> Quantum Mechanics is unwieldy. But it's an outgrowth of observations. > And there's about a thousand experiments that back it.
True, true, and a thousand is probably a very low number. I would expect the number to be at least in the tens of thousands.
> Quantum is messy because the universe is.
Now that's a conclusion that may or may not be true. Quantum might be messy simply because we haven't come up with a cleaner alternative. But the fact that it is messy, while aesthetically unsatisfying, doesn't invalidate it. It can be messy and still by right. A lot of people have a "gut feeling" that there is a cleaner model waiting in the wings. But that gut feeling carries no weight.
> Newtonian Physics isn't flat out wrong. Neither is Einstein's or traditional > EM. They are right, to a point. Einstein doesn't change Newton's laws. They > enhance them. Newton's laws hold most of the time, so does EM. But their are > cases where things change.
Exactly. This might be an edge case, leading to new knowledge.
> We believe that QM is a good descriptive theory. But it lacks explanation.
Excellent point. QM was developed more by observation than from a conceptual model. That's probably one reason it's messier.
> QM maybe be incomplete, but it's not wrong.
Well, not wrong, but maybe, someday, replaceable with a cleaner model.
> I find that no one really _needs_ private offices, unless they participate in > confidential conversations. HR, for example. But really, couldn't offices or > boardrooms be booked for those type of activities?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on the organization. In many cases network admin staff need to discuss something confidential dozens of times a day. In some organizations, it can take 1+ days to book a conference room.
I have also been in office environments where the conferences rooms are a 15 minute walk away from work areas, adding a half hour to each meeting. Fine for a rare confidential meeting, prohibitive for frequent, small and short conversations. I some cases, you can circumvent this by borrowing a private office, but I have also worked in environments where people who had the offices were -very- touchy about others using them.
Your examples of how you increased security are excellent. I think a lot of the issue is, and someone noted, that this change requires a change to work habits and possibly to management expectations (additional locking cabinets, using cubicles/layouts that permit security, etc).
How the hell did they get this interpretation of the press release? Am I missing something? The intro uses rather heavily charged language that doesn't seem to be supported by the article or the release.
As far as I can tell, the release reaffirms 4 key points the US has stated before:
1-immediate changes to the status quo are premature; the article even notes that this is likely the best option for the short term. 2-individual nations have a right to manage their own domains; stability is a concern for determining the best way to do this. 3-ICANN is still in charge, and ICANN still operates under the same mandate as when it was set up. 4-the US is willing to talk about these issues and others in various venues, including but not limited to the UN. The only reservations the US notes is that it ain't broke, let's not break it.
Hardly seems like a declaration of cyberwar to me; the implication that this indicates that the Internet is a US only playground is overbroad to the point of sillyness. Discussions are open. The US is only stating that immediate, precipitate change is not going to get US cooperation, and that since US cooperation is necessary for immediate change, it's time to slow down and talk things over.
At least that's how I read it.
------------- The Release Text:
Domain Names: U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System
The United States Government intends to preserve the security and stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS). Given the Internet's importance to the world's economy, it is essential that the underlying DNS of the Internet remain stable and secure. As such, the United States is committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.
Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD). The United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD. As such, the United States is committed to working with the international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet's DNS.
ICANN is the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS. The United States continues to support the ongoing work of ICANN as the technical manager of the DNS and related technical operations and recognizes the progress it has made to date. The United States will continue to provide oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus and meets its core technical mission.
Dialogue related to Internet governance should continue in relevant multiple fora. Given the breadth of topics potentially encompassed under the rubric of Internet governance there is no one venue to appropriately address the subject in its entirety. While the United States recognizes that the current Internet system is working, we encourage an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders around the world in the various fora as a way to facilitate discussion and to advance our shared interest in the ongoing robustness and dynamism of the Internet. In these fora, the United States will continue to support market-based approaches and private sector leadership in Internet development broadly.
> "Never risk a sale today for a sale tomorrow." A salesman will always make > a sale today...Instead of being a salesman, they are acting as a broker which > is riding the supply as a commidity market. As a broker they have different > goals than a salesman mostly which servicing the consumer is secondary to > making sure you maximize your distribution pool.
You make a good point. I've done both; straight sales and manipulating the local market. In my case, it was to try to regulate uncontrolled oversupply and undersupply of merchandise (requiring all of my limited freezer space) from our brilliant corporate fuhrers.
Selling a commodity item is different from selling an item where a significant portion of the "value" is bogus or transient.
In this case, MS wants to try to create a fairly high degree of "bogus value" based on intangibles. I'm not saying it's a good idea; I am saying their perception that the XBox lacks the intrinsic value to drive the kind of buzz they are looking for (without this kind of thing) may be an accurate assessment.
> Make a sale today you have cash they can use now to reinvest. What would > they possibly reinvest in you ask? Something wacky like increase production? > If you bank on a sale tomorrow you might have twice as much cash...or they > might go off and buy something else.
> Writing a complete VB clone isn't as simple as writing an IDE.
No; but the VB IDE is so unusual that replicating it would probably bring a lot of VB programmers to Linux.
> VB 6 worked because of the underlying Windows infrastructure -- ADO, Access, > COM, and all those other acronyms that could be glued together with VB to > make an application.
Well, VB 4, 5, and 6 heavily leveraged COM. The Access Jet Engine (DAO), and ADO were simply two very useful COM libraries. But any COM library functioned the same in the VB IDE. You can very definitely replicate this on Unix, using Corba.
> VB provides a great environment for hacking together in-house and vertical > market applications. It's good for rapid prototyping, too.
Very true. It's a useful "what-if?" playground, which is one of the things that made spreadsheets one of the first commercially successful types of application programs.
> The Unix world has some very strong biases that make cloning VB difficult, > not the least of which is a general prejudice that all VB code sucks.
It doesn't, but you're tight about the perception.
> I've worked in shops with VB programmers (I'm a C++ guy), and saw some > darned ugly code; the anti-VB prejudice has some basis in fact.
Not as much as some people think. The worst abusers of VB that I have seen are the C++ guys who think they can just "knock out some code in this little toy language." I -am- a C++ guy, I just learned to enough to know you can't just knock out VB code and expect to have decent results. VB programmers have always fallen into the pros, the bulls**ters, and the permanent novices, just like C, Java, etc., etc.
It -is- a little harder to tell them apart in the VB world, until you see them code.
> Be that as it may, VB is a powerful force that locks many developers into > Windows. If any of this code is to move to Linux, we would need to > replicate the entire foundation of acronyms used in VB programs -- a > daunting task that most Unix-oriented folk will find unpalatable.
Maybe, yes, maybe no. In VB 5 and 6, VB has leveraged the same second-pass compiler as VC++. VB generates a form of intermediate code that is kind of C++ like. It's quite possible to leverage the knowledge some of the VB crowd has on this to build a form of intermediate code generator, then pass it through gcc.
For fun, here's a link. Requires registration, or try BugMeNot
> A while back, I was tried to sell the idea of a FOSS Access and VB to > several major Linux "players", without success. Perhaps my pitch just > wasn't that good, or maybe, just maybe, Unix people really are letting > their prejudices get in the way of a Really Good Idea.
Hard to say. There are legitimate arguments against, but it's not easy to be sure whether the legitimate arguments were the persuasive ones or not.
>> To gain momentum Linux needs a central installation architecture >> that all applications must use to properly install and run. The OS >> should ensure that applications are installed before they can be >> executed.
> Perhaps there's some truth to this. If Linux is to gain more > widespread adoption, then maybe that would help. If so, then I > personally hope Linux remains a niche OS. What he doesn't seem to > grasp is that some of us would rather remain true to the Unix ideals > and philosophy than to chase mass market popularity. I want to just > be able to extract an archive and run a binary contained within. I > don't want to have to inform the OS that I've done so, and have to > "install" the software. I want to be able to compile an app and run > it from my home directory. Why should I have to register it with the > OS in order to do so?
I think that Greg Raiz may have just overstated a truth somewhat, and confused things. From the article:
>> you need to reduce confusion and risk.
I think we can all agree that reducing confusion and risk are very good things. The issue seems to come in in terms of "HOW do we reduce confusion and risk?" For some people, the answer is, just autorun when I put in a CD. For others, it's document the damn thing and use standard techniques so I can do it manually. Same goal, different direction.
>> This means users can't be expected to untar, unzip and burn ISO images,
Fair enough. This doesn't mean that Linux can't support those who want to untar, unzip, and burn ISO images; just that any distro shooting for mainstream has to offer a simple alternative. And for the techies, a README file with manual instructions; best of both worlds so far.
>> they also can't be expected to properly partition their hard drive.
Same as above. Offer simple installation tools to do this, and let the techies do it manually.
>> Users don't want to manually import their favorites and browser settings >> and email configuration.
Ditto above. The main thing is that, if you come up with a tool to automate this, let the user choose to not run it if he desires (a simple command-line-switch or config file setting like --noautoimport takes care of that).
>> To get people to switch you need to get them to try. To do this you need >> to get Linux to be 100% RISK FREE. If you don't like it you need to be >> able to easily uninstall and your computer will be exactly the same as >> before you started.
Very true. A lot of techies use something like RCS to back up config files and whatnot. Automating this kind of thing in an installer would help a lot.
> What he doesn't seem to grasp is that some of us would rather remain true > to the Unix ideals and philosophy than to chase mass market popularity. > I want to just be able to extract an archive and run a binary contained > within.
A key point. For adoption of a "new Windows killer OS", solely to lure windows users looking to switch, -and no one else-, you might argue that just having simple installers is a good idea. Because we are talking about an OS that is designed to appeal also to people who don't like Windows, we need to support both methods. I think the author understands this, although he didn't say it.
I think the main thing he meant with an "installation architecture" is that we need to have consistent methods for installing. MS introduced this in Windows Installer, the APIs that installation programs can use. Linux lacks this kind of uniformity, and an API would always appeal to a limited subset of developers.
For Linux installation and configuration scripts and programs, every developer reinvents the wheel for himself. I've fought with many a nifty little application whose build scripts contain tons of hard-coded references to non-standard file locations. It's just not worth futzing with sometimes.
Perhaps a standard set of routines to identify file locations and update config files would help. Something with code to handle all major distros. Someone is probably working on that very thing, of course.
> That's what I would like to ask Slashdot folks. What could be realistically > done with customer information without a SSN?
Well, you've set up an arbitrary experiment there. It's a school experiment, a teaching tool. Good for learning, but not reflective of real-world constraints.
The question implies some constraints. Restated as a classroom question, it reads:
-----
John Doe's mother's maiden name is Mary Roe. His address is 1313 Mockinbird Lane, Anytown, IA. He works at Nationwide Insurance, and he has a checking account at Bank of America. Without using a social security number, perform the following tasks: A-Withdraw $N from John Doe's checking account. Etc.
