOS 9.x has root-like privledges. A more honest way of saying this is that OpenBSD has several local user holes available, but MacOS 9.x has an infinite number since there is no real local security.
BugTraq doesn't contain a listing of all possible attacks ever. It contains a list of exploits that people actual bothered to find. One possibility is that MacOS 9 was largely ignored by the security community as uninteresting.
Also interesting is this claim of two remote attacks. Untrustworthy source? Possibly, but no less trustworthy than Mr. Coward above.
Highly sophisticated abstract-OS models? Moderators let that one slip by? MacOS 9.x is from the dark ages of personal computers. One buggy program could easily hang the system, muck about with other programs memory, and generally hose your system. While it had an elegant user interface, it's kernel is from the era of DOS.
That's a bloody stupid claim "It's more secure because it's less secure." I'm going to demand that the military stops putting locks on their doors, after all it means that the guards will be more vigilant. The best security is defense in depth, having your web server run as a restricted user is part of a good security system. You can carefully write secure code even with additional defense.
The short answer is that the market will figure it out.
First, it's important to note that the vast majority of software engineers don't write products that are sold. They write software for in-house use in a business, on on a contract for another business. Nothing will change. Those businesses still need specialized software and will pay for them. So even if Free Software destroys the market for off-the-shelf software, the majority of programming jobs will continue to exist.
Second, someone still needs the software. If there is damand, someone will figure out how to charge for it. Perhaps companies will pool their money to fund projects that they can all use. Perhaps individual companies will hire someone to add a feature or set of features that they need. Some enterprising person or company might try the Street Performer Protocol. Companies might develop the software to support non-free data set (The Doom VIII source is free, but the game levels cost money. Movie studios might fund video encoders and players so that they can distribute trailers.) Companies might sell support and use the revenue to keep the authors of the Free Software around (who better to provide the support). Many of these ideas are already in place and work just fine. I expect we'd see some combination of all of the above, plus some more ideas I haven't thought of.
Ultimately I don't know. It's possible (maybe even likely) that the market for software engineers will shrink. I do worry about that. But the industry won't be destroyed. There is a market for the product and the market will figure something out. The replacement might not be as profitable, it might not support as many developers, but something will appear. There is no risk of software development ending forever.
A bit defensive, aren't we? It's Slashdot. Just mellow out and ignore the stupid people.
This is a stunning example of why using steal and theft is problematic for describing copyright infringement. The author uses the terms several times, but when trying to concretely apply it to what Napster ends up making serious complaint. How exactly did Napster users steal from each other? One user chose to make a file available to others and other users chose to take advantage of that offer. Neither user stole from the other. Stealing and theft are sloppy, inaccurate words for describing copyright infringement and end up confusing the conversation.
Specific company names provide your claims with credibility. It's supporting evidence that you really did the work and aren't padding your resume with made up information. It provides accountability, a potential employer can actually call up your old company and confirm that you worked there. There is no way for someone in HR skimming resumes can distinguish between someone who needs to be non-specific for NDA reasons and someone who is simply lying about their career. 99% of the resumes they get will have specific company names. If yours doesn't it's going to stick out as suspicious.
Historically there's no such thing as Midwesterners, and there has never been a sovereign nation called "The Mid-West." Yet I'm darn well a Midwesterner and live in the Mid-West.
There are a bunch of people in a place who feel that they are a distinct group. They need a name, if only because it's shorter than summarizing their status every time you mention them and the region. Palistinians works well enough.
Historically there wasn't a United States, but things changed. Historically Israel was a long dead idea, but things changed.
Now, whether or not Palistine should become an independent nation, or be aborbed by one or more nations surrounding it is an interesting discussion. Attempting to define Palsitine out of existance is just sticking your head in the sand.
Egad, to suggest that taking land by force is "fair and square" is a scary idea. Iraq managed to take and hold Kuwait over six months. Should Kuwait simply have been ceeded to Saddam? Germany managed to hold large portions of Europe for a long, long time, were the Allies so horrible to force them back? Are we to return to Might Makes Right, if you can take it, it's yours?
Great, I'm sure some packager I trust will build a version of djbdns with the patch included so I can just install it and go...
