$4B over 20 years is $200M/year -- does anyone in congress even track such a small amount of money? I bet that if a few congressmen looked under the couch cushions in their office they could find more money than that.
OK guys. We've promoted Open Source for decades. We have to own up to our own problems.
This was a failure in the Open Source process. It is just as likely to happen to closed source software, and more likely to go unrevealed if it does, which is why we aren't already having our heads handed to us.
But we need to look at whether Open Source projects should be providing the world's security without any significant funding to do so.
If it's just as likely to happen to closed source software, then why is it a failure of the Open Source process? It was discovered and fixed so quickly *because* it's open source - there may be similar holes in closed source software that are being exploited today, yet no white hats have discovered them yet.
We need to find out if the author of this bug is or was on the NSA payroll. It would not be surprising to find out he was paid to put it there.
The author responsible for the bug has already admitted that it was a mistake (and it's not like buffer overflows are unheard of, so it really is plausible). Sure, it's possible that the NSA secretly paid him (or ever coerced him by holding some incriminating evidence over his head), but it would likely take someone with the resources of the NSA to uncover such a secret NSA payout. Something of that nature probably wouldn't even be available in Snowden's document archive.
Bullshit. Windows admins are not trained to reboot when there is a problem
It's amusing that in the post right before yours (and not an AC like you), a Windows Admin explained why he does reboot first:
Because in the Windows world, I usually don't have the luxury of digging into the kernel's or driver's source code to figure out exactly why it has stopped behaving correctly
As someone who's managed a team of sysadmins that moved to the Linux world from Windows, I have this tip: "Reboot does not fix anything, it just hides things".
For some reason, Windows admins have been trained to reboot immediately when things don't work well rather than to figure out why something is failing. I'm sure this was a valid "fix" in older versions of Windows, but Windows has been stable for quite some time, and things shouldn't mysteriously stop working for no reason. Take a bit of time to figure out *why* the CPU is suddenly spiking on the database server, since if you reboot it, you will have lost most of the evidence for why it's happening, and it's likely to happen again. If it's a production server and you can't spend much time, run a few diagnostics (ps, "top", lsof, etc) and save to a file for the postmortem, but don't just go in and reboot before looking around.
They have solved this problem, it's called a camcorder.
I was thinking the same thing -- they can use a GoPro if they want something rugged, and with a handheld camera the inspector doesn't have to lay down on the floor to shoot footage of the filth underneath the stove.
There's no reason to train every worker to "code", we don't suffer from a lack of coders, we suffer from a lack of "developers", and no 6 week software bootcamp is going to turn someone with no programming experience into a developer. Besides, the average coal miner is probably not going to want to sit in front of a computer all day (many in my family work in the heavy construction industry, and I am 100% certain that although you could probably teach my brother to code, you're not going to be able to teach him to sit behind a desk all day).
But there are plenty of other jobs that you *could* teach a former coal miner to do -- not everyone in the economy needs to be a coder any more than everyone needs to be an auto mechanic just because we all (well, mostly) drive cars.
The Wikipedia article tell us that the case went to court -- you know, like when you feel you've been wronged, and you put the people who wronged you on trial, and the thing is judged by a jury of your peers (normal people not cops), and the jury awarded $5,000 in damages -- the size of some medical bills.
A jury -- of normal people -- thought, after getting much more insight into this case than you or I, that the cops were a little rough on her, and nothing more.
It seems like that's the problem -- the evidence that should have proved her story was non-existent because *seven* police cameras (cameras that we all paid for with our taxes and were *required* to be running due to a settlement with the DoJ) somehow malfunctioned and did not capture any video. How many cameras do you think would have malfunctioned if they backed up the story of the police? All the jury had to go on was her testimony and the testimony of 7+ police officers. I wonder if anyone involved had any vested interest in lying about the events?
Finally, the case is nearly A DECADE OLD.
What's next? Some cases where a firehose got turned on the colored in Mississippi?
7 years ago doesn't seem like that long ago, but are you really holding up past discrimination against blacks by those in authority as a good example of why the past doesn't matter?
Apart from that there is not reason to go hard on the police officers. There is a simple social solution when problems like this arise. Split them up. It works on bullies, criminal gangs and neo-nazis.
