"Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, could this take us closer to embedded chips under the skin?"
I fail to understand how an embedded chip would make identity theft any less of a problem. While it may reduce social enginering which the article defines as a problem, how would it eliminate the technical (and in the case of securing identity information, most important) aspect.
For example, assuming that theives can get around biometric data. What is going to stop them from removing a "read-only" chip and installing a "read/write" chip?
I have to agree with you on this, but, the process of backing up is well known.
The thing that makes DRMing special is that it actively discourages a person from changing computers. Rather than the typical passive "windows becomes bugged and clogged as a byproduct of ". Although I am in no way advocating that a person purchases something new as a result of the later.
Then again, I suppose both encourage the user to spend more money on something they already have bought.
I doubt that the American public is impressed with what the current Canadian legislative and judicial systems either.
But why should Americians give a flying fuck what we think? The only time it SHOULD matter is on international issues where we have just as much of a right as them to be involved. But even then, it is kind of weak.
Remember, we Canadians observe the same media as Americans. We see what they see, yet can only watch. I think this leads us to a commonly held, yet incorrect belief that we have some right to American politics.
Furthermore, with a signature that says "Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism." you have problems at home to deal with.
Is anyone else sick of hearing about high school hackers on/.?
This is our version of "Won't somebody please think of the children?"
But I agree with you, and hopefully this is the last we will be hearing from this group.
Wouldn't key loss, and hacking issues be absolved by biometrics?
And as for damaging a biometric key, I think in this case the user has bigger problems... Well unless they need to drive to the hospital without a thumb.
I think a large part of the problem with developing creative games, is that developing a game that will be complex enough to reach the mainstream is that it typically requires a lot of resources.
Of course, business people have the resources, and they don't like to take risks. They have to answer to shareholders, be responsible to their employee's job security, etc.
Unlike the 80s and even 90s when a group of programmers, sitting around could say: "Hey, that's a great idea! Let's build it!"
Then again, that sounds like every other facet of the modern computer world anyway.
Just me wondering, when evaluating what people to interview, what qualifications would you look at?
The most obvious thing I can think of is experience. But that begs the question of how one gains experience.
I'm not going to completely disagree with you in general, because I come from the perspective that if I were hiring I would not want anyone without a CS degree (where certifications are pretty much irrelevant). And even then I would thoroughly test them, because bad students can get through.
I've found that people want things that "just work" and as an extention to that, programs have to "just work" in the way that they are used to.
So, like most programs, people don't care about quality, security, or amazingly even cost. In the end, all they care about is doing some task in using the fastest assembly line that they know.
(I like the assembly line comparison because it illustrates the desire for speed, but one can still make the point that if an assembly line produces a terrible product, the job is still accomplished)
A semi-offtopic question here. Does anyone think that the "It comes from brandname X, therefore it must be good." mentality of previous decades still exists? Or are cases like OpenOffice/linux/etc. ones where people are worried about compatibility and such concepts?
I think it's simpler than that. We have to teach students an introductory language. I've heard from an academica advisor that they chose not to teach LISP, Scheme or any other recursion based langages because it results in students thinking TOO recursively (a programmer should use recursion, but the right tool for the job).
With those out of the way, why should they teach a commonly used language? <a href="http://paulgraham.com/popular.html">This</a> gives a decent statement about why it should be popular, but an even simpler one is that if students are stuck, an extra guide can be located easier.<br>
Between C, C++ and Java I've always thought Java was the better language for newbs. It's got a very well documented and structured library. No memory issues to distract one from a given task. etc. The only problem is that you get students who suck at doing any lower level functions. Furthermore, I know WAY too many students who would only ever want to use Java, hence, it's all they know. But a good year in the real world will smack that out of them.<br>
I think that all languages have their tradeoffs. What benefits the students best is a langague where they can express the concepts they are taught, hopefully with some ease. I have yet to hear of a perfect teaching language, and I doubt I ever will.
As the author himself says, the question here is not "Can machines think?", like Turing, but rather 'Can machines live?'"
This is an implicit point of Dijkstra's quote: "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
Ignoring a few things, there is a fundamental problem with what you've just said.
