From time to time I help my grandmother and my girlfriend's aunt out with their windows boxes. Both of them are pretty clueless as far as computers go, and I suspect that they could really get into running as a user and not as root. Especially when they were first getting started, and even now, they both have expressed a fear of fucking up their computers. If I/this guy could tell them why it's in their benefit, ie that as long as they don't enter the root password, they can do whatever they want and they never ever will have to worry about their computer breaking, I would imagine both of them would sign up really quickly.
The solution here isn't in dumbing things down. It's in giving a 1 minute presentation about the *nix security philosophy during the first login. I would think that most people, and ESPECIALLY newbies, would get behind that type of security if this guy would take 30 seconds to explain what it is and why it HELPS them instead of just portraying it as a nusience. In many ways, logging in as a user really does give you a freedom to explore and learn pretty risk free. People know that there are ways to break their computers. Telling them to go ahead and press any button you want to; if it's a button that will do something serious, it will make you enter a password would probably be attractive to most people learning an unfamiliar OS for the first time.
It may be a cool technological curiosity, but in an age of terrorism and $2.50 a gallon for gas, I doubt it's going to happen. Which is good, cause 80 year old drivers are bad enough as it is in terrestrial cars; I don't think any of us need to see them in a sky car.
I just don't see this happening anytime soon for a couple of reasons.
For one thing, the search space is way too large to effectively traverse it. If they are making the usual suggestion, it is to take some mathematical statement and transform it using a bunch of theorems and axioms the computer has in memory. It keeps doing this iteration until (hopefully) you reach your theorem. While this is theoretically possible, the search space is enormous. There are just too many branches at each step for them to ever be able to generally prove something like "prove a^n+b^n=c^n has no integral solutions when n>2". Trying to figure out a logical chain that will prove this by trial and error is probably harder than calculating how to checkmate at the opening of a chess game (chess has about 30 moves per turn with an average game length less than 100 whereas the only proof of Fermat we know is about 300 pages long and there are probably 100's of immediate logical conclusions each step along the way). So I doubt computers will be terribly useful unless you really realy really find some way to prune the search space. The 4-color guys did that by finding 10,000 cases they had to apply an algorithm to. Hardly the same as what I'm describing above.
And even if they could, I doubt most mathematicians would find the results very useful. One of the first things you learn in math is to not use proof by contradiction; one of the reasons is because they just don't shed insight on how the math works. The proofs in math books and papers aren't included just so you know the results aren't bullshit. You read the proof and hopefully come away with some understanding and insight into how and why it all works. I know a bunch of guys who dont like the proof of the 4-color theorem (they accept it of course) because it doesn't provide any insight into why the theorem is true. If computers did prove all the theorems, math would be reduced to the set of theorems proved by computer, and you'd still have to have human mathematicans working on actually understanding how and why it all comes together. So at best, I think you'll have computers running over statements to decide whether they are provable, unprovable, or a can't decide. That would be very useful, but hardly what that article implies.
I really think it's funny. I've bought a couple GB motherboards before and I know they are the cheap Taiwan motherboards. I can always follow everything. If GB can save some money by apparently getting a fortune cookie company to translate the instructions into english, I'll take it.
They can't even hire someone who speaks english well to translate the manual. The last couple of motherboards I've bought have been Gigabytes. They work ok, but the manual that comes with them is one of the worst translated things ever. Here's just on of MANY gems:
Have you ever updated BIOS by yourself? Or like many other people, you just know what BIOS is, but always hesitate to update it? Because you think updating newest BIOS is unnecessary and actually you don't know how to update it.
Maybe not like others, you are very experienced in BIOS updating and spend quite a lot of time to do it. But of course you don't like to do it too much. First, download different BIOS from website and then switch the operating system to DOS mode. Secondly, use different flash utility to update BIOS. The above process is not a interesting job.
I've only taken a 3 years of high school latin (with the Jesuits so I made out all right), but I think one can say that they learned latin in a couple of years. Although the language has a more involved grammar and vocabulary than Spanish or some other romance languages, you don't ever have to speak it in real time. Most of the dificulty of learning a language has to do with internalizing it so you can interact with native speakers. Latin, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and Akkadian don't have that problem: you'll really only use it to translate things. And if all you want to do is the skills to translate a written text with the accompaniment of a dictionary, you can defenitly knock that off in a couple years.
