In addition to the tax paying supplying interest, I would venture to say that because the query is for information at a *public school* (part of the government remember) the plaintiff has sufficient interest.
Merely being a citizen entitles him to request information of a school. IANAL
First off, this isn't a flame--I don't agree with your arguments, but I don't intend to attack *you* You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
I have seen similiar arguments to this before, and many good responses have been already given that point out some of the fallacies in your argument. I want to add one more.
I have known, and been friends with, a lot of people used a lot of drugs in my day. People from all income levels, backgrounds, careers, education levels, and demographics. One thing they all had in common--they did drugs because they chose to. Some (like me) quit, and others didn't. Some died, and some really screwed up their lives. And some to my knowledge, are still partying away, and having a grand ol' time. Ending up in a bad way was by no means was a forgone conclusion--If it were, then at least 85% of the people I've known would be dead, or street junkies by now--if we follow your logic to its conclusion.
But that is just background, what I want to point out is this: That all of those people, me, you, your friend, and everyone else in the good ol' US of A who have done drugs Have done so illegally!!!
So what makes you think that a few more laws are going to make that go away? If these people are willing to break the law to consume plants and extracts that make them feel differently (my cat can do it legally, but I can't BTW) when they have dozens of really severe laws and guys with guns that say they will rot in jail for it, if caught, why would any more stringent laws help?
Unless of course Congress goes for immediate execution, first offense. I suppose that will clear up the drug war eventually...
Bottom line legalization != endorsement, any more than criminalization == forbidding. Laws don't dictate morality, or even right and wrong, they deal strictly in limitations to your natural rights. This is one of those things that may be wrong to do, but shouldn't be illegal.
I should (and do regardless of morality laws) get to decide what is good for me, the additional burden of law is extraneous. Unfortunately, censorship in one area is a precedent for censorship in other areas. As too are laws that reduce liberty in the name of morality. Talk about gateways...
These were the most addictive and fun games I can remember. I bet I (and my friends) paid for that Pinbot machine twenty times over in that school year when we played it every day after school.
As a Windows programmer (primarily in Visual FoxPro) I want to add that not only is Open Source not incompatible with Windows development, but may be where its next big expansion will occur.
In case you guys hadn't noticed, what goes on in the Unix/Linux world escapes the attention of most of the M$ based developers. This isn't coincidence! They are largely isolated, well in the sphere of influence of Redmond and readily believe such nonsense as M$ created symbolic links.
A large part of why Open Source hasn't reached them yet, is they don't know anymore about it than what they hear on TV.
By supporting Open Source on the Windows platform, we can take this movement, which surpercedes ANY platform, or environment, and hit the corporate code mongers right in their backyard.
Don't overlook your compatriots that are inside enemy lines:) Some of us are working hard to get Open Source projects--and Open Source products--into the midst of our often backward thinking, and behind the times M$ peers.
Look for more and more Open Source main stream efforts in the Windows environment, they are coming.
I too live in Pittsburgh, and work in Pittsburgh. I agree with that the city is boring from the 18-25 year old perspective, but that isn't enough to justify declaring it on its death bed.
Pittsburgh is cleaner than a lot of city's, safer (if you know it), and has a lot of less exciting if still interesting attactions (like its museums, symphonies, etc.)
There are initiatives to try and bring more geek oriented work to the area.
Oh, and perhaps the population of the city has gone down since the 70's, but the surrounding areas have grown considerably. Cranberry Twp. to the north of the city was declared the fastest growing area in the country not too long ago (Fore Systems has their world HQ there).
So don't count out the burgh just yet, its still has some life, and I think when they figure out how to keep the CMU grads like you from leaving, this town will become another technology hub.
Of course they have to figure out how to keep you here, and judging by your comments, I guess there is some work to do yet.
Then again, those who got in on the ground floor in the Valley probably saw a diamond in the rough, and I wonder how many Berkeley students left for greener pastures in those really early days?:)
I just thought I'd clarify my tone because I think you think I'm (slightly) more of an ass than I actually am. heh.
Not at all, I just found it appropriate to comment further on your posting. I am glad I did, because wth your clarification, I now agree with you--there are a lot of those types of groceries on the shelf here. But there are a lot of good things on the shelves here too, and sometimes it starts to sound like no one notices that here anymore, so I thought I should add a counterbalance to your post.
This is still one of my favorite daily stops, and will continue to be so as long as postings like yours are around (minority opinions are often more important), and I don't just get flamed for "commenting" on someone's tone:) I think your post was excellent, and your response was top notch. Sorry if I sounded self-righteous, your graciousness humbles me;)
FWIW I agree with your point that its over-reacting to see this as some sort of evidence of evil forces at work.
But...
I noticed that you are being moderated UP not down. How could that be if/. is so full of the narrow-mindedness that you imply? Why is it that just because SOME of the louder voices here are narrow minded, do you narrow-mindedly assume that ALL or even MOST are?
, >but who really needs positive karma in a microcosm full of minds that run the gamut from >"closed" to "empty
I mean you are here, are you in that range of minds or an open thinking mind? You are getting positive karma because you had something intelligent to say, but the sarcasm wasn't necessary, and frankly it detracts from your otherwise excellent statement.
I am not attacking you viewpoint, but I am criticizing your tone.