The average CS prof I've had is tenured and older than 40.
Given that it takes a while to get tenure, they probably aren't the most "in touch" with real world computing either.
What I want to see added to the CS curriculum is a CS history/propeganda course. This way they can be informed of not only the real world, but their place in it.
Mix the two and the obvious solution, although potientially quite costly, is to move away from Cobol.
Furthermore, business shouldn't have any say over what is taught in a CS degree. Because a traditional degree isn't about getting a job. It's about gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I recommend these business start talking to trade schools.
Even if Google turns into the epitome of evil, does it really matter to the end user?
If I didn't like google I could easily replace every function that I use that they provide today. IM, email, maps, oh and lest we forget searching. ^_^
Out of all the "Computer" this and "Technology" that educational programs available Computer Science is the only one I've heard of that treats computing as an end in itself, not just the means to one.
That being said, it is hard to state a specific example of your question. For every case that I have heard made a counter case does exist.
The best explaination I can give is as follows: ANSI C only has about 30 keywords and just over 100 functions. If you learn how to use all of these it could be said that you know how to use C. That being said, if I gave you a Turkish-translation dictionary right now you would be fluent in the language under my specification.
The next step is to teach you how to express a logical thought using syntax. Which would be similar to learning real world languages.
The only catch is that just having a valid sentance does not make it the best choice. Remember that valid, yet bad grammer still exist (and yours truely suffers from this reality). And an English major should have a superior grasp of the language compared to a person that is merely fluent.
Which is comparible to Computer Science, except for one thing. If I were to extend my anology, I would say that CS does not merely force one to speak the language correctly, but also strives to be a conversationalist in general. Not only is one interested in what to say, but how to say it. Which gets back to my point about CS being an ends in itself.
I know I didn't really answer your question in anything more than an abstract way, but you have to remember that I am a Computer Scientist after all. I leave the actual explaination to Conversation Monkies, which should be a dime a dozen.
Does the functionality of this program remind anyone else of dashboard for OSX?
Speaking of, widgets seem to be all the rage at the moment. Do they have any standards (other than program APIs), for say, the sake of portibility? Or would that be pointless?
I ask that because there seems to be a lot of duplication of functions (such as local weather) between various applications.
What happens when little Johnny or Sally grows up and has to do real studying?
It would be great if we could teach real world knowledge through gaming for their entire lives. But, we can't. Should we augment some of the tougher concepts through gaming, yes. All concepts, no.
This is where I make a point about Grand Theft Auto and encouraging children to be mindless slaves to entertainment for the sake of debate. Then proceed to coat my computer with asbestos for the sake of the flaming. Or something similar.
I learned a version of BASIC using the TI-calculators when I was younger. That being said, I can accept students learning BASIC for a short time. But, as a student's mind matures they should begin to hate the limits of BASIC.
The only problem is, as far as I see, is that level of self-reflection is not entirely possible by most people. I know many people who only know Java well because it was the first thing they were taught. I can only imagine if they were that bound to BASIC.
I think BASIC can be used to demonstrate print, for, while, boolean logic, arrays, etc. But beyond that it begins to teach bad structure in code. That one will have to unlearn later in life.
Ivory towers exist for a reason. And in computing I've found that it boils down to the following: Software engineering sees computers as a means to an end. Computer Science sees computing as an end in itself. Therefore, don't expect computer scientists to compromise the computing world. In the words of Dijkstra, you don't give the user what they want, you give them what they need.
I don't think the amount of virii/spyware/annoyances is proportional to the user base in terms of a linear relationship.
That being said about the minor attackware, there should be about the same number of major attacks against everything else.
I say this because: a) FOSS software such as the Linux kernel may not have the same number of people looking for vulernabilites in a negative context. But those who do have the advantage of being able to see the source code to find them. Therefore it should be simplier to do so. b) Major vulnerabilites aren't found by people who want to scam you into revenue. I'd say the type of people that try to find a major exploits are the ones who either want a big challenge or to burn a lot of people. Maybe both. And even at our current point, targeting linux/BSD/OSX/etc. people should be enough damage for anyone interested.
