don't worry, once we gain a better understanding of human neurology i'm sure there will be devices designed specifically for wiping ex-employees' memories to protect a company's IP and trade secrets.
it may even prove useful for resolving sexual harassment charges brought against the CEO.
something that's labeled "confidential" or "top secret" will always pique people's curiosity. i remember when i was in high school or junior high my dad brought home some confidential Intel schematics that he was working with. they were just drawings of a CPU cooling unit or fan funnel or something. it was of no use to me, and i really didn't understand what i was looking at, but the fact that it was marked as confidential and watermarked to identify leaked documents just made it that much more tantalizing. so naturally i scanned all of the schematics and posted them up on my blog with the watermarks and document numbers blurred out.
probably wasn't the smartest thing to do. but there certainly wasn't any malicious intention behind it. i really just wanted to show off to my friends.
any moderately intelligent computer user sees how absurd this patent is because this is a trivial and non-innovative function. it's like patenting a drop down menu, 1-click checkout, or a pop-up window.
patents were legally established to encourage innovation in a way that rewards inventors but would ultimately serve the public good. that is why they were designed to give inventors a financial incentives to provide ingenious solutions to complex problems, which would then be released into the public domain after the patent expired. and in this way, the patent system would nurture the spirit of innovation and grow the public corpus of technological knowledge.
you can't claim a patent on self-apparent software features because they are obvious to any programmer who is looking to solve the same problem and thus do not qualify as personal inventions. whether it there is prior art plays no importance in this issue.
if it's an obvious feature, and it's a common problem, then of course there will be prior art. but that's an incidental result. a patent for an obvious solution to a trivial but uncommon problem would be equally invalid regardless of whether there is prior art or not. so it has neither to do with prior art nor any fundamental issue against software patents.
patents as these contribute nothing to society, nor do they add anything of value to the public corpus of human knowledge shared by our society.
hrmm... i wonder if that is related to why we used to have smog alerts here (suburbs, 30 minutes east of LA).
i can remember during elementary school there would be certain days when we wouldn't go outside for recess because of smog alerts. but i haven't really heard of any smog alerts being issued in recent years (though maybe i just don't know where to look).
actually, i have been diagnosed with clinical depression, and for a while i did require medication (fluoxetine, lexapro, etc.) but i've been doing just fine without any of those meds for the past 3-4 years. perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions about someone you've never met.
if your experiences run contrary to my statements then i'm very interested in hearing them. i can only base my claims off of my own personal experience, and i recognize that my experiences may not be true for others.
I don't doubt that Asperger's is associated with mathematical thinking; but is it really associated with greatness?
i wouldn't go so far as to say that Asperger is linked to greatness, but i think it does cause a proclivity for analytical thinking and mathematics. you often hear of autistic savants who can count the number of leaves in a tree at a single glance, or can calculate the day of the week that any date past or future falls upon, or other similar feats. this cannot be a coincidence.
it's just disturbing to me, to have genius and accomplishment closely linked to what is really an illness.
personally, i look at it as a continuous spectrum. we have the DSM IV criteria for autism/Asperger syndrome, but as with bipolarism, the diagnostic criteria are somewhat subjective. there's no clear cut-off between high functioning autism and Asperger syndrome. likewise, there's no clear cut off between mild Asperger syndrome and someone who's just geeky and socially awkward.
the same genes that cause mathematical talent/genius seem to also cause autism, so it may be a genetic trait that is beneficial in moderate amounts, but if inherited from both parents leads to an increased probability of autistic disorder. likewise, while the genes that cause manic-depression increases one's artistic/creative talent, if they are expressed in excess it would render an individual incapable of functioning in a normal capacity.
i think the key thing here is to not treat it as something like hepatitis or down syndrome. with the proper care and considerations, most high functioning autism/Asperger syndrome sufferers can still lead a relatively normal life--one which their unique neurological disposition actually enriches rather than detracts from. in fact, some of the most influential figures in our cultural history were likely mildly autistic.