Oh, wait, that will never happen be cause DJB's license forbids it.
Feh.
Of course, it's not really relevant since the problem isn't with BIND's patch, it's with users mis-configuring the new option that the BIND patch provides.
The BIND patch is way more flexible, the djbdns patch requires you to keep updating it if the registratar changes the IP returned for wildcard results. The danger of this flexibility is that there is a "Shoot self in foot" option. Fortunately every example of how to use it that I've seen does the right thing.
If you hate C++, it's unfair to suggest you read a book on it. But if you have any fondess for C++, or use C++ (even if you dislike it), Design and Evolution of C++ is probably worth your time. You learn why C++ is the slightly confusing mess that it is, and why Stroustrup believes it's the only way it could have succeeded. Having a grasp on why C++ is C++ (and not Objective C or Java) can improve your C++ coding abilities. And understanding why behavior you don't like is there can at least help minimize the suffering ("This is stupid, but there really isn't any way to change it.").
It was so terrible that it had an amazingly fast adaptation rate and today has largely replaced it predecessor, C.
The early versions of C++ had many faults, but it was largely backward compatible with C (a key element in convincing people to switch) while adding many features that were clear improvements to C (notably classes). It may suck (all languages suck), but it definately moving forward. Heck, if you all you get from C++ is basically C With Classes, life is still significantly better.
First, things changed. Now C++ has RTTI. It's old news. In fact, a number of your complaints are old news. It's odd to complain that Stroustrup is ignoring problems that have largely been solved for years.
Second, if you're relying on RTTI "all over the place," you need to step back and seriously reconsider your design. Use of RTTI is one of those "Occasionally you really need it, but it probably means you have a design flaw" features.
The hell? Patterns aren't an attempt to magically fix C++. Heck, the definitative design patterns book points out that many of the patterns were originally found or codified in a variety of languages. Patterns are just a useful way of discussing common design elements, to provide a useful way of thinking about problems. Design patterns are useful for any object oriented work, regardless of language.
Regardless of reasoning, ultimately this is an issue for compilers to sort out. You're welcome to implement a compiler that handles it different, Stroustrup isn't going to stop you.
Abandoning C++ for C? On which planet? One of the nice things about C++ is you can basically code C and get all of the benefits, then just use little smatterings of C++ where they really pay off.
As for people moving to higher level languages like Java, C#, and various scripting languages, it might just be time to move on. We're continually moving to higher and higher level languages. Trying to move C++ into that realm will be like trying to make assembly language competitive with C. All you'll do is drive off your core users, the ones who really need the low level power, while failing to successfully complete with other languages designed from scratch to serve at a higher level. We'll be seeing C++ for a long time.
This guy is an amazing tool. My favorite line so far? He claims that open source puts you at more risk for litagation. But doesn't proprietary software have the same risk? No, and here's his claim why:
So apparently it's all okay, because you're less likely to get caught.
Humorously, he claims the moral high ground because he argues on logic, not emotion, but his arguments are heavily tainted by his emotional attachment to Microsoft. He attacks strawmen arguments for the Open Source side, real nice debating.
He's a troll and FUDmonger. Fuck him.
He released a (kinda) distributed P2P system that worked in ways no system before it did. It was the first of its kind. He made mistakes, but there wasn't really a roadmap of successful systems to emulate. He was just a college kid trying to make something neat.
At first he didn't worry about "trying to make a go of it," that came later, after the initial popularity and with many people around him telling him that it would work. If he has any fault it was believing that people.
What happy horse-shit is this? Napster inspired Gnutella and the like. Sure, it was time for the technology to arrive, but in all likelyhood the first non-Napster system would have suffered most of the same problems. Being the First Mover means you get to make the First Mistakes.
And the lawyers would have come anyway. When it became clear that lots of people were illegally acquiring their music, they would have shown up. There might not have been such an easy target, but they would have found someone to sue. Perhaps individual users, like they are now. Heck, the lawyers are one of the reasons that Bittorrent sites specializing in illegally redistributing copyright protected works tend to get shut down.
Unsurprising for what really was a trendsetter and a trendsetter originally written by college kid on lark.
It did? Did it break into homes and take CDs of MP3s?