The fact is that many readers of/. are NOT narrow minded M$ bashers/linux flag wavers. I happen to use both Microsoft products AND linux, and I use the ones for what I feel is the best use for each. I don't preach my usage, or bash others' views. Yes, Slashdot can be linux-centric but its a mistake to think that everyone here shares the same viewpoint.
I would be willing to bet that amongst the many many readers/posters at Slashdot you will find every major OS, Programming language, and machine architecture represented and advocated, along with countless smaller ones.
I continue to read and post at/. because I like the up-to-date news and the varying viewpoints, both good and bad. I don't always agree, and other times I agree wholeheartedly, and not just with those with whom I am politically, morally, OSedly, and Languagedly aligned, sometimes I disagree, but it makes me think deeper on the subject. That is why I come here, to stimulate my brain, and try to keep current with what's going on. I think that maybe you do to, or you wouldn't be showing your frustration with the admittedly narrow-minded approach of some of/.'s citizens.
Don't drop yourself down to the level of the thoughtless posters that annoy you by shotgunning mud over the entire readership. Your insights show that you are above that.
Best, Logos
Re:(Does it) ...No Bill would not be god
on
Cybernauts Awake!
·
· Score: 1
It would make him a meta-god, or possibly a meta-meta god:
Bill created M$ M$ created Bob Bob created slack...
Or maybe Bob begat Bob Or Eris Begat Bill to begat Bob.
What was I saying, I begat err forget:)
sorry very silly, but I am very stressed.
But just so this is isn't totally off topic, Internet morality is no more dependant on the medium than thoughts on paper--else my really dumb comments above become moral if the internet is deemed moral, and are categorically immoral if the technology itself needs assesed for morality and fails (and so my comments become dumb, silly, off-topic, AND immoral).
Enough said. But seriously, how can anyone think this is a good name for a product. Its not even a name, but a description, and besides how can something be powered by itself?
This would be like/. being renamed/. powered. Granted, its a little recursive, but its mostly dumb.
I bought the 1st edition of this book not too terribly long ago, and before I had read a third of the way through it, I was using its insights in my code.
I was working on a series of General Ledger reports, and the first one? Well let's just say that I won't win any design awards. Somewhere in there I started reading this book and my code cleaned up dramatically. I can't say that the next report in the series will win any awards either, but I found myself sitting and waiting a bit before coding, and it has paid off. By the end of the project, my programs were almost elegant. I enjoy looking at them--and they aren't a nightmare for mods.
Just an example: The report before reading the book and the one right after are both variations of Income Statements. I needed to make a change that would affect both. Some of the code was in a joint library file, but some was in each report. The first report required at least a dozen places of change, the second required THREE LINES!
Granted, better design ideas from other sources were at work, and these were some of my first commercial programs, but this book definitely had an impact.
Buy this book, and take the time to ingest it. Work the programs--even if you think you understand them. It will pay off nicely.
This book in my mind is the greatest example of human ingenuity and the evolution of knowledge out there. I read this book over and over as a kid.
This book (the movie, while good doesn't do the hacking justice) truly shows how necessity is the mother of invention.
I especially like how early in the war, both the methods of escape, AND of escape detection while often ingenious, were crude compared to the methods employed by both sides at the end.
Just some examples (the whole book is like this):
The prisioners started digging tunnels once going over the wire was made too difficult by the employment of efficient guard turrets and redundant fencing. The camp personnel began driving weighted wagons around the camp to collapse the tunnels. The prisoners dug deeper, the guards moved the fences further out, etc.
AND
The German Camp administrators, in an effort to stop prisoners from tunneling out from within the barracks, put the barracks' on stilts.
The prisioners, to get around this began tunnels from the only parts that weren't lifted onto stilts--namely the shower room, and the stove foundation.
Also fascinating was their security (both sides); the prisoner's adaptation of military uniforms to civilian clothes; the use of sound detection equipment by the Germans to listen for digging; and the forgery of documents--by hand and in poor light that were in some cases more realistic than the examples! A good example of relative ethics--forgery here was a good thing(to the prisoners anyway;) )
I have cited this book on several occasions as an example of why there is no such thing as a perfect system, and how we shouldn't concentrate on who's to blame when security is breached, but instead focus on the inevitable evolution. Also pointless in my mind, is to think that a perfect solution to any problem can ever be found, but that the seeking of the solution is what is paramount.
I thought the same thing when I read this-namely that maybe they really were debugging a problem and captured the emails.
This made me think of a question:
If you were having problems with snail mail getting routed to your house the post office would have to investigate, and to do so they would have to maybe look at your mail--not the contents mind you, but the envelope. It seems to me that there is a need for a similar protection for email.
Yes, encryption is an option, and had everyone been using it, they couldn't have claimed a privacy invasion;)
But seriously, what would the technical difficulty be for an addition of what amounts to a protocol version of envelope glue. In other words, something in the header that allows de-cryption of the body--but only once. That way the receiver does not have to publish a key, and yet has knowledge that their mail was tampered with. Something like an extension of a digitial signature.
Is this at all practical? Is this even different from a signature? I am not fully versed in the nuances of encryption, and I know that many here are, so I thought I would put this out as an idea.
The advantage of such a scenario would be that online companies such as Amazon could seal their emails, and not have to have their recipients do anything.