Relocate them to cities that doesn't have this problem and make sure that none of them works with each other. Once they are partnered up with honest people and only honest people the undesired behavior will go away. After a couple of years the can be brought back.
That way the problem disappears without the need to break necks or even prove anything.
-- methane-fueled
Putting even the most honest and trustworthy people into a system of power doesn't guarantee that there will be no abuses -- even honest people abuse their power.
But knowing that someone is looking over your shoulder at all times with surveillance *can* reduce abuses since a cop can't claim "He threatened me!" if no threat was captured on the surveillance device.
Just deduct the repair bill from their pay. They'll soon start working.
Seems like it would be more effective if judges held police responsible for proper functioning of their recording devices, and gave the benefit of the doubt to those that accuse the police of wrongdoing when the mandated surveillance equipment that could prove the allegations was mysteriously "out of order".
Estimates of population sizes before sustained peaceful contact (n = 22, recorded an average of 45 years before contact, range 1–106) were on average 5.5 times larger than populations at contact...
So if populations were 5 times higher before any contact at all, why do they blame the contact for population declines?
Or maybe they *do* like smart cars, and just find tipping them amusing. I've never heard it suggested that cow-tipping was motivated by any particular dislike for cows or farmers. And with a bit of alcohol (or asshole) in their systems a bunch of bemused people might not even consider the damage done. For that matter was any real damage done? The things have roll cages, and I don't recall seeing any broken headlights, etc. in the photos. I'm sure some people will cite the horrible expense of scratches in the paint, but in terms of mechanical damage all I can think of is possibly draining some of the fluids into places they shouldn't be. And I don't think a car has anything half so prone to orientation damage as a refrigerator - and that's easy enough to fix with a flush and recharge.
Why do you discount the cost of the bodywork? Isn't that still damage? The roll cage isn't there to prevent damage, it's there to prevent the roof from being crushed in a rollover accident. Someone once keyed the side of my car and tore the driver's door handle off in an attempt to break in. It cost $4500 to replace the door and repaint that side of the car - the car itself was only worth around $7000, so it was close to being totaled. A smart car is smaller so the bodywork repairs might cost a bit less, but popping out or replacing the side body panels that were on the ground (sidewalks in SF are made of hard concrete in SF, not of fluffy pillows as they apparently are where you live) and repainting it is still going to be in the thousands. So each car owner is probably going to be out $500 - $1000 or whatever their insurance deductible is, plus whatever amount their insurance increases after they make a claim.
Besides, have drunks ever successfully tipped over a cow? There seems to be a lot of debate about whether or not cow tipping is a real thing, and little evidence that it's real: https://www.google.com/search?...
That's pretty much what I was thinking. A Corolla gets 30/40 mpg, is just shy of $17K starting, and carries at least 4 people. I just don't see anyone buying a Smart car unless they are trying to be trendy.
Or they are parking it in SF where street parking is scarce and driving a car that's 6 feet shorter (106" versus 182") than a Corolla is a huge advantage. Parking a SmartCar means that a lot of the narrow spaces between driveways that used to be too narrow for a car can now fit your SmartCar. It's small enough to park perpendicular to the curb, but state and local laws prohibit it.
One more piece of evidence that San Francisco needs to be nuked to a smoking crater.
Some people there apparently don't like Smart Cars (or maybe those who drive them), and that's a reason to nuke the city and start over? Would you rebuild SF to make it more friendly to Smart Cars?
Funny how you abandon the topic of renting a single family home and move straight to a straw man argument of abandoning all consumer protection laws. Must have figured you lost the argument before you even got started.
If you'd been following this thread, it was never about someone renting out their single-family home -- it started with PrinceOfCup's friend subletting out her Oakland apartment, then OzPeter asked about insurance that covers guests (a normal renters policy won't cover paying guests), and you said that it's only a problem for the women that was renting out her apartment. I suggested that it's actually a problem for the renters since they have none of the liability and consumer protections that they'd normally get from a landlord/hotel, and you responded with "you're too stupid and need the State's protection". So you're the one that suggested that normal consumer protection laws are only for the stupid, I was just pointing out the folly in that since if you're not going to hold short-term rental landlords to the same legal standards as other short-term rentals (i.e. hotels), you've already entered a world where consumer protection laws don't apply.
Blah Blah Blah...the same old, "you're too stupid and need the State's protection" argument.