No, it provided a tool that made it easy to infringe copyright. The Napster company was stupid and encouraged this illegal use.
I never quite figured out how to do this. Perhaps there was a a menu I was missing? File > Steal > Shoplift CD From Local Store perhaps?
Napster was designed to make it easy to share your music with others, and for others to find and receive copies of that music. They knew that most of the music in question would be illegally copied. The best you can claim is that Napster was designed to to make it easy to infringe copyright.
Ummmm, the hell? Yeah, I'm sure lots of people considered it, but stopped themselves, "Well, I could implement a distributed file sharing system so I can trade music without paying for it, but I might damage the credibility of a idea that only exists in in a primal form so far." Bullshit.
There are a number of problems here.
First, ultimately you're guessing. We just don't know because extra-terrestrial life hasn't wandered by to say hello. Comparing guesses against each other is a risky activity and not proof of any sort. It's a valid argument, but it isn't the ultimate truth.
Second, you assume that an advanced civilization would be willing to speak to such a lowly race as ourselves. Why not? If I thought nematode worms were sentient I'd strongly support studying and interacting with them. We do this already for life forms on our own planet (notably apes and dolphins). Heck, I'm sure that somewhere on this planet someone is studying how (if at all) nematode worms communicate. If this advanced civilization evolved as we did, they might be interested in studying a more primative version of themselves. The advanced civilization might just get in touch to be nice. "Gosh, it really sucked when we were so primative and thought we were alone in the universe, let's say hi to the silly monkey men, it's cheer them up."
Finally, who says we're looking for an advanced civilization? Maybe we'll find a civilization at roughly the same technological level as we are now (or at least was at that level when the signals were generated). We might not be able to feasibly establish contact with such a race, but just hearing thier long lost messages would be fascinating.
Personally I think SETI@Home is interesting, but not really worth my time. I would rather suppport things like Folding@Home. But I respect their vision, I think it's unlikely, but I must conceed that it is feasible. Your attack is just mean spirited and not very convincing.
That's not a review, that's the book description off Amazon. A description isn't a review, especially when it looks like it was written by the publisher. (The description was presumably written before the book's release, thus explaining the cryptic references to what the book will do instead of what the book does.)
Furthermore, why copy something instead of just linking to the original?
Actually, it has very little to do with Chess. Instead it's a really iffy argument against an omniscient God. Not worth a read if you're just interested in chess. If you're interested in philosphy, maybe, and then only if you're interested in a study of flawed logic and questionable assumptions.
It's more like calling a phone number that doesn't exist. You used to get magic tones followed by, "The number you have dialed does not exist. Please check the number and try again. 4.2.1." But it's been replaced by an answering service that offers guesses as to who you wanted to call. Sure, it seems beneficial to the average person, but for services that rely on the magic tones to determine that there was an error (Automatic dialers, or systems that don't understand humans (like a fax machine or modem), they have no way to cope. If the magic tones continued, phone manufacturers could, if there was demand, sell phones that attempted auto correction by redirecting you to an 800 number that would offer suggestions. Different phones could offer different services (This one is cheap but doesn't offer the service, that one is expense and offers a computer run service, this other one has a monthly fee but offers a human run service). This sort of service already existed for web browsers! But by removing the well known error code and behaving like the number exists, those services stop working and new services cannot be created.
Many cities and other locales have specific laws limiting the ability of arbitrary companies to start running cables. Running any sort of cross city wiring is a major project that will create disruptions, the cost of which is, at least in part, be covered by the city. In some cities there are simply very complex laws making it very difficult to do the work (much more difficult than the original cable company faced). In some cities the cable company has an explicit monopoly on running the system. It's a giant mess and government's hand (and money) are already entangled in it.
It varies from place to place. Here in Madison when another company tried to come in they faced a large number of onerous requirements (like "You must wire the entire city within two years") that the incumbant cable company didn't have to face while it slowly grew up. In other places the cable company is explicitly a monopoly, I'm not entirely sure on why. Perhaps it has to do with limiting the number of companies running all over and tearing up streets (a cost which is often covered by the city).