>SETI can't stop people from modifying the executable on their own systems, >but I think the people calling for SETI to make it even easier for people to modify the system
How can closing the source prevent me from spoofing a valid signal with a client I write and distribute? Nothing! In short you can't ensure that you are getting valid results back simply by saying no one can know HOW your client works because you can't control the source of the packets. I can write a bogus client that mimics your interface.
There is no inconsistency to having the client open, and then still ensuring that only valid clients be used-these are separate issues entirely.
According to your statement I quoted above, SETI's experiment is already blown if they can't stop people from modifying your executables, so why do they continue? Because they (I hope) have checks to see that the data is valid.
Point is, no one has to hack the closed client they can write their own. The only way to secure the client is to find other ways to validate the data. Thus validity has nothing to do with the openess, so open it and you gain the insight of the best programmers in the world both on performance, and probably security too.
This isn't about speed, or accuracy in the Scientifc processes that SETI is using, if it were, then no Scientific endevor ANYWHERE could use open source software. Guess all those universities will have to get rid of Linux:)
I don't think anyone is advocating that SETI release control of the project, just suggesting that we leave the astronomy to the astronomers, and the programming to the programmers.
>If you can improve the code, instead of helping SETI by processing keys faster, >you bring yourself out of alignment with everybody else, create potential bugs in >the experiment,
No one is saying that giving any goofball the ability to screw with your algorithims will help you, but they ARE suggesting that you could get a lot of help with the valid client that YOU distribute/endorse. If you choose to abdicate that responsibility, well than you are no better than the suits who think that Open Source is a panacea that means they don't have to work anymore either.
Security through obscurity, you'd think the scientific community would know better.
Ah, but you have hit the nail on the head -- or the head on the nail.
The point is, this child was NOT yelling bomb in an airport as a joke. He was writing a fictional essay in class.
Now I don't know this child, but if there was any concern that this fictional essay represented the child's true intentions, the CORRECT procedure would have been to discuss the matter with the child's parent(s), discretely and if the situation warrented it to seek out evaluation and counseling.
Instead, this child was thrown in jail (Juvenile Jail, but jail none-the-less) for a creative writing assignment.
When the child is carrying a gun in school, fine arrest him. When the child is writing an essay, I don't think so.
And what makes it even more damaging is that these people are the teachers.
They sure are teaching our children, but they are not teaching critical thinking, history, geography, scientific reasoning, or communication, but rather censorship, heresey, conformity, narrow-mindedness, and mediocrity.
But its the children who are at fault, right? I had teachers in school who were useless -- they did nothing to teach their subject matter, and wasted everyone's time. However, these same time-wasters have created a new breed of teachers-ones who actively create dis-information. The children who receive this message should make even better teachers.
I always saw homeschooling as a way for the narrow-minded fundamentalist types to keep their children from broadening their horizons -- I am thinking now that it might be the only way to ensure that some children carry the wisdom of the past 200 years into the next century.
Maybe internet schooling will save us -- if it gets here in time.
"Those who prefer security over liberty deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin
While I sympathize with your problems with spaghetti code, and I agree that obfuscation is laughably easy in Perl, I think your criticism is misplaced here.
Perl is a tool, and like all tools can be misused. Specifically, Perl is a powerful tool, and so it can be really misused.:)
I spend most of my working day writing Foxpro code, and if you think Perl is bad for spaghetti code, try maintaining old foxbase code. The language is huge, and old, and has at least two distinct ways of doing things. Plus, older versions of the language were weak on parameter passing, causing older code to look like one long rat's nest of case and while statements, instead of using functions.
However, the only real problem is as always, when comments are LEFT OUT. FoxPro is a powerful data manipulation language, and like Perl, has its place in the tool box, and can be cryptic, but clear code can be written if the programmer a)knows what they are doing, and b)takes the time to let the future code reading programmer know what they were doing with comments.
Don't blame Larry for creating a powerful tool just because the world has an "everyone can be a programmer" mentality right now, and Perl (and ahem all the M$ languages) is one of the languages being touted as such.
Packers (see the Progammer's Stone articles here at/.) write bad code, language independantly. Perl can and is used correctly, and can be commented. Most people just don't bother. A lot of people have the idea that it is somehow more "elite" to write difficult to read code. A professional programmer knows that efficiency while desirable, is overshadowed by maintainability, because you lose money when you have to spend 4 hours figuring out what 100 lines of code does.
As for cutting and pasting code from a book, that will get you in trouble in ANY language. Progamming is not about cook book solutions, but problem domain definition, and problem solving.
To sum, If a person is writing bad code, blame the person, not the tool.
I think its just a matter of time before the more traditional power bases (In this example lawyers) find a chink in the internet armor.
There are daily examples here and everywhere of Big business, the world governments, and every type of shark in between trying to tap the "Power of the internet."
Its starting to look like the Illuminati card game out there.:)
The funny thing is this power has been around a long time--its called democracy. True democracy, mind you not the smoke and mirrors type practiced here in the US, but the real deal--one person one vote. More widely its about freedom, people looking for the freedom to choose whatever they want, and voting with mouse clicks.
If quepasa.com is stealing votes its not by deception, but by the choice of those who go there. I think that people not well aquainted with the Internet don't realize that, for all practical purposes, it is an infinite resource. Seven million votes! So what, that could be seven million people who never go back. But in the real world seven million subscribers would look good. Someone needs to tell these people the rules have changed.
