but where else are there developers 'of color' and what are they working on?
Why does it matter? I thought we were supposed to be racially unbiased and "color blind" these days. We're also supposed to be gender unbiased. Why do you care if the person who develops your FOSS is white, black, Chinese, Mexican, Portugese, Canadian, whatever? As long as it works...
I know ethics are subjective, but how is what this guy did wrong? All he did was automate. So, automation is ethically wrong? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. Maybe the rules allowing people to mug others is wrong (it's a matter of opinion); but I don't see automation as unethical. Even if the rule allowing mugging are unethical, I don't see exploiting those rules as being unethical: it's a dog eat dog (virtual) world.
It's bad, but the US election system really is designed for people to chose between only 2 candidates. A third party has never won, so I think it's a good idea to keep third parties out of the debates. It would have a negative impact on the election, because a vote for a 3rd party is truly a wasted vote in the US, so voting for a 3rd party when you otherwise would have voted for a major party fundamentally alters the results. It's horrible that it's true, but it is.
What we really need is to completely overhaul the voting system and the electoral college. Until we move from regular majority voting, there is no realistic alternative to the two parties.
For more about why majority voting (and many voting systems) are fundamentally flawed, research Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Approval voting is probably the simplest method to avoid Arrow's Paradox.
If you plan on being technical at all in your job, get a Masters, but not a PhD. I have a Masters in Computer Science, and I get plenty of respect. However, anybody with a PhD gets treated like they can't handle the simplest of technical tasks, and for the most part, it's true. They sit around and write documents that are of no use to technical people and spout off ideas that never work in practice. The PhDs that can handle technical stuff try to keep people from finding out that they're doctors. (Yes, this is a generality, but stereotypes are born out of reality)
Plus, a Masters will get you more pay, while a PhD might keep you from getting a job, because companies feel that they can't afford to hire you.
However, do decide now. If you don't get the Masters right after your Bachelors, it's not really worth your time. If you wait, you'll be forced to just go to some local college or university rather than choosing one that's really suited to you. You'll get a poorer education and it'll be more difficult to balance work and school.
The only reason I'm still trying to keep my old Panasonic Showstopper ReplavTV alive is that MythTV and FreeVo don't yet have the capability to control an external digital cable or DirecTV box. I think there was some project that had rudimentary channel-changing capabilities for DirecTV via serial interface, but I think it was still pretty alpha. As soon as these projects can do that, I'm building a homebrew so I can cancel my land line phone...
I don't know about a Ph.D., but I have a Masters degree in computer science from a university with a good reputation for that field, and I had some degree of difficulty finding a job. I had at least one company outright say to my face "Masters students cost too much to hire. We won't interview you." Aside from that, I had more trouble finding interviews than in the past (although, that can also be attributed to the economy). And, out of 4 job offers, only 1 gave me any sort of offer that was more than somebody with a Bachelors would have...
I use Trillian and/or gAIM, so I have access to both my ICQ and AIM friends. However, I sorely miss the days where ICQ was the standard. To me, it's just a better application.
First of all, let me remind people that these are instant messaging programs. However, they've turned into chat programs. I don't want to chat with somebody, so don't keep a resident chat window up. I want to send an instant message. One. Then I want to get an instant message. Not a chat. What ever happened to that paradigm?
Also, ICQ gives you many more status options. True, they're not all necessary. However, you have the option of letting certain people bug you when you have a certain status. So, if you wanted to set yourself as "Occupied", you're pretty much telling people you're around, but don't want to be bothered. Plus, you can allow certain important people to still contact you anyway. And, of course, there's my personal favorite: invisible mode. It's very handy for when you want to jump on to look for a specific person you need to get in touch with, but don't want to be bothered with talking to anybody else.
Oh, another thing... Screen names. It's nice to be able to pick whatever screen name you want, without it needing to be unique. It's sorta like the real world that way. Chances are slim that you'll personally know somebody with the same screen name as you, so why do they need to be completely unique? Again, ICQ has the UIN to solve this problem.
I hope I'm not the only one that feels this way. The only argument I've ever heard for not using ICQ instead of AIM is "nobody uses it." That sounds like a bad reason to me. I hope that they add these features to AIM instead of removing them from ICQ. I'd like to see the two become one. Or maybe I'd just like to see all AIM accounts get converted to ICQ accounts...
1) Apparently this guy hasn't been using windows. I'm sure he has to some extent, but I believe he uses Mac OS X in his office.
2) He hasn't read the book "Mythical Man Month". Yes, he has. It was assigned reading for one of the courses he taught.
Recall, this is a predicition, a guess. Wierder predictions have come true.
