Virus hoaxes prey on people's fear concerning computers. People understand that computers benefit them, and know how to perform certain tasks, but generally lack an understanding of how computer software works. I honestly do not understand why the creators of virus hoax e-mails find satisfaction in fooling the inexperienced.
Sending on a message warning people of a non-existent e-mail is not generally especially damaging, but it can have some negative effects. First, it causes people to misunderstand the nature of viruses and virus warnings. If people rely on receiving mass e-mail from friends about viruses, rather than by using virus scanning software and checking legitimate security websites, they are more likely to get a real computer virus. Secondly, some hoaxes, such as the jdbgmgr.exe hoax, claim that operating system files are viruses and need to be deleted. I haven't come across any hoaxes that call for the removal of any essential system files, but that possibility exists. Finally, they are a waste of bandwidth, space, and time.
Determining the validity of a virus warning e-mail is possible. If the warning comes through e-mail from a friend rather than through a virus scanner or Internet security company, chances are it's a hoax. Several websites, such as Snopes, Synaptic, and McAfee, provide lists of common hoaxes. Remember that just because the message says it has been checked by one of these sources, doesn't mean it is legitimate. A hoax I received recently even provided a link to Snopes, and the page it referred to discussed a real virus, with a similar subject line. A little more investigation, however, showed that the message I received was not this virus, and I was able to find the page that identified this hoax. Wikipedia also reminds us that if the message claims to do nearly impossible things, or to be from a respected company but includes emotionally-charged language, it is probably a hoax.
Inspiration for this post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_virus_hoaxes
The other links in this article
A hoax I recently received, that is like the invitation hoax
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Raising the Internet Savvy Parent
Raising the Internet Savvy Parent
While I was visiting my future in-laws over Thanksgiving I witnessed something most unusual. Someone opened a drawer and found some printouts from a Simpsons character creating website. Just as you may have suspected, it was the 3-year old cousin. He demonstrated for us how he got to the site. He clicked on several favorites until he found a specific site. Then he followed a confusing path of what appeared to be random pictures. Eventually, however, he ended up at the Simpons site. A fluke. They asked him to do it again, and sure enough a few moments later, the Simpsons site again came up. Fortunately he has good parents who I am sure will monitor his Internet usage.
If parents expect to be able to be a part of their children's lives, they need to learn how to use the Internet. Kids can cultivate and create friendships, play games, create artistic masterpieces, and buy anything they can think of without leaving home. Or worse, they can fall prey to predators or succumb to devastating addictions like gambling or pornography. This is the first step to raising Internet savvy parents, an understanding of what is out there.
Next, there needs to be open and honest communication between parent and child. Children should always feel comfortable telling their parents about anything disconcerting they see on the Internet. Scolding or punishing a child for accidentally bringing up an inappropriate web page would not likely create this environment.
Lastly, parents and kids need to understand that the Internet does not provide privacy. They should go in with the expectation that everything they do online may be public knowledge. Parents should monitor their children's Internet usage, so they can help them with any problems before they become addictions. While filters and browser histories can be effective, it will not take a child long (especially one who starts browsing the web at age 3) to figure out how to defeat them. Perhaps the best way to monitor Internet usage is to put the computer in a very public place. Have two computers in the front of the house if the kids argue over the computer for homework time. Children should expect that their parents will know everything that they do online.
The world with all of its inspiring works of humanity and its sleezy filth are in your home, at your children's fingertips. Helping children say “no” to online dangers should be taught nearly as emphatically as saying “no” drugs or alcohol, because the results may be just as devastating. The first step will be trying to keep up with your 3 year old.
Post inspired by:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9034759235d0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ac58759235d0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
While I was visiting my future in-laws over Thanksgiving I witnessed something most unusual. Someone opened a drawer and found some printouts from a Simpsons character creating website. Just as you may have suspected, it was the 3-year old cousin. He demonstrated for us how he got to the site. He clicked on several favorites until he found a specific site. Then he followed a confusing path of what appeared to be random pictures. Eventually, however, he ended up at the Simpons site. A fluke. They asked him to do it again, and sure enough a few moments later, the Simpsons site again came up. Fortunately he has good parents who I am sure will monitor his Internet usage.
If parents expect to be able to be a part of their children's lives, they need to learn how to use the Internet. Kids can cultivate and create friendships, play games, create artistic masterpieces, and buy anything they can think of without leaving home. Or worse, they can fall prey to predators or succumb to devastating addictions like gambling or pornography. This is the first step to raising Internet savvy parents, an understanding of what is out there.
Next, there needs to be open and honest communication between parent and child. Children should always feel comfortable telling their parents about anything disconcerting they see on the Internet. Scolding or punishing a child for accidentally bringing up an inappropriate web page would not likely create this environment.
Lastly, parents and kids need to understand that the Internet does not provide privacy. They should go in with the expectation that everything they do online may be public knowledge. Parents should monitor their children's Internet usage, so they can help them with any problems before they become addictions. While filters and browser histories can be effective, it will not take a child long (especially one who starts browsing the web at age 3) to figure out how to defeat them. Perhaps the best way to monitor Internet usage is to put the computer in a very public place. Have two computers in the front of the house if the kids argue over the computer for homework time. Children should expect that their parents will know everything that they do online.
