Les hlhowell@pacbell.net wrote:
One thing missing in this discussion is the scale of costs. No individual, outside of maybe Bill Gates could begin to repay for the damage caused by a rogue computer spreading a virus. Nor can one individual be even considered of being capable of patching a flaw in a piece of readily available software of proprietary nature (remember that "reverse engineering" is banned by most user license agreements.) So lets say you get a law passed that puts the onus on an individual. You get hacked, and the hacker uses a bit of code inside your system to "spiff up" his latest virus/worm program. Your name is in the code (courtesy of the memory map when your bit was built). Now that code breaks out and infects 200,000 systems, bringing them to their knees. You had all the good AV stuff installed, the system had a firewall, but this particular hacker managed to slip by
As I have mentioned several times in my postings on this subject, the law usually considers whether you have taken "reasonable and customary" measures to protect against such things. Especially, see my previous posting regarding a joyrider stealing a car.
Self-propagating viruses act a lot like the real thing. It doesn't take a 100 percent inoculation rate to stop a real virus from spreading; only getting enough of the population protected that the probability that the infection can spread is low. One of the problems is that way too many computer users don't understand their vulnerability and how harmful having a vulnerable system is. This is what needs to change.
We've already seen a number of attack vectors go out of favor as a certain large software vendor has patched the security holes in it's operating system and other products. If a significantly larger percentage of users were to install effective AV software, the problem would drop significantly. I'm not saying it would go away but we would probably see the people who write such software look to other approaches. Some of these might initially be successful but having a larger percentage of systems running effective AV software would mean that such problems would rapidly be contained.
It would be nice if that same software vendor were to tighten up their product rather than rely on after the fact patches like AV software. Being as how their behavior has barely changed in over 25 years, I'm not holding my breath.
Cheers, Dave
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 08:02 -0600, David G. Miller wrote:
Les hlhowell@pacbell.net wrote:
One thing missing in this discussion is the scale of costs. No individual, outside of maybe Bill Gates could begin to repay for the damage caused by a rogue computer spreading a virus. Nor can one individual be even considered of being capable of patching a flaw in a piece of readily available software of proprietary nature (remember that "reverse engineering" is banned by most user license agreements.) So lets say you get a law passed that puts the onus on an individual. You get hacked, and the hacker uses a bit of code inside your system to "spiff up" his latest virus/worm program. Your name is in the code (courtesy of the memory map when your bit was built). Now that code breaks out and infects 200,000 systems, bringing them to their knees. You had all the good AV stuff installed, the system had a firewall, but this particular hacker managed to slip by
As I have mentioned several times in my postings on this subject, the law usually considers whether you have taken "reasonable and customary" measures to protect against such things. Especially, see my previous posting regarding a joyrider stealing a car.
Self-propagating viruses act a lot like the real thing. It doesn't take a 100 percent inoculation rate to stop a real virus from spreading; only getting enough of the population protected that the probability that the infection can spread is low. One of the problems is that way too many computer users don't understand their vulnerability and how harmful having a vulnerable system is. This is what needs to change.
We've already seen a number of attack vectors go out of favor as a certain large software vendor has patched the security holes in it's operating system and other products. If a significantly larger percentage of users were to install effective AV software, the problem would drop significantly. I'm not saying it would go away but we would probably see the people who write such software look to other approaches. Some of these might initially be successful but having a larger percentage of systems running effective AV software would mean that such problems would rapidly be contained.
It would be nice if that same software vendor were to tighten up their product rather than rely on after the fact patches like AV software. Being as how their behavior has barely changed in over 25 years, I'm not holding my breath.
Cheers, Dave
-- Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. -- Ambrose Bierce
Agreed, but when schools are dropping laptop support because they say it "impeded education", how on earth can we get people educated about what the computer can and cannot do, and how to use it appropriately.
There are basic skills necessary for life in the modern world, such as taxes, driving, and computing among others that are poorly addressed by our schools. Not just in the US, but world wide from what I can tell. How will that change by passing a law that persecutes people for ignorance when the folks responsible for removing ignroance don't have the basic knowledge required?