The reason most people use Windows is because they don't realize they have a choice. For the average consumer who can't handle Linux/BSD/etc. and uses PCs at work and therefore is more comfortable with Windows than MacOS, there realistically isn't a choice. That's why appliance PCs will take off (IMO), if they're designed right. Because of the age old KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) formula. If you make it easy enough for everybody to use, they will. That is, as long as they are willing to pay the price for the functionality. That's why appliance PCs have failed so far...
Online docs are supremely helpful. One of the biggest reasons: they're accessible. If I'm anywhere where I can write code, etc., chances are that I can also access the internet and get to online docs. With dead trees, you need to know what you might encounter ahead of time. This is feasable sometimes, but often the toughest problems are the ones unforeseen.
Another advantage of online docs is the ability to be updated easily because of typos, version changes in software, clarification issues, etc. However, unless the error is patently wrong (i.e. a word misspelling), I'd recommend keeping version snapshots of the documentation.
Unfortunately, I find that a lot of dead trees have better content than online docs. But there are some exceptions: Java API, C++ STL docs, some HOWTOs...
Oh, I see... So now McAfee and Symantec have developed technology that can tell the difference between when my computer is being hax0red by the Feds and when my computer is being hax0red by a script kiddy. Awesome!
"Plans for EyeVision include erasing players from the video who aren't critical to
the play and putting a transparent plane on the goal line to show distinctly whether
the ball penetrated the plane and crossed the goal line."
Nice how they just gloss over this detail at the very end. In mere seconds, they can remove a person from the video. This has much more serious implications, if you think about it. What else can they do to a live or seconds-delayed video feed that we won't know about?
I guess the only way to really be sure you're seeing what actually happened is to be there. That, IMNSHO, is really the most amazing part of that article
As technology continues to develop, and the Internet becomes more and more involved in our daily lives, do you feel that a better course of action is to leave technology to develop and evolve on its own, or to restrict it further with legislation? And if we do pass more legislation, should it favor consumers or corporations?
A specific example of these two approaches could be the reaction to the high-profile DeCSS issue with DVDs. Should it be left alone, and force the DVD creators to come up with a better solution that is not so easy to circumvent? (leave it to evolve on its own) Do we pass laws saying that DeCSS is illegal? (legislation favoring corporations, and the current state) or do we pass laws saying that DeCSS is OK? (legislation favoring consumers)
If you'll notice, that article is from almost a year ago, and I was looking to see if there had been any news in the previous six months. I was aware of that document when I posed my question. However, with the speed of change in technology, I didn't feel that was a sufficient answer to my question.
One of the biggest "additions" to IPv6 that supposedly makes it more secure if IPSec. Everybody touts this as being the big solution. However, if you take a look at IPSec, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with IPv6. It was designed for, and works with, both IPv4 as well as IPv6. If you're interested, check out the RFC here. In section 2, it supports what I just claimed.
If you are interested in hearing more of my rants on IPv6, check out my article over at Hellyeah.com. Also, while you're there, check out a reply to my article that, in my opinion, does point out some of the good parts of IPv6, but doesn't directly address my points.
Follow the link to the Usenet archive and look under net.jokes. One with the subject "Another class of jokes" tells a joke involving a person's race. A few posts later, so mebody complains about the first joke's content. In the several posts that follow, people share their opinions on what should be allowed, until this post where somebody speaks out against censorship. If you follow the posts with the subject relating to "ethnic jokes" you we see an interesting story unfold.
Many of you have mentioned that encrypting our e-mail would be a simple solution to this problem. However, when dealing with a big government, that does not give me any more feeling of security. I know that the US government has encryption algorithms that are much stronger than the standard ones available to us (i.e. standard 1024-bit public key encryption). They have the computing power to run these algorithms and break easier ones. They have contracts with supercomputer manufacturers so that only the government is allowed to buy supercomputers.
Now, I realize that all these facts are about the US government. However, if all this is true about the US government, how far behind could the UK government be? And we also must consider the possibility that the US would help the UK. It wouldn't be terribly surprising.
Now, knowing this, how many of you still feel that just encryption is a solution that would let you rest easy?
I started reading the report, and it immediately opened up with a recollection of the Columbine High School shooting. While at first this study seemed interesting, I prefer to read unbiased scientific studies. If you go into a study and have already decided in your mind what the results will be, you will find a way to prove that it does turn out that way. Now, I am not going to completely deny that this correlation exists, but as so many before me have said, the study was not properly conducted, and a correlation does not necessarily imply a cause and effect.
Whatever happened to the first amendment? I think that the use of the word "nigger" is offensive, crude, ignorant, etc., the list goes on. However, just because I find something offensive doesn't mean I -- or anyone -- has the right to inhibit their ability to express their beliefs. Yes, I think it's terrible that somebody would want to register a domain for a hate group. But they have every right to. If we allow them to be censored, whether by the government, the NAACP, your neighbor, whomever, then we begin giving our own freedoms away.
