Good writing is good writing, no matter what the subject matter; the most revolutionary discoveries can (and should) be presented in a style that is accessible to readers knowledgeable in the field.
While I agree with you in part, you have to conceed that in a technical field, the audience has to be expected to come at least part of the way. While it is true that jargon often masks meaning, there are things that are, in fact, best explained with jargon. Jargon can encapsulate whole explanations and arguments, saving the speaker/writer from having to re-explain or argue those points every time they are introduced.
Consequently, in rarified sub-fields, the audience has to be expected to come that much further. And this is particularly true in fields that cross disciplines. Any CS guy can be expected to know what a bubble sort is, but how many can you count on to have a solid grounding in psychology? Not many, but for some AI disciplines, you'd damn well better. And how much progress can be made in such disciplines if you spend all your time explaining basic principles to the uninitiated?
Call back when we have the technology to bridge from Singapore to Mexico City in a single span - we'll be a small fraction of the way there.
Sorry, I have to nitpick, Singapore to Mexico City is 12,638 miles. Geostationary orbit is in the neighborhood of 22,000 miles. Now, if slightly more than 1/2 is a "small fraction," what constitutes a large fraction?
So, this is part of the fundamental problem of moving NASA's focus to entirely manned programs. Scientific projects like Hubble, and robotic exploration are getting shorted because the current administration want to put man on Mars.
So they say. Look at the actual budget and it looks more like they don't want to do anything at all. A 30% cut isn't really a terribly good way to start on a project to put a man on Mars or anything else.
Step 1: Get out of the house and play some gigs. The bands I do websites for make their money playing live, plus selling merchandise at gigs. If you ask me, a guy who makes and sells recordings only (Moby, are you listening?) is doing a fraction of the work of a real musician, and subsequently should earn only a fraction of the money.
My complaint against this article has nothing to do with the real vulnerabilities that exist on the Mac, and everything to do with the flimsiness of the article itself. I never said it was a hoax. But Symmantec is taking a bunch of unspecified laboratory "proof-of concepts" and spinning a tale of a rising tide of malware. That is, as yet, false.
This just in: Noting that Apple's market share is starting to grow again, Symmantec sees an opportunity to pry some dollars out of Mac users by hyping a bunch of laboratory experiments.
Wow. Isn't that a surprise?
This article mentions *one* exploit from last year, and 37 alleged proof-of-concepts, none of which are detailed.
I understand as well as anyone that the Mac is not bulletproof, but this really smells a lot more like a press release than news... Methinks Symmantec must have a new product waiting in the wings.
This differs a great deal from every other artistic medium: 1) Most other artistic media don't put so little stock in character as sci-fi does. 2) Most other artistic media don't focus on specific philosophical ideas and puzzles the way sci-fi does. There are exceptions, of course -- most operas have pretty cardboard characters, but then, they don't typically probe things like, what is the nature of free will.
Well, there were some folks that figured the first atom bomb might vaporize the atmosphere, but the people involved said, "let's blow it up and find out." And we know the rest.
The security warning explicitly states, "The security certificate was issued by a company that is not trusted".
I'm sorry, but that means nothing to, say, my grandmother. When people are constantly bombarded by terse statements full of jargon, "yes" becomes the default.
In other words, the problem is much deeper than what is in one dialog. It's the other 10,000.
Does this matter to anyone outside of Boston, at all?
Well, let's see... it's only one of the largest engineering feats in history, right up there with the Chunnel and the Hoover Dam. So, I don't know. Does anyone at Slashdot care anything about engineering? Or is it all knitting enthusiasts?
Once upon a time there was no RIAA, and still the world had music. Someday in the distant future there will be no RIAA and still the world will have music.
How is it everyone assumes that if music becomes free it will cease to exist. How much did an album cost in 1850? Did they have music in 1850? Of course they did.
Pick up an instrument. Learn to play it. Play all the songs they say you can't because you don't own the rights. Enjoy.
Alternately, are a bunch of guys on their back porches with telescopes astronomy?
I think what we're seeing here is the rise of amateur journalism. And just like amateur astronomy, every once in a long, long while somebody produces something that makes the New York Times look like a bunch of slackers, but mostly it's just a bunch of untrained babblers exposing their ill-informed opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
Good writing is good writing, no matter what the subject matter; the most revolutionary discoveries can (and should) be presented in a style that is accessible to readers knowledgeable in the field.
While I agree with you in part, you have to conceed that in a technical field, the audience has to be expected to come at least part of the way. While it is true that jargon often masks meaning, there are things that are, in fact, best explained with jargon. Jargon can encapsulate whole explanations and arguments, saving the speaker/writer from having to re-explain or argue those points every time they are introduced.
Consequently, in rarified sub-fields, the audience has to be expected to come that much further. And this is particularly true in fields that cross disciplines. Any CS guy can be expected to know what a bubble sort is, but how many can you count on to have a solid grounding in psychology? Not many, but for some AI disciplines, you'd damn well better. And how much progress can be made in such disciplines if you spend all your time explaining basic principles to the uninitiated?
