Get a grip. This is not a new concept in psychology. These tests have a specific purpose and are *never* supposed to stand on their own, with no other evidence. It is simply a tool used to figure out what the problem with someone msy be.
For example, there is a test used widely today with hundreds of yes-no questions. Its purpose is to determine if a person is psychotic. I took it for a friend of mine who needed to administer it as part of a pychology PhD curriculum. The result for me was "within normal limits" or something like that-quite anticlimatic. It cannot tell if I am smart, creative, violent, or prefer gel to paste Colgate. It certainly cannot replace a complete psychological profile including examination by a live person.
Letting people other than trained psychologists administer and evaluate the results of the test is like letting your brother-in-law, who "knows all about computers" administer your network. It's foolish and irresponsible.
The response by Slashdot readers to this is analogous to people who pass along hoax virus warnings. They don't know that much about the subject, but they panic when certain triggers are pulled.
Another thing is that these tests are not used to screen the population, and "pull out" potential offenders. They are used after there is a identified problem. These tests probably would not have done any good at Littleton, because no one suspected the two students of anything, and they did not show enough signs warrant testing.
Even Homer Simpson didn't get Dr. Marvin Monroe' psych test given to him until after he wore a pink shirt to work.
This phenomenon is not unique to computers. How many "cop" movies actually portray police work accurately? Or war? The thing that made an Oscar winner of Saving Private Ryan was simply its faithfulness to real war. Hollywood usually doesn't get it right, but only those with technical knowledge specific to the profession that movies are distorting and oversimplifying know the difference.
Having some experience in the military, it is easy for me to spot glaring inaccuracies regarding military tactics, doctrine, etc. in Hollywood movies that might escape other viewers. However, I would have little understanding of just how badly the legal profession is distorted, since I have no experience in that field. So I don't complain about the way Hollywood depicts lawyers because I don't know enough to.
It's not that easy to capture the reality of a profession or lifestyle or philosophy or whatever. At least to do that and sell tickets. If a movie really got to the essence of hacking, would anyone but geeks watch it? And how much money does a wildly inaccurate but non-geek-accessible film make (such as The Net)?
Maybe that would make a great indie film - "Hacking the Hackers". Something only a dyed-in-the-wool, pocket-protecting-nerd would love. But also would something which lets ordinary people into the world of geeks - "Hackspotting".
Exactly. You bought the Nino for a different reason than most people buy their Pilot/CE Palmtop/other PIM. I would venture a guess that most people who would buy a PIM/PalmPC also have enough access to a PC - at work, home, laptop, etc., that they don't really need a PC in their hand. It's cool, but that is not enough to get most people to spend $300-$500 on it. And in the end, the need/want that drove them to consider the purchase (to replace their day-planner with an electronic one) still has not been satisfied with the PalmPC.
Was the Nino a PC or an Organizer? It was designed and marketed to be both, and there are better examples of both of these things. Compare to the Pilot, which has no pretense of doing everything that a PC does, and has sold more than all its CE Palmtop competitors. It's the Jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none principle.
Do I really need a built-in modem? A voice recorder? 8MB of memory? Not for my organizer, I don't. In fact, I would probably be less productive if I was always fiddling with those things (I didn't say they weren't fun to fool with).
Since I bought my Pilot in 1997, I know about 8 people who bought one partially or completely based on the fact that they saw the one I had. I have not seen the same thing with the CE Palmtops. Those machines seem overwhelming the the average person. Any idiot can use a Pilot, just like any idiot can use a phone.
If AOL lost the right to keep others from using "You've got mail" for the exact same business purpose that they use it, how can they expect to have the right to keep others from using it for purposes unrelated to their busines?
Also, could "You've got male" be considered parody and under fair use? Would anyone be fooled into thinking it had anything to do with AOL?
Let the closed-source vendors do this. If anything, this law (especially if it gets passed all over the US) will make an excellent case for open-source. Makes some great advertising: "Don't want to be held hostage by a software company? Use open-source!"