The world with all of its inspiring works of humanity and its sleezy filth are in your home, at your children's fingertips. Helping children say “no” to online dangers should be taught nearly as emphatically as saying “no” drugs or alcohol, because the results may be just as devastating. The first step will be trying to keep up with your 3 year old.
Post inspired by:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9034759235d0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ac58759235d0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Monday, November 26, 2007
Virtual Snowball
Mob mentality is nothing new to the world. In fact they are probably as old as human history. Scripture contains accounts of prophets, and even Christ, being killed by large groups of people who fed on each other's emotions and irrationality. While mobs may, in the moment, make a person feel as if they have lost their individual identity, they may be held accountable for individual actions, if not by the law, then by society.
That is, before the Internet. The Internet makes mob mentality more dangerous for three reasons. First, judgment and reaction can be nearly instantaneous. A person can literally read a blog, and post a defaming response in less than a minute. Second, location becomes irrelevant. People anywhere in the world can join the bandwagon, despite lack of proximity which may have lowered tension because of understanding of cultural context. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Internet adds a layer of anonymity to human interactions. People who are concerned about their reputation are not likely to post something that could be perceived as over-the-top or irresponsible. When it is difficult to discover the true identity of a poster, however, there is much less incentive to self police one's comments.
While positive peer pressure can be helpful to society, we need to consider the broad impact online actions can have. Once something is on the Internet, it my be impossible to recall it. If something damaging needs to be posted, we need to think about the consequences. If we feel strongly enough about something to put it in a public place, then we also ought to have the courage to identify ourselves. It may look like a small snowball now, but let's stop and think before dropping it on the side of a freshly powdered Internet mountain.
Post Inspired By: http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/vigilante_justice (I don't necessarily completely disagree with Mrs. Wells, this article just got me thinking)
That is, before the Internet. The Internet makes mob mentality more dangerous for three reasons. First, judgment and reaction can be nearly instantaneous. A person can literally read a blog, and post a defaming response in less than a minute. Second, location becomes irrelevant. People anywhere in the world can join the bandwagon, despite lack of proximity which may have lowered tension because of understanding of cultural context. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Internet adds a layer of anonymity to human interactions. People who are concerned about their reputation are not likely to post something that could be perceived as over-the-top or irresponsible. When it is difficult to discover the true identity of a poster, however, there is much less incentive to self police one's comments.
While positive peer pressure can be helpful to society, we need to consider the broad impact online actions can have. Once something is on the Internet, it my be impossible to recall it. If something damaging needs to be posted, we need to think about the consequences. If we feel strongly enough about something to put it in a public place, then we also ought to have the courage to identify ourselves. It may look like a small snowball now, but let's stop and think before dropping it on the side of a freshly powdered Internet mountain.
Post Inspired By: http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/vigilante_justice (I don't necessarily completely disagree with Mrs. Wells, this article just got me thinking)
Monday, November 19, 2007
You Can't, Like, Own Music
There is a battle being being in the world of music artists, corporate executives, law makers, and consumers. While they fight, everyone suffers.
People who pirate music are able to somehow calm their moral concers. One example: you are not hurting the artists, only greedy record companies. Another is sharing songs actually helps the musician to gain notoriety. Perhaps, some just feel it is not all that bad, and that having 200 hours worth of songs outweighs the moral consequences.
Stealing is stealing. While tempting to download songs I like, it's just not worth it, no matter who I am or am not ripping off or how much music I can accrue. Perhaps the system should change, but for now, in order to get music I will (occasionally) pay $15 for a CD.
But the debate isn't simply to download, or not to download. It involves what can be done with music once it is legally acquired. I would love to use online music stores, and am even willing to pay $1 per song, but I am not going to pay anything for a song I can only use with one piece of software, one operating system, or on one device. It is technically possible to circumvent these barriers, but then there is again a legal and ethical dilemma: it is breaking the law (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). I understand the motivation behind this law; record companies nor artists want their music stolen. It seems, though, that those who want to steal music will still find a way to do so, while those who want to legitimately buy music are punished.
There appears to be trend in the online music industry towards offering more non-restricted music. I hope it continues, for the sake of those greedy record companies and starving artists who want my dollars. Keep fighting everyone, I'm waiting...
Post Inspired By:
Santini, "Bringing Copyright into the Information Age"
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html (Orson Scott Card)
The Copyright Wars (Anthony R. Reese, IEEE Spectrum, May 2003)
Extreme Lawsuits (Tekla S. Perry, IEEE Spectrum, May 2003)
People who pirate music are able to somehow calm their moral concers. One example: you are not hurting the artists, only greedy record companies. Another is sharing songs actually helps the musician to gain notoriety. Perhaps, some just feel it is not all that bad, and that having 200 hours worth of songs outweighs the moral consequences.