i believe ADHD is on the rise largely because it's being diagnosed more (and possibly over-diagnosed). and there may be a correlation between income and ADHD diagnosis. but i did in fact do a search for "autism income diagnosis" as you suggested, and i could find no studies which support such a link.
of course, short of identifying the exact genes that trigger autism/Asperger and bipolarism, it's going to difficult to prove a direct causal link between these disorders and exceptional mental abilities. and i agree that social/cultural factors complicate the issue. but i believe the circumstantial data shows a strong correlation.
if it were really just an urban legend, i don't think there would be so many academic papers and books discussing the relationship between the two. i wish i could provide you with more conclusive studies, but most of the academic literature that i'm finding with titles like "Asperger's disorder and mathematicians of genius" or "Autistic Genius?" require paid subscriptions to an academic database. but if you do a search for "neurodiversity" or "autistic spectrum" i think you may find a lot of useful info.
if the high incidence of Asperger/Autism in Silicon Valley is strictly due to it being a more affluent neighborhood, then wouldn't similar increases in Autism be observed in other more affluent neighborhoods? and why Asperger/Autism in particular, and not other mental disorders like ADHD, bipolarism, anxiety disorders, etc.? Asperger Syndrome isn't called the "Geek Syndrome" for nothing.
and i think it should be noted that observational evidence is different from anecdotal evidence. any kind of hard science is going to rely on observational data, which, unlike anecdotal evidence, isn't skewed by subjective bias or small sample size.
i would encourage you to do some research into autism/Asperger and bipolar/manic-depression/suicide yourself. if you check on PubMed you can find a lot of relevant studies on this topic. this article may also be of interest.
here's a list from Wikipedia that cites several sources. here is an article discussing the relationship between Autism/Asperger and genius. here is an article on Psychology Today that discusses a growing movement within academic circles that views autism and similar disorders as just part of the spectrum of neurodiversity that our society is comprised of. and if you do a search for "Geek Syndrome" you can find a Wired article that i believe may have been on Slashdot a few years ago. i also recall reading something a few years ago on PubMed that discussed the correlation between genius and mental disorder.
another interesting paper i read on PubMed also discussed the evolutionary advantage of Bipolarism. basically, the author(s) argued that while Bipolarism/Manic-Depression may present an evolutionary disadvantage to the individual, the genes have been perpetuated because it fosters altruistic actions which coincide with kin selection.
all of this makes a certain amount of sense to me. i've always felt that bipolarism endows an individual with greater capacity for emotional experience. this can be a beneficial trait to artists/musicians since good artwork is defined by its ability to evoke strong emotions, and, likewise, good artwork is often inspired by emotional trauma in the artist's life. but greater emotional depth can also enable one to better empathize with others, which could potentially lead to altruistic behavior.
it's well documented that great artists, writers, and people with other forms genius have a much higher incidence of mental disorders than the normal population.
generally speaking, creative/artistic individuals have a greater disposition for bipolarism. conversely, the children of mathematically gifted parents are more likely to develop autism or Asperger syndrome. that's why there's such a higher concentration of kids with Asperger syndrome in Silicon Valley.
if you're talking about free as in beer, then no it doesn't preclude it from being free software. but when people discuss free software in the open source sense they mean free as in speech.
EULAs, ostensibly, force users to sign away copy owner & fair use rights. such contracts go directly against the spirit of open source and free software.
well, obviously i was wrong. i apologize and humbly ask for your forgiveness.
frankly, i don't have very strong opinions about Picasso one way or another. i simply stated that i'd never seen sketches by him that were technically impressive. if you do a google image search for Pablo Picasso you won't find anything that resembles that gallery.
simply demonstrating the error in my statements by providing that link would have sufficed. i don't see any reason to be asshole about it.
creationism is derived from religious mythology; hence creationism is religious mythology; hence it is not science--where is faith required to grasp this tautology?