Regards, Les H
Les wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 08:02 -0600, David G. Miller wrote:
Les <hlhowell@pacbell.net mailto:hlhowell@pacbell.net> wrote:
One thing missing in this discussion is the scale of costs. No individual, outside of maybe Bill Gates could begin to repay for the damage caused by a rogue computer spreading a virus. Nor can one individual be even considered of being capable of patching a flaw in a piece of readily available software of proprietary nature (remember that "reverse engineering" is banned by most user license agreements.) So lets say you get a law passed that puts the onus on an individual. You get hacked, and the hacker uses a bit of code inside your system to "spiff up" his latest virus/worm program. Your name is in the code (courtesy of the memory map when your bit was built). Now that code breaks out and infects 200,000 systems, bringing them to their knees. You had all the good AV stuff installed, the system had a firewall, but this particular hacker managed to slip by
As I have mentioned several times in my postings on this subject, the law usually considers whether you have taken "reasonable and customary" measures to protect against such things. Especially, see my previous posting regarding a joyrider stealing a car.
Self-propagating viruses act a lot like the real thing. It doesn't take a 100 percent inoculation rate to stop a real virus from spreading; only getting enough of the population protected that the probability that the infection can spread is low. One of the problems is that way too many computer users don't understand their vulnerability and how harmful having a vulnerable system is. This is what needs to change.
We've already seen a number of attack vectors go out of favor as a certain large software vendor has patched the security holes in it's operating system and other products. If a significantly larger percentage of users were to install effective AV software, the problem would drop significantly. I'm not saying it would go away but we would probably see the people who write such software look to other approaches. Some of these might initially be successful but having a larger percentage of systems running effective AV software would mean that such problems would rapidly be contained.
It would be nice if that same software vendor were to tighten up their product rather than rely on after the fact patches like AV software. Being as how their behavior has barely changed in over 25 years, I'm not holding my breath.
Cheers, Dave
-- Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. -- Ambrose Bierce
Agreed, but when schools are dropping laptop support because they say it "impeded education", how on earth can we get people educated about what the computer can and cannot do, and how to use it appropriately.
There are basic skills necessary for life in the modern world,such as taxes, driving, and computing among others that are poorly addressed by our schools. Not just in the US, but world wide from what I can tell. How will that change by passing a law that persecutes people for ignorance when the folks responsible for removing ignroance don't have the basic knowledge required?
Regards, Les H
Ignorance - a crime against humanity, have to admit it has a bit of a nice feel with it.
From: "Norm" maillist@sios.ca
Les wrote:
There are basic skills necessary for life in the modern world,such as taxes, driving, and computing among others that are poorly addressed by our schools. Not just in the US, but world wide from what I can tell. How will that change by passing a law that persecutes people for ignorance when the folks responsible for removing ignroance don't have the basic knowledge required?
Regards, Les H
Ignorance - a crime against humanity, have to admit it has a bit of a nice feel with it.
And the school systems will not let people who DO have the skills teach because they do not have the system's precious education credentials.
Go figure.
{^_^}
On Wednesday 30 May 2007, jdow wrote:
From: "Norm" maillist@sios.ca
Les wrote:
There are basic skills necessary for life in the modern world,such as taxes, driving, and computing among others that are poorly addressed by our schools. Not just in the US, but world wide from what I can tell. How will that change by passing a law that persecutes people for ignorance when the folks responsible for removing ignroance don't have the basic knowledge required?
Regards, Les H
Ignorance - a crime against humanity, have to admit it has a bit of a nice feel with it.
And the school systems will not let people who DO have the skills teach because they do not have the system's precious education credentials.
Go figure.
{^_^}
Naww, no figuring required Joanne. We've both 'been there, and done that, probably even bought then tee shirt' and when we got through beating some basic principle into somebodies head that should have been taught at the school they did attend 15 years back up the log, its amazing how often, once the light above their head does come on, that they will then ask "Why the hell aren't you teaching someplace, no one ever explained that in terms I could understand before".
Sure, just go right ahead and try to get a teaching certificate with an 8th grade education and a diploma from the School of Hard Knocks. They'll laugh until they wet themselves with that one.
From: "Les" hlhowell@pacbell.net
Agreed, but when schools are dropping laptop support because they say it "impeded education", how on earth can we get people educated about what the computer can and cannot do, and how to use it appropriately.
There are basic skills necessary for life in the modern world, such as taxes, driving, and computing among others that are poorly addressed by our schools. Not just in the US, but world wide from what I can tell. How will that change by passing a law that persecutes people for ignorance when the folks responsible for removing ignroance don't have the basic knowledge required?