Stealing is stealing. While tempting to download songs I like, it's just not worth it, no matter who I am or am not ripping off or how much music I can accrue. Perhaps the system should change, but for now, in order to get music I will (occasionally) pay $15 for a CD.
But the debate isn't simply to download, or not to download. It involves what can be done with music once it is legally acquired. I would love to use online music stores, and am even willing to pay $1 per song, but I am not going to pay anything for a song I can only use with one piece of software, one operating system, or on one device. It is technically possible to circumvent these barriers, but then there is again a legal and ethical dilemma: it is breaking the law (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). I understand the motivation behind this law; record companies nor artists want their music stolen. It seems, though, that those who want to steal music will still find a way to do so, while those who want to legitimately buy music are punished.
There appears to be trend in the online music industry towards offering more non-restricted music. I hope it continues, for the sake of those greedy record companies and starving artists who want my dollars. Keep fighting everyone, I'm waiting...
Post Inspired By:
Santini, "Bringing Copyright into the Information Age"
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html (Orson Scott Card)
The Copyright Wars (Anthony R. Reese, IEEE Spectrum, May 2003)
Extreme Lawsuits (Tekla S. Perry, IEEE Spectrum, May 2003)
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Globalization
New technology damages people lives. For example, throughout the history of the world, most people have been farmers. New technology like plows, sickles, and eventually tractors put many small farmers out of business as owners of large farm were able to produce more food quickly and cheaply. There was probably a booming wagon industry when automobiles were invented and Henry Ford improved the manufacturing process. I'm sure many in the industry were put out of work. These were real people, with real lives, and real families who were hurt by new technology.
Yet most people would agree that the agricultural revolution and the automobile have been very good for America in aggregate. Prices fall, and over all there is more to share. In the last few years there continues to be innovations that cause major shifts in industries. For example, the advent of PDAs and scheduling software probably decreased demand for secretaries. Wal-mart coming to town means the end of many Ma and Pa shops. Programmers working for lower wages in India may cause a shift in computer science jobs overseas. And now we're a little closer to home.
Again, in the long run there will be economic gains for both parties, Americans, and those with whom we trade. But there will be, again, some shifting in the labor pool. These, too, are real people who will have real difficulties. The question that must be addressed, then, is what can be done for those who are hurt in the transition. This is a major discussion being considered by very intelligent people, with no easy answers, but I have three suggestions that might help.
First, we need to stop wasting time and resources trying to lobby the government to protect jobs that will inevitably leave our economy. The faster people can adjust to new careers in which we will have a comparative advantage, the better off they will be, sooner, and the better off society will be, too.
Second, training and education must focus on general skills that will help workers to problem solve and adapt to new situations. It is not possible to predict where the economy will be in ten years, so in addition to job specific training, people must have the skills necessary to quickly learn new jobs.
Last, instead of cursing the system, we can look to those in our country and families' past with gratitude for their sacrifice. Because they were willing to put up with the challenges of new technology, we enjoy the quality of life we do today. Perhaps the sacrifices we make will benefit our children and grandchildren and allow them a style of life that we today cannot imagine.
Post inspired by: reading sections of Thomas L. Friedman's The World is Flat
Yet most people would agree that the agricultural revolution and the automobile have been very good for America in aggregate. Prices fall, and over all there is more to share. In the last few years there continues to be innovations that cause major shifts in industries. For example, the advent of PDAs and scheduling software probably decreased demand for secretaries. Wal-mart coming to town means the end of many Ma and Pa shops. Programmers working for lower wages in India may cause a shift in computer science jobs overseas. And now we're a little closer to home.
Again, in the long run there will be economic gains for both parties, Americans, and those with whom we trade. But there will be, again, some shifting in the labor pool. These, too, are real people who will have real difficulties. The question that must be addressed, then, is what can be done for those who are hurt in the transition. This is a major discussion being considered by very intelligent people, with no easy answers, but I have three suggestions that might help.
First, we need to stop wasting time and resources trying to lobby the government to protect jobs that will inevitably leave our economy. The faster people can adjust to new careers in which we will have a comparative advantage, the better off they will be, sooner, and the better off society will be, too.
Second, training and education must focus on general skills that will help workers to problem solve and adapt to new situations. It is not possible to predict where the economy will be in ten years, so in addition to job specific training, people must have the skills necessary to quickly learn new jobs.
Last, instead of cursing the system, we can look to those in our country and families' past with gratitude for their sacrifice. Because they were willing to put up with the challenges of new technology, we enjoy the quality of life we do today. Perhaps the sacrifices we make will benefit our children and grandchildren and allow them a style of life that we today cannot imagine.
Post inspired by: reading sections of Thomas L. Friedman's The World is Flat
Monday, October 29, 2007
Weather the Storm
I was living just outside of Houston, Texas in the fall of 2005. The recent devastation of Hurricane Katrina was fresh on our minds when we heard about a category 5 storm heading right towards Houston. Nobody wanted another New Orleans and the city of Houston (the 4th largest in the United States) was evacuated.