This case implies the opposite of these ideas, but I fear that its just a matter of time before they find a way to control the information flow online.
All they need is a backhoe, a lawyer, and a flood pinger!
The sad part is, for most of us this is (was?) just a cool way to check out stuff that interests us, and see that others are interested in the same things. Why is everyone so afraid of that idea?
Paul, I don't know that life would necessarily be worse--or better without the cell phone or any other technological innovation.
I don't think technology is the symptom or the disease, but perhaps at most a catalyst, or more accurately a vector.
When the automobile was invented, what means of transportation were around: Horses, feet, bicycles, trains, wagons, etc.
The purpose of the automobile as envisioned by the inventor was probably just an enhancement of one the functions of these mechanisms.
But as humanity is wont to do, other uses are found that were not intended, or even smart. Thus drunk driving is a problem that horse riders were less aware of.
Cell phones have endless potential for enhancing lives (ask anyone who has blown a tire in the middle of nowhere), and for damaging the quality of life (ask anyone who has tried to watch a movie while the joker in front of you chats with a friend on the phone).
The point is, we are a tool using species. Tools can be used well or poorly.
This is true of Fire (one of the oldest) or the Internet (one of the newest, but certainly not the last).
Look to the (mis)user, and their ignorance of what makes life happy for the symptoms, the disease--and the cure.
Of course this is just my opinion, but I use most modern technologies, I am very happy, I keep my life simple, and I don't use cell phones:)
Hurrah for Stand, A Silver Lining?
on
Dear Mr. Straw
·
· Score: 3
One bright spot here. I am a US citizen, and while I am disturbed by the almost daily threats to privacy and other civil rights in this country, what struck me while reading this is the resonance between the British citizens' problems and our own with similar attempts.
If nothing else, we at least are truly starting to talk about issues in this world without regard to traditional borders. It is becoming more of an attack on OUR rights, as opposed to their rights. Once people are the same side of the fence, they work together. What affects the rights of people "over there" affects people everywhere. With forums like this, the position of the world's repressionists is becoming more difficult. We must continue to think in terms of we, regardless of outdated borders and outdated ways of viewing people that many of us have grown up being taught (by our societies, families, churches, etc.). The purpose of free speach has always been to keep unpopular (to the gov't or to the people) opinions flowing so we don't stagnate in our thinking.
Hurrah for Stand, for doing something. As long as we keep discussing and acting on these attempts to limit freedom, those who are afraid of everyone having the same freedom they have, will be unable to succeed. The more we incorporate the people of the world into the "we" of our mindsets, the more we move toward the world we all want.
After reading through as many postings as I had time to read, some common threads seemed to appear.
The first is that most people disagree with the notion of an impending cataclysm (no buzz words;) )
The second is that if we choose to do so we can manage our time correctly.
The first implies that most of us understand the following rant. The second is an example of the solution:
Check these quotes out:
"Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same." "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." "Our life is frittered away by detail...Simplify, simplify. "
These three quotes came to mind immediately when I read this. The third is from Henry David Thoreau, and the point I want to make is that the 19th century was just as plagued with these notions that the world had become too fast. HDT saw the wise course then and it hasn't changed--Simplify.
Who's fault is it that all of this additional stress and demands on our time exist? Our own of course! This is the true problem. You want happiness, simplify your life. Don't blame technology, just give it its proper place. Stop looking at the Internet as a revolution, and see it for what it is--a *part* of our lives. Stop commiting all of your time to the demands of others. Turn the pager off.
(End of Rant)
Who cares if one person can't understand all of technology, one person can't understand any single area of human enquiry. Enjoy life as it comes. One post mentioned Zen, and this is probably its central message as well.
All of human history wise men have told the frantic masses that happiness is related to moderation, and it has fallen on deaf ears. Use the internet to cure those ears! Tell people to relax a little. Is it the end of the world that a deadline slips? The next time your raging at the car in front of yours in rush hour traffic, because nothing has moved for four minutes, take that opportunity to look at the sky and remember how beautiful the world *still* is.
Lots of luck,
A happy person (who also embraces technology, and writes code for a living).
It seems to me that this is one of many in a concerted attempt by the ahem *security* minded folks in the US gov't to gain control of something that most everyone agrees is beyond their control.
The sad part is that I feel powerless to stop them. Starting with the Clipper chip (or even Echelon I guess) they have relentlessly looked for a chink in the electronic privacy armor, and they will find one eventually unless the American public starts waking up.
But most American's don't vote, most are more concerned with box scores, or Jerry Springer than their rep's voting records (if they even know who represents them), and its the lobbyists who get congress's attention.
The only time American's pay attention to our politics is when there is some kind of social scandal. If the law was going to help Clinton get laid, I am sure it would be the topic of neighborhood bar conversations then. We have been neatly corralled, and I don't know if anything is going make a difference. But hey I'll write to congress anyway (Then I'll get put on a subversive list, if I'm not already);)
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to the tax paying supplying interest, I would venture to say that because the query is for information at a *public school* (part of the government remember) the plaintiff has sufficient interest.
Merely being a citizen entitles him to request information of a school. IANAL
First off, this isn't a flame--I don't agree with your arguments, but I don't intend to attack *you* You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
I have seen similiar arguments to this before, and many good responses have been already given that point out some of the fallacies in your argument. I want to add one more.