----
The real world equivalent problem is: John Doe's mother's maiden name is Mary Roe. His address is 1313 Mockinbird Lane, Anytown, IA. He works at Nationwide Insurance, and he has a checking account at Bank of America. Perform the following tasks: A-Acquire additional personal information about John Doe, including his SSN B-Using this data, including the SSN, withdraw $N from John Doe's checking account. Etc.
----
The school question is a useful learning tool, work exploring; but if the student can't normally perform the tasks without an SSN, you can't feel confident or safe. The real world problem just adds one more task at the beginning; "Get SSN," which is often trivial when you have the other data.
Some examples of trivial SSN exposure, the black market in personal data, and some just interesting:
> Account numbers, address, maybe a phone or payment amount. Is that really > dangerous to the customer if only those get compromised?
"Is it really dangerous to your business network if -only- your firewall fails."
No; but how can you assume that you -know- when other security measures are compromised? Sometimes all it takes is a quick trip to the victim's mailbox.
>...its not as simple as you say that just because you search > for something you'll see commercials for it.
Didn't claim it was.
> Google has worked very hard on figuring out the difference > between a genuine interest in a subject and a trivial inquiry > about a subject.
Don't doubt they have.
> The internet is not responsible for anyone losing a job.
Didn't claim it was.
>...I know it was just an observation but its an observation > that could have no other intent.
I'm sorry, but it appears you saw a -lot- in that post I didn't write.
I was responding to a knee-jerk reaction that says, "targeted advertising is good because it is targeted." We've seen a lot of posts suggesting or stating that over the last few months.
The benefit of targeted advertising is perhaps 20% in better targeting, 30% in refinement of targeting data (correcting errors and reducing misidentifications), 30% in the ease with which the consumer can give feeback to refine their profile, and 20% other. Numbers are my personal estimates, not based on any calculations or studies.
Better targeting doesn't count for that much. Better correction of targeting data and better customer feedback counts for much more. That's why Amazon's targeted suggestions are as good as they are. It's interactive, for the consumer to adjust the missteps. Amazon makes mistakes, but I can click a checkbox that says, "no more of this sort of thing", and improve it.
This -might- be a net win, if Google does it right by paying attention to the parts of this that most marketing people like to ignore (fixing errors/better service), and less to the part the most marketing people seem to get really excited about (better targeting algorithms).
> I don't understand all this righteous indignation as if Google > owes you something.
Actually, I don't give a darn one way or the other. My indignation was not to Google's plans, but the suggestion that "targeted advertising is -good- advertising!" It's superficial thinking, like saying "what's good for General Motors is good for the USA!"
Targeted advertising is good or bad not based on the quality of the targeting algorithm, but on the ease with which miscalculations can be corrected.
Have you ever read "Oh, No! My Tivo Thinks I'm Gay!" There are problems with any targeting algorithm. The only effective solution is to allow people to manually fix the targeting.
Why does something have to be "abuse" before we have the right to complain about it, or refuse it? A society doesn't function well if too many people go out of the way to piss people off and their entire defense is "I'm not touching you, I'm just waving my finger 1/4 inch from your face"
You can object to annoying as well as abusive.
> They'll show ads to me based on my interests
No, they won't show -anyone- ads based on their interests. They'll show people ads based on their advertiser's needs, adjusted for their perception of your interests.
- If you're interested in something that no one pays google to advertise, you won't see an ad for it.
- If you're not interested in something someone pays google a -lot- to advertise, you'll probably see it anyway.
- If google incorrectly estimates your interest in things, they'll show you things you aren't interested in.
This is tricky; just because you ask a question about something, or someone emails you about something, there is no reason to believe that this is an interest of yours. I work on a lot of things that require me to search on subjects I have -zero- personal interest in. I shudder to think about the kind of ads that would get served up to me.
All of this assumes a direct relationship between what I search on and what I'm interested in possibly purchasing. That assumption is untested and I feel it's largely invalid.
Suppose I search for information about Wimbley cars so I can show my sister what a piece of crap the 2006 Wimbley is. Suddenly I'm inundated with ads for the new Wimbley.
> Wal-mart decides to stock shelves with things that are > relevant to my area's purchase history - so if I go > into a Wal-mart, it's more likely to carry something > I intend to buy.
Assuming you are typical of the people in your area. If you aren't, Wal-Mart loses your business, and due to the fact that they are looking at a limited and inherently biased subset of data *, they don't correct for error.
* using purchasing habits requires them to have the product first in order to detect that people have an interest. If everyone wants the new Whizmo Cranfraz, but Wal-Mart doesn't carry it, Wal-Mart doesn't see that everyone wants it. In brick-and-mortar, this is detected by examining other vendor's sales or asking questions. In the net arena, this often goes undetected.
Also, vendors tend to make assumptions based on close matches. They assume that if you buy a John Doe brand Doohickey for $N, you'll be fine with them dropping the John Doe brand in favor of the Richard Roe, for $N-10 dollars, or for the Jane Doe brand Thingamajig, because the Thingamajig does -almost- the same thing as the Doohickey.
All you have to do is look at the remaindered Personal Organizers, MP3 players, and copies of Lotus Ami Pro in the $3 junk bin to see the fallacy with that. Not everything is an interchangable commodity item.
I've worked in retail and wholesale, and I've seen just how -badly- this kind of thing is normally done. Most businesses can get a 2000% improvement in identifying customer needs by scrapping the crap customer tracking technology and having sales people talk to the customers. For every one person you identify as being interested in product A, you have 25 people come in, look for product B, and leave without talking to the manager or a salesperson when they couldn't find product B or a salesperson to help them.
Sorry for the heat; as you can see, this is an area that bugs me; better advertising is no substitute for customer service.
> It's smart business - a hell of a lot smarter than > blindly throwing ads out there hoping they'll be used.
It's smarter; it's only "a hell of a lot smarter" if they do it "a hell of a lot better" than most people who try this kind of thing.
> In fact, I'd argue that the Internet is more relevant > because businesses can see the value in it. Many of > us wouldn't have jobs if there weren't such potential.
Just don't forget that many folks here -don't- have jobs, in part because of half-planned attempts by businesses to leverage the net's potential value.
> How did the intellectuals lose this one --> we had the religious > sitting in public classrooms for decades, being taught science > and certainly being taught evolution, with blind religious belief > kept strictly separate from the curriculum.
By pissing everyone off, that's how. Look, I don't back creationism, but you have to accept that the people who run the schools have squandered every bit of goodwill they may ever have had. Since the creation of the Federal Department of Education 25 years ago, educational standards have fallen through the floor (not saying it's their fault; but they haven't helped).
Schools spend record amounts of money on "diversity education", while ignoring the assaults and robberies in the halls. Schools buy millions of dollars worth of computer equipment that half the teachers aren't even trained to turn on in the morning.
They hire overpriced consultants and give them sweetheart contracts so they still get two years additional salary after they are let go. Parochial schools teach their students more by the 8th grade (for 1/3 the money) than most public school students learn by their sophomore year of college.
> Now, less than half of the U.S. "believes in evolution?"
Welcome to the systemic ignorance that comes with "peer group promotion" and other sick experiments of the educators.
> Even I grew up in conservative Catholic schools, but I was taught evolution.
Don't really follow your point, as the Catholic church has no problem with evolution. I'm a conservative Catholic who grew up in liberal public schools. I was taught well, for the most part (pre-Dept of Education), but I was also force-fed a lot of self-serving pseudointellecual crap by mediocre teachers in required courses.
I also learned that many public school teachers couldn't poor piss out of a boot if you told them the instructions were on the heel.
> This is a massive, historic failure by American intellectuals > and American education. Scientific methodology, philosophy, > nay critical thinking have not been adequately communicated > to the [American public]
Snipped the rant. But yes; critical thinking is not taught. Not to the impoverished classes in public schools, not in the expensive private schools, not in the colleges and universities.
A LOUD VOICE, a sarcastic, pseudo-intellectual delivery and a posture of authority are all it takes to be an expert today.
> Maybe the thinkers should learn to play organs and guitars, > write some melodramatic music and stories about the origins > of the universe, life and humankind.
Maybe the thinkers should get their asses back in the classrooms and teach the students instead of pursuing the idiotic goal of more published research.
Look, we don't we teach logic anymore. We don't teach the scientific method anymore, we teach the rote memorization of snippets of scientific truths. We don't teach students how to think anymore, we teach them how to pass placement tests.
> While marching around with candles and holding up portraits > of Great Scientists...
Sorry, one of the problems with how science is taught in schools is that it is ALREADY taught as religious dogma. The one and only good thing about people trying to get intelligent design into schools is that it is finally forcing some of the pompous bastards who set the poor excuse for science curricula in this country's schools to get off their lazy rumps and TEACH.
If the lazy so-and-sos had actually TAUGHT for the last 25 years, the voting public wouldn't need the intelligentsia to try yet another half-assed attempt to con the ignorant public into doing things their way; the public wouldn't be ignorant in the first place.
> I'm willing to propose that if families regularly attended > science class together, we would all enjoy a more reasonable, > and more peaceful world.
> The federal judge overseeing Microsoft Corp.'s business > practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal > to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to > Microsoft's own music player software. Microsoft blamed > the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person" > who did not understand the company's obligations under > the antitrust settlement.
This points out well why Microsoft can't be trusted in these anti-trust settlements. Microsoft's view is that proposals like this are only a problem in that they violate the anti-trust settlement terms. In reality, they are a problem in that they violate the intent of the anti-trust laws.
MS expects its employees to work tirelessly to skirt the edge of the anti-trust laws, and build up its defacto monopoly. They can't accept into the corporate culture that attempting to force use of MS software through restrictive licensing agreements is not an acceptable business practice, -even if- you can do it without contravening the strict letter of the law.
Frm the referenced article: 'The judge said Microsoft's music-player proposal -- even though it was abandoned 10 days later -- "maybe indicates a chink in the compliance process."'
I would not describe it as a "chink"; I would describe it as a gap in which Microsoft is unwilling to comply with any settlement agreement to any greater degree than they can be compelled to by threat of force.
'"This is an issue that Microsoft is concerned showed up," Rule said. He added that Microsoft regrets the proposal ever was sent to music-player manufacturers and that the company was "looking at it to make sure this is a lesson learned."'
Unfortunately, from Microsoft's point of view, the lesson they seem to want to impress on the employees is, "thou shalt not get caught", where the court wants them to learn to alter their business practices to prohibit these kinds of restrictive agreements.
> I'm surprised this hasn't received more mainstream coverage > in the U.S. I've heard nothing from CNN, Headline News, > Fox News, or MSNBC about this. I don't get CBC or BBC News > here, so I don't know if they've covered it. Something > with such wide-sweeping effects really should be getting > an appropriate amount of attention.
I suspect there may be a number of factors:
- unless there is a "cool factor", the American mainstream press has a history of being both uninterested and inept when covering tech issues, especially where they are impacted by international politics. - this may be an area where the attitute of the mainstream US press is that the international community is blowing smoke. America is regulary criticized and various suggestions are made to reign in the 500-pound gorilla. But it rarely results in any real action. The US press may be thinking this is just the start of a very long process of diplomatic posturing. And it may be. - this may be an area where the ignorance of both the press and the average reader may be leading them to conclude it's not worth the time and space to cover it, yet.