Let the web browser provide the service. That way we can have lots of healthy competition (Buy my web browser, it's got SiteFinder! No, but my web browser, it's got something better than SiteFinder! No, use anyones web browser, but but my plugin thats even better and works with every browser!) By providing the server on the DNS level you effectively lock out all other options.
It doesn't matter where the SiteFinder points, be it dmoz or Overture, it's a bad idea.
What an amazingly bad idea. Why in the world would a company let someone else own the domain name that they use? Why as an employee did you allow your employer to enter such a bad deal? Why did you only go with a verbal agreement?
You set yourself up for a fall and are lucky that the company just gave up.
Nine meters seems like a pretty useful range.
You need much less (including current ones that have up to a three foot range) if your goal is to simply install a hidden transceiver on the sidewalk in front of the library and log the results.
Yes, and librarians, eager to protect our democracy by protecting your right to anonymously read are very afraid of this. This is why librarians fought the PATRIOT Act clauses allowing secret library record searches. This is why many libraries purge their records as soon as a book is returned.
(Right to anonymously read? Given a strong shift in public opinion (it sometimes happens), we might end up with book burnings again. And after you burn the books, you'll have to burn everyone who read them.)
As a general rule I don't worry as much about the government. If the government is out to get me, I'm boned.
However, consider the ramifications of an individual out to get you. If the government has the information, you have to consider that a dirty government agent might sell it
Of course, who might attack you? Now, maybe you live the boring life and have no potential enemies. Good for you, everyone should be so lucky. But many people do have to worry. Get into a messy divorce? Your ex-spouse may be interested in whatever dirt they can dig up on you. Perhaps your religious views are unpopular where you live, but you can't afford to move. Someone who hates your religion might notice that the times and locations of your trips correspond to visiting a religious site.
Not really. I only started banking after ATMs were moderately common. Thanks to people using ATMs, my bank usually has no lines. I find it funny to occasionally pass busy ATMs to arrive at my line-free bank.
I find that surprising. I do most (but not all) of the same things he does and I find it has little to no impact on my life. It really doesn't take any longer. I'm a bit baffled as to how not using an affinity card takes more time.
That said, maybe those remaining things he does make the difference...
I suspect your brother is getting a bit unhinged. Part of making decisions like these is seriously considering what the risk is. There aren't any real privacy implications of using an ATM provided you consistently use a small set in locations already associated with you. Using the ATM in your grocery store links you to the grocery store. But using the ATM nearest to your home or office just links you to using convient ATMs. Not using his computer? At all? Or just online? There are solutions, and if you're completely unwilling to trust anyone, well, he needs some help.
Freedom to read is an essential element for democracy. To ensure that everyone has this freedom, we have public libraries to help ensure that everyone, no matter how poor, can learn on their own. To really have freedom to read, you need freedom to read anonymously. If you're afraid of the ramifications of reading something, you are effectively censoring it. Another wave of McCarthyism might drum up another irrational wave of hatred of communism. Suddenly a list of who has checked out and read Karl Marx's books would be very useful for tracking down people deemed to be unamerican. Perhaps the list was gained from library records (a reason many libraries do not maintain records longer than necessary), or through hidden RFID monitors on the sidewalk by the library scanning your books and your RFID library card (or one of the many other RFID items purchased on your credit card). As a friend pointed out, "Once you've burned the books, you have to track down everyone who read the books and burn them too."
It's highly unlikely, but government must be held to the highest standards.
From this site: "The majority of RFID transponders have a read range of less than 3 feet." That's a long enough range to surreptitiously scan people walking by a hidden transceiver on the sidewalk, or to do drivebys of your trash.
That's bizarre comparison. Those are all things that I have some level of control over. I chose to let someone know by credit card number (by using it). If I don't want someone to know my credit card number, I pay cash. If someone demands to see my driver's license, I consider if I really need the service.
Come to think of it, where do you live that you purchase things from your local library? I just borrow them.
Also, "SIN"? Who in the hell actually calls them SINs? I think you've been playing too much Shadowrun. The only non-silly uses of SIN I can find are things no human being would have (Standard/Stock/Service Inventory/Identification Number).
Congress also allowed something to be named the "USA PATRIOT Act".
It's just a matter of time before someone introduces the "Anyone Who Votes Against This Molests Puppies Act".