A lot of the idealists are going to give you shit for holding this position. They have their reasons, and some of them might even be good ones, but let's skip that for now. If you're a realist or a pragmatist, their idealism probably isn't going to do much for you. And I get where you're coming from. Here in the US, we have a large number of disenfranchised voters who feel exactly the same way as you. And the Powers That Be really like it that way, since less voters means less work buying elections.
On the plus side, votes do seem to count. If you look at the ridiculous amounts of money being spent in US politics on campaigns, that should be prime evidence of the power of the vote. The problem, of course, is in who holds that power. Voters cast their votes for a great many reasons, and some of those reasons have been fairly easy to subvert.
The cure for this problem is not simple, and it is not easy, and I don't blame you for not wanting to help. A great many good people will likely need to stand up and serve jail time and worse in acts of civil disobedience to try and change things. Getting people to stand up and take notice to what is going on around them, and not just passively tune out discussions of politics and social justice will be a major challenge by itself. Getting people to believe in change, and to believe in a better way of social governance, and actively participate in politics... that does seem pretty impossible. And if that dream were to ever come true, and we did 'fix' things, it would carry with it a good of different problems.
But I have some good news. It only feels like there is nothing you can do about it. The bad news is that there are powerful forces at work trying to make sure you always feel that way. Of course, it has pretty much always been up to you how you want to feel about that, and what you want to do about that. Rather than passively accepting that things suck and committing yourself to the belief that it will never change, even something simple like trying to engage people in discussions on political issues can help. The more minds like yours that we can even open to the possibility of change can only help.
Of course, change is not without risk, and getting your hopes up is a good way to see them dashed to pieces at your feet. But, you already know how it is. This is the real world.
To answer your first question, you're partially correct that a debugger can do wonders to highlight malicious code. Of course, as you point out, knowing when and where to use a debugger can be a little challenging. And then the realization that unless exceptional care is taken, the code you're stepping though might not even contain or reveal the exploit. (Since the mere act of viewing the byte code in a debugger can change affect it's operation.) There's one story that really opened my eyes to the possibilities. I don't remember where the long beards keep the real link, but this seems to be the story I remember:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html
This was the first story of real high level obfuscation I learned about in college. As a result of Ken Thompson's little speech here, he caused the DOD to change the way they do code reviews to catch back doors like this. And the obfuscated C challenges have been going on since at least the early 80s. Some of the winners are real treasure troves of high level trickery.
What is it you do where you can't receive packages at your place of work?
My previous employer was small enough that sending packages there worked wonderfully. Dedicated shipping and receiving clerk on duty at most hours to accept packages, and quick and easy routing to forward packages on to my desk.
My current employer is significantly larger, and the dedicated shipping and receiving clerks aren't situated to route personal packages. Names and departments not on their normal receiving list get shunted off to the interoffice communication department, who do tend to route packages to us... eventually... assuming we fill out a twenty-seven B stroke six. Of course, a little work to get in the good graces of shipping and receiving will put you on their informal list, assuming you can get packages sent to you labeled correctly. But that's not really covered in the employee handbook.
Wow, talk about misrepresenting the facts. I hate the way the MPAA is using copyright law as much as the next digital rights activist. But, for the record, the MPAA didn't take down the network. They just sent their usual infringement notice to the ISP, who then forwarded it on to Coshocton County. The county then made the decision to shut down the wifi service, they weren't ordered to by any judge or MPAA executive/lawyer/asshat.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=117273
After getting out of college I got a 'real' job in an Windows-only shop. I was still a Windows guy at the time, so I was still quasi-happy. However, I became less happy as my efforts to deploy Linux in my workplace were consistently rebuffed while my Linux skills at home continued to grow.
So I went job hunting for a work place that would let me use Linux. As you might expect, most places I interviewed either expressed ignorance, or had any of a number of reasons why they didn't use or even allow Linux in their shop. So I had to change my search tactics. I started cold calling likely medium and large sized businesses and socially engineering my way to talk to a system administrator. A handful of them seemed to think I was either doing a pen test, or were otherwise properly paranoid at releasing information about what their developers used in house. The rest were happy to reveal if they allowed and/or encouraged Linux in their shop. Of the 11 places that would share details, 6 admitted to using some flavor of Linux.
Some persistence and a bit of luck later, and I've now been happily employed as a Linux developer for five+ years now. Most of the rest of the company is still Windows only, but we have our little penguin oasis and an IT management staff that is happy to allow us the freedom to try OSS where we think it might work. And I've never been happier.
Right, these are RIAA numbers. Since when did we care what spin doctoring they did to their own numbers to try and justify their war on piracy? The only slant this article gives the numbers is that there are more and growing opportunities to listen to music for free... a fact the RIAA mentioned no where. But, guess what? Since around the 1950s or so, we've all been able to listen to music for free over the radio. And the Boston Strangler aside, the advent of the portable music player has only made music more accessible.