Let's face it; where tech warnings are concerned, most people ignore them until they can see the results of a failure for themselves. This is true for viruses, security defects in their operating systems, ill-planned laws like the DMCA, and more. People are conditioned to ignore warnings. Poor reporting just assists this.
> why is it always the process of 'creating an artificial desire to > buy products we are unaware of' (i.e. advertising) that is supposed > to solve any financial woes?
Because most other revenue generation systems anyone has tried on the net take longer to produce revenue. Suppose they went to a subscription system: that takes time to get started, time to prove itself, time to determine how much money is going to come in, affecting spending plans. By contrast, advertising allows you to ramp up quickly with immediate revenue, and fairly predictable continuing revenue flow.
It ain't the best system, necessarily. But it's a known system where people are available right now to provide the dollars.
> I think the key here is that online businesses and organizations > must find some way to get compensated properly and more reliably > (and less annoyingly)
Well, only -some- online businesses can find other ways to be compensated. The reality is there are a -lot- more websites out there than there are potential revenue dollars. Even if the dotcom boom has gone bust, the reality is there are still thousands of jerks out there trying to peddle garbage in a shiny box for every one person with a decent product. And a lot of the decent products are niche products, for which there will always be limited demand.
That doesn't stop them from gathering advertising dollars (at least in the short to medium run), but it does discourage other, more direct revenue streams from being tried.
> How about one would buy a monthly 'pass' that would permit you > access to 100 sites of a certain type and for a dollar or two > a month you have access to a wealth of information you are > interested in.
A few objections:
- many people, myself included, would only be interested in at most a dozen sites of one certain type; but we would be interested in a dozen or more different types of sites. Still works out to similar numbers, just allocated differently, but you need flexilbility in the plan. One size never fits all. - how do you convince the user that this is a decent deal? You need to have the right sites accepting this before selling it to the users, but it's hard to sell to the sites until you have the users; catch-22. - since it's an uphill battle, you need -lots- of capital to get started; enough to run for at least 5 yearson a -large- deficit, and possibly 10 or more on a smaller deficit. - how do you keep someone from "improving it" with advertising in -addition- to charging for it? Cable, DVDs, theaters, etc., for which we already pay, have been "improved" by adding advertising. The fact that the greedy bastards have done this before just increases the credibility gap in selling it to the user.
> Do you think that all that advertising you see (or try to > ignore so fervently) does not result into proceeds somewhere > down the line?
Some does, some doesn't. The advertisers are tightening up significantly. That's why the TV networks have been cancelling shows faster and faster each year.
> I guess I don't see the 'crisis' in this...these people > were low-level, non-violent offenders. If a software > glitch had let a Ted Bundy out for another killing spree, > I would probably be more concerned.
You're not wrong, but a few points to think about.
Often people in jail for one crime are guilty of others. Just because a man was in prison for a fairly innocuous offense doesn't mean releasing him was harmless.
Though there is no indication of this being a problem in this case, often people in jail on more minor offenses are waiting to begin serving time or start trial on more major offenses. An early release on the minor charge could interfere with the necessary transfer to another facility.
> The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for > stuff they do to themselves. If someone is strung out > on meth or heroin, they are only a problem to me if > they steal something to support their habit.
What about minors being abused and neglected by custodial parents with a drug habit? What about the people on drugs who don't want to be, but can't quit without legal intervention? What about kids born addicted?
While this isn't "everyone", there was a recent story in the paper about a preschooler who brought in some crystal meth to preschool. And another about a child left alone in the house to tend to the father's home meth lab (which tends to explode; lotsa kids die that way each year). There are a lot of problems with the idea of leaving the drug users alone.
While we can argue about the right way to deal with these problems, and you could certainly make a good case that the prison system is the wrong way, the problems are real and no one has a good solution.
Before anyone flames me, just remember I said the original poster was -not- wrong. I'm not saying prison is the solution; just saying the problems are not limited to "drug abusers stealing to support their habit."
Having said this, what the hell kind of computer system doesn't involve someone having access to and checking the original sentencing information prior to releasing the prisoner? Is that so tough?
> I think "Law" and "Morals" are two entirely separate things: > the Law should specify the basic rules essential for a stable > society - "no murder", "no theft", "no corruption", etc, since > without these a society couldn't cohere or function.
I have a few questions on this statement. All the examples you provide are negative, as in "don't do [blank]." Do you feel that all laws are prohibitive?
> "Morals" should be a guideline to good living for each individual, > and are (roughly) a superset of Law.
Just to clarify, are you stating that all human law should be of the prohibitive form, and morals are a superset that is (largely) positive/exhortative?
> For example, adultery or promiscuity shouldn't be illegal, > but it's clearly immoral.
If by "illegal" you mean criminal, I agree. If you mean "actionable under the law", I'd tend to push back. Should a person have any avenues of redress under the law for the adulteries of his/her spouse? Should an employer have a right to terminate employees for adultery or promiscuity?
Also, in your statement later:
>...if you're going to make Laws and Morals the same thing, > whose morals do you use?
If morals are always personal rather than universal, on what basis do you state that "...adultery or promiscuity shouldn't be illegal, but it's clearly immoral."
If there is no universal moral law, then to whom and why is adultery or promiscuity immoral?
That said, I never intended to say that law and morals are identical. The law can only coerce, and coercion is simply not a viable way to alter people's hearts or change the nature of a fallen world. If it was that easy, there would have been no need for the crucifixion.
My primary concern is that the law recognizes that it can only recognize a preexisting and universal moral law. That if the law tries to enforce rules created in defiance of or the absense of the moral law, then the law is unjust and must be overturned.
This is why I feel it is important to recognize the moral law when passing laws. Currently there is much chaos and confusion in the US (and elsewhere) where the law tries to eliminate certain of God's laws, and create new commandments based on modern secularism.
Instead of "Thou shalt not commit adultery", we end up with "thou shalt not judge anyone's sexual activities." We end up with a situation where people making foolish and immoral choices want to deal with them privately (with some justification). But once the moral standard is rejected, the idea of "privacy" becomes a substitute standard, and is used by everyone to try to justify their own actions.
Basically, it's alright to say, "this is an area the law shoudn't try to handle," without saying "this is a totally private matter, and any interference is prohibited." We're at that point now.
It is one thing to say, "if John Doe and Richard Roe want to form a sexual relationship, it is outside the legitimate concern of the criminal justice system." It is not the same thing to say, "if John Doe and Richard Roe want to form a sexual relationship, it is the legitimate concern of the legal system to recognize and protect that relationship against any interference or criticism."
Instead of recognizing that "man and woman he created them", and "what God has joined together, no human being must separate", we try to force people in the public sector to pretend that "two men or two women forming a committed relationship is the same thing as a marriage", as a condition of being a public servant.
And it isn't about -forcing- people using the law. It's about being allowed to express the underlying moral truth. I'm fine if the law prohibits picking on the gay community; but not because it's a -valid- moral choice. But because it isn't an appropriate area for the law to coerce, and picking on anyone in the same fashion for any other reason is just as wrong.
Damn right. That expertise is the critical factor; you can't do squat with computers without high-priced training and consultants.
That's why Bill Gates' recognized expertise, formal training, and extensive hands-on experience with the Altair the critical factor that made his implementation of BASIC such a success.
In the same way, his vast experience with OS development was the critical factor to IBM selecting him to produce MS-DOS 1.0 as the OS for the IBM PC.
And that's just how it happened. Bill Gates says so, so it must be true.
Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been rather busy in the evennings and this weekend. I have been working on a reply, and will post it either this evening or tomorrow.
Re:Why are we hiding from the police, daddy?
on
Vim 6.4 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
>...Vim is the Hole Hawg of text editors, whereas notepad is a > regular powerdrill. Both have different intentions, with the > former being designed for heavy-duty text editing as a programmer > or highly technical user would need, and the latter designed for > occasional light editing, the kind most non-technical users do. > The intent is different and so the interfaces differ.
Exactly correct. That's why a lot of people preferred WordStar to Word or WordPerfect. and we still remember the hotkeys for thos editors that do emulation (Borland's Turbo C++ editor, VB classic, tons of programmer's tools )
> It's very, very difficult to create a deep, powerful interface > that is easily discoverable.
True.
> At best, you can make it as learnable as possible.
Have to disagree; in addition to making it as learnable as possible, you need to make it, as you said, "discoverable". Discoverability is aided not by a shallow interface, but by making experimentation safe. It should be very easy to:
- see underlying patterns in the UI, to consider what -might- be done - easily distinguish actions which did something from those which do nothing - undo anything, thus encouraging the user to try new things. - as modeless as possible, so that actions which do nothing -most- of the
time do nothing destructive the other times
This is one area where vi is not as good as some tools. Note that this is not an area where most tools are good, and vi is poor. This is an area where most tools are poor, and vi fails to rise significantly above the majority.
> This is what Vim attempts to do. Notepad goes for a shallow, easily > discoverable interface at the expense of power.
Yes; other tools attempt to increase both power and discoverability, with mixed success.
>> Anyone who suggests 'abandoning the use of the registry' >> has obviously never written Windows software. What do >> you suggest we replace it with, INI files?
> Or property lists, yes.
Well, INI files don't scale well; not because they are flat text files, but because the way a hierarchy is modelled in an INI file is inefficient and error prone. Something in the nature of a property list would be quite reasonable.
It is also worth noting that since DotNet, lots of data that used to be in the Registry is now in XML files in the application folder. That's a big part of the XCOPY install feature MS brags about for DotNet.
>> What do you suppose we do about the thousands of existing >> applications that use the registry?
> Wrappers for the INI/PLIST files that behave like the old > registry calls.
Perfectly doable.
>> How do you suggest we support access controls for individual >> settings and keys - make a single INI file for each one?
> Why not?
Well, it isn't strictly necessary to use the Registry to support access controls on keys and settings. As long as the file itself only allows administrator access, the APIs that model the current Registry APIs can implement key and value level security within the file. This would make the files read-only in a text editor for common users; however a simple editor could be created that allows the appropriate access to the individual keys via the APIs.
But INI files aren't appropriately structured for that; XML files would be better, or any number of less-verbose-than-XML text formats.
> OS X does this like a dream, I can take my Library folder with me > and wham, everything is the way I like it on a new machine. I'm > sure it would be possible to do something similar on Windows, > provided I paid $50 for some crappy shareware product.
Well, it wouldn't be a crappy $50 shareware product to virtualize the Registry. Since the APIs are inside ADVAPI32.DLL, and are used during the boot process, it would be a kernel hack; generally more expensive when done third-party. MS could do it safely; third parties would need to worry about MS breaking the hack with an OS update.
Agreed. There's no reason at all for any problems until and unless someone in the EU starts handing out domain names that collide with domain names issues elsewhere. Even then, the problems would be limited to those domain names that are in conflict. Unless someone in the EU reissues duplicate domain names for fairly major sites, the problem would be limited. If someone in the EU -did- reissue, say, "www.google.com" to someone else, the most likely result would be people in the EU pissed at their own domain authority.