Way off topic there, Les, but that should surprise you? Schools seem to be propaganda pushers rather than education and critical thinking pushers. It's not surprising that they shirk responsibilities. Some schools have even tried to cut out drivers education, I understand. Driving computers safely needs education, too. It should not require MUCH education, probably less than is involved in Drivers Ed. But some is needed.
Another subject schools seem not to touch is "scam" education. Teach the kids how pyramid, pigeon drop, and other scams work so that when they see it they are innoculated against it.
{^_-}
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 20:10 -0700, jdow wrote:
Another subject schools seem not to touch is "scam" education. Teach the kids how pyramid, pigeon drop, and other scams work so that when they see it they are innoculated against it.
I'd give anything to remember the author of the SciFi short story "The Primary Education of the Carmaloi<sp?>" Same thing, teach 'em young the basic tricks of grifting at an early age, plus running for public office (smear campaigns, stealing ballots, etc), along with advanced calculus, astral navigation and primary construction technique using local at hand materials ...all by the 2nd grade. I'd give anything to find that one again!! Ric
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 23:28:27 -0400, Ric Moore wayward4now@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 20:10 -0700, jdow wrote:
Another subject schools seem not to touch is "scam" education. Teach the kids how pyramid, pigeon drop, and other scams work so that when they see it they are innoculated against it.
I'd give anything to remember the author of the SciFi short story "The Primary Education of the Carmaloi<sp?>" Same thing, teach 'em young the basic tricks of grifting at an early age, plus running for public office (smear campaigns, stealing ballots, etc), along with advanced calculus, astral navigation and primary construction technique using local at hand materials ...all by the 2nd grade. I'd give anything to find that one again!! Ric
This might help: Primary Education of the Camiroi (ss) Galaxy Dec 1966 by R. A. Lafferty.
Ric Moore wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 20:10 -0700, jdow wrote:
Another subject schools seem not to touch is "scam" education. Teach the kids how pyramid, pigeon drop, and other scams work so that when they see it they are innoculated against it.
I'd give anything to remember the author of the SciFi short story "The Primary Education of the Carmaloi<sp?>" Same thing, teach 'em young the basic tricks of grifting at an early age, plus running for public office (smear campaigns, stealing ballots, etc), along with advanced calculus, astral navigation and primary construction technique using local at hand materials ...all by the 2nd grade. I'd give anything to find that one again!! Ric
R.A. Lafferty ----
Anything? Let me think and I'll get back to you.
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 11:40 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Ric Moore wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 20:10 -0700, jdow wrote:
Another subject schools seem not to touch is "scam" education. Teach the kids how pyramid, pigeon drop, and other scams work so that when they see it they are innoculated against it.
I'd give anything to remember the author of the SciFi short story "The Primary Education of the Carmaloi<sp?>" Same thing, teach 'em young the basic tricks of grifting at an early age, plus running for public office (smear campaigns, stealing ballots, etc), along with advanced calculus, astral navigation and primary construction technique using local at hand materials ...all by the 2nd grade. I'd give anything to find that one again!! Ric
R.A. Lafferty ----
Anything? Let me think and I'll get back to you.
Yup, Bruno agrees, that is the author. If you've never read it, you'd love it, Ed. :) Ric
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 11:18 -0700, Les wrote:
Agreed, but when schools are dropping laptop support because they say it "impeded education", how on earth can we get people educated about what the computer can and cannot do, and how to use it appropriately.
Hmmm, I'm not surprised. Even when computers are in a good state, you can spend far too much time setting up to do what you want, compared to actually doing it. Then there's the usual sorry state of PCs in schools with staff that are technically illiterate.
I've spent many years working in school, and to be honest, I think we're much better off with less computers, not more. People skills are more important, and they're shocking, these days.
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 16:13 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 11:18 -0700, Les wrote:
Agreed, but when schools are dropping laptop support because they say it "impeded education", how on earth can we get people educated about what the computer can and cannot do, and how to use it appropriately.
Hmmm, I'm not surprised. Even when computers are in a good state, you can spend far too much time setting up to do what you want, compared to actually doing it. Then there's the usual sorry state of PCs in schools with staff that are technically illiterate.
I've spent many years working in school, and to be honest, I think we're much better off with less computers, not more. People skills are more important, and they're shocking, these days.