And for the minor stuff I do think there is a culture around the OSes. I doubt it is as easy to trick the typical BSD user into doing something stupid as it is to trick the average Windows user. If Linux or any similar OS came into wide spread use, I think that things like scripts, and abuse to sudoing users would become more problematic.
I think this is the most asinine "article" I've ever read...
On the one hand the author states that they want cases to be more functional (and provide beverage serving capabilites). On the other, they want hard drives to be smaller because they want to "...own a PC that is as thin as a light-weight laptop and with the length and width of a Mac Mini."
I'm a CS major, and frankly, it's disgusting to see how many people can get a degree and not know how to program at all.
That being said, a language is nothing more than a way to describe a concept. Ask the "trend du jour" people about programming concepts, and you'll probably get a bunch of software engineering babble in the reply. (an experiment of this would be interesting, given that the person wasn't mislead)
My basic belief in learning computer science is to learn how NOT to be a code-monkey. Any idiot with minor interest in the topic of languages or databases can become a code-monkey.
I think Dijkstra was wrong about the cruelty of computer science. The true creulty is that we teach students more than the watered down industry will ever demand. Kind of like putting a professional athlete in a little-league team.
Why is this? One thought that has crossed my mind is something that a prof of mine, who used to work at IBM, once said "Back in the 60s programmers were created, not hired." Because there weren't many programmers at the time.
Now, if people are being trained on the company dime, the employers are going to cheap out. They are going to set a bar of "getting it done" and only demand as much. (we see this today in many parts of the industry)
Steve Jobs once said that "A players hire A players, B players hire C players", where the question was posed "then how do you get B players?" I think that in this case, C players hired people that would become (on average) at best B players.
Over time, these B+C players set the industry standards, both in hiring and development. (for example, if you are a boss and only know COBOL, are you going to start projects that aren't COBOL, with the loss of job security as one consequence, and that the employees currently only know COBOL?)
Which leads us to today and the demand for the "trend du jour" which is just an extension. Where programmers have been forced to ride the wave for decades to maintain bare employability. Thus, the market asks for it, people looking to do the bare minimum supply it, and a de facto standard in the common language is created.
What I'm saying is that if one chooses to enter this industry on the "trend du jour", they better be willing to have to learn the latest fads well into their fifties.
As for what the next trend is, I've heard that the best way to gauge that is to go into any CS department. What they are doing is what you will most likely be doing in 10 years.
I'm currently considering becoming a high school math teacher in Nova Scotia, but I don't know if I can tolerate the shit that goes with the job.
The problem with the education system (at least in NS) is that it has two types of students:
The first type are those who will go into an non-academic profession, and know so. In NS, most schools can only focus on the academics. So, the program is academic, meaning that the courses a non-academic takes are useless.
As stated in the article posted above, traditionally, teenagers would have become apprentices and have been in a more productive, and rewarding environment.
As a friend of mine once lamented that "you need at least a high school diploma to haul garbage." For the most part, this observation is true. This means that those who aren't academically inclined are forced into an enviroment that isn't compatible with their learning capabilities. I know I wouldn't be happy in such a negative environment, and I can understand why they aren't either.
Academics need high school for university. The problem is that the average has been artifically lowered by people who aren't academically inclined (for years). Meaning that they aren't taught as fast or well as they could be. This results in the "not being challenged" observation I'm sure most of us have experienced. This makes the prison sentence seem unecessarly prolonged. Which makes it all the more painful.
The result, an enviroment where everyone is forced to work differently than they should be. As a teacher, could you imagine having to drag two completely different camps at the same time?
Hence, I blame the system. When I was 15 a teacher said that people should get to choose a trade if they want to. That would be benefitial to all involved.
That leads the argument to getting into teaching as an attempt to fix the system. Failure of this, would cause apathy. So it's all understandable.
Slashdot Mirror
"Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, could this take us closer to embedded chips under the skin?"
I fail to understand how an embedded chip would make identity theft any less of a problem. While it may reduce social enginering which the article defines as a problem, how would it eliminate the technical (and in the case of securing identity information, most important) aspect.
For example, assuming that theives can get around biometric data. What is going to stop them from removing a "read-only" chip and installing a "read/write" chip?
I have to agree with you on this, but, the process of backing up is well known.
The thing that makes DRMing special is that it actively discourages a person from changing computers. Rather than the typical passive "windows becomes bugged and clogged as a byproduct of ". Although I am in no way advocating that a person purchases something new as a result of the later.
Then again, I suppose both encourage the user to spend more money on something they already have bought.
Ask the average DRM-purchaser if they understand that there is a chance their music won't play in the future.
Just because you and I understand the tradeoffs doesn't mean that the average person does.
I doubt that the American public is impressed with what the current Canadian legislative and judicial systems either.
But why should Americians give a flying fuck what we think? The only time it SHOULD matter is on international issues where we have just as much of a right as them to be involved. But even then, it is kind of weak.
Remember, we Canadians observe the same media as Americans. We see what they see, yet can only watch. I think this leads us to a commonly held, yet incorrect belief that we have some right to American politics.
Furthermore, with a signature that says "Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism." you have problems at home to deal with.
This is our version of "Won't somebody please think of the children?"
But I agree with you, and hopefully this is the last we will be hearing from this group.
Wouldn't key loss, and hacking issues be absolved by biometrics?
And as for damaging a biometric key, I think in this case the user has bigger problems... Well unless they need to drive to the hospital without a thumb.
But gaming is my entire motivation to retire.
I think a large part of the problem with developing creative games, is that developing a game that will be complex enough to reach the mainstream is that it typically requires a lot of resources.
Of course, business people have the resources, and they don't like to take risks. They have to answer to shareholders, be responsible to their employee's job security, etc.
Unlike the 80s and even 90s when a group of programmers, sitting around could say: "Hey, that's a great idea! Let's build it!"
Then again, that sounds like every other facet of the modern computer world anyway.
It's going to be an iMac Shuffle.
All my old magazines praise the Altair for it's headless computer innovation!
Just me wondering, when evaluating what people to interview, what qualifications would you look at?
The most obvious thing I can think of is experience. But that begs the question of how one gains experience.
I'm not going to completely disagree with you in general, because I come from the perspective that if I were hiring I would not want anyone without a CS degree (where certifications are pretty much irrelevant). And even then I would thoroughly test them, because bad students can get through.
I've found that people want things that "just work" and as an extention to that, programs have to "just work" in the way that they are used to.
So, like most programs, people don't care about quality, security, or amazingly even cost. In the end, all they care about is doing some task in using the fastest assembly line that they know.
(I like the assembly line comparison because it illustrates the desire for speed, but one can still make the point that if an assembly line produces a terrible product, the job is still accomplished)
A semi-offtopic question here. Does anyone think that the "It comes from brandname X, therefore it must be good." mentality of previous decades still exists? Or are cases like OpenOffice/linux/etc. ones where people are worried about compatibility and such concepts?
I think it's simpler than that. We have to teach students an introductory language. I've heard from an academica advisor that they chose not to teach LISP, Scheme or any other recursion based langages because it results in students thinking TOO recursively (a programmer should use recursion, but the right tool for the job).
> gives a decent statement about why it should be popular, but an even simpler one is that if students are stuck, an extra guide can be located easier.<br>
With those out of the way, why should they teach a commonly used language? <a href="http://paulgraham.com/popular.html">This</a
Between C, C++ and Java I've always thought Java was the better language for newbs. It's got a very well documented and structured library. No memory issues to distract one from a given task. etc. The only problem is that you get students who suck at doing any lower level functions. Furthermore, I know WAY too many students who would only ever want to use Java, hence, it's all they know. But a good year in the real world will smack that out of them.<br>
I think that all languages have their tradeoffs. What benefits the students best is a langague where they can express the concepts they are taught, hopefully with some ease. I have yet to hear of a perfect teaching language, and I doubt I ever will.
This is an implicit point of Dijkstra's quote:
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
Ignoring a few things, there is a fundamental problem with what you've just said.