I have known, and been friends with, a lot of people used a lot of drugs in my day. People from all income levels, backgrounds, careers, education levels, and demographics. One thing they all had in common--they did drugs because they chose to. Some (like me) quit, and others didn't. Some died, and some really screwed up their lives. And some to my knowledge, are still partying away, and having a grand ol' time. Ending up in a bad way was by no means was a forgone conclusion--If it were, then at least 85% of the people I've known would be dead, or street junkies by now--if we follow your logic to its conclusion.
But that is just background, what I want to point out is this: That all of those people, me, you, your friend, and everyone else in the good ol' US of A who have done drugs Have done so illegally!!!
So what makes you think that a few more laws are going to make that go away? If these people are willing to break the law to consume plants and extracts that make them feel differently (my cat can do it legally, but I can't BTW) when they have dozens of really severe laws and guys with guns that say they will rot in jail for it, if caught, why would any more stringent laws help?
Unless of course Congress goes for immediate execution, first offense. I suppose that will clear up the drug war eventually...
Bottom line legalization != endorsement, any more than criminalization == forbidding. Laws don't dictate morality, or even right and wrong, they deal strictly in limitations to your natural rights. This is one of those things that may be wrong to do, but shouldn't be illegal.
I should (and do regardless of morality laws) get to decide what is good for me, the additional burden of law is extraneous. Unfortunately, censorship in one area is a precedent for censorship in other areas. As too are laws that reduce liberty in the name of morality. Talk about gateways...
Best,
Logos
These were the most addictive and fun games I can remember. I bet I (and my friends) paid for that Pinbot machine twenty times over in that school year when we played it every day after school.
Taxi Driver was just plain fun.
As a Windows programmer (primarily in Visual FoxPro) I want to add that not only is Open Source not incompatible with Windows development, but may be where its next big expansion will occur.
:) Some of us are working hard to get Open Source projects--and Open Source products--into the midst of our often backward thinking, and behind the times M$ peers.
In case you guys hadn't noticed, what goes on in the Unix/Linux world escapes the attention of most of the M$ based developers. This isn't coincidence! They are largely isolated, well in the sphere of influence of Redmond and readily believe such nonsense as M$ created symbolic links.
A large part of why Open Source hasn't reached them yet, is they don't know anymore about it than what they hear on TV.
By supporting Open Source on the Windows platform, we can take this movement, which surpercedes ANY platform, or environment, and hit the corporate code mongers right in their backyard.
Don't overlook your compatriots that are inside enemy lines
Look for more and more Open Source main stream efforts in the Windows environment, they are coming.
Here are some smell tags for User Friendly:
Miranda should smell good (if she ever gets another date with AJ) so:
<PERFURME style="Miranda">
AJ likes to pull all-nighters, so we need something like:
<CODER style="allnighter" duration="36hours">
Now the Dust Puppy has that bare feet thing going so I propose the feet tag:
<FEET style="sweatsock" size="large">
To make it more obvious encase it in a style tag:
<STRONG><FEET></STRONG> etc.
Anyway, I have submitted my silly post for the month.
I too live in Pittsburgh, and work in Pittsburgh. I agree with that the city is boring from the 18-25 year old perspective, but that isn't enough to justify declaring it on its death bed.
:)
Pittsburgh is cleaner than a lot of city's, safer (if you know it), and has a lot of less exciting if still interesting attactions (like its museums, symphonies, etc.)
There are initiatives to try and bring more geek oriented work to the area.
Oh, and perhaps the population of the city has gone down since the 70's, but the surrounding areas have grown considerably. Cranberry Twp. to the north of the city was declared the fastest growing area in the country not too long ago (Fore Systems has their world HQ there).
So don't count out the burgh just yet, its still has some life, and I think when they figure out how to keep the CMU grads like you from leaving, this town will become another technology hub.
Of course they have to figure out how to keep you here, and judging by your comments, I guess there is some work to do yet.
Then again, those who got in on the ground floor in the Valley probably saw a diamond in the rough, and I wonder how many Berkeley students left for greener pastures in those really early days?
Just my two cents
Hehe,
:) I think your post was excellent, and your response was top notch. Sorry if I sounded self-righteous, your graciousness humbles me ;)
I just thought I'd clarify my tone because I think you think I'm (slightly) more of an ass than I actually am. heh.
Not at all, I just found it appropriate to comment further on your posting. I am glad I did, because wth your clarification, I now agree with you--there are a lot of those types of groceries on the shelf here. But there are a lot of good things on the shelves here too, and sometimes it starts to sound like no one notices that here anymore, so I thought I should add a counterbalance to your post.
This is still one of my favorite daily stops, and will continue to be so as long as postings like yours are around (minority opinions are often more important), and I don't just get flamed for "commenting" on someone's tone
Later,
Logos
FWIW I agree with your point that its over-reacting to see this as some sort of evidence of evil forces at work.
/. is so full of the narrow-mindedness that you imply? Why is it that just because SOME of the louder voices here are narrow minded, do you narrow-mindedly assume that ALL or even MOST are?
/. are NOT narrow minded M$ bashers/linux flag wavers. I happen to use both Microsoft products AND linux, and I use the ones for what I feel is the best use for each. I don't preach my usage, or bash others' views. Yes, Slashdot can be linux-centric but its a mistake to think that everyone here shares the same viewpoint.