In retrospect, it is interesting to think about the role that technology played in this process. First, it took powerful computers to help predict the existence of a storm, the storm's strength, and its trajectory. Second, while the evacuation was not perfectly executed, and many people sat in their cars in the heat for hours, it would have been impossible to get away from the city at all without modern conveyances. Third, the chaos that accompanies a massive evacuation could cause families to be separated for long periods of time, not knowing the fate of loved ones and property. Cell phones and the Internet allow evacuees to communicate regardless of their current location (assuming the infrastructure has not been damaged).
It is true that hurricane Rita did not end up striking Houston directly. It ended up making landfall east of Houston in much less densely populated area; causing great chaos in that region. In the end, the most traumatic experience for many Houstoners was not the storm, but the evacuation. I am glad that I was there for such an evacuation now, and not 20 years ago. One can only imagine how another 20 years of innovation will allow us to better weather nature's storms.
Post Inspiration: A story about technology in the recent California wildfires: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/fire_technology?currentPage=1
In retrospect, it is interesting to think about the role that technology played in this process. First, it took powerful computers to help predict the existence of a storm, the storm's strength, and its trajectory. Second, while the evacuation was not perfectly executed, and many people sat in their cars in the heat for hours, it would have been impossible to get away from the city at all without modern conveyances. Third, the chaos that accompanies a massive evacuation could cause families to be separated for long periods of time, not knowing the fate of loved ones and property. Cell phones and the Internet allow evacuees to communicate regardless of their current location (assuming the infrastructure has not been damaged).
It is true that hurricane Rita did not end up striking Houston directly. It ended up making landfall east of Houston in much less densely populated area; causing great chaos in that region. In the end, the most traumatic experience for many Houstoners was not the storm, but the evacuation. I am glad that I was there for such an evacuation now, and not 20 years ago. One can only imagine how another 20 years of innovation will allow us to better weather nature's storms.
Post Inspiration: A story about technology in the recent California wildfires: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/fire_technology?currentPage=1
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Recent Wikipedia Edits
I have learned to love the power of the Wikipedia. I am glad that I am assigned in a computer science class to contribute. My contributions are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Scottielad. Here's a summary of what I've done so far:
- My alma mater Century High School has a sports section to which I added a wiki link to the OSAA. The text was already there, but now curious browsers can find out more easily about the OSAA.
- Max Hall. Thanks to Firefox's spell checker, in College career section I corrected spelling of "consistently" and "received". I also added John Beck's first name and a link to him, as well as changing two prepositions ("departure at BYU" to "departure from BYU" and "his poise in such an early point" to "his poise at such an early point").
- Peanut butter cup may soon be deleted from Wikipedia! Maybe changing "Recent years have shown Reese's to experiment with changing the different types of peanut butter cups" to "In recent years Reese's has experimented with different types of peanut butter cups." will help keep it afloat (although the real reason for the possible deletion is lack of notoriety).
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Family Ties
Families illicit stronger emotions than any other group. Whether they be happiness and admiration or frustration and anger, feelings seemed to be magnified in a family setting. Proximity and love are, in my estimation, the root of this. Nature and nurture, both, cause us to love our families and want to be around them. It is this same closeness and desire for welfare that can bring strong negative emotions. When families are apart for a time, at least in my experience, the problems that come from so much familiarity depart and only love remains.
If we define family as those who are related to us by blood and marriage, then our family extends back to the Creation of the Earth, and will extend to its end (and beyond in both directions actually). Thus, we have never met in this life even a small fraction of our entire family. Yet that strong love that binds families together still exists. This love is, I would like to believe, part of what inspires people to do family history.
I am glad to be living in a time in the world's history where family history work is simplified by technology. I can only imagine the frustration of trying to contact distant locations to obtain information and records, only to find out some one else has taken the exact same steps before. While finding records and duplication of effort still exist, they are greatly reduced by the collaboration made possible through computers and the Internet. Technology also facilitates indexing of records, making them far more accessible.
Last week I was called to be an extractor for the ward in which I reside. That means I will get to help make indexes that family history researches can use to find their relatives. I look forward to strong positive emotions as two of my greatest loves are combined: family and technology.
Inspiration for post:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1991.htm/ensign%20may%201991%20.htm/linking%20the%20family%20of%20man.htm
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1998.htm/ensign%20may%201998.htm/a%20new%20harvest%20time.htm
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2000.htm/ensign%20july%202000.htm/family%20history%20via%20the%20internet.htm
If we define family as those who are related to us by blood and marriage, then our family extends back to the Creation of the Earth, and will extend to its end (and beyond in both directions actually). Thus, we have never met in this life even a small fraction of our entire family. Yet that strong love that binds families together still exists. This love is, I would like to believe, part of what inspires people to do family history.
I am glad to be living in a time in the world's history where family history work is simplified by technology. I can only imagine the frustration of trying to contact distant locations to obtain information and records, only to find out some one else has taken the exact same steps before. While finding records and duplication of effort still exist, they are greatly reduced by the collaboration made possible through computers and the Internet. Technology also facilitates indexing of records, making them far more accessible.