Sure, someone could deliberately take the root servers in the EU out of sync with those in the US and screw things up, but why would they? What's the benefit in cutting off their own noses in an act of spite against the US? I honestly doubt any bureacrat in the EU is really -that- stupid and malicious.
And unless I missed something, it doesn't affect IP addresses, just domain names. I don't see anything being said that would indicate that any IP address would be referenced differently on either side. IP addresses would still be issued by the same providers as they are now.
>> There's a key, but subtle point about the American view there: >> Americans would almost -universally- put Liberty -before- Justice."
> Apologies - I was talking from the perspective of "the individual", > meaning I think everyone has the right to Life first, then the right to > Justice (basically, "what they deserve" - this may include locking up if > they're criminals). Finally, they deserve Liberty.
> IE, Life trumps Justice (so no death penalty), and Justice trumps > Liberty (so you can still punish/imprison people for wrongdoing).
We may still be failing to connect here. I would say the American perspective is very influenced by mainstream Christian moral teaching. This draws a distinction between "freedom" and "license", with the American view that Liberty is close related to if not identical to Freedom.
Freedom would allow any moral (licit) act, and license would allow an act, regardless of it's moral component.
In the case above, "Liberty" would not be contravened by locking someone up in response to a criminal conviction. Reducing someone's Liberty, irrespective of his or her guilt or innocence, in the effort to combat crime/promote justice, would be wrong.
Depriving a person of certain liberties -after- he is convicted is fine. Depriving people of liberties to -prevent- an injustice is wrong, even if it may prevent a grave moral wrong.
> If you're talking about the society level, then I'd say Justice, > Liberty, then Life - Justice (basically, everyone getting what they > deserve) is the most important aspect of any society, followed by > Liberty.
We're definitely at odds here. Without Life, there can be no Liberty or Justice. Hence the American loathing for things such as euthanasia.
> This ensures that people genuinely do get what they deserve, > instead of being abused/ripped off/taken advantage of by the "Liberties" > of con-men or more powerful individuals. Finally, Life is the least > important, since you should be prepared to (eventually) lay down your > life to defend those values.
> This is a bit of an artificially-restricted way to talk about the > subject (eg, despite the above I still support the individual's right to > choose euthanasia, which is technically Liberty over Life). However, > this just plays back into my problem with absolutes - I find myself > starting to believe that perhaps there aren't any absolutes, since you > can construct a scenario whereby following any hard rule leads to the > "Wrong" thing happening (eg, you with the gun, and the small child > packed with explosives running towards a crowd of nuns).
Well, the components of any act are the object (the act itself), the circumstances around the act, and the intent of the individual choosing the act.
In the case above, killing the child (the object) is indisputably an evil. However, the individual with the gun acts in very constrained circumstances, and his intent is not the death of the child, but preserving the lives of those he can save.
By this reasoning, there is -an- absolute: the killing of a child is wrong. What is missing is the absolute freedom of the man with the gun to choose the appropriate response. The absolute moral core remains; what is not absolute is the culpability the person with the gun has for the choice he makes.
> As an aside, what is a "European-style healthcare system"? Every > country in Europe manages its own system, and apart from the fact > they're all free, open to all, (ideally) good and supported (at least in > part) by the government, there are no common threads between all of > them. "European-style healthcare system" means about as much as > "car-coloured truck" - any set that includes the lot is so vague as to > be practically meaningless...
True enough. More specifically, comparisons are made with Canada, Engla
>> The American view is that the center represents a real, >> if abstract, concept that represents a desirable goal.
> That's a fair enough position, and one which I agree with. > Although I have a grave problem with absolutes, if I had to > choose one to subscribe to, that would be it (in the order > Life, Justice then Liberty, however, since that takes care > of the problem of criminality and avoids the death penalty;-).
There's a key, but subtle point about the American view there: Americans would almost -universally- put Liberty -before- Justice.
We feel that Justice before Liberty is one way dictators get a start. In truth, a dictator could use either the pretext of Liberty or Justice; but the American bias is in favor of Liberty.
> While I agree with you that there are universal (or near- > universal) Truths/Good, I think we disagree on how to achieve > these aims, and how much they apply to the real world. > For example, I believe that universal healthcare and > welfare is essential to Life, and that Justice can be > served by removing merely Liberty, instead of Liberty and Life.
I would agree that universal healthcare is essential -in the modern world- for life. I would not agree to a purely European style health-care system, nor do I agree that universal healthcare and welfare are essential to life, out of the context of modern society.
> I find it hard to agree that these universal absolutes > apply to things as base as political position. I wouldn't > agree that either the Right or the Left has a right to > claim they're closer to the universal good,
Well, I didn't say that the right or the left are closer to the universal good, or that I or most Americans know what it is.
Our essential disagreement with our perception of European thinking is that the Europeans we speak to seem to act as if there are -no- real absolutes. That if the majority of the world agreed to reduce population through forced birth control and abortion, removing the Liberty of procreation, as China does, or decided to adopt Sharia law, then that's just dandy.
This is -deeply- disturbing to Americans.
> since both sides have policies that go against it (eg, > the Right's traditional lack of support for "big government" > knocks out much hope of universal healthcare/Life, and > the far-left Liberals' penchant for inhibiting free > speech/Liberty for political correctness).
> Give this absence of clear absolutes in terms of which > political party you support, I think a centrist view is > the "safest" - you can take the best from both ends > of the spectrum without being tied to any one ideology.
'Safest' probably; but the American view is summed up well by Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This is an example of the kind of conflicts of view where we get the impression that the world wants to change the American spirit.
Americans have no problem with choosing Liberty -instead- of safety. I suspect that is one reason we don't have universal healthcare. Many people want it; we're almost certainly going to get it; but we're not in a hurry until we work out the issues of Liberty.
More pressing to most Americans than universal healthcare are such issues as the right to choose treatment/doctors/hospitals; the right to choose to pay more for immediate treatment; the right to select a health care plan.
>> We're starting to see common ground here. One other >> possibility, cogent to the UN argument; if enemies of >> what is right obstruct the UN from ratifying consensus."
> This is the same point we keep coming back to - you believe > in absolute Right, and think the US knows best (or at least > roughly) where it is.
I couldn't resist; I'll continue the thread. So that wasn't my last post, and this probably won't be either.
>> Americans feel that they may be right of center, but Europe >> is left of center, and finding common ground requires Europe >> to move toward an American view while America moves to >> a more European view."
> That's a very fair and interesting point of view, and one > which I'd never appreciated before. I think most Europeans > see someone like the USSR/China as "extreme left", the USA > as "extreme right" and themselves as relatively in the center. > The USA, in contrast, seems to see themselves as "a bit right" > and Europe as "a bit left" - this does explain a lot.
> Just out of interest, where do you see China - "really extreme > left"? And would there be an example of an "extreme right" > country further right than the US?
Not offhand, but part of that is that I'm no more used to arguing in these terms than you are. We're both stepping outside our world views here.
> I ask because it seems (to me personally) that one can derive > the centre by selecting a point mid-way between the two extremes. > If we've got an "extreme left" and only "a bit right", this would > make me think we'd mis-chosen the centre position, unless there's > another country further right than the USA which would make the > USA "only a bit" right.
That view is valid, but it's not the only way to look at the matter. It's certainly valid if the center we are referring to is a point on a graph that shows opinions on something that has no intrinsic attributes.
But if the center represents something real, then where we -believe- the center to be only reflects our understanding. The actual center may be somewhere else.
Look at is this way: if we are trying to determine what people feel is the best toothpaste or detergent, then the center is where people say it is.
But if we are attempting to find the locus of a fault line in the earth's crust, then it is where it is, and our opinions don't move it.
The American view is that the center represents a real, if abstract, concept that represents a desirable goal. That goal doesn't change, although our view of where it is may change. For example, "Life, Liberty, and Justice For All" is a fixed concept. What needs to be done to achieve this changes with time. At one time, giving white male landowners elected representation seemed to be the thing. Over time, this was broadened to include those who owned no land, women and blacks.
But the goal didn't change; our view improved. Americans have no philosophical difficulty with the idea that all the world could be left of the US, and that all the world could still be wrong. And it isn't because we're certain we're right. It's because we're certain that "right" isn't made by might -or- by majority rule.
At one time, the majority of those in the US who were allowed to vote believed that white people could own black people; now we don't. But Americans don't believe this was because it -was- right then, and now it's wrong. They believe it's because the majority was wrong then.
>> "Nonetheless, I would have to modify that last statement to >> something more like, "and one which should be undertaken with >> international approval, or at least acceptance, except in the most >> extreme conditions.""
> You make a very good addition - there are times where > only you know something that legitimises an attack, or > where you simply don't have time to garner international > consensus.
We're starting to see common ground here. One other possibility, cogent to the UN argument; if enemies of what is right obstruct the UN from ratifying consensus.
> In this situation, I'd support un-consensual action, but only if: > i) You provide evidence justifying the action as soon as possible
> I heard about a $20,000 accounting package that was done in VB. > I have nothing in particular against VB,
Actually, there are at least a dozen large-scale accounting packages that are either solely VB or have large amounts of VB in them.
> but it's not an appropriate tool to do a large, serious mission- > critical system like that.
Why? Not to defend VB, but while VB has limitations, I can't see that VB's limitations are a real problem in an accounting package. It handles data-entry forms just fine, interfaces well with a number of databases, handles business math well, and generates appropriately fast and small code in the hands of a competent programmer.
The deficiencies don't seem to have a significant impact on large-scale accounting systems. There is the possibility of an unrecoverable application error, but frankly C and C++ are even more prone to those in the hands of equally skilled programmers in the middle-range of skill level.
> [the] auto industry in the 70s. American cars weren't terrible, > but the quality [was] inconsistent. The big three would tell > you that making defect-free cars would raise the prices... > Then the Japanese...delivered cars that...blew away the big > three in terms of quality, and at very reasonable prices.
Excellent example. A product doesn't have to be criminally defective to be unacceptably poor, and a product doesn't have to be perfect to be miles better than the normal state of affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
> Quantum Mechanics is unwieldy. But it's an outgrowth of observations.
:)
> And there's about a thousand experiments that back it.
True, true, and a thousand is probably a very low number. I would expect the number to be at least in the tens of thousands.
> Quantum is messy because the universe is.
Now that's a conclusion that may or may not be true. Quantum might be messy simply because we haven't come up with a cleaner alternative. But the fact that it is messy, while aesthetically unsatisfying, doesn't invalidate it. It can be messy and still by right. A lot of people have a "gut feeling" that there is a cleaner model waiting in the wings. But that gut feeling carries no weight.
> Newtonian Physics isn't flat out wrong. Neither is Einstein's or traditional
> EM. They are right, to a point. Einstein doesn't change Newton's laws. They
> enhance them. Newton's laws hold most of the time, so does EM. But their are
> cases where things change.
