I mostly agree with you. However, as an adjunct professor at a local college, I find that students "get it" more easily and more completely when I start with the free-form conceptual and work down to the physical. For instance, I teach a simple scripting language or simple BASIC first, then a procedural language (C), then compiler theory (which incorporates assembly language). This takes them from the "what do I want to do" stage down to the "how the iron does it" stage.
In the process, the students learn that the language is less important than understanding what you want the system to do. And, they learn that all languages are *NOT* alike: they each have their strong and weak points. For instance, I wouldn't want to write a SCSI disk device driver using C++ templates and virtual classes (although the idea has merit). By the same token, I wouldn't want to write a high-level web-based stock valuation and numerical analysis program using BASIC.
What language should you learn next?
The real question is: do you have enough skill to pick up a language spec and work your way from "hello, world" to advanced techniques? Do you have the time, desire, and "drive" to learn the new language?
Not a suggestion that could be in place in 6 months, or a suggestion that requires technologies that haven't yet been fully "shaken out", or a suggestion that doesn't solve the problem. Something we can do now.
I'm as worried about my security as the rest of you folks, but I also realize something from my 10 years of military service: there are people out there who don't give a sh*t about our laws, don't give a sh*t about us, still think of Europeans as "invaders" and "occupiers" (think: Crusades), and don't have anything to look forward to in their own lives. In their minds, being a martyr to a cause isn't any worse than their current circumstances, so it's easy to talk them into strapping on a bomb and taking out someone who has committed some kind of offense against their belief system.
We're complaining about a mostly impotent government trying to track conversations over telecommunication systems.
Every time we find out about something that this government is trying to do to track the baddies (like following banking transactions, checking library checkout records, looking for patterns in web requests, etc.), we publicize it as loudly as possible. We wring our hands and "tsk tsk" about some imagined violation of our privacy and then ask "how come they didn't know" when we hear about another bombing plot.
And, by "imagined violation", I mean that you haven't been smacked in the head with a club, the FBI hasn't broken into your dorm room and violently arrested you for smoking a little pot, and you haven't been chained against a wall and had your head cut off with a dull saw. No, the violation here is that someone may have heard you talking about going out for pizza, or might have heard you talking about whether you got laid last night, or whether you are gonna go out and score a little pot.
This isn't the '60s. J. Edgar Hoover isn't running the FBI as his own private cabal of spies, trying to defeat the American Communist Party or stop Martin Luther King from marching against civil injustice. This is 2007. The folks we're looking for would be happiest if they could set off a nerve gas cloud in a subway (Tokyo - Om Shin Rinkyo), or bomb a train (Spain - Basque Separatists), or bomb a subway (England - Al Qaeda).
Or, maybe, fly planes into the World Trade Center towers in New York City.
Let's get real. Although complaints may reveal problems, they don't solve problems. If, indeed, the government is impotent to stop these nuts from planning and carrying out another attack, then it's up to *us* to figure out methods to find and stop them.
So, I say again: make a suggestion that is implementable now. Something that can be done immediately, and would be effective.
So, lemme see now: the Windows Automotive product will control the non-critical aspects of the vehicle, such as radio, cell phone, and other "navigation" features. But, it *won't* do anything really *useful* like control ignition, transmission shift speeds, antilock braking, etc. Those are already covered by Ford's existing embedded control systems.
What we have here is an excellent example of why Windows is just *not* trusted for "critical systems". Even Ford is showing their lack of trust in Windows by relegating it to non-critical vehicle operations, regardless of how well it is advertised to work.
I guess embedded vehicle control systems are just too important to be trusted to Windows.
So, one "boo" for using Windows *at all*, but one "thank g-d" for avoiding it where vehicle safety is concerned.
re. cell phones, tv, and "heads-up" displays: most folks get distracted by stuff at the side of the road or conversations inside the car. Now we're adding yet more distractions. Look, let's just do it right: put a PAS (pedestrian aiming system) in the heads-up display and install "Grand Theft Auto"!
...just keep repeating "I don't remember" to any question he doesn't want to answer for 4 hours?
I mean, ok, so he gives his address, the names of his kids, the type of car he drives... the obvious stuff. The stuff he can't get wrong.
But, for things where he could get tripped up on, can't he simply say "I can't remember"?
Wow -- I can see it now: people sitting around at Starbuck's all wearing black cardboard rectangles across their eyes so the security cameras can't tell who they are while they talk about the latest music releases!
SHEESH!!!
I guess the answer is to NOT tell anyone about ANYTHING a major label does anymore, and stick to indie labels instead (better music anyhow). The majors haven't figured it out yet: vertical marketing only works for a little while. If all you sell is rap, hip-hop, and Britney Spears - without developing *new* talent and taking risks - you'll suffer the same fate as Columbia and WB: you'll either get bought or collapse.