Last week I was called to be an extractor for the ward in which I reside. That means I will get to help make indexes that family history researches can use to find their relatives. I look forward to strong positive emotions as two of my greatest loves are combined: family and technology.
Inspiration for post:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1991.htm/ensign%20may%201991%20.htm/linking%20the%20family%20of%20man.htm
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1998.htm/ensign%20may%201998.htm/a%20new%20harvest%20time.htm
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2000.htm/ensign%20july%202000.htm/family%20history%20via%20the%20internet.htm
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Happy Ubuntu Day!
I have been using Linux as my main desktop OS since 2002 or 2003 (with a two year mission hiatus). I had tried Suse, Mandrake and a little Red Hat/Fedora. When I returned to the world of computers in Summer 2006, I was surprised to learn from my dad of a popular new Linux distribution. Ubuntu? I was skeptical.
That skepticism soon left as I tried the OS. Most things just worked. What has been very interesting is what has happened since. It seems with almost every release they add some new feature that might make some say, "How did I ever live without that?"
Today's release, for example, automatically sets up a printer once it's plugged in. I didn't particularly mind going through the printer set up wizards. Now that I know I don't have to would probably find the process frustrating. Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu, consider the details, making small improvements that make a big difference. As I learn to develop software I hope I have a similar attitude towards usability.
I am excited to find some bandwidth and download the newest version, 7.10 the Gutsy Gibbon, released today. They say desktop effects (like the transparent window borders in Vista) should work out of the box. I'm a little skeptical, but I was last summer, too.
That skepticism soon left as I tried the OS. Most things just worked. What has been very interesting is what has happened since. It seems with almost every release they add some new feature that might make some say, "How did I ever live without that?"
Today's release, for example, automatically sets up a printer once it's plugged in. I didn't particularly mind going through the printer set up wizards. Now that I know I don't have to would probably find the process frustrating. Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu, consider the details, making small improvements that make a big difference. As I learn to develop software I hope I have a similar attitude towards usability.
I am excited to find some bandwidth and download the newest version, 7.10 the Gutsy Gibbon, released today. They say desktop effects (like the transparent window borders in Vista) should work out of the box. I'm a little skeptical, but I was last summer, too.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
What to Expect on a Tour of the Internet
If I were to visit a foreign country, let's say Canada, I would want to learn about that country before my journey. What should I wear? What am I allowed to do? Not allowed to do? Do they serve pizza at the McDonald's (yes, oddly enough, at least last time I visited a Canadian McDonald's). I would not just hop into my Kia and start driving.
The Internet, like a foreign country, is, at one point, new territory to each “net-izen”. Crossing into a foreign country involves crossing some well-defined line. The thing that makes the land foreign, is not that artificial border, however. There is not that much physical difference, for example, between northern Washington, and southern British Columbia. Trees, check. Rain, check. Yet discuss the correct pronunciation of the word “about” and you'll see that there is a real difference.
The thing that makes one land foreign is not borders, but that the territory is governed by a different set of rules and norms, a different social contract. I emphasize the word social because democracies are governed by the collective views of its citizens. The Internet, in a way, can be viewed as Earth's largest democracy. For the most part people expect to have basic rights protected. But the Internet, like a nation, is made up of people, who use technology as a means to an end.
Before I enter new territory, I need to see what values and rules that area possesses. Most Americans, for example seem to expect rights to privacy, freedom of information, and security. These rights, at times contradict one another, and a happy medium must be found. Before entering the online world, people should be aware that the balance of rights may be quite different than what they are used to. Privacy on the Internet, for example, is often sacrificed in order to allow the free exchange of ideas. Just as a visitor to Canada might be warned not to express disrespect to hockey, a first time Internet user might be well advised not to post anything online that they do not want to be public knowledge. Currently in America, security concerns seem to be “someone else's” responsibility, not the individuals. Taking this attitude online creates victims of viruses, spyware, phishing, or other nefarious schemes. Internet citizens need to be aware that they are largely responsible for the well-being of their computer and personal information. With this vigilant attitude people would be safer because they would stay informed of current threats, install software updates, have firewalls, run virus scanners, and practice other important security measures.
Overall people should expect to have an enjoyable experience on the Internet (and in Canada), with unprecedented access to knowledge and communication. We need to understand, however, that we are entering foreign territory.
Inspiration for this Post: Cliff Stoll's "The Cuckoo Egg" and class discussion
The Internet, like a foreign country, is, at one point, new territory to each “net-izen”. Crossing into a foreign country involves crossing some well-defined line. The thing that makes the land foreign, is not that artificial border, however. There is not that much physical difference, for example, between northern Washington, and southern British Columbia. Trees, check. Rain, check. Yet discuss the correct pronunciation of the word “about” and you'll see that there is a real difference.
The thing that makes one land foreign is not borders, but that the territory is governed by a different set of rules and norms, a different social contract. I emphasize the word social because democracies are governed by the collective views of its citizens. The Internet, in a way, can be viewed as Earth's largest democracy. For the most part people expect to have basic rights protected. But the Internet, like a nation, is made up of people, who use technology as a means to an end.