Exactly. This might be an edge case, leading to new knowledge.
> We believe that QM is a good descriptive theory. But it lacks explanation.
Excellent point. QM was developed more by observation than from a conceptual model. That's probably one reason it's messier.
> QM maybe be incomplete, but it's not wrong.
Well, not wrong, but maybe, someday, replaceable with a cleaner model.
> And yes, I'm a physicist.
I'm not
> I find that no one really _needs_ private offices, unless they participate in
> confidential conversations. HR, for example. But really, couldn't offices or
> boardrooms be booked for those type of activities?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on the organization. In many cases network admin staff need to discuss something confidential dozens of times a day. In some organizations, it can take 1+ days to book a conference room.
I have also been in office environments where the conferences rooms are a 15 minute walk away from work areas, adding a half hour to each meeting. Fine for a rare confidential meeting, prohibitive for frequent, small and short conversations. I some cases, you can circumvent this by borrowing a private office, but I have also worked in environments where people who had the offices were -very- touchy about others using them.
Your examples of how you increased security are excellent. I think a lot of the issue is, and someone noted, that this change requires a change to work habits and possibly to management expectations (additional locking cabinets, using cubicles/layouts that permit security, etc).
How the hell did they get this interpretation of the press release? Am I missing something? The intro uses rather heavily charged language that doesn't seem to be supported by the article or the release.
As far as I can tell, the release reaffirms 4 key points the US has stated before:
1-immediate changes to the status quo are premature; the article even notes that this is likely the best option for the short term.
2-individual nations have a right to manage their own domains; stability is a concern for determining the best way to do this.
3-ICANN is still in charge, and ICANN still operates under the same mandate as when it was set up.
4-the US is willing to talk about these issues and others in various venues, including but not limited to the UN. The only reservations the US notes is that it ain't broke, let's not break it.
Hardly seems like a declaration of cyberwar to me; the implication that this indicates that the Internet is a US only playground is overbroad to the point of sillyness. Discussions are open. The US is only stating that immediate, precipitate change is not going to get US cooperation, and that since US cooperation is necessary for immediate change, it's time to slow down and talk things over.
At least that's how I read it.
-------------
The Release Text:
Domain Names:
U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System
The United States Government intends to preserve the security and stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS). Given the Internet's importance to the world's economy, it is essential that the underlying DNS of the Internet remain stable and secure. As such, the United States is committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.
Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD). The United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD. As such, the United States is committed to working with the international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet's DNS.
ICANN is the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS. The United States continues to support the ongoing work of ICANN as the technical manager of the DNS and related technical operations and recognizes the progress it has made to date. The United States will continue to provide oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus and meets its core technical mission.
Dialogue related to Internet governance should continue in relevant multiple fora. Given the breadth of topics potentially encompassed under the rubric of Internet governance there is no one venue to appropriately address the subject in its entirety. While the United States recognizes that the current Internet system is working, we encourage an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders around the world in the various fora as a way to facilitate discussion and to advance our shared interest in the ongoing robustness and dynamism of the Internet. In these fora, the United States will continue to support market-based approaches and private sector leadership in Internet development broadly.
> "Never risk a sale today for a sale tomorrow." A salesman will always make
> a sale today...Instead of being a salesman, they are acting as a broker which
> is riding the supply as a commidity market. As a broker they have different
> goals than a salesman mostly which servicing the consumer is secondary to
> making sure you maximize your distribution pool.
You make a good point. I've done both; straight sales and manipulating the local market. In my case, it was to try to regulate uncontrolled oversupply and undersupply of merchandise (requiring all of my limited freezer space) from our brilliant corporate fuhrers.
Selling a commodity item is different from selling an item where a significant portion of the "value" is bogus or transient.
In this case, MS wants to try to create a fairly high degree of "bogus value" based on intangibles. I'm not saying it's a good idea; I am saying their perception that the XBox lacks the intrinsic value to drive the kind of buzz they are looking for (without this kind of thing) may be an accurate assessment.
> Make a sale today you have cash they can use now to reinvest. What would
> they possibly reinvest in you ask? Something wacky like increase production?
> If you bank on a sale tomorrow you might have twice as much cash...or they
> might go off and buy something else.
All true.
> Writing a complete VB clone isn't as simple as writing an IDE.
9 99/11nov99/jc1199/jc1199.asp
% 22vb+compiler%22+%22c2.exe%22&btnG=Search
No; but the VB IDE is so unusual that replicating it would probably bring a lot of VB programmers to Linux.
> VB 6 worked because of the underlying Windows infrastructure -- ADO, Access,
> COM, and all those other acronyms that could be glued together with VB to
> make an application.
Well, VB 4, 5, and 6 heavily leveraged COM. The Access Jet Engine (DAO), and ADO were simply two very useful COM libraries. But any COM library functioned the same in the VB IDE. You can very definitely replicate this on Unix, using Corba.
> VB provides a great environment for hacking together in-house and vertical
> market applications. It's good for rapid prototyping, too.
Very true. It's a useful "what-if?" playground, which is one of the things that made spreadsheets one of the first commercially successful types of application programs.
> The Unix world has some very strong biases that make cloning VB difficult,
> not the least of which is a general prejudice that all VB code sucks.
It doesn't, but you're tight about the perception.
> I've worked in shops with VB programmers (I'm a C++ guy), and saw some
> darned ugly code; the anti-VB prejudice has some basis in fact.
Not as much as some people think. The worst abusers of VB that I have seen are the C++ guys who think they can just "knock out some code in this little toy language." I -am- a C++ guy, I just learned to enough to know you can't just knock out VB code and expect to have decent results. VB programmers have always fallen into the pros, the bulls**ters, and the permanent novices, just like C, Java, etc., etc.
It -is- a little harder to tell them apart in the VB world, until you see them code.
> Be that as it may, VB is a powerful force that locks many developers into
> Windows. If any of this code is to move to Linux, we would need to
> replicate the entire foundation of acronyms used in VB programs -- a
> daunting task that most Unix-oriented folk will find unpalatable.
Maybe, yes, maybe no. In VB 5 and 6, VB has leveraged the same second-pass compiler as VC++. VB generates a form of intermediate code that is kind of C++ like. It's quite possible to leverage the knowledge some of the VB crowd has on this to build a form of intermediate code generator, then pass it through gcc.
For fun, here's a link. Requires registration, or try BugMeNot
www.fawcette.com/archives/premier/mgznarch/vbpj/1
and some others:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=control+
> A while back, I was tried to sell the idea of a FOSS Access and VB to
> several major Linux "players", without success. Perhaps my pitch just
> wasn't that good, or maybe, just maybe, Unix people really are letting
> their prejudices get in the way of a Really Good Idea.
Hard to say. There are legitimate arguments against, but it's not easy to be sure whether the legitimate arguments were the persuasive ones or not.
>> To gain momentum Linux needs a central installation architecture
>> that all applications must use to properly install and run. The OS
>> should ensure that applications are installed before they can be
>> executed.
> Perhaps there's some truth to this. If Linux is to gain more
> widespread adoption, then maybe that would help. If so, then I
> personally hope Linux remains a niche OS. What he doesn't seem to
> grasp is that some of us would rather remain true to the Unix ideals
> and philosophy than to chase mass market popularity. I want to just
> be able to extract an archive and run a binary contained within. I
> don't want to have to inform the OS that I've done so, and have to
> "install" the software. I want to be able to compile an app and run
> it from my home directory. Why should I have to register it with the
> OS in order to do so?
I think that Greg Raiz may have just overstated a truth somewhat, and confused things. From the article:
>> you need to reduce confusion and risk.
I think we can all agree that reducing confusion and risk are very good things. The issue seems to come in in terms of "HOW do we reduce confusion and risk?" For some people, the answer is, just autorun when I put in a CD. For others, it's document the damn thing and use standard techniques so I can do it manually. Same goal, different direction.
>> This means users can't be expected to untar, unzip and burn ISO images,
Fair enough. This doesn't mean that Linux can't support those who want to untar, unzip, and burn ISO images; just that any distro shooting for mainstream has to offer a simple alternative. And for the techies, a README file with manual instructions; best of both worlds so far.
>> they also can't be expected to properly partition their hard drive.
Same as above. Offer simple installation tools to do this, and let the techies do it manually.
>> Users don't want to manually import their favorites and browser settings
>> and email configuration.
Ditto above. The main thing is that, if you come up with a tool to automate this, let the user choose to not run it if he desires (a simple command-line-switch or config file setting like --noautoimport takes care of that).
>> To get people to switch you need to get them to try. To do this you need
>> to get Linux to be 100% RISK FREE. If you don't like it you need to be
>> able to easily uninstall and your computer will be exactly the same as
>> before you started.
Very true. A lot of techies use something like RCS to back up config files and whatnot. Automating this kind of thing in an installer would help a lot.
> What he doesn't seem to grasp is that some of us would rather remain true
> to the Unix ideals and philosophy than to chase mass market popularity.
> I want to just be able to extract an archive and run a binary contained
> within.
A key point. For adoption of a "new Windows killer OS", solely to lure windows users looking to switch, -and no one else-, you might argue that just having simple installers is a good idea. Because we are talking about an OS that is designed to appeal also to people who don't like Windows, we need to support both methods. I think the author understands this, although he didn't say it.
I think the main thing he meant with an "installation architecture" is that we need to have consistent methods for installing. MS introduced this in Windows Installer, the APIs that installation programs can use. Linux lacks this kind of uniformity, and an API would always appeal to a limited subset of developers.
For Linux installation and configuration scripts and programs, every developer reinvents the wheel for himself. I've fought with many a nifty little application whose build scripts contain tons of hard-coded references to non-standard file locations. It's just not worth futzing with sometimes.
Perhaps a standard set of routines to identify file locations and update config files would help. Something with code to handle all major distros. Someone is probably working on that very thing, of course.
> ...it all seems to come back the the Social Security Number. Financial
> companies have other controls in place...to ensure identification.
Many of which are very poor controls; so poor as to be nonexistent in many organizations.
> But in order to be of any use, a bad guy would really need someone's SSN.
Yes, AND no.
> Absent of that, other information would be useless. Right?
Wrong. http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/18.04.html#subj11.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/16.30.html#subj4.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/14.88.html#subj3.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.84.html#subj5
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/10.24.html#subj5.1
> That's what I would like to ask Slashdot folks. What could be realistically
> done with customer information without a SSN?
Well, you've set up an arbitrary experiment there. It's a school experiment, a teaching tool. Good for learning, but not reflective of real-world constraints.
The question implies some constraints. Restated as a classroom question, it reads:
-----
John Doe's mother's maiden name is Mary Roe. His address is 1313 Mockinbird Lane, Anytown, IA. He works at Nationwide Insurance, and he has a checking account at Bank of America. Without using a social security number, perform the following tasks: A-Withdraw $N from John Doe's checking account. Etc.
