Look, the news didn't say, 'Watch human massacres in Oriental Timor being slaughtered live on Webcam!' Yes, it's a dire time for Florida residents, but it's neither a morbid interest nor out of amusement that people will take a peek at this webcam.
You can be sure there will be dozens of live reports on television; so why not a webcam? If anything, it makes me care for what happens more than some phoney journalist dramatising the whole thing on national television. I hope I won't see anything on this webcam and that the house stands.
This is only technology at the service of communities, people. If anything, it makes us seem to live closer to one another. The Slashdot category chosen may be weird, but I think it's comic in a tragic sense. The poor webcam faces the uncoming storm long after the people have evacuated. Beyond that, there is nothing funny about it.
So, cool, people. The day they put a webcam in a concentration camp I'll scream. For now, I'll watch and hope things are alright.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
That's why you trivialise the importance of the interaction, by basically stopping to care about the outcome, and you stick to the plan, on condition that it's flexible enough.
I don't know, I realise a large part of it is experience, but I think there is something worthwhile in an analytical approach to social interaction. It takes time to become natural at it, just like it takes time to code on the fly for people without talent in it.
But as a whole, I've outgrown my introvert days by applying these bits of reasoning, and although I made a number of mistakes, nowadays I'm going at it more or less naturally. Do I exhibit the social grace of a well-bred upper-class jockey? No, certainly not. But I certainly stopped hesitating, avoiding eyes and walking around like I expected everyone to make fun of me.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Well, I'm not saying it can be done overnight. But in general, regardless of the social occasion (job interview, chatting up a girl I like, trying to pass as nice and cheerful when forced to go to a party), I work it out as follows:
I apply relativity to the situation; I eliminate the stress this way, by basically stopping to care about the outcome (doesn't work perfectly always, but it helps; I do it perfectly with job interviews: what if I don't get a job? It's just more Kraft Dinner and peanut butter, plus a lot of time on the computer at home!)
I analyse the situation by establishing clearly what is the goal and the hurdles on the way (e.g., I want to make a good impression to this girl, but I don't know what she likes)
I research the subject (e.g., I ask around what she likes, or watch her to determine it)
I establish a strategy, which I am willing to abandon on the fly (e.g., I'll walk to her and ask her about the latest homework, then mention her Charlie Chaplin binder)
Once it's over, I calmly review what happened, study mistakes and successful strategies, and see how I can repeat it.
Just to show you how geeky the above is, you can liken it to coding, as it is taught in school:
Step 1: Establish the goals
Step 2: Analyse the resources and potential difficulties
Still not convinced? Liken it to the scientific method:
Postulate
Hypothesis
Protocol
Experiment
Validation
Now, most hackers and most great scientists will be "naturals" at the above-mentioned methods, so they don't need to work it out analytically. Same goes with socialites. But for the rest of us, who can code but not interact with immense success socially, we can have an analytical method.
Just try it out...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Oh. I went to the main page, and then clicked on the link from there. It prompts me for registration if I want to see the article. Seems they forget to check that if you link directly to the article... Kinda like Hotmail inboxes.:)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Well, it doesn't sound that hard to do, but it sure sounds like fun. Turns your pilot into a small remote control!
Now, just develop a similar app for a Firecracker unit, and freak the girlfriend and the cats by going around the house and not only controlling a robotic Lego set, but turning the lights on and off at will.
Remote control: man's ultimate fantasy!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I did alias 'ls' to 'dir' for a friend once, because he kept typing 'dir' without thinking. Of course, that was back in college.
But there things that you need to explain to Linux newbies, whether you think that was a good example or not. Just buying a nicely-packaged distro in a computer bookstore and running the setup won't do it for people like my mom.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
You tell me... I think my number of posts has tripled ever since I started feeling rewarding for posting intelligent comments.:)
Can you imagine coupling eBay addiction with Slashdot addiction...