I wuz trying to teach my 75 year old Uncle how EASY it was to just intuit stuff as you go. Showing him firefox and how to google, I wanted him to enter the google search box and click to focus. OK, move up the page with the pointer... he lifts the mouse straight up off of the mouse pad. <sigh>
Some fail to teach correctly, Some never get it. I tend to take the blame on this one, but I didn't anticipate THAT move!! <cackles> Ric
Hi Les, Tim and Ric;
You have hit on a topic that has long been near and dear to my heart.
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 10:37 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 16:13 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 11:18 -0700, Les wrote:
Hmmm, I'm not surprised. Even when computers are in a good state, you can spend far too much time setting up to do what you want, compared to actually doing it. Then there's the usual sorry state of PCs in schools with staff that are technically illiterate.
I've spent many years working in school, and to be honest, I think we're much better off with less computers, not more. People skills are more important, and they're shocking, these days.
That's one of the main functions of school. I have always opposed special education for the gifted on that basis. The most important lesson that gifted children need is not just the development of special skills but how to live in a world of ordinary people. I have seen too many people who were prodigies of some kind or another in their youth who have never developed, or bypassed, everyday living skills.
I wuz trying to teach my 75 year old Uncle how EASY it was to just intuit stuff as you go. Showing him firefox and how to google, I wanted him to enter the google search box and click to focus. OK, move up the page with the pointer... he lifts the mouse straight up off of the mouse pad. <sigh>
I have tried to teach several people to use a computer from square one. Your anecdote is not uncommon. I have long believed that Linux has the opportunity to start over in desktop design in a way M$ never could, even if they wanted to.
I would like to see really well thought out and genuinely intuitively designed front ends for Linux that demonstrate the ingenuity and intelligence that has gone into the backend. 5/6 of the world does not yet use or have access to computers -- but they will. I will bet that 95% of those do not want or need to know how a computer works for computers to be useful in their lives.
Linux and Linux developers have the opportunity to meet that need.
Some fail to teach correctly, Some never get it. I tend to take the blame on this one, but I didn't anticipate THAT move!! <cackles> Ric
Dismissing a failure to 'get it', avoids the failure to anticipate needs. And condemning users of stupidity -- I am not accusing you of that, but I see it all the time on Linux lists -- moves the blame onto the victim. I don't believe that most of those who have basic difficulties are stupid, but even if they were, shouldn't a computer be a device that helps people with a reduced metal capacity overcome the trials and frustrations of life not increase those difficulties. If an Operating System and/or an application can't do that, in the universal sense, what use is it?
--
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 13:36 -0400, William Case wrote:
Hi Les, Tim and Ric;
You have hit on a topic that has long been near and dear to my heart.
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 10:37 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 16:13 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 11:18 -0700, Les wrote:
Hmmm, I'm not surprised. Even when computers are in a good state, you can spend far too much time setting up to do what you want, compared to actually doing it. Then there's the usual sorry state of PCs in schools with staff that are technically illiterate.
I've spent many years working in school, and to be honest, I think we're much better off with less computers, not more. People skills are more important, and they're shocking, these days.
That's one of the main functions of school. I have always opposed special education for the gifted on that basis. The most important lesson that gifted children need is not just the development of special skills but how to live in a world of ordinary people. I have seen too many people who were prodigies of some kind or another in their youth who have never developed, or bypassed, everyday living skills.
I wuz trying to teach my 75 year old Uncle how EASY it was to just intuit stuff as you go. Showing him firefox and how to google, I wanted him to enter the google search box and click to focus. OK, move up the page with the pointer... he lifts the mouse straight up off of the mouse pad. <sigh>
I have tried to teach several people to use a computer from square one. Your anecdote is not uncommon. I have long believed that Linux has the opportunity to start over in desktop design in a way M$ never could, even if they wanted to.
I would like to see really well thought out and genuinely intuitively designed front ends for Linux that demonstrate the ingenuity and intelligence that has gone into the backend. 5/6 of the world does not yet use or have access to computers -- but they will. I will bet that 95% of those do not want or need to know how a computer works for computers to be useful in their lives.
Linux and Linux developers have the opportunity to meet that need.