should a math teacher have to prove to a student why numerology isn't math? every field of learning, and indeed every logical argument, is founded on some basic premise that is either accepted or not accepted. even in science there are logical assumptions that we have to make to proceed onto the synthesis of real knowledge.
but there are subject matters which are appropriate for a particular classroom and ones which are not worthwhile to discuss. if you explain the principles of science (eg. the scientific method, parsimony, etc.) then a rational student will understand that creationism isn't science. if they want to hold onto their irrational religious beliefs, then it isn't a science teacher's job to disabuse them of their religious convictions.
if someone wants to say that fossils were planted in the earth by god to test us, then there's no rational argument you can give to convince them otherwise because their convictions are founded on faith, not logic. you can't prove that god doesn't exist because it's not a testable scientific hypothesis. likewise, you're not going to convince any religiously inclined students that they shouldn't believe in something just because it was written in scripture.
discussing creationism/ID in a science classroom is merely validating the false perception that ID is a scientific alternative to evolution. frankly, only someone who doesn't understand the difference between a scientific theory and religious myth would suggest that not believing in god/creationism requires faith. i want my kids' science teachers to teach them about science--chemistry, physics, biology, etc.--not explain to them why the tooth fairy and easter bunny aren't real. it takes faith to believe those things. it doesn't take faith to see that they aren't real.
why should my kids be deprived of a real science education just because someone else indoctrinated their children with specious non-scientific beliefs?
if a kid raises creationist objections to evolutionary theory, the teacher should kindly say to him "that is religious mythology, not science," and end the discussion there. pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and there's no reason to make special allowances for discussing pseudoscience in a science class just because it's based on a popular religion.
otherwise, science teachers would spend the entire school year refuting pseudo-scientific beliefs, such as creationism, dianetics, homeopathy, paranormal phenomena, indigo children, astrology, numerology, bible code, chakra, astral projection, ESP, ufology, big foot, etc.
if teachers allow students to bring up non-scientific/religious beliefs during science class, they will have to refute all of these beliefs. aside from the time it would that it would take away form legitimate science education, it would also upset a lot of religious parents who don't want their kids to start questioning their "faith." it would be safer to just avoid such sticky subjects as they have nothing to do with science.
the difference between science and pseudoscience should be taught in science classes, but that doesn't require that creationism be added into the standard curriculum. it should be up to the teacher to decide how to best convey these concepts to students. if they want to bring up creationism, they may. but if they want to use astrology, alchemy, ufology, time cube, etc. to illustrate their point, then that should be up to the discretion of the teacher.
i have yet to see any Picasso sketches that demonstrate technical skill beyond what an ordinary individual can draw simply by doodling in the margins of their class notes.
i'm not saying he's not a talented artist or that he doesn't deserve his fame, but he doesn't possess the technical mastery of realist or impressionist painters such as van Gogh, Manet, Monet, Pissarro, etc.
yea, also i don't think the author of this article understands statistics.
if Google changes random bits in the IP address even before they remove the last byte at 18 months, that would already make guessing the original IP address near impossible since you don't know which bits were changed.
if they only changed 1 bit in the entire address, then there would be 32 possibilities, but if they changed 1 bit in each octet, then there would be 4096 possibilities. if they changed 2 bits in each octet, there would be 61,4656 possibilities. if they changed a random number of bits in each IP address, then the possibilities grow even larger. and this isn't a login password or encryption scheme. there's no way to brute-force the original IP address from the anonymized IP address even if only a single bit was changed.
this is just more unwarranted alarmism. google has stated that they are working on developing a method of anonymization that would protect user privacy while retaining the useful characteristics of their log data. frankly, as long as they're not giving up user data to 3rd parties anonymization is a non-issue.
i disagree. i think there are a lot more competent programmers out there than there are visionary individuals. programming is a technical skill, but with most non-menial trades, it takes more than just technical prowess to succeed. you also need to be inspired or possess a little more creativity than the next guy.