----
The real world equivalent problem is:
John Doe's mother's maiden name is Mary Roe. His address is 1313 Mockinbird Lane, Anytown, IA. He works at Nationwide Insurance, and he has a checking account at Bank of America. Perform the following tasks: A-Acquire additional personal information about John Doe, including his SSN B-Using this data, including the SSN, withdraw $N from John Doe's checking account. Etc.
----
The school question is a useful learning tool, work exploring; but if the student can't normally perform the tasks without an SSN, you can't feel confident or safe. The real world problem just adds one more task at the beginning; "Get SSN," which is often trivial when you have the other data.
Some examples of trivial SSN exposure, the black market in personal data, and some just interesting:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/6.80.html#subj1.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/21.82.html#subj8.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.94.html#subj14
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.11.html#subj5.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.19.html#subj1.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/7.66.html#subj3.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/21.07.html#subj6.1
> Account numbers, address, maybe a phone or payment amount. Is that really
> dangerous to the customer if only those get compromised?
"Is it really dangerous to your business network if -only- your firewall fails."
No; but how can you assume that you -know- when other security measures are compromised? Sometimes all it takes is a quick trip to the victim's mailbox.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.86.html#subj3.1
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.80.html#subj6.1
> ...its not as simple as you say that just because you search
...I know it was just an observation but its an observation
> for something you'll see commercials for it.
Didn't claim it was.
> Google has worked very hard on figuring out the difference
> between a genuine interest in a subject and a trivial inquiry
> about a subject.
Don't doubt they have.
> The internet is not responsible for anyone losing a job.
Didn't claim it was.
>
> that could have no other intent.
I'm sorry, but it appears you saw a -lot- in that post I didn't write.
I was responding to a knee-jerk reaction that says, "targeted advertising is good because it is targeted." We've seen a lot of posts suggesting or stating that over the last few months.
The benefit of targeted advertising is perhaps 20% in better targeting, 30% in refinement of targeting data (correcting errors and reducing misidentifications), 30% in the ease with which the consumer can give feeback to refine their profile, and 20% other. Numbers are my personal estimates, not based on any calculations or studies.
Better targeting doesn't count for that much. Better correction of targeting data and better customer feedback counts for much more. That's why Amazon's targeted suggestions are as good as they are. It's interactive, for the consumer to adjust the missteps. Amazon makes mistakes, but I can click a checkbox that says, "no more of this sort of thing", and improve it.
This -might- be a net win, if Google does it right by paying attention to the parts of this that most marketing people like to ignore (fixing errors/better service), and less to the part the most marketing people seem to get really excited about (better targeting algorithms).
> I don't understand all this righteous indignation as if Google
> owes you something.
Actually, I don't give a darn one way or the other. My indignation was not to Google's plans, but the suggestion that "targeted advertising is -good- advertising!" It's superficial thinking, like saying "what's good for General Motors is good for the USA!"
Targeted advertising is good or bad not based on the quality of the targeting algorithm, but on the ease with which miscalculations can be corrected.
Have you ever read "Oh, No! My Tivo Thinks I'm Gay!" There are problems with any targeting algorithm. The only effective solution is to allow people to manually fix the targeting.
> How is this going to be abused?
Why does something have to be "abuse" before we have the right to complain about it, or refuse it? A society doesn't function well if too many people go out of the way to piss people off and their entire defense is "I'm not touching you, I'm just waving my finger 1/4 inch from your face"
You can object to annoying as well as abusive.
> They'll show ads to me based on my interests
No, they won't show -anyone- ads based on their interests. They'll show people ads based on their advertiser's needs, adjusted for their perception of your interests.
- If you're interested in something that no one pays google to advertise, you won't see an ad for it.
- If you're not interested in something someone pays google a -lot- to advertise, you'll probably see it anyway.
- If google incorrectly estimates your interest in things, they'll show you things you aren't interested in.
This is tricky; just because you ask a question about something, or someone emails you about something, there is no reason to believe that this is an interest of yours. I work on a lot of things that require me to search on subjects I have -zero- personal interest in. I shudder to think about the kind of ads that would get served up to me.
All of this assumes a direct relationship between what I search on and what I'm interested in possibly purchasing. That assumption is untested and I feel it's largely invalid.
Suppose I search for information about Wimbley cars so I can show my sister what a piece of crap the 2006 Wimbley is. Suddenly I'm inundated with ads for the new Wimbley.
> Wal-mart decides to stock shelves with things that are
> relevant to my area's purchase history - so if I go
> into a Wal-mart, it's more likely to carry something
> I intend to buy.
Assuming you are typical of the people in your area. If you aren't, Wal-Mart loses your business, and due to the fact that they are looking at a limited and inherently biased subset of data *, they don't correct for error.
* using purchasing habits requires them to have the product first in order to detect that people have an interest. If everyone wants the new Whizmo Cranfraz, but Wal-Mart doesn't carry it, Wal-Mart doesn't see that everyone wants it. In brick-and-mortar, this is detected by examining other vendor's sales or asking questions. In the net arena, this often goes undetected.
Also, vendors tend to make assumptions based on close matches. They assume that if you buy a John Doe brand Doohickey for $N, you'll be fine with them dropping the John Doe brand in favor of the Richard Roe, for $N-10 dollars, or for the Jane Doe brand Thingamajig, because the Thingamajig does -almost- the same thing as the Doohickey.
All you have to do is look at the remaindered Personal Organizers, MP3 players, and copies of Lotus Ami Pro in the $3 junk bin to see the fallacy with that. Not everything is an interchangable commodity item.
I've worked in retail and wholesale, and I've seen just how -badly- this kind of thing is normally done. Most businesses can get a 2000% improvement in identifying customer needs by scrapping the crap customer tracking technology and having sales people talk to the customers. For every one person you identify as being interested in product A, you have 25 people come in, look for product B, and leave without talking to the manager or a salesperson when they couldn't find product B or a salesperson to help them.
Sorry for the heat; as you can see, this is an area that bugs me; better advertising is no substitute for customer service.
> It's smart business - a hell of a lot smarter than
> blindly throwing ads out there hoping they'll be used.
It's smarter; it's only "a hell of a lot smarter" if they do it "a hell of a lot better" than most people who try this kind of thing.
> In fact, I'd argue that the Internet is more relevant
> because businesses can see the value in it. Many of
> us wouldn't have jobs if there weren't such potential.
Just don't forget that many folks here -don't- have jobs, in part because of half-planned attempts by businesses to leverage the net's potential value.
No offense intended, but...
> How did the intellectuals lose this one --> we had the religious
> sitting in public classrooms for decades, being taught science
> and certainly being taught evolution, with blind religious belief
> kept strictly separate from the curriculum.
By pissing everyone off, that's how. Look, I don't back creationism, but you have to accept that the people who run the schools have squandered every bit of goodwill they may ever have had. Since the creation of the Federal Department of Education 25 years ago, educational standards have fallen through the floor (not saying it's their fault; but they haven't helped).
Schools spend record amounts of money on "diversity education", while ignoring the assaults and robberies in the halls. Schools buy millions of dollars worth of computer equipment that half the teachers aren't even trained to turn on in the morning.
They hire overpriced consultants and give them sweetheart contracts so they still get two years additional salary after they are let go. Parochial schools teach their students more by the 8th grade (for 1/3 the money) than most public school students learn by their sophomore year of college.
> Now, less than half of the U.S. "believes in evolution?"
Welcome to the systemic ignorance that comes with "peer group promotion" and other sick experiments of the educators.
> Even I grew up in conservative Catholic schools, but I was taught evolution.
Don't really follow your point, as the Catholic church has no problem with evolution. I'm a conservative Catholic who grew up in liberal public schools. I was taught well, for the most part (pre-Dept of Education), but I was also force-fed a lot of self-serving pseudointellecual crap by mediocre teachers in required courses.
I also learned that many public school teachers couldn't poor piss out of a boot if you told them the instructions were on the heel.
> This is a massive, historic failure by American intellectuals
> and American education. Scientific methodology, philosophy,
> nay critical thinking have not been adequately communicated
> to the [American public]
Snipped the rant. But yes; critical thinking is not taught. Not to the impoverished classes in public schools, not in the expensive private schools, not in the colleges and universities.
A LOUD VOICE, a sarcastic, pseudo-intellectual delivery and a posture of authority are all it takes to be an expert today.
> Maybe the thinkers should learn to play organs and guitars,
> write some melodramatic music and stories about the origins
> of the universe, life and humankind.
Maybe the thinkers should get their asses back in the classrooms and teach the students instead of pursuing the idiotic goal of more published research.
Look, we don't we teach logic anymore. We don't teach the scientific method anymore, we teach the rote memorization of snippets of scientific truths. We don't teach students how to think anymore, we teach them how to pass placement tests.
> While marching around with candles and holding up portraits
> of Great Scientists...
Sorry, one of the problems with how science is taught in schools is that it is ALREADY taught as religious dogma. The one and only good thing about people trying to get intelligent design into schools is that it is finally forcing some of the pompous bastards who set the poor excuse for science curricula in this country's schools to get off their lazy rumps and TEACH.
If the lazy so-and-sos had actually TAUGHT for the last 25 years, the voting public wouldn't need the intelligentsia to try yet another half-assed attempt to con the ignorant public into doing things their way; the public wouldn't be ignorant in the first place.
> I'm willing to propose that if families regularly attended
> science class together, we would all enjoy a more reasonable,
> and more peaceful world.
I feel th
> The federal judge overseeing Microsoft Corp.'s business
> practices scolded the company Wednesday over a proposal
> to force manufacturers to tether iPod-like devices to
> Microsoft's own music player software. Microsoft blamed
> the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person"
> who did not understand the company's obligations under
> the antitrust settlement.
This points out well why Microsoft can't be trusted in these anti-trust settlements. Microsoft's view is that proposals like this are only a problem in that they violate the anti-trust settlement terms. In reality, they are a problem in that they violate the intent of the anti-trust laws.
MS expects its employees to work tirelessly to skirt the edge of the anti-trust laws, and build up its defacto monopoly. They can't accept into the corporate culture that attempting to force use of MS software through restrictive licensing agreements is not an acceptable business practice, -even if- you can do it without contravening the strict letter of the law.
Frm the referenced article: 'The judge said Microsoft's music-player proposal -- even though it was abandoned 10 days later -- "maybe indicates a chink in the compliance process."'
I would not describe it as a "chink"; I would describe it as a gap in which Microsoft is unwilling to comply with any settlement agreement to any greater degree than they can be compelled to by threat of force.
'"This is an issue that Microsoft is concerned showed up," Rule said. He added that Microsoft regrets the proposal ever was sent to music-player manufacturers and that the company was "looking at it to make sure this is a lesson learned."'
Unfortunately, from Microsoft's point of view, the lesson they seem to want to impress on the employees is, "thou shalt not get caught", where the court wants them to learn to alter their business practices to prohibit these kinds of restrictive agreements.
> I'm surprised this hasn't received more mainstream coverage
> in the U.S. I've heard nothing from CNN, Headline News,
> Fox News, or MSNBC about this. I don't get CBC or BBC News
> here, so I don't know if they've covered it. Something
> with such wide-sweeping effects really should be getting
> an appropriate amount of attention.