Best 2 new groups I've heard lately were Reverend Glasseye's "Our Lady of the Broken Spine" and Snake River Conspiracy's "Sonic Jihad", both on indie labels. Haven't bought a major label album in... shit... months...
\burt
"We're sold out on chip sets," Bryant said during a conference call to discuss Intel's third-quarter financial update. "I think chip sets [will] remain tight into the fourth quarter."
I *KNOW* what happens to the demographic information.
It's amazing how many/.-ers think that these new rules are "stomping" on their rights. In point of fact, the states have been moving in this direction for years. AAMVA (the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) member states (most/all of 'em) have been slowly migrating the contents of driver licenses to standardize the information on them so *THEY* can share information.
States are reluctant to give a new D/L to someone who has a suspended license in another state. In fact, they *already* do inter-state checks when issuing licenses.
The new rules merely give a federal "stamp" to actions that the states have been moving towards.
As far as liquor stores "storing your data", this is not a problem that the federal government can solve. In actuality, it's a problem for the state legislatures to solve because they make the rules that the state liquor boards implement. Follow the liquor taxes, folks.
Finally, the problem of fake IDs is a huge one for states and goes beyond simple liquor/cigarette purchases. Think about people with suspended or invalid licenses, check-cashing IDs for stolen checks, proof of residence for voting and other purposes... the list of problems that are caused by fake IDs goes very deep indeed.
If you want more information, I'm quite willing to describe *HOW* I implemented the DLID servers, what data is stored there, and what the states do with their information. It's all on the public record: I'm giving away *NO* secrets, but I am shedding light rather than spreading FUD.
Hi folks.
Subject line is *fact*. I developed the central image server and was the lead engineer on Polaroid's implementation of the WV DMV DL/ID system.
WV uses *both* fingerprint *and* facial image recognition. Fingerprints are optional, but the facial image recognition is used on *all* applicants.
The FIR system can be *tuned* to reduce both "false negative" and "false positive" results.
The facial image is stored - it's needed to print the license and verify the user for the next issuance.
I'm willing to write an article on the subject, if there's any interest. Email me at bjanz@bit-net.com.
And, if you're interested, I can provide names who will verify that I did indeed run the WV and Indiana projects.
\burt
Slashdot Mirror
I mostly agree with you. However, as an adjunct professor at a local college, I find that students "get it" more easily and more completely when I start with the free-form conceptual and work down to the physical. For instance, I teach a simple scripting language or simple BASIC first, then a procedural language (C), then compiler theory (which incorporates assembly language). This takes them from the "what do I want to do" stage down to the "how the iron does it" stage.
In the process, the students learn that the language is less important than understanding what you want the system to do. And, they learn that all languages are *NOT* alike: they each have their strong and weak points. For instance, I wouldn't want to write a SCSI disk device driver using C++ templates and virtual classes (although the idea has merit). By the same token, I wouldn't want to write a high-level web-based stock valuation and numerical analysis program using BASIC.
What language should you learn next?
The real question is: do you have enough skill to pick up a language spec and work your way from "hello, world" to advanced techniques? Do you have the time, desire, and "drive" to learn the new language?
If you answer "yes"... you'll do fine.
I'm as worried about my security as the rest of you folks, but I also realize something from my 10 years of military service: there are people out there who don't give a sh*t about our laws, don't give a sh*t about us, still think of Europeans as "invaders" and "occupiers" (think: Crusades), and don't have anything to look forward to in their own lives. In their minds, being a martyr to a cause isn't any worse than their current circumstances, so it's easy to talk them into strapping on a bomb and taking out someone who has committed some kind of offense against their belief system.
We're complaining about a mostly impotent government trying to track conversations over telecommunication systems.
Every time we find out about something that this government is trying to do to track the baddies (like following banking transactions, checking library checkout records, looking for patterns in web requests, etc.), we publicize it as loudly as possible. We wring our hands and "tsk tsk" about some imagined violation of our privacy and then ask "how come they didn't know" when we hear about another bombing plot.
And, by "imagined violation", I mean that you haven't been smacked in the head with a club, the FBI hasn't broken into your dorm room and violently arrested you for smoking a little pot, and you haven't been chained against a wall and had your head cut off with a dull saw. No, the violation here is that someone may have heard you talking about going out for pizza, or might have heard you talking about whether you got laid last night, or whether you are gonna go out and score a little pot.
This isn't the '60s. J. Edgar Hoover isn't running the FBI as his own private cabal of spies, trying to defeat the American Communist Party or stop Martin Luther King from marching against civil injustice. This is 2007. The folks we're looking for would be happiest if they could set off a nerve gas cloud in a subway (Tokyo - Om Shin Rinkyo), or bomb a train (Spain - Basque Separatists), or bomb a subway (England - Al Qaeda).
Or, maybe, fly planes into the World Trade Center towers in New York City.
Let's get real. Although complaints may reveal problems, they don't solve problems. If, indeed, the government is impotent to stop these nuts from planning and carrying out another attack, then it's up to *us* to figure out methods to find and stop them.
So, I say again: make a suggestion that is implementable now. Something that can be done immediately, and would be effective.
\burt
What we have here is an excellent example of why Windows is just *not* trusted for "critical systems". Even Ford is showing their lack of trust in Windows by relegating it to non-critical vehicle operations, regardless of how well it is advertised to work.
I guess embedded vehicle control systems are just too important to be trusted to Windows.
So, one "boo" for using Windows *at all*, but one "thank g-d" for avoiding it where vehicle safety is concerned.
re. cell phones, tv, and "heads-up" displays: most folks get distracted by stuff at the side of the road or conversations inside the car. Now we're adding yet more distractions. Look, let's just do it right: put a PAS (pedestrian aiming system) in the heads-up display and install "Grand Theft Auto"!
\burt
...just keep repeating "I don't remember" to any question he doesn't want to answer for 4 hours? I mean, ok, so he gives his address, the names of his kids, the type of car he drives... the obvious stuff. The stuff he can't get wrong. But, for things where he could get tripped up on, can't he simply say "I can't remember"?
It may work, but the answer to every question always ends up being "42". ...ahem...
No, I have no other deep thoughts on this subject...
\burt
(groaning)
Wow -- I can see it now: people sitting around at Starbuck's all wearing black cardboard rectangles across their eyes so the security cameras can't tell who they are while they talk about the latest music releases! SHEESH!!! I guess the answer is to NOT tell anyone about ANYTHING a major label does anymore, and stick to indie labels instead (better music anyhow). The majors haven't figured it out yet: vertical marketing only works for a little while. If all you sell is rap, hip-hop, and Britney Spears - without developing *new* talent and taking risks - you'll suffer the same fate as Columbia and WB: you'll either get bought or collapse. Best 2 new groups I've heard lately were Reverend Glasseye's "Our Lady of the Broken Spine" and Snake River Conspiracy's "Sonic Jihad", both on indie labels. Haven't bought a major label album in... shit... months... \burt
"We're sold out on chip sets," Bryant said during a conference call to discuss Intel's third-quarter financial update. "I think chip sets [will] remain tight into the fourth quarter."
Er, this sure seems like a "supply worry" to me!
\burt
I *IMPLEMENTED* DLID systems for Polaroid.
/.-ers think that these new rules are "stomping" on their rights. In point of fact, the states have been moving in this direction for years. AAMVA (the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) member states (most/all of 'em) have been slowly migrating the contents of driver licenses to standardize the information on them so *THEY* can share information.
I *KNOW* how they work.
I *KNOW* what happens to the demographic information.
It's amazing how many
States are reluctant to give a new D/L to someone who has a suspended license in another state. In fact, they *already* do inter-state checks when issuing licenses.
The new rules merely give a federal "stamp" to actions that the states have been moving towards.
As far as liquor stores "storing your data", this is not a problem that the federal government can solve. In actuality, it's a problem for the state legislatures to solve because they make the rules that the state liquor boards implement. Follow the liquor taxes, folks.
Finally, the problem of fake IDs is a huge one for states and goes beyond simple liquor/cigarette purchases. Think about people with suspended or invalid licenses, check-cashing IDs for stolen checks, proof of residence for voting and other purposes... the list of problems that are caused by fake IDs goes very deep indeed.
If you want more information, I'm quite willing to describe *HOW* I implemented the DLID servers, what data is stored there, and what the states do with their information. It's all on the public record: I'm giving away *NO* secrets, but I am shedding light rather than spreading FUD.
\burt
When you understand the limits of the technology, you realize that it can't be used for "police state" purposes.
I would not have been a "whore for the state": the last thing I would have wanted was to help the state do unjust things.
Inventing the A-bomb without regard to how it could be used - that's being a whore.
Understanding how the technology can be used, and INTENTIONALLY CRIPPLING IT to prevent misuse - that's different.
And, before you ask, NO. It is *NOT* possible to "uncripple" this technology.
If you want to fully understand why, I'd be happy to explain... but you have to take your blinders off, first.
\burt
Hi folks. Subject line is *fact*. I developed the central image server and was the lead engineer on Polaroid's implementation of the WV DMV DL/ID system. WV uses *both* fingerprint *and* facial image recognition. Fingerprints are optional, but the facial image recognition is used on *all* applicants. The FIR system can be *tuned* to reduce both "false negative" and "false positive" results. The facial image is stored - it's needed to print the license and verify the user for the next issuance. I'm willing to write an article on the subject, if there's any interest. Email me at bjanz@bit-net.com. And, if you're interested, I can provide names who will verify that I did indeed run the WV and Indiana projects. \burt