look at it this way; there are tons of great artists out there who can draw or paint photorealistic scenes without any effort. however, most of these people will still be limited to lackluster careers selling personal portraits at the mall, teaching figure-drawing/painting/etc. to high school students, or perhaps make a decent living selling those kitsch paintings you see decorating the walls of fast-food restaurants, but doomed to live in relatively obscurity, nonetheless.
conversely, many of the most well-known artists in history, like Jackson Pollack, Mark Rothko, Picasso, etc. did not demonstrate particularly exceptional technical skill in the conventional sense. but their artistic talent and creativity are still undeniable.
someone who uses the computer a lot may not know how to code in C or Assembly, but that doesn't preclude them from having good ideas for new applications. the implementation may have to be done by someone else, but it's a lot easier to find someone who can write code than it is to find someone with a truly brilliant idea.
someone trained in programming is a lot more likely to be able to realize their ideas because they have the tools & skill set to put their ideas into practice. but there are probably tons of great ideas for applications that are thought up by non-programmers which simply go to waste because they don't know how to implement the concept.
so anyone who discovers a security flaw and reports it is now breaking the law and should be treated as a criminal?
the only reason he accessed the account information was to demonstrate the severity of the flaw. he didn't do it for personal gain or out of malice. if he had, he could have done much more damage--from what the article says, it doesn't sound like any damage was done, except perhaps a little embarrassment to the university.
what would you prefer that he had put in the letter? "hello, i hacked into your system. you should try to fix that."?
and why should a innocent person, who is being a good Samaritan have to report a security vulnerability anonymously to avoid punishment? you sound like an incompetent sys-admin more worried about being made a fool of than actually securing the systems you work with.
if someone sees your house burning and rushes in to save you, are you going to have them arrested for trespassing? i mean, they knew they were breaking the law when they entered on to your premises without your permission, so they should face the consequences, right?
yes, spam filtering allows you to ignore the problem, but the resource costs are still tremendous. spam sites are just as problematic.
the way i see it, spam e-mail, spam websites, search engine gaming (blackhat SEO), malware/botnets, and domain name squatting are all related problems arising from spammer culture.
people who lack real talents dedicate their entire lives to being internet bottom-feeders in their blind-pursuit of profit/wealth. but this parasitic mentality is a direct outgrowth of our capitalist society. if we measure the worth of an individual by the amount of money they make rather than how much they contribute to society, then there will always be these seedy opportunistic professions that, while a public nuisance, are legitimized by their commercial motivations.
our government also seems to put business interests above public good. so while security researchers are persecuted by the justice system for pointing out the weaknesses in a commercial company's product or service, businesses who hire spammers or pay malware developers are simply viewed as enterprising businesspeople. likewise, hackers who have no malicious intentions and hack into computer systems & networks purely out of curiosity and a desire for knowledge are given disproportionate jail sentences and made examples of. whereas, greed-driven spammers & malware writers that plague the internet and make the lives of everyone more difficult (and also cause significantly more harm) aren't even pursued by law-enforcement. that just encourages young hackers to become greedy spammers since you get to make money and won't get in any trouble with the law.
of course, it doesn't help that the judges & legislators in charge of forming public policy are all so out of touch with technology that they think a 'pop-up window' and 'file menus' are patentable ideas.
in a way that's true. i think it's also just a specific case of a more general problem, which is excessive advertising in general. but we've become so used to being bombarded with advertisements offline that legislators can't see the problem with what's basically the online extension of this problem.
the internet connects each user with millions of people from all over the world. it allows for near-instantaneous exchange/transfer of information. but the same technology that allows us to contact/reach people with ease, also allows businesses/advertisers to do the same. you can't send out a million letters or make a million telemarketing calls in a split second--and do it for pennies--off-line. so we've never had to come up with regulations to prevent such abuses.
Slashdot Mirror
i prefer ugly and functional over pretty but unusable any day.
the fact that it doesn't require a paid subscription and implements collaborative editing already puts it way ahead of the competition.
all that's left to do is to promote the site properly and build up a healthy community of knowledgeable users.
don't worry, once we gain a better understanding of human neurology i'm sure there will be devices designed specifically for wiping ex-employees' memories to protect a company's IP and trade secrets.
it may even prove useful for resolving sexual harassment charges brought against the CEO.
something that's labeled "confidential" or "top secret" will always pique people's curiosity. i remember when i was in high school or junior high my dad brought home some confidential Intel schematics that he was working with. they were just drawings of a CPU cooling unit or fan funnel or something. it was of no use to me, and i really didn't understand what i was looking at, but the fact that it was marked as confidential and watermarked to identify leaked documents just made it that much more tantalizing. so naturally i scanned all of the schematics and posted them up on my blog with the watermarks and document numbers blurred out.
probably wasn't the smartest thing to do. but there certainly wasn't any malicious intention behind it. i really just wanted to show off to my friends.
i think you're missing the point.
any moderately intelligent computer user sees how absurd this patent is because this is a trivial and non-innovative function. it's like patenting a drop down menu, 1-click checkout, or a pop-up window.
patents were legally established to encourage innovation in a way that rewards inventors but would ultimately serve the public good. that is why they were designed to give inventors a financial incentives to provide ingenious solutions to complex problems, which would then be released into the public domain after the patent expired. and in this way, the patent system would nurture the spirit of innovation and grow the public corpus of technological knowledge.
you can't claim a patent on self-apparent software features because they are obvious to any programmer who is looking to solve the same problem and thus do not qualify as personal inventions. whether it there is prior art plays no importance in this issue.
if it's an obvious feature, and it's a common problem, then of course there will be prior art. but that's an incidental result. a patent for an obvious solution to a trivial but uncommon problem would be equally invalid regardless of whether there is prior art or not. so it has neither to do with prior art nor any fundamental issue against software patents.
patents as these contribute nothing to society, nor do they add anything of value to the public corpus of human knowledge shared by our society.
hrmm... i wonder if that is related to why we used to have smog alerts here (suburbs, 30 minutes east of LA).
i can remember during elementary school there would be certain days when we wouldn't go outside for recess because of smog alerts. but i haven't really heard of any smog alerts being issued in recent years (though maybe i just don't know where to look).
actually, i have been diagnosed with clinical depression, and for a while i did require medication (fluoxetine, lexapro, etc.) but i've been doing just fine without any of those meds for the past 3-4 years. perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions about someone you've never met.
if your experiences run contrary to my statements then i'm very interested in hearing them. i can only base my claims off of my own personal experience, and i recognize that my experiences may not be true for others.
i wouldn't go so far as to say that Asperger is linked to greatness, but i think it does cause a proclivity for analytical thinking and mathematics. you often hear of autistic savants who can count the number of leaves in a tree at a single glance, or can calculate the day of the week that any date past or future falls upon, or other similar feats. this cannot be a coincidence.
personally, i look at it as a continuous spectrum. we have the DSM IV criteria for autism/Asperger syndrome, but as with bipolarism, the diagnostic criteria are somewhat subjective. there's no clear cut-off between high functioning autism and Asperger syndrome. likewise, there's no clear cut off between mild Asperger syndrome and someone who's just geeky and socially awkward.
the same genes that cause mathematical talent/genius seem to also cause autism, so it may be a genetic trait that is beneficial in moderate amounts, but if inherited from both parents leads to an increased probability of autistic disorder. likewise, while the genes that cause manic-depression increases one's artistic/creative talent, if they are expressed in excess it would render an individual incapable of functioning in a normal capacity.
i think the key thing here is to not treat it as something like hepatitis or down syndrome. with the proper care and considerations, most high functioning autism/Asperger syndrome sufferers can still lead a relatively normal life--one which their unique neurological disposition actually enriches rather than detracts from. in fact, some of the most influential figures in our cultural history were likely mildly autistic.