I suspect there may be a number of factors:
- unless there is a "cool factor", the American mainstream press has a history of being both uninterested and inept when covering tech issues, especially where they are impacted by international politics.
- this may be an area where the attitute of the mainstream US press is that the international community is blowing smoke. America is regulary criticized and various suggestions are made to reign in the 500-pound gorilla. But it rarely results in any real action. The US press may be thinking this is just the start of a very long process of diplomatic posturing. And it may be.
- this may be an area where the ignorance of both the press and the average reader may be leading them to conclude it's not worth the time and space to cover it, yet.
Let's face it; where tech warnings are concerned, most people ignore them until they can see the results of a failure for themselves. This is true for viruses, security defects in their operating systems, ill-planned laws like the DMCA, and more. People are conditioned to ignore warnings. Poor reporting just assists this.
> why is it always the process of 'creating an artificial desire to
> buy products we are unaware of' (i.e. advertising) that is supposed
> to solve any financial woes?
Because most other revenue generation systems anyone has tried on the net take longer to produce revenue. Suppose they went to a subscription system: that takes time to get started, time to prove itself, time to determine how much money is going to come in, affecting spending plans. By contrast, advertising allows you to ramp up quickly with immediate revenue, and fairly predictable continuing revenue flow.
It ain't the best system, necessarily. But it's a known system where people are available right now to provide the dollars.
> I think the key here is that online businesses and organizations
> must find some way to get compensated properly and more reliably
> (and less annoyingly)
Well, only -some- online businesses can find other ways to be compensated. The reality is there are a -lot- more websites out there than there are potential revenue dollars. Even if the dotcom boom has gone bust, the reality is there are still thousands of jerks out there trying to peddle garbage in a shiny box for every one person with a decent product. And a lot of the decent products are niche products, for which there will always be limited demand.
That doesn't stop them from gathering advertising dollars (at least in the short to medium run), but it does discourage other, more direct revenue streams from being tried.
> How about one would buy a monthly 'pass' that would permit you
> access to 100 sites of a certain type and for a dollar or two
> a month you have access to a wealth of information you are
> interested in.
A few objections:
- many people, myself included, would only be interested in at most a dozen sites of one certain type; but we would be interested in a dozen or more different types of sites. Still works out to similar numbers, just allocated differently, but you need flexilbility in the plan. One size never fits all.
- how do you convince the user that this is a decent deal? You need to have the right sites accepting this before selling it to the users, but it's hard to sell to the sites until you have the users; catch-22.
- since it's an uphill battle, you need -lots- of capital to get started; enough to run for at least 5 yearson a -large- deficit, and possibly 10 or more on a smaller deficit.
- how do you keep someone from "improving it" with advertising in -addition- to charging for it? Cable, DVDs, theaters, etc., for which we already pay, have been "improved" by adding advertising. The fact that the greedy bastards have done this before just increases the credibility gap in selling it to the user.
> Do you think that all that advertising you see (or try to
> ignore so fervently) does not result into proceeds somewhere
> down the line?
Some does, some doesn't. The advertisers are tightening up significantly. That's why the TV networks have been cancelling shows faster and faster each year.
> I guess I don't see the 'crisis' in this ...these people
> were low-level, non-violent offenders. If a software
> glitch had let a Ted Bundy out for another killing spree,
> I would probably be more concerned.
You're not wrong, but a few points to think about.
Often people in jail for one crime are guilty of others. Just because a man was in prison for a fairly innocuous offense doesn't mean releasing him was harmless.
Though there is no indication of this being a problem in this case, often people in jail on more minor offenses are waiting to begin serving time or start trial on more major offenses. An early release on the minor charge could interfere with the necessary transfer to another facility.
> The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for
> stuff they do to themselves. If someone is strung out
> on meth or heroin, they are only a problem to me if
> they steal something to support their habit.
What about minors being abused and neglected by custodial parents with a drug habit? What about the people on drugs who don't want to be, but can't quit without legal intervention? What about kids born addicted?
While this isn't "everyone", there was a recent story in the paper about a preschooler who brought in some crystal meth to preschool. And another about a child left alone in the house to tend to the father's home meth lab (which tends to explode; lotsa kids die that way each year). There are a lot of problems with the idea of leaving the drug users alone.
While we can argue about the right way to deal with these problems, and you could certainly make a good case that the prison system is the wrong way, the problems are real and no one has a good solution.
Before anyone flames me, just remember I said the original poster was -not- wrong. I'm not saying prison is the solution; just saying the problems are not limited to "drug abusers stealing to support their habit."
Having said this, what the hell kind of computer system doesn't involve someone having access to and checking the original sentencing information prior to releasing the prisoner? Is that so tough?
Finally got a chance to reply.
...if you're going to make Laws and Morals the same thing,
> I think "Law" and "Morals" are two entirely separate things:
> the Law should specify the basic rules essential for a stable
> society - "no murder", "no theft", "no corruption", etc, since
> without these a society couldn't cohere or function.
I have a few questions on this statement. All the examples you provide are negative, as in "don't do [blank]." Do you feel that all laws are prohibitive?
> "Morals" should be a guideline to good living for each individual,
> and are (roughly) a superset of Law.
Just to clarify, are you stating that all human law should be of the prohibitive form, and morals are a superset that is (largely) positive/exhortative?
> For example, adultery or promiscuity shouldn't be illegal,
> but it's clearly immoral.
If by "illegal" you mean criminal, I agree. If you mean "actionable under the law", I'd tend to push back. Should a person have any avenues of redress under the law for the adulteries of his/her spouse? Should an employer have a right to terminate employees for adultery or promiscuity?
Also, in your statement later:
>
> whose morals do you use?
If morals are always personal rather than universal, on what basis do you state that "...adultery or promiscuity shouldn't be illegal, but it's clearly immoral."
If there is no universal moral law, then to whom and why is adultery or promiscuity immoral?
That said, I never intended to say that law and morals are identical. The law can only coerce, and coercion is simply not a viable way to alter people's hearts or change the nature of a fallen world. If it was that easy, there would have been no need for the crucifixion.
My primary concern is that the law recognizes that it can only recognize a preexisting and universal moral law. That if the law tries to enforce rules created in defiance of or the absense of the moral law, then the law is unjust and must be overturned.
This is why I feel it is important to recognize the moral law when passing laws. Currently there is much chaos and confusion in the US (and elsewhere) where the law tries to eliminate certain of God's laws, and create new commandments based on modern secularism.
Instead of "Thou shalt not commit adultery", we end up with "thou shalt not judge anyone's sexual activities." We end up with a situation where people making foolish and immoral choices want to deal with them privately (with some justification). But once the moral standard is rejected, the idea of "privacy" becomes a substitute standard, and is used by everyone to try to justify their own actions.
Basically, it's alright to say, "this is an area the law shoudn't try to handle," without saying "this is a totally private matter, and any interference is prohibited." We're at that point now.
It is one thing to say, "if John Doe and Richard Roe want to form a sexual relationship, it is outside the legitimate concern of the criminal justice system." It is not the same thing to say, "if John Doe and Richard Roe want to form a sexual relationship, it is the legitimate concern of the legal system to recognize and protect that relationship against any interference or criticism."
Instead of recognizing that "man and woman he created them", and "what God has joined together, no human being must separate", we try to force people in the public sector to pretend that "two men or two women forming a committed relationship is the same thing as a marriage", as a condition of being a public servant.
And it isn't about -forcing- people using the law. It's about being allowed to express the underlying moral truth. I'm fine if the law prohibits picking on the gay community; but not because it's a -valid- moral choice. But because it isn't an appropriate area for the law to coerce, and picking on anyone in the same fashion for any other reason is just as wrong.
Damn right. That expertise is the critical factor; you can't do squat with computers without high-priced training and consultants.
That's why Bill Gates' recognized expertise, formal training, and extensive hands-on experience with the Altair the critical factor that made his implementation of BASIC such a success.
In the same way, his vast experience with OS development was the critical factor to IBM selecting him to produce MS-DOS 1.0 as the OS for the IBM PC.
And that's just how it happened. Bill Gates says so, so it must be true.
[insert loud, long raspberry here]
Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been rather busy in the evennings and this weekend. I have been working on a reply, and will post it either this evening or tomorrow.
> ...Vim is the Hole Hawg of text editors, whereas notepad is a
> regular powerdrill. Both have different intentions, with the
> former being designed for heavy-duty text editing as a programmer
> or highly technical user would need, and the latter designed for
> occasional light editing, the kind most non-technical users do.
> The intent is different and so the interfaces differ.
Exactly correct. That's why a lot of people preferred WordStar to Word or WordPerfect. and we still remember the hotkeys for thos editors that do emulation (Borland's Turbo C++ editor, VB classic, tons of programmer's tools )
> It's very, very difficult to create a deep, powerful interface
> that is easily discoverable.
True.
> At best, you can make it as learnable as possible.
Have to disagree; in addition to making it as learnable as possible, you need to make it, as you said, "discoverable". Discoverability is aided not by a shallow interface, but by making experimentation safe. It should be very easy to:
- see underlying patterns in the UI, to consider what -might- be done
- easily distinguish actions which did something from those which do nothing
- undo anything, thus encouraging the user to try new things.
- as modeless as possible, so that actions which do nothing -most- of the
time do nothing destructive the other times
This is one area where vi is not as good as some tools. Note that this is not an area where most tools are good, and vi is poor. This is an area where most tools are poor, and vi fails to rise significantly above the majority.
> This is what Vim attempts to do. Notepad goes for a shallow, easily
> discoverable interface at the expense of power.
Yes; other tools attempt to increase both power and discoverability, with mixed success.
>> Anyone who suggests 'abandoning the use of the registry'
>> has obviously never written Windows software. What do
>> you suggest we replace it with, INI files?
> Or property lists, yes.
Well, INI files don't scale well; not because they are flat text files, but because the way a hierarchy is modelled in an INI file is inefficient and error prone. Something in the nature of a property list would be quite reasonable.
It is also worth noting that since DotNet, lots of data that used to be in the Registry is now in XML files in the application folder. That's a big part of the XCOPY install feature MS brags about for DotNet.
>> What do you suppose we do about the thousands of existing
>> applications that use the registry?
> Wrappers for the INI/PLIST files that behave like the old
> registry calls.
Perfectly doable.
>> How do you suggest we support access controls for individual
>> settings and keys - make a single INI file for each one?
> Why not?
Well, it isn't strictly necessary to use the Registry to support access controls on keys and settings. As long as the file itself only allows administrator access, the APIs that model the current Registry APIs can implement key and value level security within the file. This would make the files read-only in a text editor for common users; however a simple editor could be created that allows the appropriate access to the individual keys via the APIs.
But INI files aren't appropriately structured for that; XML files would be better, or any number of less-verbose-than-XML text formats.
> OS X does this like a dream, I can take my Library folder with me
> and wham, everything is the way I like it on a new machine. I'm
> sure it would be possible to do something similar on Windows,
> provided I paid $50 for some crappy shareware product.