Some fail to teach correctly, Some never get it. I tend to take the blame on this one, but I didn't anticipate THAT move!! <cackles> Ric
Dismissing a failure to 'get it', avoids the failure to anticipate needs. And condemning users of stupidity -- I am not accusing you of that, but I see it all the time on Linux lists -- moves the blame onto the victim. I don't believe that most of those who have basic difficulties are stupid, but even if they were, shouldn't a computer be a device that helps people with a reduced metal capacity overcome the trials and frustrations of life not increase those difficulties. If an Operating System and/or an application can't do that, in the universal sense, what use is it?
God Bill, I couldn't have said it better myself. The hovering mouse bit IS illustrative. Had the monitor been set flat into the desk, then mouse moves as well know it, would be appropriate. Set the monitor up at a 90 degree angle makes the mouse move forward to make the mouse cursor go up, less intuitive. You would think it would easy to compensate for, but my Uncle flat gave it. He said "If I don't get it at this point, I'll never get all of the rest." Here's a guy that would have no problem shooting anyone that tried to rob his stores in DC, who is frightened by a computer. I'd giggle, but my Mom and Step Dad are all the same. Keeps me in business just setting up TV remotes.
About command line, back in the DOS days we had companies that existed soley to provide all sorts of BAT file schemes. One keystroke is better than a dozen was the thinking. Then along came Windows and the Goldrush was on. To reduce the overhead of the user in order to have more productive stuff happen was the mantra. I believe in it, myself. That is what a computer is for I always thought. I want to just do useful and productive stuff doing what I do. Ric
I would like to see really well thought out and genuinely intuitively designed front ends for Linux that demonstrate the ingenuity and intelligence that has gone into the backend. 5/6 of the world does not yet use or have access to computers -- but they will. I will bet that 95% of those do not want or need to know how a computer works for computers to be useful in their lives.
Linux and Linux developers have the opportunity to meet that need.
Some fail to teach correctly, Some never get it. I tend to take the blame on this one, but I didn't anticipate THAT move!! <cackles> Ric
Dismissing a failure to 'get it', avoids the failure to anticipate needs. And condemning users of stupidity -- I am not accusing you of that, but I see it all the time on Linux lists -- moves the blame onto the victim. I don't believe that most of those who have basic difficulties are stupid, but even if they were, shouldn't a computer be a device that helps people with a reduced metal capacity overcome the trials and frustrations of life not increase those difficulties. If an Operating System and/or an application can't do that, in the universal sense, what use is it?
Long long ago, I thought that the computer would be a mind lever. A means of multiplying the power of the mind. But it has not met that promise. I have written tools to write programs for people, but the problem is that expectations are much higher than the capability of the tools at this time. I was successful in getting a program designed that would produce programs for testing military specificaiton Operational Amplifiers, and could generate the 80% code program in about 15 minutes. No one bought it because it didn't designe the DIB for them. Later I wrote one that would port programs from Pascal STEPS at teradyne (along with much help from other engineers) into ITLC the C based language, even modifying the instrument code to match newer instruments. The programs came out at about 90% level. A reasonable engineer could take a STEPS program, run the converter, bring up the new code and debug it in less than a week. The program would correllate in another week, and be inproduction in 2 weeks or less. One customer refused to buy it, but they hired us to convert their programs one at a time for 12,000 each. We had one engineer on that full time for two years. He earned the company about 600,000-his salery for doing nothing but running a program, doing some clean up and running 50 devices on programs the customer already had. I created a program to convert simulator data into digital patterns and timing for the 80 percent of all patterns on typical devices. No one bought it. Instead they hired us to convert their programs. Again, on digital programs pattern conversion is a biggie. So we converted a pattern every 8 hours. In two weeks my program geneated more than 8 Gigabytes of program patterns. We charged them something like 2K per pattern for the conversion (about 84K in two weeks). But no one would buy the converter.
I did it three more times each time with the same result. In the end, my software earned more than $8,000,000,000.00 in 15 years. I think I paid for my self and a couple of other guys. But none of it was perfect. It came very close, but took some extra effort to finalize the product. Each program took me three to eight months to write. Some times with help sometimes entirely by myself. Most people cannot think two or three abstractions away, so it is not easy, but it can be done. Our computers still do not help us get information from our minds into a form useable by others. In fact I found that much of my time was spent working around machine limitations. I wanted to get some result from a non-linear combination of multiple inputs, and it was nearly impossible to get a "partial response" from the software that would help me with the problem. Unfortunately I am unable today even to describe precisely what I needed, or how that might be obtained from a computer. But if the kids don't get exposed at a very grassroots level to the machine, not scripts or Basic, but at bits and bytes and math to make them do things useful, how can they ever proceed to build upon the foundation we have laid. Moreover, how can that partial response or full response to partial data ever be created? How can our mind levers ever multiply our mental force?