Before I enter new territory, I need to see what values and rules that area possesses. Most Americans, for example seem to expect rights to privacy, freedom of information, and security. These rights, at times contradict one another, and a happy medium must be found. Before entering the online world, people should be aware that the balance of rights may be quite different than what they are used to. Privacy on the Internet, for example, is often sacrificed in order to allow the free exchange of ideas. Just as a visitor to Canada might be warned not to express disrespect to hockey, a first time Internet user might be well advised not to post anything online that they do not want to be public knowledge. Currently in America, security concerns seem to be “someone else's” responsibility, not the individuals. Taking this attitude online creates victims of viruses, spyware, phishing, or other nefarious schemes. Internet citizens need to be aware that they are largely responsible for the well-being of their computer and personal information. With this vigilant attitude people would be safer because they would stay informed of current threats, install software updates, have firewalls, run virus scanners, and practice other important security measures.
Overall people should expect to have an enjoyable experience on the Internet (and in Canada), with unprecedented access to knowledge and communication. We need to understand, however, that we are entering foreign territory.
Inspiration for this Post: Cliff Stoll's "The Cuckoo Egg" and class discussion
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
No Girls Allowed
We do not need to perform an expensive study to determine that women are less likely to major in computer science. All we need to do is look around a typical computer science class. Some argue that girls are scared of math. Others that claim that society breeds disinterest by forcing young girls to play with Barbie. Discrimination is another proposed as a cause for the disparity. Not many dare posit that there may be some inherent difference between men and women that cause them to be interested in different subjects.
Now before you get out your “politically incorrect” branding iron, please understand what I am saying. I am not suggesting that discrimination should be a policy of academic institutions nor of businesses. I do not claim that women are somehow inherently less capable of software engineering than are men (I know some very capable computer-oriented women). What I am saying is that the gap in the number of women versus the number of men who go into computer science is not necessarily something we need to “fix”. Let's make a level playing field. Let any who are crazy enough to want to come, come. Computer science need not be an “all boys club”, but women who choose to enter this field should do so for the same that men do, for the love of code, not for the sake of filling a quota.
Inspiration for this post:
http://www.cra.org/CRN/articles/sept03/wyden.html
http://cpms.byu.edu/speeches/family-education-careers
De Palma, Paul. "Why Women Avoid Computer Science". Communications of the ACM. Jun 2001. Vol. 44 No. 6. pp. 27-29
Now before you get out your “politically incorrect” branding iron, please understand what I am saying. I am not suggesting that discrimination should be a policy of academic institutions nor of businesses. I do not claim that women are somehow inherently less capable of software engineering than are men (I know some very capable computer-oriented women). What I am saying is that the gap in the number of women versus the number of men who go into computer science is not necessarily something we need to “fix”. Let's make a level playing field. Let any who are crazy enough to want to come, come. Computer science need not be an “all boys club”, but women who choose to enter this field should do so for the same that men do, for the love of code, not for the sake of filling a quota.
Inspiration for this post:
http://www.cra.org/CRN/articles/sept03/wyden.html
http://cpms.byu.edu/speeches/family-education-careers
De Palma, Paul. "Why Women Avoid Computer Science". Communications of the ACM. Jun 2001. Vol. 44 No. 6. pp. 27-29
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Will Code for Hugs
"Computers should just work."
That's easy for you to say. The fact is that, unlike dogs and children, computers do exactly what they are told. If you instruct your computer to read a place in memory that has not been initialized, it will do just that. If you delete the root of your file system, there is no reason to be surprised when, on the next boot, your computer stops working.
"But I didn't mean to..."
Maybe we don't want computers to do exactly what we tell them then. Maybe we want them to do exactly what we mean to tell them. Reading users minds is not enough though - programmers must foresee what users will think. In my limited software engineering experience, this is what makes programming difficult and time consuming. Every possibility must be considered; actually, every conceivable combination of future possibilities must be considered. Hours can be spent trying to figure out why some unexpected input caused a program to fail.
So next time you see an error message appear on your screen, resist the urge to yell at your computer programming friends. Instead, give them a hug. We could use one.
Inspiration for post: Finishing my CS240 Collections Project.
That's easy for you to say. The fact is that, unlike dogs and children, computers do exactly what they are told. If you instruct your computer to read a place in memory that has not been initialized, it will do just that. If you delete the root of your file system, there is no reason to be surprised when, on the next boot, your computer stops working.
"But I didn't mean to..."
Maybe we don't want computers to do exactly what we tell them then. Maybe we want them to do exactly what we mean to tell them. Reading users minds is not enough though - programmers must foresee what users will think. In my limited software engineering experience, this is what makes programming difficult and time consuming. Every possibility must be considered; actually, every conceivable combination of future possibilities must be considered. Hours can be spent trying to figure out why some unexpected input caused a program to fail.