"Remembered by fellow Slashdot readers as the originator of Insightful, Interesting and Funny comments, this Slashdot user account has been negatively moderated only once for suggesting we get rid of Katz, and once for making an anti-Microsoft joke at an awkward time. Karma around 82 as per 13/09/1999. Perfect for trolls who are looking for an account which requires three negative moderations before having a negative score (posts start at 2.) Burn that karma, then return account for a refill.
"Payment by certified cheque. User id and password will be handled out on receipt of payment.
"First bid starts at $200."
How long before we see that?:)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
You know, the fact I'm posting in the first 10 comments on this article proves I exhibit a very similar reloading addiction here on Slashdot... I don't do nothing... I just hit reload all day...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Yes! That's an excellent suggestion. While I still think it would be possible to make a default installation of Linux that would set up a solid security for the most common configurations, it would be a good idea to create a specific distro of Linux that would be aimed at end users wanting an alternate OS.
I mean; us hackers could still fall back to Debian, slackware or whatever, while end users could setup a stripped down version of Linux which would run word processor and other stuff while logging them automatically in single-user mode. I mean, for most people that's all they need.
Linux still sees itself as a network OS, and until some extra effort is spent in making it darn easy to install and run on a single machine not connected to any LAN, it won't catch on completely. I mean, not everyone has a friendly Linux guru to set them up and give them the tour ('Well, you have to use 'ls'. Well, it's possible to use 'dir', but you need to alias it. Let me show you...' etc.)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Much as Freud's own screwed up relationship with his parents gave us the Oedipal Complex and Penis Envy, so does the modern label of 'normal' force the better and the different into hiding.
Oh, you're just rationalising and projecting!
:)
Sorry, a little joke. Note that the above proves that psychanalysis is not a science because it cannot be defeated by an argument situated outside its field. Ditto for astrology. ("You're so sceptical; that's cause you're Scorpio!")
Anyway, I agree with your comments totally. Whether geeks are viewed as abnormal by Society doesn't matter. The difference between madness and genius is drawn at the threshold of success.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
If you ask me, this is another case of modern psychology mistaking the symptoms for the cause. Lacking interest in social activities doesn't have to be a mental disorder; heck, that's the kind of thinking that leads to the conclusion that every single human being is insane, not the least of which those who act impossibly normal.
Here's a little cue: maybe people of higher calling don't exhibit perfect social skills because while other boys were learning to perfect the art of sucking up, lying and trying to get girls, some of us were reading about astronomy or programming a Texas Instrument.
I was rather antisocial and introverted when I was a kid, but I developped my social skills perfectly once I began to care about whether the girl next door wanted to go out with me or not. As a matter of fact, most geeks and nerds who end up wanting to augment their face-time end up doing it better than others, because they approach the problem with great analytical skills instead of going into it blind.
I've seen a lot of "social geeks" who end up changing their outward personality as the situation demands, and generally not restricting themselves to one single style of clothes or speech, but rather a collection of them. If you approach social relations as a system and social behaviours as the laws by which the system can be affected, then succeeding in that system is similar to understanding physical forces in a system of masses.
The others just don't care enough about it for the time being.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I find it a little pathetic that they needed to use a children character to explain something to parents. I bet most children don't even need Kermit to explain to them how things work.
I think it's to explain it to children, so that they can then explain it to their parents! In the meantime, they can hack the v-chip and get to watch all the Power Rangers they want.:)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
You've obviously created AY2K in reaction to the media hype surrounding the alleged "Y2K bug". Could you share your thoughts on the media phenomenon? What do you see in the Y2K stories circulating that inspires you to create this comic, and what impact do you think it has on the perception of geeks by others?
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
That doesn't matter. You just create the first, flawed creature with "aged" DNA (note the quotes), then have it reproduce with another clone. The next batch will be fresh as new.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
It's such a pity that something as important as the Space Program has to struggle for survival. This is very good news.