Regards, Les H
From: "Les" hlhowell@pacbell.net
Long long ago, I thought that the computer would be a mind lever. A means of multiplying the power of the mind. But it has not met that promise.
Think of it more generally as a lever. The higher the IQ the closer to the brain the lever fulcrum sits. So for some people a finger can move the world and for other people their world moves the finger. Then break it out to include factors for computer-phobia....
In practice it's not a one way lever. It amplifies stupidity as much as it amplifies intelligence. It amplifies productivity as much as it amplifies Congressional pork. (1000 page laws are a crock, especially when most of the lines are single like pork allocations. But that's to be taken as exemplifying the "lever" action here.
This mental lever amplifies whatever force is applied. If the force is creative writing, you get more output from your favorite authors. If the force is music, you get - oh never mind - that's a field that decayed. If the force is cupidity you get phishers. If the force is a vague fear of "complicated machines" you get computer-phobia in full bloom.
If you think of it in those terms the lever works but it's a two edged sword that cuts both ways.
... I created a program to convert simulator data into digital patterns and timing for the 80 percent of all patterns on typical devices. No one bought it. Instead they hired us to convert their programs. Again, on digital programs pattern conversion is a biggie. So we converted a pattern every 8 hours. In two weeks my program geneated more than 8 Gigabytes of program patterns. We charged them something like 2K per pattern for the conversion (about 84K in two weeks). But no one would buy the converter.
I did it three more times each time with the same result. In the end, my software earned more than $8,000,000,000.00 in 15 years. I think I paid for my self and a couple of other guys. But none of it was perfect. It came very close, but took some extra effort to finalize the product. Each program took me three to eight months to write. Some times with help sometimes entirely by myself. Most people cannot think two or three abstractions away, so it is not easy, but it can be done. Our computers still do not help us get information from our minds into a form useable by others. In fact I found that much of my time was spent working around machine limitations. I wanted to get some result from a non-linear combination of multiple inputs, and it was nearly impossible to get a "partial response" from the software that would help me with the problem. Unfortunately I am unable today even to describe precisely what I needed, or how that might be obtained from a computer. But if the kids don't get exposed at a very grassroots level to the machine, not scripts or Basic, but at bits and bytes and math to make them do things useful, how can they ever proceed to build upon the foundation we have laid. Moreover, how can that partial response or full response to partial data ever be created? How can our mind levers ever multiply our mental force?
Could you have done all that without the computers? It leveraged YOUR brain power and that of your colleagues. That's enough to show your point.
As three being no purchasers on the programs - that DID give you an effective monopoly on the conversion process. There was more corporate income that way. {^_-} The non-purchasers fit the "You can lead a horse to water but can't force it to drink" model, doesn't it?
{^_^}
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 13:36 -0400, William Case wrote:
shouldn't a computer be a device that helps people with a reduced metal capacity overcome the trials and frustrations of life not increase those difficulties.
The trouble is that assistive devices need to be designed by people who've got the experience about what's really needed. What I'd seen in special schools was very limited (in the way that fill the blanks in a form rarely have the blanks that you need), and tend to be overly complicated.
For example, have you seen Steven Hawkings chair, with paraphanalia dangling off it in all directions? It turns the chair into a Frankenstein creation. And you can bet your bottom dollar that each device needs its own separate power supply. We're a long way from unintrusive, intuitive, good, assistive computing designing.
Ric Moore wrote:
I wuz trying to teach my 75 year old Uncle how EASY it was to just intuit stuff as you go. Showing him firefox and how to google, I wanted him to enter the google search box and click to focus. OK, move up the page with the pointer... he lifts the mouse straight up off of the mouse pad. <sigh>
Some fail to teach correctly, Some never get it. I tend to take the blame on this one, but I didn't anticipate THAT move!! <cackles> Ric
He'd probably really enjoy playing games on the Nintendo wii. I wonder how that motion-sensor controller would work as a mouse?