i believe ADHD is on the rise largely because it's being diagnosed more (and possibly over-diagnosed). and there may be a correlation between income and ADHD diagnosis. but i did in fact do a search for "autism income diagnosis" as you suggested, and i could find no studies which support such a link.
of course, short of identifying the exact genes that trigger autism/Asperger and bipolarism, it's going to difficult to prove a direct causal link between these disorders and exceptional mental abilities. and i agree that social/cultural factors complicate the issue. but i believe the circumstantial data shows a strong correlation.
if it were really just an urban legend, i don't think there would be so many academic papers and books discussing the relationship between the two. i wish i could provide you with more conclusive studies, but most of the academic literature that i'm finding with titles like "Asperger's disorder and mathematicians of genius" or "Autistic Genius?" require paid subscriptions to an academic database. but if you do a search for "neurodiversity" or "autistic spectrum" i think you may find a lot of useful info.
if the high incidence of Asperger/Autism in Silicon Valley is strictly due to it being a more affluent neighborhood, then wouldn't similar increases in Autism be observed in other more affluent neighborhoods? and why Asperger/Autism in particular, and not other mental disorders like ADHD, bipolarism, anxiety disorders, etc.? Asperger Syndrome isn't called the "Geek Syndrome" for nothing.
and i think it should be noted that observational evidence is different from anecdotal evidence. any kind of hard science is going to rely on observational data, which, unlike anecdotal evidence, isn't skewed by subjective bias or small sample size.
i would encourage you to do some research into autism/Asperger and bipolar/manic-depression/suicide yourself. if you check on PubMed you can find a lot of relevant studies on this topic. this article may also be of interest.
here's a list from Wikipedia that cites several sources. here is an article discussing the relationship between Autism/Asperger and genius. here is an article on Psychology Today that discusses a growing movement within academic circles that views autism and similar disorders as just part of the spectrum of neurodiversity that our society is comprised of. and if you do a search for "Geek Syndrome" you can find a Wired article that i believe may have been on Slashdot a few years ago. i also recall reading something a few years ago on PubMed that discussed the correlation between genius and mental disorder.
another interesting paper i read on PubMed also discussed the evolutionary advantage of Bipolarism. basically, the author(s) argued that while Bipolarism/Manic-Depression may present an evolutionary disadvantage to the individual, the genes have been perpetuated because it fosters altruistic actions which coincide with kin selection.
all of this makes a certain amount of sense to me. i've always felt that bipolarism endows an individual with greater capacity for emotional experience. this can be a beneficial trait to artists/musicians since good artwork is defined by its ability to evoke strong emotions, and, likewise, good artwork is often inspired by emotional trauma in the artist's life. but greater emotional depth can also enable one to better empathize with others, which could potentially lead to altruistic behavior.
it's well documented that great artists, writers, and people with other forms genius have a much higher incidence of mental disorders than the normal population.
generally speaking, creative/artistic individuals have a greater disposition for bipolarism. conversely, the children of mathematically gifted parents are more likely to develop autism or Asperger syndrome. that's why there's such a higher concentration of kids with Asperger syndrome in Silicon Valley.
if you're talking about free as in beer, then no it doesn't preclude it from being free software. but when people discuss free software in the open source sense they mean free as in speech.
EULAs, ostensibly, force users to sign away copy owner & fair use rights. such contracts go directly against the spirit of open source and free software.
well, obviously i was wrong. i apologize and humbly ask for your forgiveness.
frankly, i don't have very strong opinions about Picasso one way or another. i simply stated that i'd never seen sketches by him that were technically impressive. if you do a google image search for Pablo Picasso you won't find anything that resembles that gallery.
simply demonstrating the error in my statements by providing that link would have sufficed. i don't see any reason to be asshole about it.
creationism is derived from religious mythology; hence creationism is religious mythology; hence it is not science--where is faith required to grasp this tautology?
should a math teacher have to prove to a student why numerology isn't math? every field of learning, and indeed every logical argument, is founded on some basic premise that is either accepted or not accepted. even in science there are logical assumptions that we have to make to proceed onto the synthesis of real knowledge.
