Maybe you could use videosources that do not offer such a horrible user experience?
But you don't have to and I don't have to check your links.
Edit: seriously, I won't click any instagramlinks anymore. After reloading, yes, there is a little volume button, but it was half hidden under the "register popup" "check this out" banner etc. Which went away after scrolling down. Then there is no timeline. No replay like mentioned.
And the content: nothing about teenage hacker criminals
Not sure what you want me to do dude, I'm sorry I'm speaking my truth and it is upsetting I guess. Take care.
Edit to your edits: he wrote several books talking about computers, or more specifically, the computers of the 80s and 90s, being worthless and would lead us all astray.
And as I've discussed with you elsewhere-- I feel like most of that criticism is spot on.
Computers in education are great for:
* Education on how to use computing or programming (... though when I teach these subjects, I do a whole lot of it offline)
* Independent research (though you'd better stand at the back of the classroom and monitor what's going on very closely... and do this sparingly).
* Occasional rapid feedback through a Kahoot about how much your class understands a given set of subject matter.
* Letting students write and revise a paper quickly now and then
* Occasional individualized practice through something like Khan.
On the other hand, they're greatly overused even today. Instructors do things like:
* Use a Kahoot every class to convey key learning material, which results in a disorganized, flash-card experience.
* Perform enough of the work on computers that plagiarism and academic integrity become a huge concern.
* Displace valuable classroom practice performing labs or doing arithmetic with inferior virtual eqiuvalents.
* Allow students (without any type of learning or physical disability which would necessitate this) to take notes online, which under the best of circumstances is demonstrably inferior to paper note-taking for retention and also invites massive amounts of abuse.
I feel like the case was similar in the 1990s: there was little evidence of benefit. There was less of the online abuse of computing, but there was still a lot of abuse and misuse.
> Maybe you should leave computers to professionals?
Seriously?
You're the one that linked to Insta, and to a clip that doesn't feature Clifford warning of hackers but to Clifford making the valid point that at a particular time in history a great deal of money was being spent on computers in education that largely sat idle for a shortage of teachers, courses, supporting resources.
Just referencing his opinions ironically. He didn't have a valid point either. He simply didn't understand computers enough to see how they were being used.
Sure, just barely enough to wing it as a systems administrator at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and to last just a few years as a school physics teacher.
It's not like he had any first hand experience of either computers or computers in schools /s
You might not like his opinions but they were his and of that time.
> Any computer undergrounder can identify with and appreciate Stoll's obsession and patience in attempting to trace the hacker through a maze of international gateways and computer systems. But, Stoll apparently misses the obvious affinity he has with those he condemns. He simply dismisses hackers as 'monsters' and displays virtually no recognition of the similarities between his own activity and those of the computer underground. This is what makes Stoll's work so dangerous: His work is an unreflective exercise in self-promotion, a tome that divides the sacred world of technocrats from the profane activities of those who would challenge it; Stoll stigmatises without understanding (Thomas 1990).
https://insecure.org/stf/them_and_us.txt
Just because I don't like his opinions or that they are old doesn't make him right for doing this. The appeal to his alleged authority of the time was part of the problem.
"He simply dismisses hackers as 'monsters' and displays virtually no recognition of the similarities between his own activity and those of the computer underground."
Intention matters. His intention was to stop some hackers from espionage and possible sabotage. The KGBs hacker main intention was money.
Otherwise I don't know anything about Cliff Stoll, nor read the book.
But what I know about the KGB hack, they were no innocent curious boys playing with computers anymore, checking out what's possible. They sold their service to the KGB.
Very fair points. He has really worked hard seemingly to scrub the memory of the incomplete nature of his sensationalism at the time. You Google around and he is considered a vanguard of computer security, but his book capitalized on the sensationalism of film and television fiction of hackers at the time and other hacks in the news. A lot of this criticism only exists in the text files of BBSes from the time and his damaging opinions only on early evening tabloid tv of the era that isn't on YouTube. He eventually recanted a lot of this ideas a decade later, but has made no effort to address these criticisms head on that I can find. I guess it makes for compelling amateur sleuthing but what the governments of the time were dealing with are probably all still classified and were to him at the time as well. So his declarations of being first to many things are unfalsifiable.