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 13:11 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ric Moore wrote:
I wuz trying to teach my 75 year old Uncle how EASY it was to just intuit stuff as you go. Showing him firefox and how to google, I wanted him to enter the google search box and click to focus. OK, move up the page with the pointer... he lifts the mouse straight up off of the mouse pad. <sigh>
Some fail to teach correctly, Some never get it. I tend to take the blame on this one, but I didn't anticipate THAT move!! <cackles> Ric
He'd probably really enjoy playing games on the Nintendo wii. I wonder how that motion-sensor controller would work as a mouse?
I tried like hell to get one of those early Nintendo 3D Game-glove positioning systems to work on a PC. It was said to work, I just never got it to do anything. Ric
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 13:11 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ric Moore wrote:
I wuz trying to teach my 75 year old Uncle how EASY it was to just intuit stuff as you go. Showing him firefox and how to google, I wanted him to enter the google search box and click to focus. OK, move up the page with the pointer... he lifts the mouse straight up off of the mouse pad. <sigh>
Some fail to teach correctly, Some never get it. I tend to take the blame on this one, but I didn't anticipate THAT move!! <cackles> Ric
He'd probably really enjoy playing games on the Nintendo wii. I wonder how that motion-sensor controller would work as a mouse?
Now there's a linux application, a 3d mouse. Can we get it to do feedback, too?
REgards, Les H
From: "Les" hlhowell@pacbell.net
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 13:11 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ric Moore wrote:
I wuz trying to teach my 75 year old Uncle how EASY it was to just intuit stuff as you go. Showing him firefox and how to google, I wanted him to enter the google search box and click to focus. OK, move up the page with the pointer... he lifts the mouse straight up off of the mouse pad. <sigh>
Some fail to teach correctly, Some never get it. I tend to take the blame on this one, but I didn't anticipate THAT move!! <cackles> Ric
He'd probably really enjoy playing games on the Nintendo wii. I wonder how that motion-sensor controller would work as a mouse?
Now there's a linux application, a 3d mouse. Can we get it to do feedback, too?
That leads to a hilarious mental image of an out of control force feedback 3D mouse dragging the guy trying to control his computer around the room. It'd be a fun advertising film gag.
{^_-}
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 13:11 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
He'd probably really enjoy playing games on the Nintendo wii. I wonder how that motion-sensor controller would work as a mouse?
Somewhere I read about someone using a motion sensor in a laptop (normally used to protect the hard drive) so you'd use the whole computer as the steering device to play Tuxracer. ;-)
From: "David G. Miller" dave@davenjudy.org
Les hlhowell@pacbell.net wrote:
One thing missing in this discussion is the scale of costs. No individual, outside of maybe Bill Gates could begin to repay for the damage caused by a rogue computer spreading a virus. Nor can one individual be even considered of being capable of patching a flaw in a piece of readily available software of proprietary nature (remember that "reverse engineering" is banned by most user license agreements.) So lets say you get a law passed that puts the onus on an individual. You get hacked, and the hacker uses a bit of code inside your system to "spiff up" his latest virus/worm program. Your name is in the code (courtesy of the memory map when your bit was built). Now that code breaks out and infects 200,000 systems, bringing them to their knees. You had all the good AV stuff installed, the system had a firewall, but this particular hacker managed to slip by
As I have mentioned several times in my postings on this subject, the law usually considers whether you have taken "reasonable and customary" measures to protect against such things. Especially, see my previous posting regarding a joyrider stealing a car.
Self-propagating viruses act a lot like the real thing. It doesn't take a 100 percent inoculation rate to stop a real virus from spreading; only getting enough of the population protected that the probability that the infection can spread is low. One of the problems is that way too many computer users don't understand their vulnerability and how harmful having a vulnerable system is. This is what needs to change.
We've already seen a number of attack vectors go out of favor as a certain large software vendor has patched the security holes in it's operating system and other products. If a significantly larger percentage of users were to install effective AV software, the problem would drop significantly. I'm not saying it would go away but we would probably see the people who write such software look to other approaches. Some of these might initially be successful but having a larger percentage of systems running effective AV software would mean that such problems would rapidly be contained.
It would be nice if that same software vendor were to tighten up their product rather than rely on after the fact patches like AV software. Being as how their behavior has barely changed in over 25 years, I'm not holding my breath.