The fact that we're in a fairly serious global recession coupled to the inflation they sprinkle on the numbers might make them look tragic. But last I checked, everyone still wants music. They just don't have as much to spend on it right now. I don't see the music industry going anywhere.
Well, the major labels might vanish. But they stopped being a required piece of the music industry more than 10 years ago. Course, they won't really vanish unless their copyrights actually expire. Or our generation dies out and is replaced by a culture that believes music should be enjoyed rather than owned.
The luxury industry has been linked with reducing the size of the middle class, since it tends to greater a broader disparity between those providing goods and services and those consuming them. You are certainly correct, of course, that spending money will 'stimulate the economy' regardless if it comes from the rich or the poor. The question is the type of economy you want to stimulate. Luxury spending tends to stimulate the segment of industry that sees little return back at the lower end of the wage pools. They reap higher profits, and provide fewer goods and services, thus tending towards increasing the divide in wealth. Spending in the lower end 'consumer grade' market tends to stimulate an industry that will increase growth where more goods and services are produced.
Henry Ford famously paid his employees enough so they could buy the cars they were building. Imagine what might have happened to the auto industry if he had catered only to the rich? Compare also to Walmart, who also wants to pay their employees enough to buy their products.
Don't propagate this myth. Hell, my Atari 400 came with 4 joystick ports. We had a multi-tap for our SNES so you could play 4 player games. That isn't new, and yet once we had our own PCs, we still went to LAN parties.
You can't play all games crowded around the same monitor. For some you really want your own audio/visual source so you're NOT all tied to one another in the same location. Playing games of 8 player X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter or Starcraft or Age of Empires, or 16 player Counter-Strike or Rainbow Six were expressly fun because we could all run off on our assigned tasks without worrying about going off screen or trying to watch our tiny slice of the split-screen. Breaking a LAN party up into two teams, where each team was in a separate room, beat the hell out of any cooperative on-line play I've ever experienced.
Now, granted, lugging around a 30 or even 40 pound monitor was a bit of a pain, even with those handy monitor tote straps. But, in the end, it only took a few minutes for us to tear down a PC, toss the cables in a bag, and pack it all into the car. As we'd have LAN parties every few (extended) weekends, setup was not the major pain. Have LAN party locations with adequate seating, power, ventilation, and ethernet ports was the tricky part. But once we had adequately sized apartments (gamers living in the next unit works fantastic) or homes, we had our gaming mecca.
Once new game consoles came out that have ports for everyone to plug in their own audio/visual head set, then you'll have a case. Until then, for me at least, there is still something to be said for LAN parties.
I find it interesting you say that he 'played the game correctly' since that was the core part of the argument that I thought the professor completely missed in his paper.
Who gets to define the 'correct' way to play? And if we look at the social dynamic of the game world as being larger than merely a 'game', who gets to define the correct way to live life? Can you really do it wrong? Is there anything interesting about that fact that players were put in an environment were they were suppose to compete against one another, and yet collectively choose to cooperate instead?
Certainly, we could make a compelling argument that the game designers and developers are the ones who get to define the 'correct' way to play the game. But I should think an equally compelling argument could also be made that the players also get to make that decision. Or, even, that it is an entirely subjective and personal choice, and not subject to the tyranny of any majority.
How the hell can you blame a guy for running for president when it was the *millions* of other people who voted for the guy who was actually elected? Or are people not suppose to vote for the guy who they feel is the most qualified? When did casting a ballot equate to throwing away your vote if your guy doesn't get elected?
What kind of democracy do you expect to have, where any qualified candidate is required to sell their soul for the funding required from one of your two parties, who stand for nothing more than merely getting their own reelected? They've both been running to center trying to grind out the votes necessary to win without any concern for what principles or political values they're even suppose to stand for anymore. Isn't politics suppose to be the art of comprise rather than forcing down your tyranny of the majority as an entitlement program? Shouldn't be have politicians more focused on what is best for all of us, rather than those they are beholden to? Do you really enjoy run on sound bites and highlight reels rather than any meaningful political discourse?
I understand you're bitter. I'm pretty bitter too. But why derisively spit at anyone who wants to try and stand up and thinks they might be able to do a better job than the other guy. Or maybe just because they believe the other guy is wrong. Do you really find that the politicians getting elected actually represent you and your world view?
But you're basically suggesting that every image and video recorded by the police, doctors, hospitals, and so on is "destined" to be public domain.
Yeah, that whole 'for a limited time' in the copyright clause in the Constitution seems kinda freaky, doesn't it?
Is this really where we're headed as a society? Idea ownership is normal and ideas being open and free for anyone to use is strange?
If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn
