I can't understand why Slashdot links to the New Scientist site when NASA is surely the best place to link to. Seems like a ploy for traffic by New Scientist to me.
The search functionality is much improved, I agree.
I think Vista *is* an improvement over XP (see my original post) - but I think it should have been so much more given the resources of Microsoft and the fact that the system is the primary interface to computers experienced by millions of people around the world.
Case in point: Windows Explorer is still *essentially* the same old thing we used back in 1995 FFS!
I want you to spend 2 minutes of your life thinking about how much better Windows could be in the area of filesystem navigation *alone* (improvements in usability such as reduced screen clutter, different "metaphors" for navigation) - then you will understand what I mean by saying it's a disgrace.
That's not to mention that the underlying OS remains based on XP which was based on W2k which was based on NT4 etc. If you look into the actual modus operandi of the operating system you will discover that it is (as it was in 1996 with NT4) fundamentally flawed from a security standpoint because you can inject code into a process and simply tell that process that the injected code is it's own. When I discovered this a couple of years ago I almost fell off my seat - just imagine the implications of this.
And when you start resorting to insults rather than solid argument I stop taking your point seriously. And just because my Slashdot membership ID is pretty high, that doesn't mean shit when it comes to real-world technical experience.
The Internet has not instilled an expectation for "guiltless and effortless cheating" in students.
The author has simly drawn a mental graph with "the rise of the internet" on one axis and "his personal experience with copy and paste plagarism" on the other. Of course the two variables are going to be linked - because of the increasing prevalence of computers and availability of information - not "because the of the Internet".
He is also fantasising about a utopia where your average student will not cheat given the chance:
"How can we... weed out the cheaters and liars from the honest students"
The reality is that it's a dog-eat-dog world and that people take calculated risks (e.g. plagarism) to succeed.
Cheating has always been around, and is merely a sympton of the mentality of those who are driven to succeed and who understand that the educational "system" will probably screw you as much as you screw it.
"What about morals?!" I hear you ask.
I only have two areas of evidence (personal experience and academic studies found on the Web), and they both point to the fact that the vast majority of people have *very* flexible moralities.
You can't end cheating but what u can do is make it less likely by thinking carefully about the nature of assigments and test questions.
There are two problems with the so-called "bugging" of bins.
First, residents were not told about the devices in there bins. This is crucial as it sets a precedent on a slippery slope - what other monitoring devices do we "not need" to be told about?
Second the broader premise of targetting individual households is wrong. From an environmental standpoint, the bulk of the problematic waste in a household's bin is *packaging*. The problem should be tackled from the other end - the packagers should be incentivised to use biodegradeable materials and to reduce packaging.
You appear to be describing the ID card system to be implemented in the UK which is a bad idea for three reasons:
1. It does not solve anything.
I repeat: no existing problem will be solved by ID cards.
Why?
Because there has to be an application process for a card. Say I don't have a card - how do I get one?
Answer: take along some existing ID.
And herein lies the problem - a system is only as secure as its weakest link. You can encrypt the data on the card and sign it and make it forgery proof (if that were possible), but I can still get one of these strong cards by showing up with my paper "birth certificate" and a bank statement. You can make the card as secure as you like, but it can only ever prove that you are the person who showed up at the card issuer with a couple of pieces of paper. Someone can blow themselves up on a plane whether they are carrying a card or not.
2. The ID card system will essentially be a huge governmental IT project. The British Govt. has an abysmal record with IT projects - they invariably cost a fortune and do not meet requirements. I wouldn't give a sh*t about the cost, but the tax-payer will pay for it.
3. The system sets a precedent and is another step on a slippery slope to the kind of country I don't want to live in - a beauraucratic, police/authority-fearing, guilty-until-proven-innocent, card carrying, 1984 dystopia where I have to prove my identity to faceless officials.
I'd like to know why the focus remains on creating "cell phones".
In Britain the cell phones work as advertised (i.e. few dropped calls, decent sound quality) and there is excellent coverage of most of the country.
Incorporating a cell phone should now be a *feature* rather than the defining characteristic of the device.
What we are seeing is a convergence of the PDA with the cellphone to create an internet-connected mobile computing device.
IMHO, fast mobile internet connectivity, coupled with a *decent screen* and *device programmability* is where the *real* power comes in.
I'm pretty sure when he said hand, he meant cursor. It sounded to me like he was using a remote control application, in which case what he describes is perfectly plausible. It would have been v slow over 56k though.
On the wordpad conversation, in windows 98, you definitely could have a two way conversation with any text-editor you want.
We used to do it using the sub-seven trojan when i was at uni.
I havent looked into similar technology with windows xp, but no doubt it's possible.
It's good to be skeptical. But this guy clearly hacked into various US government organisations otherwise they wouldn't want him extradited.
For me three important things are thrown up by this case:
1. the incredibly harsh suggested punishment by the US govt. (60 years in jail)
2. the amazing lack of security at multiple us govt organisations
3. the broad dismissal of "conspiracy theories" as being fantastical (to use a Dane Cook-ism), before serious consideration
On the conspiracy theory point. People are free to form their own theories, such as this guy's that the US govt. is supressing alien technology, and these theories can actually be helpful in challenging governments where there might be a genuine public interest.
My point is this: some (even most) conspiracy theories may be based on a misplaced sense of paranoia, but this doesn't mean that they can't raise valid questions that should be answered by the organisations concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't understand why Slashdot links to the New Scientist site when NASA is surely the best place to link to. Seems like a ploy for traffic by New Scientist to me.
Anyway, there's a better image here.
The search functionality is much improved, I agree.
I think Vista *is* an improvement over XP (see my original post) - but I think it should have been so much more given the resources of Microsoft and the fact that the system is the primary interface to computers experienced by millions of people around the world.
Case in point: Windows Explorer is still *essentially* the same old thing we used back in 1995 FFS!
I want you to spend 2 minutes of your life thinking about how much better Windows could be in the area of filesystem navigation *alone* (improvements in usability such as reduced screen clutter, different "metaphors" for navigation) - then you will understand what I mean by saying it's a disgrace.
That's not to mention that the underlying OS remains based on XP which was based on W2k which was based on NT4 etc. If you look into the actual modus operandi of the operating system you will discover that it is (as it was in 1996 with NT4) fundamentally flawed from a security standpoint because you can inject code into a process and simply tell that process that the injected code is it's own. When I discovered this a couple of years ago I almost fell off my seat - just imagine the implications of this.
And when you start resorting to insults rather than solid argument I stop taking your point seriously. And just because my Slashdot membership ID is pretty high, that doesn't mean shit when it comes to real-world technical experience.
Any such list that includes Windows Vista as the "Best Operating System" loses all credibility.
I have been running Vista for a few weeks now and it is nothing more than an incremental improvement on Windows XP/Server 2k3.
Given the resources of Microsoft, the worldwide importance of the OS and the time taken for development, Vista is a disgrace.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA08813.jpg
TFA is way off-bat.
The Internet has not instilled an expectation for "guiltless and effortless cheating" in students.
The author has simly drawn a mental graph with "the rise of the internet" on one axis and "his personal experience with copy and paste plagarism" on the other. Of course the two variables are going to be linked - because of the increasing prevalence of computers and availability of information - not "because the of the Internet".
He is also fantasising about a utopia where your average student will not cheat given the chance:
"How can we... weed out the cheaters and liars from the honest students"
The reality is that it's a dog-eat-dog world and that people take calculated risks (e.g. plagarism) to succeed.
Cheating has always been around, and is merely a sympton of the mentality of those who are driven to succeed and who understand that the educational "system" will probably screw you as much as you screw it.
"What about morals?!" I hear you ask.
I only have two areas of evidence (personal experience and academic studies found on the Web), and they both point to the fact that the vast majority of people have *very* flexible moralities.
You can't end cheating but what u can do is make it less likely by thinking carefully about the nature of assigments and test questions.
There are two problems with the so-called "bugging" of bins.
First, residents were not told about the devices in there bins. This is crucial as it sets a precedent on a slippery slope - what other monitoring devices do we "not need" to be told about?
Second the broader premise of targetting individual households is wrong. From an environmental standpoint, the bulk of the problematic waste in a household's bin is *packaging*. The problem should be tackled from the other end - the packagers should be incentivised to use biodegradeable materials and to reduce packaging.
You're kidding right?
You appear to be describing the ID card system to be implemented in the UK which is a bad idea for three reasons:
1.
It does not solve anything.
I repeat: no existing problem will be solved by ID cards.
Why?
Because there has to be an application process for a card. Say I don't have a card - how do I get one?
Answer: take along some existing ID.
And herein lies the problem - a system is only as secure as its weakest link. You can encrypt the data on the card and sign it and make it forgery proof (if that were possible), but I can still get one of these strong cards by showing up with my paper "birth certificate" and a bank statement. You can make the card as secure as you like, but it can only ever prove that you are the person who showed up at the card issuer with a couple of pieces of paper. Someone can blow themselves up on a plane whether they are carrying a card or not.
2.
The ID card system will essentially be a huge governmental IT project. The British Govt. has an abysmal record with IT projects - they invariably cost a fortune and do not meet requirements. I wouldn't give a sh*t about the cost, but the tax-payer will pay for it.
3.
The system sets a precedent and is another step on a slippery slope to the kind of country I don't want to live in - a beauraucratic, police/authority-fearing, guilty-until-proven-innocent, card carrying, 1984 dystopia where I have to prove my identity to faceless officials.
This ID card debate gets me!
I'd like to know why the focus remains on creating "cell phones". In Britain the cell phones work as advertised (i.e. few dropped calls, decent sound quality) and there is excellent coverage of most of the country. Incorporating a cell phone should now be a *feature* rather than the defining characteristic of the device. What we are seeing is a convergence of the PDA with the cellphone to create an internet-connected mobile computing device. IMHO, fast mobile internet connectivity, coupled with a *decent screen* and *device programmability* is where the *real* power comes in.
I'm pretty sure when he said hand, he meant cursor. It sounded to me like he was using a remote control application, in which case what he describes is perfectly plausible. It would have been v slow over 56k though.
On the wordpad conversation, in windows 98, you definitely could have a two way conversation with any text-editor you want.
We used to do it using the sub-seven trojan when i was at uni.
I havent looked into similar technology with windows xp, but no doubt it's possible.
It's good to be skeptical. But this guy clearly hacked into various US government organisations otherwise they wouldn't want him extradited.
2 3762628848 [google video] for info on another conspiracy theory (9/11).
For me three important things are thrown up by this case:
1. the incredibly harsh suggested punishment by the US govt. (60 years in jail)
2. the amazing lack of security at multiple us govt organisations
3. the broad dismissal of "conspiracy theories" as being fantastical (to use a Dane Cook-ism), before serious consideration
On the conspiracy theory point. People are free to form their own theories, such as this guy's that the US govt. is supressing alien technology, and these theories can actually be helpful in challenging governments where there might be a genuine public interest.
Take a look at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-82600599
My point is this: some (even most) conspiracy theories may be based on a misplaced sense of paranoia, but this doesn't mean that they can't raise valid questions that should be answered by the organisations concerned.