Call back when we have the technology to bridge from Singapore to Mexico City in a single span - we'll be a small fraction of the way there.
Sorry, I have to nitpick, Singapore to Mexico City is 12,638 miles. Geostationary orbit is in the neighborhood of 22,000 miles. Now, if slightly more than 1/2 is a "small fraction," what constitutes a large fraction?
So, this is part of the fundamental problem of moving NASA's focus to entirely manned programs. Scientific projects like Hubble, and robotic exploration are getting shorted because the current administration want to put man on Mars.
So they say. Look at the actual budget and it looks more like they don't want to do anything at all. A 30% cut isn't really a terribly good way to start on a project to put a man on Mars or anything else.
Step 1: Get out of the house and play some gigs. The bands I do websites for make their money playing live, plus selling merchandise at gigs. If you ask me, a guy who makes and sells recordings only (Moby, are you listening?) is doing a fraction of the work of a real musician, and subsequently should earn only a fraction of the money.
Bill doesn't have a terribly good record of predicting the future, but you know, even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Some things simply cannot be conveyed via a 12x12 or 16x16 (or whatever the res is) pictogram.
Tell that to the Chinese.
My complaint against this article has nothing to do with the real vulnerabilities that exist on the Mac, and everything to do with the flimsiness of the article itself. I never said it was a hoax. But Symmantec is taking a bunch of unspecified laboratory "proof-of concepts" and spinning a tale of a rising tide of malware. That is, as yet, false.
This just in: Noting that Apple's market share is starting to grow again, Symmantec sees an opportunity to pry some dollars out of Mac users by hyping a bunch of laboratory experiments.
Wow. Isn't that a surprise?
This article mentions *one* exploit from last year, and 37 alleged proof-of-concepts, none of which are detailed.
I understand as well as anyone that the Mac is not bulletproof, but this really smells a lot more like a press release than news... Methinks Symmantec must have a new product waiting in the wings.
Well of course I'm tarring a broad brush. But that's what a genre is: a broad brush. Doesn't mean individual artists can't stray from the formula.
This differs a great deal from every other artistic medium: 1) Most other artistic media don't put so little stock in character as sci-fi does. 2) Most other artistic media don't focus on specific philosophical ideas and puzzles the way sci-fi does. There are exceptions, of course -- most operas have pretty cardboard characters, but then, they don't typically probe things like, what is the nature of free will.
This is sure to draw fire, but here goes:
Like much sci-fi, Enders Game is a terrific philosophical idea fleshed out with cardboard.
The rest is just cardboard.
You must not remember when Netscape was the 90% player and IE was the 6% player.
Having a 90% market share leads inexorably to the stalling of innovation.
Of course, It's not like Microsoft was terribly innovative when they only had a tiny slice of the market either.
How did they confirm it wouldn't happen? Doesn't seem possible without experimentation.
Well, there were some folks that figured the first atom bomb might vaporize the atmosphere, but the people involved said, "let's blow it up and find out." And we know the rest.
My grandmother would get stuck at the phrase "security certificate." Who knows what a security certificate is. A show of hands?
As long as people don't have it framed next to their computer, this is a figment of the imagination.
Moreover, not trusted by whom?
A better dialog might say: "there is a good chance this website might be trying to wreck your computer."
Everyone can understand that...
The security warning explicitly states, "The security certificate was issued by a company that is not trusted".
I'm sorry, but that means nothing to, say, my grandmother. When people are constantly bombarded by terse statements full of jargon, "yes" becomes the default.
In other words, the problem is much deeper than what is in one dialog. It's the other 10,000.
If there was no Worcester, where would they have motorcross and rodeos?
Does this matter to anyone outside of Boston, at all?
Well, let's see... it's only one of the largest engineering feats in history, right up there with the Chunnel and the Hoover Dam. So, I don't know. Does anyone at Slashdot care anything about engineering? Or is it all knitting enthusiasts?
A) This project is largely state funded.
B) Massachusetts sends more cash to D.C. than it receives. Unlinke, say, Georgia.
Once upon a time there was no RIAA, and still the world had music. Someday in the distant future there will be no RIAA and still the world will have music. How is it everyone assumes that if music becomes free it will cease to exist. How much did an album cost in 1850? Did they have music in 1850? Of course they did. Pick up an instrument. Learn to play it. Play all the songs they say you can't because you don't own the rights. Enjoy.
There's nothing lamer than glib assessments of the French.
People still play D&D? I thought it was all just a joke for nerds that lived in the '80s.
Alternately, are a bunch of guys on their back porches with telescopes astronomy? I think what we're seeing here is the rise of amateur journalism. And just like amateur astronomy, every once in a long, long while somebody produces something that makes the New York Times look like a bunch of slackers, but mostly it's just a bunch of untrained babblers exposing their ill-informed opinions.
I think the logo was done by the guy that used to do all the Led Zeppelin album covers.