/. because I like the up-to-date news and the varying viewpoints, both good and bad. I don't always agree, and other times I agree wholeheartedly, and not just with those with whom I am politically, morally, OSedly, and Languagedly aligned, sometimes I disagree, but it makes me think deeper on the subject. That is why I come here, to stimulate my brain, and try to keep current with what's going on. I think that maybe you do to, or you wouldn't be showing your frustration with the admittedly narrow-minded approach of some of /.'s citizens.
But...
I noticed that you are being moderated UP not down. How could that be if
, >but who really needs positive karma in a microcosm full of minds that run the gamut from >"closed" to "empty
I mean you are here, are you in that range of minds or an open thinking mind? You are getting positive karma because you had something intelligent to say, but the sarcasm wasn't necessary, and frankly it detracts from your otherwise excellent statement.
I am not attacking you viewpoint, but I am criticizing your tone.
The fact is that many readers of
I would be willing to bet that amongst the many many readers/posters at Slashdot you will find every major OS, Programming language, and machine architecture represented and advocated, along with countless smaller ones.
I continue to read and post at
Don't drop yourself down to the level of the thoughtless posters that annoy you by shotgunning mud over the entire readership. Your insights show that you are above that.
Best,
Logos
It would make him a meta-god, or possibly a meta-meta god:
:)
Bill created M$
M$ created Bob
Bob created slack...
Or maybe Bob begat Bob
Or Eris Begat Bill to begat Bob.
What was I saying, I begat err forget
sorry very silly, but I am very stressed.
But just so this is isn't totally off topic, Internet morality is no more dependant on the medium than thoughts on paper--else my really dumb comments above become moral if the internet is deemed moral, and are categorically immoral if the technology itself needs assesed for morality and fails (and so my comments become dumb, silly, off-topic, AND immoral).
Oh well back to this dumb program.
You could have something like:
Microsoft (just because)
anything with "tech" in it (like my ISP Pinnatech == dumb)
Jon Katz
"Prime Time "
KFC (or any other alphabet soup)
etc.
Enough said. But seriously, how can anyone think this is a good name for a product. Its not even a name, but a description, and besides how can something be powered by itself?
/. being renamed /. powered. Granted, its a little recursive, but its mostly dumb.
This would be like
I bought the 1st edition of this book not too terribly long ago, and before I had read a third of the way through it, I was using its insights in my code.
I was working on a series of General Ledger reports, and the first one? Well let's just say that I won't win any design awards. Somewhere in there I started reading this book and my code cleaned up dramatically. I can't say that the next report in the series will win any awards either, but I found myself sitting and waiting a bit before coding, and it has paid off. By the end of the project, my programs were almost elegant. I enjoy looking at them--and they aren't a nightmare for mods.
Just an example: The report before reading the book and the one right after are both variations of Income Statements. I needed to make a change that would affect both. Some of the code was in a joint library file, but some was in each report. The first report required at least a dozen places of change, the second required THREE LINES!
Granted, better design ideas from other sources were at work, and these were some of my first commercial programs, but this book definitely had an impact.
Buy this book, and take the time to ingest it. Work the programs--even if you think you understand them. It will pay off nicely.
At least it did for me.
This book in my mind is the greatest example of human ingenuity and the evolution of knowledge out there. I read this book over and over as a kid.
;) )
This book (the movie, while good doesn't do the hacking justice) truly shows how necessity is the mother of invention.
I especially like how early in the war, both the methods of escape, AND of escape detection while often ingenious, were crude compared to the methods employed by both sides at the end.
Just some examples (the whole book is like this):
The prisioners started digging tunnels once going over the wire was made too difficult by the employment of efficient guard turrets and redundant fencing. The camp personnel began driving weighted wagons around the camp to collapse the tunnels. The prisoners dug deeper, the guards moved the fences further out, etc.
AND
The German Camp administrators, in an effort to stop prisoners from tunneling out from within the barracks, put the barracks' on stilts.
The prisioners, to get around this began tunnels from the only parts that weren't lifted onto stilts--namely the shower room, and the stove foundation.
Also fascinating was their security (both sides); the prisoner's adaptation of military uniforms to civilian clothes; the use of sound detection equipment by the Germans to listen for digging; and the forgery of documents--by hand and in poor light that were in some cases more realistic than the examples! A good example of relative ethics--forgery here was a good thing(to the prisoners anyway
I have cited this book on several occasions as an example of why there is no such thing as a perfect system, and how we shouldn't concentrate on who's to blame when security is breached, but instead focus on the inevitable evolution. Also pointless in my mind, is to think that a perfect solution to any problem can ever be found, but that the seeking of the solution is what is paramount.
This book gets my vote.
On the way home, I thought of several problems to my idea, thanks for the info.
I thought the same thing when I read this-namely that maybe they really were debugging a problem and captured the emails.
;)
This made me think of a question:
If you were having problems with snail mail getting routed to your house the post office would have to investigate, and to do so they would have to maybe look at your mail--not the contents mind you, but the envelope. It seems to me that there is a need for a similar protection for email.
Yes, encryption is an option, and had everyone been using it, they couldn't have claimed a privacy invasion
But seriously, what would the technical difficulty be for an addition of what amounts to a protocol version of envelope glue. In other words, something in the header that allows de-cryption of the body--but only once. That way the receiver does not have to publish a key, and yet has knowledge that their mail was tampered with. Something like an extension of a digitial signature.