So next time you see an error message appear on your screen, resist the urge to yell at your computer programming friends. Instead, give them a hug. We could use one.
Inspiration for post: Finishing my CS240 Collections Project.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The Buck Stops Here
Computer systems can be very complex. So complex, in fact, that no one person understands everything about the system. When something goes wrong the question is inevitably asked, "who's fault is it?" Human Nature's answer: "it obviously wasn't me." This is often the case, no one person can be blamed, but it is so much easier to fire one person, or sue one company than to rationally consider the many contributing factors.
Quality assurance may be the hardest part of designing good systems. Depending on the nature of the application, there may be an infinite combination of inputs or scenarios. One can only hope to create tests that will catch most problems. Sometimes they don't.
In these cases someone will be reprimanded, and they will likely not make the same mistake again. This scapegoat allows everyone else to feel like their knee-jerk human nature response was right and continue doing what they were doing. The problem is the blame often should be shared.
Perhaps a better response, as an engineer or developer, would be to assume that the problem was my fault. I would ensure that if a similar mistake was made above me in the process I would discover it. This increased self-accountability may make me the ideal scapegoat, but it may save property or lives. The buck stops here.
See The Gimli Glider Case:
http://ms.radio-canada.ca/archives/2002/en/wmv/tdgimliglider19830729et1.wmv
http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/gliding_into_infamy.htm
Quality assurance may be the hardest part of designing good systems. Depending on the nature of the application, there may be an infinite combination of inputs or scenarios. One can only hope to create tests that will catch most problems. Sometimes they don't.
In these cases someone will be reprimanded, and they will likely not make the same mistake again. This scapegoat allows everyone else to feel like their knee-jerk human nature response was right and continue doing what they were doing. The problem is the blame often should be shared.
Perhaps a better response, as an engineer or developer, would be to assume that the problem was my fault. I would ensure that if a similar mistake was made above me in the process I would discover it. This increased self-accountability may make me the ideal scapegoat, but it may save property or lives. The buck stops here.
See The Gimli Glider Case:
http://ms.radio-canada.ca/archives/2002/en/wmv/tdgimliglider19830729et1.wmv
http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/gliding_into_infamy.htm
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Lincoln 2008
Not much these days escapes the sprawling reach of technology. Politics is no exception.
The Good: An informed electorate will be better able to choose the candidate they feel is best for the job. Voters do not have to depend on official speeches and televised events to know the views of those running for office. Moral faux pas are also often caught by the media. Some argue politician's personal lives should be off limits. I disagree. I want to know about the character of those who represent me. Technology and the media make this information readily available.
The Bad: Short-attention-span-itis makes for boring elections. If a candidate says or does something perceived to be controversial, we can be sure to be informed immediately by the media. Unfortunately, the controversial remark or situation is rarely considered in context. Candidates realize this, and to avoid controversy, avoid saying anything interesting.
The Ugly: I wonder if Abraham Lincoln could win an election today. Suppose his stove-top hat was out of style. If Lincoln and Clinton (the first) were to run head to head today I have little doubt that we would fail to elect arguably the best President in the history of the United States (no, I'm talking about Lincoln).
Now this time around I would have no problem with the most handsome, smooth-talking candidate winning. Hopefully once he gets in office voters will be pleasantly surprised to learn of his organizational prowess and ability to reverse the fate of world events (see the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics), even if it is his hair that gets him in.
Inspiration for this post: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm;jsessionid=9a30ea5c5ef966187942?articleid=1806
The Good: An informed electorate will be better able to choose the candidate they feel is best for the job. Voters do not have to depend on official speeches and televised events to know the views of those running for office. Moral faux pas are also often caught by the media. Some argue politician's personal lives should be off limits. I disagree. I want to know about the character of those who represent me. Technology and the media make this information readily available.
The Bad: Short-attention-span-itis makes for boring elections. If a candidate says or does something perceived to be controversial, we can be sure to be informed immediately by the media. Unfortunately, the controversial remark or situation is rarely considered in context. Candidates realize this, and to avoid controversy, avoid saying anything interesting.
The Ugly: I wonder if Abraham Lincoln could win an election today. Suppose his stove-top hat was out of style. If Lincoln and Clinton (the first) were to run head to head today I have little doubt that we would fail to elect arguably the best President in the history of the United States (no, I'm talking about Lincoln).
Now this time around I would have no problem with the most handsome, smooth-talking candidate winning. Hopefully once he gets in office voters will be pleasantly surprised to learn of his organizational prowess and ability to reverse the fate of world events (see the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics), even if it is his hair that gets him in.
Inspiration for this post: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm;jsessionid=9a30ea5c5ef966187942?articleid=1806
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Church 2.0?
I was an assistant ward clerk my freshman year of college. I had the privilege of using a DOS-based program to record financial information. This was 2002 and I was using DOS! My tendency to complain is subdued when I consider the plight of ward clerks just a few years previous. To calculate and record all of this information at a ward level would be daunting. I imagine it would take all afternoon. That precious DOS program allowed me plenty of time to get to the cafeteria before it closed and enjoy my much anticipated chicken cordon blue. This time savings can be multiplied thousands of times as we consider all of the wards and stakes as well as Church headquarters. Technology allows Latter-day Saints the world over to throw data at computers and get home to Sunday dinner.