So you'd rather get rid of all of those pesky consumer protection laws and live in a world where you rent a room in a hotel, a fire sweeps through the hotel killing your family, and all the hotel says was "Sorry, we found that fire sprinklers, smoke detectors, and even liability insurance were too expensive, so here, we offer you this mint as a showing of our condolences. Oh, and you owe us $30,000 to remove your family's charred bodies and rebuild your room since you had possession of the room when the fire started. You agreed to that on page 47 of the rental contract you signed when you checked in last night... didn't you have your lawyer review it?"
Meh, most promises of "buy our shit and you'll come out ahead on your utility bills" are blatant scams. Maybe these guys are legit, but I'd give em a heck of a lot of scrutiny. What's the fine print in the contract? What happens to your roof if they go under? What happens when the city outlaws selling power back to the grid because of bribery?
I prefer simplicity to penny pinching. If I own it all, with someone offering the service/maintenance for a reasonable price, that's much more clear.
I think you have it backwards -- simplicity is dealing with one company - you can tell them put their panels on the roof, deal with all ongoing maintenance and service, and charge you less for power than the utility. Penny pinching is "Hire Company A to install the panels, Hire company B to maintain them, when something breaks, mediate the fight between Company A, Company B, and the company that manufactured the equipment while in the meantime you have no power since your grid-tie inverter blew up". When one company does it all, you can hold them to their SLA to fix the equipment regardless of whether it was a manufacturing defect, an installation error, or lack of preventative maintenance.
You get to keep more of the rewards with the second scenario, but it's not simpler.
Articles and comments like this are made by people who are not musicians, let alone people who play violin professionally. In the world of today, we live with technology all around us. Everyone has their preferences and some technologies suit some folks better than others. The Mac guys hate Windows and I hate 'em both. But modern technology is consistent. Set 10 MacBook Pro laptops up and they all work EXACTLY the same. Not so for violins. Not even for modern makers.
That's true as long as you stay within the pure digital design constraints that the computers were designed for, but if you give them to an overclocker and ask him to tweak them to give the very best performance (such as you'd expect a professional violinist to do - get the best sound from the instrument), you'll find that each one behaves slightly differently. One might have a faster CPU clock speed, while another one might be tuned for faster memory timing and/or latency.
That's not double-blind. I haven't watched TFV in its entirety, but for instance @19:00 there is a violinist playing with goggles and a researcher handing her the instruments that can see clearly what is what.
Incidentally, sorry but I cannot resist: double-blind? Maybe we should say... double deaf!/ducks
That's what I was thinking too, but they said that the instruments were identified by numbers -- is a Stradivarius obvious to a causal observer?
I can see why they didn't go truly double-blind with goggles on the researchers when dealing with a 10 million dollar instrument.
Looks like thet did the test in someone's living room -- shouldn't they have rented a concert hall or someplace more appropriate to where the instruments would be played on tour?
All hippie environ-wenie BS aside, the only true appeal of home solar is independence. Trading one master for another to get power is pointless. Powering your own house and car with your own equipment in a true "off the grid" way would be awesome, inspirational even. But home solar isn't quite there yet - tantalizingly close, mind you.
Why isn't lower utility bills also an incentive? As long as the lease company charges you less that utility market rates, then doesn't that make solar more appealing? Not everyone wants to own and run their own powerplant, they are happy to let someone else own it and run it even if it costs them more money.
NOT zero outlay. you still pay just about what you'd have payed the utility anyway... And they get to build an indistrial plat in and about your property
That's an operational cost, not a capital cost -- which many people find to be more affordable (which is why many people will happily pay their cell phone carrier much more than the price of a cell phone since the carrier gives them the phone with little upfront cost and makes up the cost in monthly fees)
Slashdot Mirror
$4B over 20 years is $200M/year -- does anyone in congress even track such a small amount of money? I bet that if a few congressmen looked under the couch cushions in their office they could find more money than that.
OK guys. We've promoted Open Source for decades. We have to own up to our own problems.
This was a failure in the Open Source process. It is just as likely to happen to closed source software, and more likely to go unrevealed if it does, which is why we aren't already having our heads handed to us.
But we need to look at whether Open Source projects should be providing the world's security without any significant funding to do so.
If it's just as likely to happen to closed source software, then why is it a failure of the Open Source process? It was discovered and fixed so quickly *because* it's open source - there may be similar holes in closed source software that are being exploited today, yet no white hats have discovered them yet.
We need to find out if the author of this bug is or was on the NSA payroll. It would not be surprising to find out he was paid to put it there.
The author responsible for the bug has already admitted that it was a mistake (and it's not like buffer overflows are unheard of, so it really is plausible). Sure, it's possible that the NSA secretly paid him (or ever coerced him by holding some incriminating evidence over his head), but it would likely take someone with the resources of the NSA to uncover such a secret NSA payout. Something of that nature probably wouldn't even be available in Snowden's document archive.
Bullshit. Windows admins are not trained to reboot when there is a problem
It's amusing that in the post right before yours (and not an AC like you), a Windows Admin explained why he does reboot first:
Because in the Windows world, I usually don't have the luxury of digging into the kernel's or driver's source code to figure out exactly why it has stopped behaving correctly
As someone who's managed a team of sysadmins that moved to the Linux world from Windows, I have this tip: "Reboot does not fix anything, it just hides things".
For some reason, Windows admins have been trained to reboot immediately when things don't work well rather than to figure out why something is failing. I'm sure this was a valid "fix" in older versions of Windows, but Windows has been stable for quite some time, and things shouldn't mysteriously stop working for no reason. Take a bit of time to figure out *why* the CPU is suddenly spiking on the database server, since if you reboot it, you will have lost most of the evidence for why it's happening, and it's likely to happen again. If it's a production server and you can't spend much time, run a few diagnostics (ps, "top", lsof, etc) and save to a file for the postmortem, but don't just go in and reboot before looking around.
They have solved this problem, it's called a camcorder.
I was thinking the same thing -- they can use a GoPro if they want something rugged, and with a handheld camera the inspector doesn't have to lay down on the floor to shoot footage of the filth underneath the stove.
There's no reason to train every worker to "code", we don't suffer from a lack of coders, we suffer from a lack of "developers", and no 6 week software bootcamp is going to turn someone with no programming experience into a developer. Besides, the average coal miner is probably not going to want to sit in front of a computer all day (many in my family work in the heavy construction industry, and I am 100% certain that although you could probably teach my brother to code, you're not going to be able to teach him to sit behind a desk all day).
But there are plenty of other jobs that you *could* teach a former coal miner to do -- not everyone in the economy needs to be a coder any more than everyone needs to be an auto mechanic just because we all (well, mostly) drive cars.
The WTOP article drops the story in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
The Wikipedia article tell us that the case went to court -- you know, like when you feel you've been wronged, and you put the people who wronged you on trial, and the thing is judged by a jury of your peers (normal people not cops), and the jury awarded $5,000 in damages -- the size of some medical bills.
A jury -- of normal people -- thought, after getting much more insight into this case than you or I, that the cops were a little rough on her, and nothing more.
It seems like that's the problem -- the evidence that should have proved her story was non-existent because *seven* police cameras (cameras that we all paid for with our taxes and were *required* to be running due to a settlement with the DoJ) somehow malfunctioned and did not capture any video. How many cameras do you think would have malfunctioned if they backed up the story of the police? All the jury had to go on was her testimony and the testimony of 7+ police officers. I wonder if anyone involved had any vested interest in lying about the events?
Finally, the case is nearly A DECADE OLD.
What's next? Some cases where a firehose got turned on the colored in Mississippi?
7 years ago doesn't seem like that long ago, but are you really holding up past discrimination against blacks by those in authority as a good example of why the past doesn't matter?
I'm 54 this year. I love playing with my Pi.
I'm almost as old as you and I've been playing with my pi since my early teens. I still play with it from time to time.
But when did they start calling it a "pi"?
Anyone remember the police beating case in Maryland where the dash cams of ALL SEVEN police cars on the scene simultaneously malfunctioned?
No ... and a Google search turns up nothing. Can you provide a reference?
Here's a reference:
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=428&s...
Seven cars responded, all required to have dashcams, yet somehow no dashcam footage of the incident was available.
And here's an article with links to other cases where police video disappeared:
http://www.theagitator.com/201...
And I found it with my first Google search for
Apart from that there is not reason to go hard on the police officers. There is a simple social solution when problems like this arise.
Split them up. It works on bullies, criminal gangs and neo-nazis.