I say check out the Feynman Lectures on cd. I only listened to the first couple, but they seemed to be worthwhile. Maybe someone who has a little better experience with them can give some more information. Defenitly high on the nerd factor though.
The other thing I would recommend is language tapes. Pimsleur are the ones I have experience with and they are really good. Kind of expensive, but it's defenitly some good stuff to fill up the noodle with on your way to work.
I suspect there isn't any good reason at all, but is it just because these companies have a really low opinion of consumers or that they want to make wireless seem really easy or what? It seems like it wouldn't be too much harder to enable strong security at all. For example, it seems like the WiFi guys could include some utility so once you put in your password and have the network configured as securly as it will get, you could pop a disk in which would get all the config info saved to it. Take the disk to a new computer which will then be automatically configured to use the WiFi.
Defenitly the cops will check out your computer to see if there is evidence in the logs; maybe they can check the physical address of the card too. But if you had a laptop out on the table and your illegal laptop hidden under the bed, you could probably get by with the WiFi-Boogeyman defense. ("This is my only computer; I don't know anything; I'm just a simple, simple man")
It's working great at the momement, and it was still the right choice to put linux on there. I'm just saying, reading page after page of man files and trying to figure out how to get something to work in linux is a lot more intimidating for the majority of computer users out there than just having it work automatically in Windows.
The days when my poor user had to sweat blood to get me onto a laptop are long gone
That's crazy. As the local seasoned computer user who has used linux a few times, I installed linux on a friend's new laptop last week. I have done basic installs of linux a few times before and there were instructions online for setting everything up on this laptop but it still took me about 8 hours to get the right versions of the drivers, ndiswrapper, and to get it all working. Linux may be getting a lot better, but as little as a week ago, I had to figure out that what was missing was my typing "dhpcd -t 10 -wlan0 0". So the author's assertion defenitly is a little bit of an exaggeration; maybe most people don't install windows themselves so maybe it doesn't matter, but that type of problem is a barrier to enyry for people using linux.
Slashdot Mirror
From time to time I help my grandmother and my girlfriend's aunt out with their windows boxes. Both of them are pretty clueless as far as computers go, and I suspect that they could really get into running as a user and not as root. Especially when they were first getting started, and even now, they both have expressed a fear of fucking up their computers. If I/this guy could tell them why it's in their benefit, ie that as long as they don't enter the root password, they can do whatever they want and they never ever will have to worry about their computer breaking, I would imagine both of them would sign up really quickly.
The solution here isn't in dumbing things down. It's in giving a 1 minute presentation about the *nix security philosophy during the first login. I would think that most people, and ESPECIALLY newbies, would get behind that type of security if this guy would take 30 seconds to explain what it is and why it HELPS them instead of just portraying it as a nusience. In many ways, logging in as a user really does give you a freedom to explore and learn pretty risk free. People know that there are ways to break their computers. Telling them to go ahead and press any button you want to; if it's a button that will do something serious, it will make you enter a password would probably be attractive to most people learning an unfamiliar OS for the first time.
It may be a cool technological curiosity, but in an age of terrorism and $2.50 a gallon for gas, I doubt it's going to happen. Which is good, cause 80 year old drivers are bad enough as it is in terrestrial cars; I don't think any of us need to see them in a sky car.
I just don't see this happening anytime soon for a couple of reasons. For one thing, the search space is way too large to effectively traverse it. If they are making the usual suggestion, it is to take some mathematical statement and transform it using a bunch of theorems and axioms the computer has in memory. It keeps doing this iteration until (hopefully) you reach your theorem. While this is theoretically possible, the search space is enormous. There are just too many branches at each step for them to ever be able to generally prove something like "prove a^n+b^n=c^n has no integral solutions when n>2". Trying to figure out a logical chain that will prove this by trial and error is probably harder than calculating how to checkmate at the opening of a chess game (chess has about 30 moves per turn with an average game length less than 100 whereas the only proof of Fermat we know is about 300 pages long and there are probably 100's of immediate logical conclusions each step along the way). So I doubt computers will be terribly useful unless you really realy really find some way to prune the search space. The 4-color guys did that by finding 10,000 cases they had to apply an algorithm to. Hardly the same as what I'm describing above.