Technology has fundamentally changed the way the Church operates. Interestingly enough, however, worship services remain largely unchanged. I have yet to see a Sacrament Meeting speaker with a clicker and laser guiding us through a Power Point presentation. So, while there have been significant changes to the operations of the Church because of technology, there have not been significant changes to the Church itself.
The decision of what technology to use and when is guided by the same principles that have guided the Church since the days of Adam. The goal is to bring as many people unto Christ as possible. The Church does not use technology for technology's sake. Technology is a means, and an effective means, to an end. Elder L. Tom Perry puts it this way, "Salvation is not in facilities or technology, but in the word."
The Church will continue to embrace new technology insofar as it allows individuals more time to spend living the message that these innovations deliver.
Articles inspiring this post:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20june%201984%20.htm/the%20church%20and%20computers%20using%20tools%20the%20lord%20has%20provided.htm
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2002.htm/ensign%20april%202002.htm/mormon.org.htm
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2000.htm/ensign%20may%202000.htm/thou%20shalt%20give%20heed%20unto%20all%20his%20words.htm
Technology has fundamentally changed the way the Church operates. Interestingly enough, however, worship services remain largely unchanged. I have yet to see a Sacrament Meeting speaker with a clicker and laser guiding us through a Power Point presentation. So, while there have been significant changes to the operations of the Church because of technology, there have not been significant changes to the Church itself.
The decision of what technology to use and when is guided by the same principles that have guided the Church since the days of Adam. The goal is to bring as many people unto Christ as possible. The Church does not use technology for technology's sake. Technology is a means, and an effective means, to an end. Elder L. Tom Perry puts it this way, "Salvation is not in facilities or technology, but in the word."
The Church will continue to embrace new technology insofar as it allows individuals more time to spend living the message that these innovations deliver.
Articles inspiring this post:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20june%201984%20.htm/the%20church%20and%20computers%20using%20tools%20the%20lord%20has%20provided.htm
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2002.htm/ensign%20april%202002.htm/mormon.org.htm
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2000.htm/ensign%20may%202000.htm/thou%20shalt%20give%20heed%20unto%20all%20his%20words.htm
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Angles on Technology
I am a (future) computer scientist and employee of my university's IT department. New technology is not something that just happens. To me new inventions are a form of art. I work with, learn from, and read about individuals who solve difficult problems every day. They use creativity to accomplish tasks that would be taxing or impossible without modern technology. To me teaching a computer to effectively process information is an art. Technology allows other artists to spend more time in their desired medium, whether it be painting canvas or molding the lives of children. Technology is a good thing.
I am a (want-to-be) economist. Technology is the magical (often exogenous) force that allows output to increase while holding inputs constant. In other words, technology allows society to get more for less. Economic growth means either increased consumption, leisure, or likely a mix of both. Technology is a good thing.
I am a (always trying to be better) Latter-day Saint. People in remote parts of the world have access to the words of their spiritual leaders. The printing press makes scriptures available to all. Time saved by modern conveniences allow more family time. The Internet brings pornography, terrorism, and hateful comments.
Technology can be used for good or it can be used for evil. Just as in any age of the world, life is largely what we make of it. Perhaps the mere availability and speed of information magnify our virtues and vices, but it is up to me to make the best of what is available, just as much in this Information Age as it would have been in Ancient Israel. Technology can be a good thing.
These articles illuminated my post: http://search.epnet.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&an=1460672 http://itrs.scu.edu/tshanks/pages/Comm12/12Postman.htm http://search.epnet.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=8637555 http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2001.htm/ensign%20may%202001.htm/focus%20and%20priorities.htm
I am a (want-to-be) economist. Technology is the magical (often exogenous) force that allows output to increase while holding inputs constant. In other words, technology allows society to get more for less. Economic growth means either increased consumption, leisure, or likely a mix of both. Technology is a good thing.
I am a (always trying to be better) Latter-day Saint. People in remote parts of the world have access to the words of their spiritual leaders. The printing press makes scriptures available to all. Time saved by modern conveniences allow more family time. The Internet brings pornography, terrorism, and hateful comments.
Technology can be used for good or it can be used for evil. Just as in any age of the world, life is largely what we make of it. Perhaps the mere availability and speed of information magnify our virtues and vices, but it is up to me to make the best of what is available, just as much in this Information Age as it would have been in Ancient Israel. Technology can be a good thing.
These articles illuminated my post: http://search.epnet.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&an=1460672 http://itrs.scu.edu/tshanks/pages/Comm12/12Postman.htm http://search.epnet.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=8637555 http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2001.htm/ensign%20may%202001.htm/focus%20and%20priorities.htm
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Purpose
The initial purpose of this blog is to fulfill the requirements for a CS 404 class at Brigham Young University. Maybe it will turn into more. We'll see!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)