Is this at all practical? Is this even different from a signature? I am not fully versed in the nuances of encryption, and I know that many here are, so I thought I would put this out as an idea.
The advantage of such a scenario would be that online companies such as Amazon could seal their emails, and not have to have their recipients do anything.
>SETI can't stop people from modifying the executable on their own systems,
:)
>but I think the people calling for SETI to make it even easier for people to modify the system
How can closing the source prevent me from spoofing a valid signal with a client I write and distribute? Nothing! In short you can't ensure that you are getting valid results back simply by saying no one can know HOW your client works because you can't control the source of the packets. I can write a bogus client that mimics your interface.
There is no inconsistency to having the client open, and then still ensuring that only valid clients be used-these are separate issues entirely.
According to your statement I quoted above, SETI's experiment is already blown if they can't stop people from modifying your executables, so why do they continue? Because they (I hope) have checks to see that the data is valid.
Point is, no one has to hack the closed client they can write their own. The only way to secure the client is to find other ways to validate the data. Thus validity has nothing to do with the openess, so open it and you gain the insight of the best programmers in the world both on performance, and probably security too.
This isn't about speed, or accuracy in the Scientifc processes that SETI is using, if it were, then no Scientific endevor ANYWHERE could use open source software. Guess all those universities will have to get rid of Linux
I don't think anyone is advocating that SETI release control of the project, just suggesting that we leave the astronomy to the astronomers, and the programming to the programmers.
>If you can improve the code, instead of helping SETI by processing keys faster,
>you bring yourself out of alignment with everybody else, create potential bugs in >the experiment,
No one is saying that giving any goofball the ability to screw with your algorithims will help you, but they ARE suggesting that you could get a lot of help with the valid client that YOU distribute/endorse. If you choose to abdicate that responsibility, well than you are no better than the suits who think that Open Source is a panacea that means they don't have to work anymore either.
Security through obscurity, you'd think the scientific community would know better.
Ah, but you have hit the nail on the head -- or the head on the nail.
The point is, this child was NOT yelling bomb in an airport as a joke. He was writing a fictional essay in class.
Now I don't know this child, but if there was any concern that this fictional essay represented the child's true intentions, the CORRECT procedure would have been to discuss the matter with the child's parent(s), discretely and if the situation warrented it to seek out evaluation and counseling.
Instead, this child was thrown in jail (Juvenile Jail, but jail none-the-less) for a creative writing assignment.
When the child is carrying a gun in school, fine arrest him. When the child is writing an essay, I don't think so.
And what makes it even more damaging is that these people are the teachers.
They sure are teaching our children, but they are not teaching critical thinking, history, geography, scientific reasoning, or communication, but rather censorship, heresey, conformity, narrow-mindedness, and mediocrity.
But its the children who are at fault, right? I had teachers in school who were useless -- they did nothing to teach their subject matter, and wasted everyone's time. However, these same time-wasters have created a new breed of teachers-ones who actively create dis-information. The children who receive this message should make even better teachers.
I always saw homeschooling as a way for the narrow-minded fundamentalist types to keep their children from broadening their horizons -- I am thinking now that it might be the only way to ensure that some children carry the wisdom of the past 200 years into the next century.
Maybe internet schooling will save us -- if it gets here in time.
"Those who prefer security over liberty deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin
While I sympathize with your problems with spaghetti code, and I agree that obfuscation is laughably easy in Perl, I think your criticism is misplaced here.
Perl is a tool, and like all tools can be misused. Specifically, Perl is a powerful tool, and so it can be really misused. :)
I spend most of my working day writing Foxpro code, and if you think Perl is bad for spaghetti code, try maintaining old foxbase code. The language is huge, and old, and has at least two distinct ways of doing things. Plus, older versions of the language were weak on parameter passing, causing older code to look like one long rat's nest of case and while statements, instead of using functions.
However, the only real problem is as always, when comments are LEFT OUT. FoxPro is a powerful data manipulation language, and like Perl, has its place in the tool box, and can be cryptic, but clear code can be written if the programmer a)knows what they are doing, and b)takes the time to let the future code reading programmer know what they were doing with comments.
Don't blame Larry for creating a powerful tool just because the world has an "everyone can be a programmer" mentality right now, and Perl (and ahem all the M$ languages) is one of the languages being touted as such.
Packers (see the Progammer's Stone articles here at /.) write bad code, language independantly. Perl can and is used correctly, and can be commented. Most people just don't bother. A lot of people have the idea that it is somehow more "elite" to write difficult to read code. A professional programmer knows that efficiency while desirable, is overshadowed by maintainability, because you lose money when you have to spend 4 hours figuring out what 100 lines of code does.
As for cutting and pasting code from a book, that will get you in trouble in ANY language. Progamming is not about cook book solutions, but problem domain definition, and problem solving.
To sum, If a person is writing bad code, blame the person, not the tool.
Does anyone else see a pattern here?
:)
I think its just a matter of time before the more traditional power bases (In this example lawyers) find a chink in the internet armor.
There are daily examples here and everywhere of Big business, the world governments, and every type of shark in between trying to tap the "Power of the internet."
Its starting to look like the Illuminati card game out there.
The funny thing is this power has been around a long time--its called democracy. True democracy, mind you not the smoke and mirrors type practiced here in the US, but the real deal--one person one vote. More widely its about freedom, people looking for the freedom to choose whatever they want, and voting with mouse clicks.