I will leave you with this quote: In Germany, they came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists but I didn't speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time nobody was left to speak up. --Niemoeller, Martin
Slashdot Mirror
Why does it matter? I thought we were supposed to be racially unbiased and "color blind" these days. We're also supposed to be gender unbiased. Why do you care if the person who develops your FOSS is white, black, Chinese, Mexican, Portugese, Canadian, whatever? As long as it works...
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
The problem is that it is unethical to use bots when you've agreed not to.
Fair enough.
(Admittedly, I did not RTFA.)
I know ethics are subjective, but how is what this guy did wrong? All he did was automate. So, automation is ethically wrong? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. Maybe the rules allowing people to mug others is wrong (it's a matter of opinion); but I don't see automation as unethical. Even if the rule allowing mugging are unethical, I don't see exploiting those rules as being unethical: it's a dog eat dog (virtual) world.
Take a look at pf, native to OpenBSD, but recently also ported to FreeBSD. (I use it on FreeBSD and it works like a charm.)
It's a great firewall and has traffic shaping options, too. Fairly thorough documentation, as well.
It's bad, but the US election system really is designed for people to chose between only 2 candidates. A third party has never won, so I think it's a good idea to keep third parties out of the debates. It would have a negative impact on the election, because a vote for a 3rd party is truly a wasted vote in the US, so voting for a 3rd party when you otherwise would have voted for a major party fundamentally alters the results. It's horrible that it's true, but it is.
What we really need is to completely overhaul the voting system and the electoral college. Until we move from regular majority voting, there is no realistic alternative to the two parties.
For more about why majority voting (and many voting systems) are fundamentally flawed, research Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Approval voting is probably the simplest method to avoid Arrow's Paradox.
If you plan on being technical at all in your job, get a Masters, but not a PhD. I have a Masters in Computer Science, and I get plenty of respect. However, anybody with a PhD gets treated like they can't handle the simplest of technical tasks, and for the most part, it's true. They sit around and write documents that are of no use to technical people and spout off ideas that never work in practice. The PhDs that can handle technical stuff try to keep people from finding out that they're doctors. (Yes, this is a generality, but stereotypes are born out of reality)
Plus, a Masters will get you more pay, while a PhD might keep you from getting a job, because companies feel that they can't afford to hire you.
However, do decide now. If you don't get the Masters right after your Bachelors, it's not really worth your time. If you wait, you'll be forced to just go to some local college or university rather than choosing one that's really suited to you. You'll get a poorer education and it'll be more difficult to balance work and school.
The only reason I'm still trying to keep my old Panasonic Showstopper ReplavTV alive is that MythTV and FreeVo don't yet have the capability to control an external digital cable or DirecTV box. I think there was some project that had rudimentary channel-changing capabilities for DirecTV via serial interface, but I think it was still pretty alpha. As soon as these projects can do that, I'm building a homebrew so I can cancel my land line phone...
I don't know about a Ph.D., but I have a Masters degree in computer science from a university with a good reputation for that field, and I had some degree of difficulty finding a job. I had at least one company outright say to my face "Masters students cost too much to hire. We won't interview you." Aside from that, I had more trouble finding interviews than in the past (although, that can also be attributed to the economy). And, out of 4 job offers, only 1 gave me any sort of offer that was more than somebody with a Bachelors would have...
First of all, let me remind people that these are instant messaging programs. However, they've turned into chat programs. I don't want to chat with somebody, so don't keep a resident chat window up. I want to send an instant message. One. Then I want to get an instant message. Not a chat. What ever happened to that paradigm?
Also, ICQ gives you many more status options. True, they're not all necessary. However, you have the option of letting certain people bug you when you have a certain status. So, if you wanted to set yourself as "Occupied", you're pretty much telling people you're around, but don't want to be bothered. Plus, you can allow certain important people to still contact you anyway. And, of course, there's my personal favorite: invisible mode. It's very handy for when you want to jump on to look for a specific person you need to get in touch with, but don't want to be bothered with talking to anybody else.
Oh, another thing... Screen names. It's nice to be able to pick whatever screen name you want, without it needing to be unique. It's sorta like the real world that way. Chances are slim that you'll personally know somebody with the same screen name as you, so why do they need to be completely unique? Again, ICQ has the UIN to solve this problem.
I hope I'm not the only one that feels this way. The only argument I've ever heard for not using ICQ instead of AIM is "nobody uses it." That sounds like a bad reason to me. I hope that they add these features to AIM instead of removing them from ICQ. I'd like to see the two become one. Or maybe I'd just like to see all AIM accounts get converted to ICQ accounts...