Slashdot Mirror
Get a grip. This is not a new concept in psychology. These tests have a specific purpose and are *never* supposed to stand on their own, with no other evidence. It is simply a tool used to figure out what the problem with someone msy be.
For example, there is a test used widely today with hundreds of yes-no questions. Its purpose is to determine if a person is psychotic. I took it for a friend of mine who needed to administer it as part of a pychology PhD curriculum. The result for me was "within normal limits" or something like that-quite anticlimatic. It cannot tell if I am smart, creative, violent, or prefer gel to paste Colgate. It certainly cannot replace a complete psychological profile including examination by a live person.
Letting people other than trained psychologists administer and evaluate the results of the test is like letting your brother-in-law, who "knows all about computers" administer your network. It's foolish and irresponsible.
The response by Slashdot readers to this is analogous to people who pass along hoax virus warnings. They don't know that much about the subject, but they panic when certain triggers are pulled.
Another thing is that these tests are not used to screen the population, and "pull out" potential offenders. They are used after there is a identified problem. These tests probably would not have done any good at Littleton, because no one suspected the two students of anything, and they did not show enough signs warrant testing.
Even Homer Simpson didn't get Dr. Marvin Monroe' psych test given to him until after he wore a pink shirt to work.
This phenomenon is not unique to computers. How many "cop" movies actually portray police work accurately? Or war? The thing that made an Oscar winner of Saving Private Ryan was simply its faithfulness to real war. Hollywood usually doesn't get it right, but only those with technical knowledge specific to the profession that movies are distorting and oversimplifying know the difference.
Having some experience in the military, it is easy for me to spot glaring inaccuracies regarding military tactics, doctrine, etc. in Hollywood movies that might escape other viewers. However, I would have little understanding of just how badly the legal profession is distorted, since I have no experience in that field. So I don't complain about the way Hollywood depicts lawyers because I don't know enough to.
It's not that easy to capture the reality of a profession or lifestyle or philosophy or whatever. At least to do that and sell tickets. If a movie really got to the essence of hacking, would anyone but geeks watch it? And how much money does a wildly inaccurate but non-geek-accessible film make (such as The Net)?
Maybe that would make a great indie film - "Hacking the Hackers". Something only a dyed-in-the-wool, pocket-protecting-nerd would love. But also would something which lets ordinary people into the world of geeks - "Hackspotting".
Exactly. You bought the Nino for a different reason than most people buy their Pilot/CE Palmtop/other PIM. I would venture a guess that most people who would buy a PIM/PalmPC also have enough access to a PC - at work, home, laptop, etc., that they don't really need a PC in their hand. It's cool, but that is not enough to get most people to spend $300-$500 on it. And in the end, the need/want that drove them to consider the purchase (to replace their day-planner with an electronic one) still has not been satisfied with the PalmPC.
Was the Nino a PC or an Organizer? It was designed and marketed to be both, and there are better examples of both of these things. Compare to the Pilot, which has no pretense of doing everything that a PC does, and has sold more than all its CE Palmtop competitors. It's the Jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none principle.
Do I really need a built-in modem? A voice recorder? 8MB of memory? Not for my organizer, I don't. In fact, I would probably be less productive if I was always fiddling with those things (I didn't say they weren't fun to fool with).
Since I bought my Pilot in 1997, I know about 8 people who bought one partially or completely based on the fact that they saw the one I had. I have not seen the same thing with the CE Palmtops. Those machines seem overwhelming the the average person. Any idiot can use a Pilot, just like any idiot can use a phone.
If AOL lost the right to keep others from using "You've got mail" for the exact same business purpose that they use it, how can they expect to have the right to keep others from using it for purposes unrelated to their busines?
Also, could "You've got male" be considered parody and under fair use? Would anyone be fooled into thinking it had anything to do with AOL?
Let the closed-source vendors do this. If anything, this law (especially if it gets passed all over the US) will make an excellent case for open-source.
Makes some great advertising: "Don't want to be held hostage by a software company? Use open-source!"