The average CS prof I've had is tenured and older than 40.
Given that it takes a while to get tenure, they probably aren't the most "in touch" with real world computing either.
What I want to see added to the CS curriculum is a CS history/propeganda course. This way they can be informed of not only the real world, but their place in it.
Business has a problem with Cobol programmers.
Academia has a problem with Cobol in general.
Mix the two and the obvious solution, although potientially quite costly, is to move away from Cobol.
Furthermore, business shouldn't have any say over what is taught in a CS degree. Because a traditional degree isn't about getting a job. It's about gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I recommend these business start talking to trade schools.
What time frame would be recent? These are people who frequently use measurements in excess of thousands of years (up to and including billions).
Even if Google turns into the epitome of evil, does it really matter to the end user?
If I didn't like google I could easily replace every function that I use that they provide today.
IM, email, maps, oh and lest we forget searching. ^_^
Out of all the "Computer" this and "Technology" that educational programs available Computer Science is the only one I've heard of that treats computing as an end in itself, not just the means to one.
That being said, it is hard to state a specific example of your question. For every case that I have heard made a counter case does exist.
The best explaination I can give is as follows:
ANSI C only has about 30 keywords and just over 100 functions. If you learn how to use all of these it could be said that you know how to use C. That being said, if I gave you a Turkish-translation dictionary right now you would be fluent in the language under my specification.
The next step is to teach you how to express a logical thought using syntax. Which would be similar to learning real world languages.
The only catch is that just having a valid sentance does not make it the best choice. Remember that valid, yet bad grammer still exist (and yours truely suffers from this reality). And an English major should have a superior grasp of the language compared to a person that is merely fluent.
Which is comparible to Computer Science, except for one thing. If I were to extend my anology, I would say that CS does not merely force one to speak the language correctly, but also strives to be a conversationalist in general. Not only is one interested in what to say, but how to say it. Which gets back to my point about CS being an ends in itself.
I know I didn't really answer your question in anything more than an abstract way, but you have to remember that I am a Computer Scientist after all. I leave the actual explaination to Conversation Monkies, which should be a dime a dozen.
Does the functionality of this program remind anyone else of dashboard for OSX?
Speaking of, widgets seem to be all the rage at the moment. Do they have any standards (other than program APIs), for say, the sake of portibility? Or would that be pointless?
I ask that because there seems to be a lot of duplication of functions (such as local weather) between various applications.
What happens when little Johnny or Sally grows up and has to do real studying?
It would be great if we could teach real world knowledge through gaming for their entire lives. But, we can't. Should we augment some of the tougher concepts through gaming, yes. All concepts, no.
This is where I make a point about Grand Theft Auto and encouraging children to be mindless slaves to entertainment for the sake of debate. Then proceed to coat my computer with asbestos for the sake of the flaming. Or something similar.
I learned a version of BASIC using the TI-calculators when I was younger. That being said, I can accept students learning BASIC for a short time. But, as a student's mind matures they should begin to hate the limits of BASIC.
The only problem is, as far as I see, is that level of self-reflection is not entirely possible by most people. I know many people who only know Java well because it was the first thing they were taught. I can only imagine if they were that bound to BASIC.
I think BASIC can be used to demonstrate print, for, while, boolean logic, arrays, etc. But beyond that it begins to teach bad structure in code. That one will have to unlearn later in life.
Ivory towers exist for a reason. And in computing I've found that it boils down to the following:
Software engineering sees computers as a means to an end. Computer Science sees computing as an end in itself. Therefore, don't expect computer scientists to compromise the computing world. In the words of Dijkstra, you don't give the user what they want, you give them what they need.
I don't think the amount of virii/spyware/annoyances is proportional to the user base in terms of a linear relationship.
That being said about the minor attackware, there should be about the same number of major attacks against everything else.