During the Space Race, no qualm was made about going to the Moon. Politicians kept underlining how important the Space Program is for Humanity: it is an expression of our innermost desires for exploration, and a trait of curiosity that marks the entire race. In truth, they just wanted to win the pissing contest with the Soviets.
Is the Space Program important? You betcha. It's an inalienable right of Mankind to pursue it. In the long run, it can have a dramatic influence on the survival of Humanity itself as a species.
But the results don't come during a single mandate, so it keeps getting cut and cut again... Fortunately, it has also forced NASA and other agencies throughout the world to innovate and become more creative. We're far from sending another billion-dollar Viking when we can send a little robot that'll do just fine.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I bet it won't be long before someone takes the reader apart, figures it out, intercepts secure communications from other users (I mean, it might be a card, but unless it's timestamped by an outside authority you can reproduce it all you want) and empty someone else's account before they have time to realise it.
They're very short on details, and if this thing doesn't use strong encryption to work, it's gonna be crackable, card or no card. Having a reader at home is like having an ATM hooked up while you're able to play with it. What makes ATM secure is that it's physically secure. Not so with a little plastic peripheral.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
In general, I find that "newbies" don't have a hard time understanding encryption. They understand intuitively the importance of it, and they will tend to recognise encryption is important. However, they fall for buzzwords, so many, for instance, considered Hotmail secure because "it prompts you for a password".
On the other end, you find people who distrust anything, so give up on encryption altogether. Their logic is, since "hackers" (their term, not mine! Lay off the stones!) can get into anything, there's no point in using convoluted methods to protect their information. That's the same kind of people who refused to use automatic tellers for years because no human being was handling the money.
What's important to put into the public's mind is some of the following points:
Encryption is the practice by which you make it impossible for anyone but the right people to read a message of any kind, be it a credit card number or an email message.
Cryptography is important for everyone, not just spies of military generals. Just because an information is not dangerous to you or someone else if it is revealed doesn't mean it's not private. Do you want love messages between you and your boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband to be read by anyone?
It's easy to apply good cryptography to almost anything, unless the nature of your data is highly secret (and we're not talking surprise party plans.) All it takes is a little extra "effort", and you can have secure messages.
No, the Government won't start spying on you because you're using encryption. Many people do it, and they're not terrorists or Russian spies.
Don't trust any company who says they use encrytion. There are two types of encryption: encryption that requires minimal effort to unravel (like tearing open an enveloppe) or encryption that requires some time and good cracking skills (like cracking a safe). If you want good encryption, look for second opinions on the Web, or from cryptography-savvy friends or colleagues.
Good encryption exists nowadays, and some encryption standards make it unlikely that your data will be exposed unless a lot of money and effort is put into it. Be wary of systems that claim they are unbreakable, but don't think your data is automatically vulnerable to any 13 year-old hacker with a modem. Yes, your data can be protected by cryptography.
Good security also means good practice. Your data will not be safe if you use simple passwords, like the name of your dog or your birthdate. Try using unpredictable passwords when you need to. If possible, use numbers and mixed case when choosing your passwords. NEVER use your name.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I don't know about you guys, but this is the second time CNN posts a story on their website shortly after it's posted on Slashdot. It could be a coincidence, as a story can be important to both CNN and Slashdot, but in this case, it's odd (but good!) that CNN has picked this one up.
I think someone at CNN reads Slashdot dilligently and polishes the stories for mainstream consumption!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Slashdot Mirror
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
You can be sure there will be dozens of live reports on television; so why not a webcam? If anything, it makes me care for what happens more than some phoney journalist dramatising the whole thing on national television. I hope I won't see anything on this webcam and that the house stands.
This is only technology at the service of communities, people. If anything, it makes us seem to live closer to one another. The Slashdot category chosen may be weird, but I think it's comic in a tragic sense. The poor webcam faces the uncoming storm long after the people have evacuated. Beyond that, there is nothing funny about it.
So, cool, people. The day they put a webcam in a concentration camp I'll scream. For now, I'll watch and hope things are alright.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I don't know, I realise a large part of it is experience, but I think there is something worthwhile in an analytical approach to social interaction. It takes time to become natural at it, just like it takes time to code on the fly for people without talent in it.
But as a whole, I've outgrown my introvert days by applying these bits of reasoning, and although I made a number of mistakes, nowadays I'm going at it more or less naturally. Do I exhibit the social grace of a well-bred upper-class jockey? No, certainly not. But I certainly stopped hesitating, avoiding eyes and walking around like I expected everyone to make fun of me.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I apply relativity to the situation; I eliminate the stress this way, by basically stopping to care about the outcome (doesn't work perfectly always, but it helps; I do it perfectly with job interviews: what if I don't get a job? It's just more Kraft Dinner and peanut butter, plus a lot of time on the computer at home!)
I analyse the situation by establishing clearly what is the goal and the hurdles on the way (e.g., I want to make a good impression to this girl, but I don't know what she likes)
I research the subject (e.g., I ask around what she likes, or watch her to determine it)
I establish a strategy, which I am willing to abandon on the fly (e.g., I'll walk to her and ask her about the latest homework, then mention her Charlie Chaplin binder)
Once it's over, I calmly review what happened, study mistakes and successful strategies, and see how I can repeat it.
Just to show you how geeky the above is, you can liken it to coding, as it is taught in school:
Step 1: Establish the goals
Step 2: Analyse the resources and potential difficulties
Step 3: Research the missing tools
Step 4: Establish strategy (i.e. Crow's Foot diagram, etc.)
Step 5: Analyse results
Still not convinced? Liken it to the scientific method:
Postulate
Hypothesis
Protocol
Experiment
Validation
Now, most hackers and most great scientists will be "naturals" at the above-mentioned methods, so they don't need to work it out analytically. Same goes with socialites. But for the rest of us, who can code but not interact with immense success socially, we can have an analytical method.
Just try it out...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Now, just develop a similar app for a Firecracker unit, and freak the girlfriend and the cats by going around the house and not only controlling a robotic Lego set, but turning the lights on and off at will.
Remote control: man's ultimate fantasy!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
But there things that you need to explain to Linux newbies, whether you think that was a good example or not. Just buying a nicely-packaged distro in a computer bookstore and running the setup won't do it for people like my mom.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Can you imagine coupling eBay addiction with Slashdot addiction...
How long before we see that? :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Btw, Worth uses an annoying registration and nagging windows. That's very annoying.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I mean; us hackers could still fall back to Debian, slackware or whatever, while end users could setup a stripped down version of Linux which would run word processor and other stuff while logging them automatically in single-user mode. I mean, for most people that's all they need.
Linux still sees itself as a network OS, and until some extra effort is spent in making it darn easy to install and run on a single machine not connected to any LAN, it won't catch on completely. I mean, not everyone has a friendly Linux guru to set them up and give them the tour ('Well, you have to use 'ls'. Well, it's possible to use 'dir', but you need to alias it. Let me show you...' etc.)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Oh, you're just rationalising and projecting!
Sorry, a little joke. Note that the above proves that psychanalysis is not a science because it cannot be defeated by an argument situated outside its field. Ditto for astrology. ("You're so sceptical; that's cause you're Scorpio!")
Anyway, I agree with your comments totally. Whether geeks are viewed as abnormal by Society doesn't matter. The difference between madness and genius is drawn at the threshold of success.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Alright, I agree. Shipping bugged software over and over again qualifies as destructive repetitive physical movement. :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Alright, I agree. Shipping bugged software over and over again qualifies as repetitive physical movement. :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
And you think this is a symptom of a socially apt individual? :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Here's a little cue: maybe people of higher calling don't exhibit perfect social skills because while other boys were learning to perfect the art of sucking up, lying and trying to get girls, some of us were reading about astronomy or programming a Texas Instrument.
I was rather antisocial and introverted when I was a kid, but I developped my social skills perfectly once I began to care about whether the girl next door wanted to go out with me or not. As a matter of fact, most geeks and nerds who end up wanting to augment their face-time end up doing it better than others, because they approach the problem with great analytical skills instead of going into it blind.
I've seen a lot of "social geeks" who end up changing their outward personality as the situation demands, and generally not restricting themselves to one single style of clothes or speech, but rather a collection of them. If you approach social relations as a system and social behaviours as the laws by which the system can be affected, then succeeding in that system is similar to understanding physical forces in a system of masses.
The others just don't care enough about it for the time being.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I think it's to explain it to children, so that they can then explain it to their parents! In the meantime, they can hack the v-chip and get to watch all the Power Rangers they want. :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
You've obviously created AY2K in reaction to the media hype surrounding the alleged "Y2K bug". Could you share your thoughts on the media phenomenon? What do you see in the Y2K stories circulating that inspires you to create this comic, and what impact do you think it has on the perception of geeks by others?
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
During the Space Race, no qualm was made about going to the Moon. Politicians kept underlining how important the Space Program is for Humanity: it is an expression of our innermost desires for exploration, and a trait of curiosity that marks the entire race. In truth, they just wanted to win the pissing contest with the Soviets.
Is the Space Program important? You betcha. It's an inalienable right of Mankind to pursue it. In the long run, it can have a dramatic influence on the survival of Humanity itself as a species.
But the results don't come during a single mandate, so it keeps getting cut and cut again... Fortunately, it has also forced NASA and other agencies throughout the world to innovate and become more creative. We're far from sending another billion-dollar Viking when we can send a little robot that'll do just fine.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
No, but seriously!
I bet it won't be long before someone takes the reader apart, figures it out, intercepts secure communications from other users (I mean, it might be a card, but unless it's timestamped by an outside authority you can reproduce it all you want) and empty someone else's account before they have time to realise it.
They're very short on details, and if this thing doesn't use strong encryption to work, it's gonna be crackable, card or no card. Having a reader at home is like having an ATM hooked up while you're able to play with it. What makes ATM secure is that it's physically secure. Not so with a little plastic peripheral.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
On the other end, you find people who distrust anything, so give up on encryption altogether. Their logic is, since "hackers" (their term, not mine! Lay off the stones!) can get into anything, there's no point in using convoluted methods to protect their information. That's the same kind of people who refused to use automatic tellers for years because no human being was handling the money.
What's important to put into the public's mind is some of the following points:
Encryption is the practice by which you make it impossible for anyone but the right people to read a message of any kind, be it a credit card number or an email message.
Cryptography is important for everyone, not just spies of military generals. Just because an information is not dangerous to you or someone else if it is revealed doesn't mean it's not private. Do you want love messages between you and your boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband to be read by anyone?
It's easy to apply good cryptography to almost anything, unless the nature of your data is highly secret (and we're not talking surprise party plans.) All it takes is a little extra "effort", and you can have secure messages.
No, the Government won't start spying on you because you're using encryption. Many people do it, and they're not terrorists or Russian spies.
Don't trust any company who says they use encrytion. There are two types of encryption: encryption that requires minimal effort to unravel (like tearing open an enveloppe) or encryption that requires some time and good cracking skills (like cracking a safe). If you want good encryption, look for second opinions on the Web, or from cryptography-savvy friends or colleagues.
Good encryption exists nowadays, and some encryption standards make it unlikely that your data will be exposed unless a lot of money and effort is put into it. Be wary of systems that claim they are unbreakable, but don't think your data is automatically vulnerable to any 13 year-old hacker with a modem. Yes, your data can be protected by cryptography.
Good security also means good practice. Your data will not be safe if you use simple passwords, like the name of your dog or your birthdate. Try using unpredictable passwords when you need to. If possible, use numbers and mixed case when choosing your passwords. NEVER use your name.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I think someone at CNN reads Slashdot dilligently and polishes the stories for mainstream consumption!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."