Relocate them to cities that doesn't have this problem and make sure that none of them works with each other.
Once they are partnered up with honest people and only honest people the undesired behavior will go away.
After a couple of years the can be brought back.
That way the problem disappears without the need to break necks or even prove anything.
-- methane-fueled
Putting even the most honest and trustworthy people into a system of power doesn't guarantee that there will be no abuses -- even honest people abuse their power.
But knowing that someone is looking over your shoulder at all times with surveillance *can* reduce abuses since a cop can't claim "He threatened me!" if no threat was captured on the surveillance device.
Just deduct the repair bill from their pay. They'll soon start working.
Seems like it would be more effective if judges held police responsible for proper functioning of their recording devices, and gave the benefit of the doubt to those that accuse the police of wrongdoing when the mandated surveillance equipment that could prove the allegations was mysteriously "out of order".
Weren't they already in serious decline before being visited?
That first graph shows a lot larger average population before year 0 (the year of contact), which slowly grows in the 20 years after contact.
http://www.nature.com/srep/201...
The original article seems to confirm this:
http://www.nature.com/srep/201...
Estimates of population sizes before sustained peaceful contact (n = 22, recorded an average of 45 years before contact, range 1–106) were on average 5.5 times larger than populations at contact ...
So if populations were 5 times higher before any contact at all, why do they blame the contact for population declines?
Or maybe they *do* like smart cars, and just find tipping them amusing. I've never heard it suggested that cow-tipping was motivated by any particular dislike for cows or farmers. And with a bit of alcohol (or asshole) in their systems a bunch of bemused people might not even consider the damage done. For that matter was any real damage done? The things have roll cages, and I don't recall seeing any broken headlights, etc. in the photos. I'm sure some people will cite the horrible expense of scratches in the paint, but in terms of mechanical damage all I can think of is possibly draining some of the fluids into places they shouldn't be. And I don't think a car has anything half so prone to orientation damage as a refrigerator - and that's easy enough to fix with a flush and recharge.
Why do you discount the cost of the bodywork? Isn't that still damage? The roll cage isn't there to prevent damage, it's there to prevent the roof from being crushed in a rollover accident. Someone once keyed the side of my car and tore the driver's door handle off in an attempt to break in. It cost $4500 to replace the door and repaint that side of the car - the car itself was only worth around $7000, so it was close to being totaled. A smart car is smaller so the bodywork repairs might cost a bit less, but popping out or replacing the side body panels that were on the ground (sidewalks in SF are made of hard concrete in SF, not of fluffy pillows as they apparently are where you live) and repainting it is still going to be in the thousands. So each car owner is probably going to be out $500 - $1000 or whatever their insurance deductible is, plus whatever amount their insurance increases after they make a claim.
Besides, have drunks ever successfully tipped over a cow? There seems to be a lot of debate about whether or not cow tipping is a real thing, and little evidence that it's real: https://www.google.com/search?...
That's pretty much what I was thinking. A Corolla gets 30/40 mpg, is just shy of $17K starting, and carries at least 4 people. I just don't see anyone buying a Smart car unless they are trying to be trendy.
Or they are parking it in SF where street parking is scarce and driving a car that's 6 feet shorter (106" versus 182") than a Corolla is a huge advantage. Parking a SmartCar means that a lot of the narrow spaces between driveways that used to be too narrow for a car can now fit your SmartCar. It's small enough to park perpendicular to the curb, but state and local laws prohibit it.
One more piece of evidence that San Francisco needs to be nuked to a smoking crater.
Some people there apparently don't like Smart Cars (or maybe those who drive them), and that's a reason to nuke the city and start over? Would you rebuild SF to make it more friendly to Smart Cars?
Funny how you abandon the topic of renting a single family home and move straight to a straw man argument of abandoning all consumer protection laws. Must have figured you lost the argument before you even got started.
If you'd been following this thread, it was never about someone renting out their single-family home -- it started with PrinceOfCup's friend subletting out her Oakland apartment, then OzPeter asked about insurance that covers guests (a normal renters policy won't cover paying guests), and you said that it's only a problem for the women that was renting out her apartment. I suggested that it's actually a problem for the renters since they have none of the liability and consumer protections that they'd normally get from a landlord/hotel, and you responded with "you're too stupid and need the State's protection". So you're the one that suggested that normal consumer protection laws are only for the stupid, I was just pointing out the folly in that since if you're not going to hold short-term rental landlords to the same legal standards as other short-term rentals (i.e. hotels), you've already entered a world where consumer protection laws don't apply.