If quepasa.com is stealing votes its not by deception, but by the choice of those who go there. I think that people not well aquainted with the Internet don't realize that, for all practical purposes, it is an infinite resource. Seven million votes! So what, that could be seven million people who never go back. But in the real world seven million subscribers would look good. Someone needs to tell these people the rules have changed.
This case implies the opposite of these ideas, but I fear that its just a matter of time before they find a way to control the information flow online.
All they need is a backhoe, a lawyer, and a flood pinger!
The sad part is, for most of us this is (was?) just a cool way to check out stuff that interests us, and see that others are interested in the same things. Why is everyone so afraid of that idea?
(End of Ramble)
Paul, I don't know that life would necessarily be worse--or better without the cell phone or any other technological innovation.
:)
I don't think technology is the symptom or the disease, but perhaps at most a catalyst, or more accurately a vector.
When the automobile was invented, what means of transportation were around: Horses, feet, bicycles, trains, wagons, etc.
The purpose of the automobile as envisioned by the inventor was probably just an enhancement of one the functions of these mechanisms.
But as humanity is wont to do, other uses are found that were not intended, or even smart. Thus drunk driving is a problem that horse riders were less aware of.
Cell phones have endless potential for enhancing lives (ask anyone who has blown a tire in the middle of nowhere), and for damaging the quality of life (ask anyone who has tried to watch a movie while the joker in front of you chats with a friend on the phone).
The point is, we are a tool using species. Tools can be used well or poorly.
This is true of Fire (one of the oldest) or the Internet (one of the newest, but certainly not the last).
Look to the (mis)user, and their ignorance of what makes life happy for the symptoms, the disease--and the cure.
Of course this is just my opinion, but I use most modern technologies, I am very happy, I keep my life simple, and I don't use cell phones
One bright spot here. I am a US citizen, and while I am disturbed by the almost daily threats to privacy and other civil rights in this country, what struck me while reading this is the resonance between the British citizens' problems and our own with similar attempts.
If nothing else, we at least are truly starting to talk about issues in this world without regard to traditional borders. It is becoming more of an attack on OUR rights, as opposed to their rights. Once people are the same side of the fence, they work together. What affects the rights of people "over there" affects people everywhere. With forums like this, the position of the world's repressionists is becoming more difficult. We must continue to think in terms of we, regardless of outdated borders and outdated ways of viewing people that many of us have grown up being taught (by our societies, families, churches, etc.). The purpose of free speach has always been to keep unpopular (to the gov't or to the people) opinions flowing so we don't stagnate in our thinking.Hurrah for Stand, for doing something. As long as we keep discussing and acting on these attempts to limit freedom, those who are afraid of everyone having the same freedom they have, will be unable to succeed. The more we incorporate the people of the world into the "we" of our mindsets, the more we move toward the world we all want.
Not true, I am on a Win NT machine using IE4, and I saw ? not '
After reading through as many postings as I had time to read, some common threads seemed to appear.
;) )
The first is that most people disagree with the notion of an impending cataclysm (no buzz words
The second is that if we choose to do so we can manage our time correctly.
The first implies that most of us understand the following rant. The second is an example of the solution:
Check these quotes out:
"Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same."
"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
"Our life is frittered away by detail...Simplify, simplify. "
These three quotes came to mind immediately when I read this. The third is from Henry David Thoreau, and the point I want to make is that the 19th century was just as plagued with these notions that the world had become too fast. HDT saw the wise course then and it hasn't changed--Simplify.
Who's fault is it that all of this additional stress and demands on our time exist? Our own of course! This is the true problem. You want happiness, simplify your life. Don't blame technology, just give it its proper place. Stop looking at the Internet as a revolution, and see it for what it is--a *part* of our lives. Stop commiting all of your time to the demands of others. Turn the pager off.
(End of Rant)
Who cares if one person can't understand all of technology, one person can't understand any single area of human enquiry. Enjoy life as it comes. One post mentioned Zen, and this is probably its central message as well.
All of human history wise men have told the frantic masses that happiness is related to moderation, and it has fallen on deaf ears. Use the internet to cure those ears! Tell people to relax a little. Is it the end of the world that a deadline slips? The next time your raging at the car in front of yours in rush hour traffic, because nothing has moved for four minutes, take that opportunity to look at the sky and remember how beautiful the world *still* is.
Lots of luck,
A happy person (who also embraces technology, and writes code for a living).
It seems to me that this is one of many in a concerted attempt by the ahem *security* minded folks in the US gov't to gain control of something that most everyone agrees is beyond their control.
;)
The sad part is that I feel powerless to stop them. Starting with the Clipper chip (or even Echelon I guess) they have relentlessly looked for a chink in the electronic privacy armor, and they will find one eventually unless the American public starts waking up.
But most American's don't vote, most are more concerned with box scores, or Jerry Springer than their rep's voting records (if they even know who represents them), and its the lobbyists who get congress's attention.
The only time American's pay attention to our politics is when there is some kind of social scandal. If the law was going to help Clinton get laid, I am sure it would be the topic of neighborhood bar conversations then. We have been neatly corralled, and I don't know if anything is going make a difference. But hey I'll write to congress anyway (Then I'll get put on a subversive list, if I'm not already)