I say this because:
a) FOSS software such as the Linux kernel may not have the same number of people looking for vulernabilites in a negative context. But those who do have the advantage of being able to see the source code to find them. Therefore it should be simplier to do so.
b) Major vulnerabilites aren't found by people who want to scam you into revenue. I'd say the type of people that try to find a major exploits are the ones who either want a big challenge or to burn a lot of people. Maybe both. And even at our current point, targeting linux/BSD/OSX/etc. people should be enough damage for anyone interested.
And for the minor stuff I do think there is a culture around the OSes. I doubt it is as easy to trick the typical BSD user into doing something stupid as it is to trick the average Windows user. If Linux or any similar OS came into wide spread use, I think that things like scripts, and abuse to sudoing users would become more problematic.
I think this is the most asinine "article" I've ever read...
On the one hand the author states that they want cases to be more functional (and provide beverage serving capabilites). On the other, they want hard drives to be smaller because they want to "...own a PC that is as thin as a light-weight laptop and with the length and width of a Mac Mini."
Brilliant!
I'm a CS major, and frankly, it's disgusting to see how many people can get a degree and not know how to program at all.
That being said, a language is nothing more than a way to describe a concept. Ask the "trend du jour" people about programming concepts, and you'll probably get a bunch of software engineering babble in the reply. (an experiment of this would be interesting, given that the person wasn't mislead)
My basic belief in learning computer science is to learn how NOT to be a code-monkey. Any idiot with minor interest in the topic of languages or databases can become a code-monkey.
I think Dijkstra was wrong about the cruelty of computer science. The true creulty is that we teach students more than the watered down industry will ever demand. Kind of like putting a professional athlete in a little-league team.
Why is this? One thought that has crossed my mind is something that a prof of mine, who used to work at IBM, once said "Back in the 60s programmers were created, not hired." Because there weren't many programmers at the time.
Now, if people are being trained on the company dime, the employers are going to cheap out. They are going to set a bar of "getting it done" and only demand as much. (we see this today in many parts of the industry)
Steve Jobs once said that "A players hire A players, B players hire C players", where the question was posed "then how do you get B players?" I think that in this case, C players hired people that would become (on average) at best B players.
Over time, these B+C players set the industry standards, both in hiring and development. (for example, if you are a boss and only know COBOL, are you going to start projects that aren't COBOL, with the loss of job security as one consequence, and that the employees currently only know COBOL?)
Which leads us to today and the demand for the "trend du jour" which is just an extension. Where programmers have been forced to ride the wave for decades to maintain bare employability. Thus, the market asks for it, people looking to do the bare minimum supply it, and a de facto standard in the common language is created.
What I'm saying is that if one chooses to enter this industry on the "trend du jour", they better be willing to have to learn the latest fads well into their fifties.
As for what the next trend is, I've heard that the best way to gauge that is to go into any CS department. What they are doing is what you will most likely be doing in 10 years.
I'm currently considering becoming a high school math teacher in Nova Scotia, but I don't know if I can tolerate the shit that goes with the job.
The problem with the education system (at least in NS) is that it has two types of students:
The first type are those who will go into an non-academic profession, and know so. In NS, most schools can only focus on the academics. So, the program is academic, meaning that the courses a non-academic takes are useless.
As stated in the article posted above, traditionally, teenagers would have become apprentices and have been in a more productive, and rewarding environment.
As a friend of mine once lamented that "you need at least a high school diploma to haul garbage." For the most part, this observation is true. This means that those who aren't academically inclined are forced into an enviroment that isn't compatible with their learning capabilities. I know I wouldn't be happy in such a negative environment, and I can understand why they aren't either.
Academics need high school for university. The problem is that the average has been artifically lowered by people who aren't academically inclined (for years). Meaning that they aren't taught as fast or well as they could be. This results in the "not being challenged" observation I'm sure most of us have experienced. This makes the prison sentence seem unecessarly prolonged. Which makes it all the more painful.
The result, an enviroment where everyone is forced to work differently than they should be. As a teacher, could you imagine having to drag two completely different camps at the same time?
Hence, I blame the system. When I was 15 a teacher said that people should get to choose a trade if they want to. That would be benefitial to all involved.
That leads the argument to getting into teaching as an attempt to fix the system. Failure of this, would cause apathy. So it's all understandable.