And even if they could, I doubt most mathematicians would find the results very useful. One of the first things you learn in math is to not use proof by contradiction; one of the reasons is because they just don't shed insight on how the math works. The proofs in math books and papers aren't included just so you know the results aren't bullshit. You read the proof and hopefully come away with some understanding and insight into how and why it all works. I know a bunch of guys who dont like the proof of the 4-color theorem (they accept it of course) because it doesn't provide any insight into why the theorem is true. If computers did prove all the theorems, math would be reduced to the set of theorems proved by computer, and you'd still have to have human mathematicans working on actually understanding how and why it all comes together. So at best, I think you'll have computers running over statements to decide whether they are provable, unprovable, or a can't decide. That would be very useful, but hardly what that article implies.
I really think it's funny. I've bought a couple GB motherboards before and I know they are the cheap Taiwan motherboards. I can always follow everything. If GB can save some money by apparently getting a fortune cookie company to translate the instructions into english, I'll take it.
They can't even hire someone who speaks english well to translate the manual. The last couple of motherboards I've bought have been Gigabytes. They work ok, but the manual that comes with them is one of the worst translated things ever. Here's just on of MANY gems:
Have you ever updated BIOS by yourself? Or like many other people, you just know what BIOS is, but always hesitate to update it? Because you think updating newest BIOS is unnecessary and actually you don't know how to update it.
Maybe not like others, you are very experienced in BIOS updating and spend quite a lot of time to do it. But of course you don't like to do it too much. First, download different BIOS from website and then switch the operating system to DOS mode. Secondly, use different flash utility to update BIOS. The above process is not a interesting job.
Nothing to say except that is the most brilliant thing I've ever seen in my life. That is all.
I've only taken a 3 years of high school latin (with the Jesuits so I made out all right), but I think one can say that they learned latin in a couple of years. Although the language has a more involved grammar and vocabulary than Spanish or some other romance languages, you don't ever have to speak it in real time. Most of the dificulty of learning a language has to do with internalizing it so you can interact with native speakers. Latin, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and Akkadian don't have that problem: you'll really only use it to translate things. And if all you want to do is the skills to translate a written text with the accompaniment of a dictionary, you can defenitly knock that off in a couple years.
I say check out the Feynman Lectures on cd. I only listened to the first couple, but they seemed to be worthwhile. Maybe someone who has a little better experience with them can give some more information. Defenitly high on the nerd factor though. The other thing I would recommend is language tapes. Pimsleur are the ones I have experience with and they are really good. Kind of expensive, but it's defenitly some good stuff to fill up the noodle with on your way to work.
I suspect there isn't any good reason at all, but is it just because these companies have a really low opinion of consumers or that they want to make wireless seem really easy or what? It seems like it wouldn't be too much harder to enable strong security at all. For example, it seems like the WiFi guys could include some utility so once you put in your password and have the network configured as securly as it will get, you could pop a disk in which would get all the config info saved to it. Take the disk to a new computer which will then be automatically configured to use the WiFi.
Defenitly the cops will check out your computer to see if there is evidence in the logs; maybe they can check the physical address of the card too. But if you had a laptop out on the table and your illegal laptop hidden under the bed, you could probably get by with the WiFi-Boogeyman defense. ("This is my only computer; I don't know anything; I'm just a simple, simple man")
It's working great at the momement, and it was still the right choice to put linux on there. I'm just saying, reading page after page of man files and trying to figure out how to get something to work in linux is a lot more intimidating for the majority of computer users out there than just having it work automatically in Windows.
The days when my poor user had to sweat blood to get me onto a laptop are long gone
That's crazy. As the local seasoned computer user who has used linux a few times, I installed linux on a friend's new laptop last week. I have done basic installs of linux a few times before and there were instructions online for setting everything up on this laptop but it still took me about 8 hours to get the right versions of the drivers, ndiswrapper, and to get it all working. Linux may be getting a lot better, but as little as a week ago, I had to figure out that what was missing was my typing "dhpcd -t 10 -wlan0 0". So the author's assertion defenitly is a little bit of an exaggeration; maybe most people don't install windows themselves so maybe it doesn't matter, but that type of problem is a barrier to enyry for people using linux.