but there are subject matters which are appropriate for a particular classroom and ones which are not worthwhile to discuss. if you explain the principles of science (eg. the scientific method, parsimony, etc.) then a rational student will understand that creationism isn't science. if they want to hold onto their irrational religious beliefs, then it isn't a science teacher's job to disabuse them of their religious convictions.
if someone wants to say that fossils were planted in the earth by god to test us, then there's no rational argument you can give to convince them otherwise because their convictions are founded on faith, not logic. you can't prove that god doesn't exist because it's not a testable scientific hypothesis. likewise, you're not going to convince any religiously inclined students that they shouldn't believe in something just because it was written in scripture.
discussing creationism/ID in a science classroom is merely validating the false perception that ID is a scientific alternative to evolution. frankly, only someone who doesn't understand the difference between a scientific theory and religious myth would suggest that not believing in god/creationism requires faith. i want my kids' science teachers to teach them about science--chemistry, physics, biology, etc.--not explain to them why the tooth fairy and easter bunny aren't real. it takes faith to believe those things. it doesn't take faith to see that they aren't real.
why should my kids be deprived of a real science education just because someone else indoctrinated their children with specious non-scientific beliefs?
if a kid raises creationist objections to evolutionary theory, the teacher should kindly say to him "that is religious mythology, not science," and end the discussion there. pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and there's no reason to make special allowances for discussing pseudoscience in a science class just because it's based on a popular religion.
otherwise, science teachers would spend the entire school year refuting pseudo-scientific beliefs, such as creationism, dianetics, homeopathy, paranormal phenomena, indigo children, astrology, numerology, bible code, chakra, astral projection, ESP, ufology, big foot, etc.
if teachers allow students to bring up non-scientific/religious beliefs during science class, they will have to refute all of these beliefs. aside from the time it would that it would take away form legitimate science education, it would also upset a lot of religious parents who don't want their kids to start questioning their "faith." it would be safer to just avoid such sticky subjects as they have nothing to do with science.
the difference between science and pseudoscience should be taught in science classes, but that doesn't require that creationism be added into the standard curriculum. it should be up to the teacher to decide how to best convey these concepts to students. if they want to bring up creationism, they may. but if they want to use astrology, alchemy, ufology, time cube, etc. to illustrate their point, then that should be up to the discretion of the teacher.
i have yet to see any Picasso sketches that demonstrate technical skill beyond what an ordinary individual can draw simply by doodling in the margins of their class notes.
i'm not saying he's not a talented artist or that he doesn't deserve his fame, but he doesn't possess the technical mastery of realist or impressionist painters such as van Gogh, Manet, Monet, Pissarro, etc.
yea, also i don't think the author of this article understands statistics.
if Google changes random bits in the IP address even before they remove the last byte at 18 months, that would already make guessing the original IP address near impossible since you don't know which bits were changed.
if they only changed 1 bit in the entire address, then there would be 32 possibilities, but if they changed 1 bit in each octet, then there would be 4096 possibilities. if they changed 2 bits in each octet, there would be 61,4656 possibilities. if they changed a random number of bits in each IP address, then the possibilities grow even larger. and this isn't a login password or encryption scheme. there's no way to brute-force the original IP address from the anonymized IP address even if only a single bit was changed.
this is just more unwarranted alarmism. google has stated that they are working on developing a method of anonymization that would protect user privacy while retaining the useful characteristics of their log data. frankly, as long as they're not giving up user data to 3rd parties anonymization is a non-issue.
i disagree. i think there are a lot more competent programmers out there than there are visionary individuals. programming is a technical skill, but with most non-menial trades, it takes more than just technical prowess to succeed. you also need to be inspired or possess a little more creativity than the next guy.