Well, let's examine this with the automotive metaphor a little more.
An automobile has components that fail and can fail disastrously. A most common example is the tire. But breaks er brakes {^_-} fail, gas pedal linkages fail, batteries catch fire (in a Mercedes Benz no less), and so forth. Some companies are really good making automobiles out of the components available and inventing new components when needed. Some are far better at making tires, enough better that BMW, GM, et al do not even think of competing. But still, failures happen. A driver who gets behind the car and in the blithe ass-u-me nothing will break (and everything brake properly) state is negligent as I see it. Even an 80 year old concert violinist can tell at a modest glance that the tires on his car are getting a little old and <choke> tired - cracks in the sidewall or on the tread-line are as bad as low tread. MOST reputable repair facilities will check these things if you take the car in. In California, where I live, a great many automobiles see someone aware of what can fail and in a position to warn people once every two years. This is not enough for tires, for our basic example.
(Here I am picking on Microsoft as something I know. I presume Apple is not vastly different.)
Microsoft is cracking good at OS kernels these days. That does not say anything about the gump and nonsense AROUND the kernel, the other maybe 648 Megabytes on a 650 megabyte disk. If you've noticed one statement that is applied to Microsoft rather regularly is that they buy rather than innovate. Well, that is something like OEM purchasing tires to put on the automobiles Ford delivers. They also recycle a LOT of crufty old code to maintain features customers like. That is like buying second rate tires from an off brand dealer, perhaps. Microsoft's gewgaws are like jacking a truck up so the tires are fully exposed but the view from up there is wonderful. And Microsoft products have such a presence on the web that they are the easy targets for maniacs who like shooting out the tires on automobiles - or cracking into computer systems. Linux comes with nice fender skirts that are protective, perhaps industrial ugly at the street level, and leave very little of the tire to shoot out. That does not say Linux has no tires - vulnerable spots.
For both Microsoft and Linux you do not have the same people who build the kernel build the "fender skirts", the security that the user sees. While I consider Norton to be second rate fender-skirts I note that for Windows the companies like G-Data, F-Secure, Kaspersky, and others at or very near the top level of protection, make very good fender-skirt that do not SERIOUSLY uglify the whole product. They do include "idiot lights" that light up when they detect something that might be undesirable. I note Microsoft is being dumb enough to try to include a third rate AV tool with their OS packaging. The other companies are MUCH better and should be nurtured by Microsoft with extra help and details if they ask. The Linux world has that level of cooperation given that it is open source. But nobody seems to feel it's particularly profitable to build an AV tool aimed at preventing viral takeovers of Linux machines. Not all that many people are masochistic enough to use Linux as a desktop machine, yet. (User frustration and Linux desktop capabilities are slowly converging even as Microsoft tries to add new features to yank back people who want the very latest "experience." But it ain't there yet.)
So at some level if a person is going to drive a car safely that person must know of the possible failure modes and signs for all components related to "go from here to there safely", including the organic parts - like tires and drivers. At some level if a person is going to drive a computer that person owes it to himself or herself to learn some basics of computer security the same as he or she must become acquainted with bald, split, or separating tires. Computers are not and never will be a refrigerator which you get crammed into its nook in the kitchen, plugged in, and stocked with beer - and maybe food. And even with a refrigerator it helps to know that the cold goes away when you open the door and the refrigerator needs gas or electricity. (Yeah, there ARE gas refrigerators.) If it is an electric refrigerator and the lights will not turn on then if you open the door on the refrigerator it's not going to keep the stuff inside cold as long.
I figure a nightlight is about as close to the "ideal" plug and play and forget the documentation as you can get. (Light-bulbs are not. Some of the first few rounds of compact fluorescents turn your house into a superfund site if the bulb breaks - mercury.)
If you're going to go on living you have rights and responsibilities. Everybody seems to concentrate on the former and ignore the latter. One of the responsibilities of life is to be educate enough that you are not actively hazardous to yourself and others through your ignorance. Far too many people ignore the responsibilities of computer ownership which is one of their rights if they can afford one.
{^_^}
-
Bill Case -
Bruno Wolff III -
David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) -
Ed Greshko -
Gene Heskett -
Howard Howell -
jdow -
Les Mikesell -
maillist＠sios.ca -
Ric Moore -
Tim