In response to your accusations...
1) Apparently this guy hasn't been using windows.
I'm sure he has to some extent, but I believe he uses Mac OS X in his office.
2) He hasn't read the book "Mythical Man Month".
Yes, he has. It was assigned reading for one of the courses he taught.
Recall, this is a predicition, a guess. Wierder predictions have come true.
The reason most people use Windows is because they don't realize they have a choice. For the average consumer who can't handle Linux/BSD/etc. and uses PCs at work and therefore is more comfortable with Windows than MacOS, there realistically isn't a choice. That's why appliance PCs will take off (IMO), if they're designed right. Because of the age old KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) formula. If you make it easy enough for everybody to use, they will. That is, as long as they are willing to pay the price for the functionality. That's why appliance PCs have failed so far...
Online docs are supremely helpful. One of the biggest reasons: they're accessible. If I'm anywhere where I can write code, etc., chances are that I can also access the internet and get to online docs. With dead trees, you need to know what you might encounter ahead of time. This is feasable sometimes, but often the toughest problems are the ones unforeseen.
Another advantage of online docs is the ability to be updated easily because of typos, version changes in software, clarification issues, etc. However, unless the error is patently wrong (i.e. a word misspelling), I'd recommend keeping version snapshots of the documentation.
Unfortunately, I find that a lot of dead trees have better content than online docs. But there are some exceptions: Java API, C++ STL docs, some HOWTOs...
Oh, I see... So now McAfee and Symantec have developed technology that can tell the difference between when my computer is being hax0red by the Feds and when my computer is being hax0red by a script kiddy. Awesome!
I can't believe you would leave Dr. Eugene Spafford, (a.k.a. "Spaf") off your list of distinguished CS stalwarts that contributed to this brief...
Nice how they just gloss over this detail at the very end. In mere seconds, they can remove a person from the video. This has much more serious implications, if you think about it. What else can they do to a live or seconds-delayed video feed that we won't know about?
I guess the only way to really be sure you're seeing what actually happened is to be there. That, IMNSHO, is really the most amazing part of that article
A specific example of these two approaches could be the reaction to the high-profile DeCSS issue with DVDs. Should it be left alone, and force the DVD creators to come up with a better solution that is not so easy to circumvent? (leave it to evolve on its own) Do we pass laws saying that DeCSS is illegal? (legislation favoring corporations, and the current state) or do we pass laws saying that DeCSS is OK? (legislation favoring consumers)
One of the biggest "additions" to IPv6 that supposedly makes it more secure if IPSec. Everybody touts this as being the big solution. However, if you take a look at IPSec, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with IPv6. It was designed for, and works with, both IPv4 as well as IPv6. If you're interested, check out the RFC here. In section 2, it supports what I just claimed.
If you are interested in hearing more of my rants on IPv6, check out my article over at Hellyeah.com. Also, while you're there, check out a reply to my article that, in my opinion, does point out some of the good parts of IPv6, but doesn't directly address my points.
Remember the roots of our fight for free speech.
Many of you have mentioned that encrypting our e-mail would be a simple solution to this problem. However, when dealing with a big government, that does not give me any more feeling of security. I know that the US government has encryption algorithms that are much stronger than the standard ones available to us (i.e. standard 1024-bit public key encryption). They have the computing power to run these algorithms and break easier ones. They have contracts with supercomputer manufacturers so that only the government is allowed to buy supercomputers.
Now, I realize that all these facts are about the US government. However, if all this is true about the US government, how far behind could the UK government be? And we also must consider the possibility that the US would help the UK. It wouldn't be terribly surprising.
Now, knowing this, how many of you still feel that just encryption is a solution that would let you rest easy?
I started reading the report, and it immediately opened up with a recollection of the Columbine High School shooting. While at first this study seemed interesting, I prefer to read unbiased scientific studies. If you go into a study and have already decided in your mind what the results will be, you will find a way to prove that it does turn out that way. Now, I am not going to completely deny that this correlation exists, but as so many before me have said, the study was not properly conducted, and a correlation does not necessarily imply a cause and effect.
Whatever happened to the first amendment? I think that the use of the word "nigger" is offensive, crude, ignorant, etc., the list goes on. However, just because I find something offensive doesn't mean I -- or anyone -- has the right to inhibit their ability to express their beliefs. Yes, I think it's terrible that somebody would want to register a domain for a hate group. But they have every right to. If we allow them to be censored, whether by the government, the NAACP, your neighbor, whomever, then we begin giving our own freedoms away.
I will leave you with this quote:
In Germany, they came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists but I didn't speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time nobody was left to speak up. --Niemoeller, Martin