Well, it wouldn't be a crappy $50 shareware product to virtualize the Registry. Since the APIs are inside ADVAPI32.DLL, and are used during the boot process, it would be a kernel hack; generally more expensive when done third-party. MS could do it safely; third parties would need to worry about MS breaking the hack with an OS update.
Agreed. There's no reason at all for any problems until and unless someone in the EU starts handing out domain names that collide with domain names issues elsewhere. Even then, the problems would be limited to those domain names that are in conflict. Unless someone in the EU reissues duplicate domain names for fairly major sites, the problem would be limited. If someone in the EU -did- reissue, say, "www.google.com" to someone else, the most likely result would be people in the EU pissed at their own domain authority.
Sure, someone could deliberately take the root servers in the EU out of sync with those in the US and screw things up, but why would they? What's the benefit in cutting off their own noses in an act of spite against the US? I honestly doubt any bureacrat in the EU is really -that- stupid and malicious.
And unless I missed something, it doesn't affect IP addresses, just domain names. I don't see anything being said that would indicate that any IP address would be referenced differently on either side. IP addresses would still be issued by the same providers as they are now.
>> There's a key, but subtle point about the American view there:
>> Americans would almost -universally- put Liberty -before- Justice."
> Apologies - I was talking from the perspective of "the individual",
> meaning I think everyone has the right to Life first, then the right to
> Justice (basically, "what they deserve" - this may include locking up if
> they're criminals). Finally, they deserve Liberty.
> IE, Life trumps Justice (so no death penalty), and Justice trumps
> Liberty (so you can still punish/imprison people for wrongdoing).
We may still be failing to connect here. I would say the American perspective is very influenced by mainstream Christian moral teaching. This draws a distinction between "freedom" and "license", with the American view that Liberty is close related to if not identical to Freedom.
Freedom would allow any moral (licit) act, and license would allow an act, regardless of it's moral component.
In the case above, "Liberty" would not be contravened by locking someone up in response to a criminal conviction. Reducing someone's Liberty, irrespective of his or her guilt or innocence, in the effort to combat crime/promote justice, would be wrong.
Depriving a person of certain liberties -after- he is convicted is fine. Depriving people of liberties to -prevent- an injustice is wrong, even if it may prevent a grave moral wrong.
> If you're talking about the society level, then I'd say Justice,
> Liberty, then Life - Justice (basically, everyone getting what they
> deserve) is the most important aspect of any society, followed by
> Liberty.
We're definitely at odds here. Without Life, there can be no Liberty or Justice. Hence the American loathing for things such as euthanasia.
> This ensures that people genuinely do get what they deserve,
> instead of being abused/ripped off/taken advantage of by the "Liberties"
> of con-men or more powerful individuals. Finally, Life is the least
> important, since you should be prepared to (eventually) lay down your
> life to defend those values.
> This is a bit of an artificially-restricted way to talk about the
> subject (eg, despite the above I still support the individual's right to
> choose euthanasia, which is technically Liberty over Life). However,
> this just plays back into my problem with absolutes - I find myself
> starting to believe that perhaps there aren't any absolutes, since you
> can construct a scenario whereby following any hard rule leads to the
> "Wrong" thing happening (eg, you with the gun, and the small child
> packed with explosives running towards a crowd of nuns).
Well, the components of any act are the object (the act itself), the circumstances around the act, and the intent of the individual choosing the act.
In the case above, killing the child (the object) is indisputably an evil. However, the individual with the gun acts in very constrained circumstances, and his intent is not the death of the child, but preserving the lives of those he can save.
By this reasoning, there is -an- absolute: the killing of a child is wrong. What is missing is the absolute freedom of the man with the gun to choose the appropriate response. The absolute moral core remains; what is not absolute is the culpability the person with the gun has for the choice he makes.
> As an aside, what is a "European-style healthcare system"? Every
> country in Europe manages its own system, and apart from the fact
> they're all free, open to all, (ideally) good and supported (at least in
> part) by the government, there are no common threads between all of
> them. "European-style healthcare system" means about as much as
> "car-coloured truck" - any set that includes the lot is so vague as to
> be practically meaningless...
True enough. More specifically, comparisons are made with Canada, Engla
>> The American view is that the center represents a real,
;-).
>> if abstract, concept that represents a desirable goal.
> That's a fair enough position, and one which I agree with.
> Although I have a grave problem with absolutes, if I had to
> choose one to subscribe to, that would be it (in the order
> Life, Justice then Liberty, however, since that takes care
> of the problem of criminality and avoids the death penalty
There's a key, but subtle point about the American view there: Americans would almost -universally- put Liberty -before- Justice.
We feel that Justice before Liberty is one way dictators get a start. In truth, a dictator could use either the pretext of Liberty or Justice; but the American bias is in favor of Liberty.
> While I agree with you that there are universal (or near-
> universal) Truths/Good, I think we disagree on how to achieve
> these aims, and how much they apply to the real world.
> For example, I believe that universal healthcare and
> welfare is essential to Life, and that Justice can be
> served by removing merely Liberty, instead of Liberty and Life.
I would agree that universal healthcare is essential -in the modern world- for life. I would not agree to a purely European style health-care system, nor do I agree that universal healthcare and welfare are essential to life, out of the context of modern society.
> I find it hard to agree that these universal absolutes
> apply to things as base as political position. I wouldn't
> agree that either the Right or the Left has a right to
> claim they're closer to the universal good,
Well, I didn't say that the right or the left are closer to the universal good, or that I or most Americans know what it is.
Our essential disagreement with our perception of European thinking is that the Europeans we speak to seem to act as if there are -no- real absolutes. That if the majority of the world agreed to reduce population through forced birth control and abortion, removing the Liberty of procreation, as China does, or decided to adopt Sharia law, then that's just dandy.
This is -deeply- disturbing to Americans.
> since both sides have policies that go against it (eg,
> the Right's traditional lack of support for "big government"
> knocks out much hope of universal healthcare/Life, and
> the far-left Liberals' penchant for inhibiting free
> speech/Liberty for political correctness).
> Give this absence of clear absolutes in terms of which
> political party you support, I think a centrist view is
> the "safest" - you can take the best from both ends
> of the spectrum without being tied to any one ideology.
'Safest' probably; but the American view is summed up well by Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This is an example of the kind of conflicts of view where we get the impression that the world wants to change the American spirit.
Americans have no problem with choosing Liberty -instead- of safety. I suspect that is one reason we don't have universal healthcare. Many people want it; we're almost certainly going to get it; but we're not in a hurry until we work out the issues of Liberty.
More pressing to most Americans than universal healthcare are such issues as the right to choose treatment/doctors/hospitals; the right to choose to pay more for immediate treatment; the right to select a health care plan.
>> We're starting to see common ground here. One other
>> possibility, cogent to the UN argument; if enemies of
>> what is right obstruct the UN from ratifying consensus."
> This is the same point we keep coming back to - you believe
> in absolute Right, and think the US knows best (or at least
> roughly) where it is.
Not necessarily
I couldn't resist; I'll continue the thread. So that wasn't my last post, and this probably won't be either.
>> Americans feel that they may be right of center, but Europe
>> is left of center, and finding common ground requires Europe
>> to move toward an American view while America moves to
>> a more European view."
> That's a very fair and interesting point of view, and one
> which I'd never appreciated before. I think most Europeans
> see someone like the USSR/China as "extreme left", the USA
> as "extreme right" and themselves as relatively in the center.
> The USA, in contrast, seems to see themselves as "a bit right"
> and Europe as "a bit left" - this does explain a lot.
> Just out of interest, where do you see China - "really extreme
> left"? And would there be an example of an "extreme right"
> country further right than the US?
Not offhand, but part of that is that I'm no more used to arguing in these terms than you are. We're both stepping outside our world views here.
> I ask because it seems (to me personally) that one can derive
> the centre by selecting a point mid-way between the two extremes.
> If we've got an "extreme left" and only "a bit right", this would
> make me think we'd mis-chosen the centre position, unless there's
> another country further right than the USA which would make the
> USA "only a bit" right.
That view is valid, but it's not the only way to look at the matter. It's certainly valid if the center we are referring to is a point on a graph that shows opinions on something that has no intrinsic attributes.
But if the center represents something real, then where we -believe- the center to be only reflects our understanding. The actual center may be somewhere else.
Look at is this way: if we are trying to determine what people feel is the best toothpaste or detergent, then the center is where people say it is.
But if we are attempting to find the locus of a fault line in the earth's crust, then it is where it is, and our opinions don't move it.
The American view is that the center represents a real, if abstract, concept that represents a desirable goal. That goal doesn't change, although our view of where it is may change. For example, "Life, Liberty, and Justice For All" is a fixed concept. What needs to be done to achieve this changes with time. At one time, giving white male landowners elected representation seemed to be the thing. Over time, this was broadened to include those who owned no land, women and blacks.
But the goal didn't change; our view improved. Americans have no philosophical difficulty with the idea that all the world could be left of the US, and that all the world could still be wrong. And it isn't because we're certain we're right. It's because we're certain that "right" isn't made by might -or- by majority rule.
At one time, the majority of those in the US who were allowed to vote believed that white people could own black people; now we don't. But Americans don't believe this was because it -was- right then, and now it's wrong. They believe it's because the majority was wrong then.
>> "Nonetheless, I would have to modify that last statement to
>> something more like, "and one which should be undertaken with
>> international approval, or at least acceptance, except in the most
>> extreme conditions.""
> You make a very good addition - there are times where
> only you know something that legitimises an attack, or
> where you simply don't have time to garner international
> consensus.
We're starting to see common ground here. One other possibility, cogent to the UN argument; if enemies of what is right obstruct the UN from ratifying consensus.
> In this situation, I'd support un-consensual action, but only if:
> i) You provide evidence justifying the action as soon as possible
> I heard about a $20,000 accounting package that was done in VB.
> I have nothing in particular against VB,
Actually, there are at least a dozen large-scale accounting packages that are either solely VB or have large amounts of VB in them.
> but it's not an appropriate tool to do a large, serious mission-
> critical system like that.
Why? Not to defend VB, but while VB has limitations, I can't see that VB's limitations are a real problem in an accounting package. It handles data-entry forms just fine, interfaces well with a number of databases, handles business math well, and generates appropriately fast and small code in the hands of a competent programmer.
The deficiencies don't seem to have a significant impact on large-scale accounting systems. There is the possibility of an unrecoverable application error, but frankly C and C++ are even more prone to those in the hands of equally skilled programmers in the middle-range of skill level.
> [the] auto industry in the 70s. American cars weren't terrible,
> but the quality [was] inconsistent. The big three would tell
> you that making defect-free cars would raise the prices...
> Then the Japanese...delivered cars that...blew away the big
> three in terms of quality, and at very reasonable prices.
Excellent example. A product doesn't have to be criminally defective to be unacceptably poor, and a product doesn't have to be perfect to be miles better than the normal state of affairs.