look at it this way; there are tons of great artists out there who can draw or paint photorealistic scenes without any effort. however, most of these people will still be limited to lackluster careers selling personal portraits at the mall, teaching figure-drawing/painting/etc. to high school students, or perhaps make a decent living selling those kitsch paintings you see decorating the walls of fast-food restaurants, but doomed to live in relatively obscurity, nonetheless.
conversely, many of the most well-known artists in history, like Jackson Pollack, Mark Rothko, Picasso, etc. did not demonstrate particularly exceptional technical skill in the conventional sense. but their artistic talent and creativity are still undeniable.
someone who uses the computer a lot may not know how to code in C or Assembly, but that doesn't preclude them from having good ideas for new applications. the implementation may have to be done by someone else, but it's a lot easier to find someone who can write code than it is to find someone with a truly brilliant idea.
someone trained in programming is a lot more likely to be able to realize their ideas because they have the tools & skill set to put their ideas into practice. but there are probably tons of great ideas for applications that are thought up by non-programmers which simply go to waste because they don't know how to implement the concept.
'ped' and 'pedo' can also refer to feet:
and since he's talking about modifying running shoes with pedometers in them, maybe he could call his site, pedoph... oh, wait....
that hack seems harmless enough. however, i'm not so sure that Podophile is the best name for a website.
it's the port that you pour your milk into in the morning.
so anyone who discovers a security flaw and reports it is now breaking the law and should be treated as a criminal?
the only reason he accessed the account information was to demonstrate the severity of the flaw. he didn't do it for personal gain or out of malice. if he had, he could have done much more damage--from what the article says, it doesn't sound like any damage was done, except perhaps a little embarrassment to the university.
what would you prefer that he had put in the letter? "hello, i hacked into your system. you should try to fix that."?
and why should a innocent person, who is being a good Samaritan have to report a security vulnerability anonymously to avoid punishment? you sound like an incompetent sys-admin more worried about being made a fool of than actually securing the systems you work with.
if someone sees your house burning and rushes in to save you, are you going to have them arrested for trespassing? i mean, they knew they were breaking the law when they entered on to your premises without your permission, so they should face the consequences, right?
yes, spam filtering allows you to ignore the problem, but the resource costs are still tremendous. spam sites are just as problematic.
the way i see it, spam e-mail, spam websites, search engine gaming (blackhat SEO), malware/botnets, and domain name squatting are all related problems arising from spammer culture.
people who lack real talents dedicate their entire lives to being internet bottom-feeders in their blind-pursuit of profit/wealth. but this parasitic mentality is a direct outgrowth of our capitalist society. if we measure the worth of an individual by the amount of money they make rather than how much they contribute to society, then there will always be these seedy opportunistic professions that, while a public nuisance, are legitimized by their commercial motivations.
our government also seems to put business interests above public good. so while security researchers are persecuted by the justice system for pointing out the weaknesses in a commercial company's product or service, businesses who hire spammers or pay malware developers are simply viewed as enterprising businesspeople. likewise, hackers who have no malicious intentions and hack into computer systems & networks purely out of curiosity and a desire for knowledge are given disproportionate jail sentences and made examples of. whereas, greed-driven spammers & malware writers that plague the internet and make the lives of everyone more difficult (and also cause significantly more harm) aren't even pursued by law-enforcement. that just encourages young hackers to become greedy spammers since you get to make money and won't get in any trouble with the law.
of course, it doesn't help that the judges & legislators in charge of forming public policy are all so out of touch with technology that they think a 'pop-up window' and 'file menus' are patentable ideas.
in a way that's true. i think it's also just a specific case of a more general problem, which is excessive advertising in general. but we've become so used to being bombarded with advertisements offline that legislators can't see the problem with what's basically the online extension of this problem.
the internet connects each user with millions of people from all over the world. it allows for near-instantaneous exchange/transfer of information. but the same technology that allows us to contact/reach people with ease, also allows businesses/advertisers to do the same. you can't send out a million letters or make a million telemarketing calls in a split second--and do it for pennies--off-line. so we've never had to come up with regulations to prevent such abuses.