Blah Blah Blah...the same old, "you're too stupid and need the State's protection" argument.
So you'd rather get rid of all of those pesky consumer protection laws and live in a world where you rent a room in a hotel, a fire sweeps through the hotel killing your family, and all the hotel says was "Sorry, we found that fire sprinklers, smoke detectors, and even liability insurance were too expensive, so here, we offer you this mint as a showing of our condolences. Oh, and you owe us $30,000 to remove your family's charred bodies and rebuild your room since you had possession of the room when the fire started. You agreed to that on page 47 of the rental contract you signed when you checked in last night... didn't you have your lawyer review it?"
Meh, most promises of "buy our shit and you'll come out ahead on your utility bills" are blatant scams. Maybe these guys are legit, but I'd give em a heck of a lot of scrutiny. What's the fine print in the contract? What happens to your roof if they go under? What happens when the city outlaws selling power back to the grid because of bribery?
I prefer simplicity to penny pinching. If I own it all, with someone offering the service/maintenance for a reasonable price, that's much more clear.
I think you have it backwards -- simplicity is dealing with one company - you can tell them put their panels on the roof, deal with all ongoing maintenance and service, and charge you less for power than the utility. Penny pinching is "Hire Company A to install the panels, Hire company B to maintain them, when something breaks, mediate the fight between Company A, Company B, and the company that manufactured the equipment while in the meantime you have no power since your grid-tie inverter blew up". When one company does it all, you can hold them to their SLA to fix the equipment regardless of whether it was a manufacturing defect, an installation error, or lack of preventative maintenance.
You get to keep more of the rewards with the second scenario, but it's not simpler.
Articles and comments like this are made by people who are not musicians, let alone people who play violin professionally. In the world of today, we live with technology all around us. Everyone has their preferences and some technologies suit some folks better than others. The Mac guys hate Windows and I hate 'em both. But modern technology is consistent. Set 10 MacBook Pro laptops up and they all work EXACTLY the same. Not so for violins. Not even for modern makers.
That's true as long as you stay within the pure digital design constraints that the computers were designed for, but if you give them to an overclocker and ask him to tweak them to give the very best performance (such as you'd expect a professional violinist to do - get the best sound from the instrument), you'll find that each one behaves slightly differently. One might have a faster CPU clock speed, while another one might be tuned for faster memory timing and/or latency.
That's not double-blind. I haven't watched TFV in its entirety, but for instance @19:00 there is a violinist playing with goggles and a researcher handing her the instruments that can see clearly what is what.
Incidentally, sorry but I cannot resist: double-blind? Maybe we should say... double deaf! /ducks
That's what I was thinking too, but they said that the instruments were identified by numbers -- is a Stradivarius obvious to a causal observer?
I can see why they didn't go truly double-blind with goggles on the researchers when dealing with a 10 million dollar instrument.
Looks like thet did the test in someone's living room -- shouldn't they have rented a concert hall or someplace more appropriate to where the instruments would be played on tour?
All hippie environ-wenie BS aside, the only true appeal of home solar is independence. Trading one master for another to get power is pointless. Powering your own house and car with your own equipment in a true "off the grid" way would be awesome, inspirational even. But home solar isn't quite there yet - tantalizingly close, mind you.
Why isn't lower utility bills also an incentive? As long as the lease company charges you less that utility market rates, then doesn't that make solar more appealing? Not everyone wants to own and run their own powerplant, they are happy to let someone else own it and run it even if it costs them more money.
NOT zero outlay. you still pay just about what you'd have payed the utility anyway... And they get to build an indistrial plat in and about your property
That's an operational cost, not a capital cost -- which many people find to be more affordable (which is why many people will happily pay their cell phone carrier much more than the price of a cell phone since the carrier gives them the phone with little upfront cost and makes up the cost in monthly fees)
If you're renting it from your landlord, it's not "private property".
It's still private property. It's just not your private property—it belongs to the landlord. You've just contracted to use it for a time.
Well yeah, I thought that part was obvious. You've contracted to live in it for a while, not sublet it, which is prohibited by most rental contracts.