1 barrel of oil (bbl) is 42 gallons, so 340 million gallons of oil is a little over 8 million bbl.
How many bbl do we use in the US? According the the CIA world factbook, the US consumed 20.8 million bbl/day in 2005. (It's almost certainly higher today.) That means we've just found enough oil to replace about 2/5ths of one day's worth of oil demand in the US.
The Mac binaries available on the download page are built for PPC macs. If you've got the developer tools installed on an Intel Mac, you'll want to modify the Makefile to change the X11PATH line to:
Oh, come on, there've got to be some Doctor Who fans out there!;-)
Re:I see their point, but...
on
Phishing for Credit
·
· Score: 2, Informative
But grad students? I don't see any problem with that at all. In fact, they don't need anyone's permission to do what they did. However, in good faith, they did get the approval of the Human Subjects Committee.
Actually, grad students are just as subject to IRB (Institute Research Board) human subjects approval as faculty. Any research involving human subjects and that is intended to ever be published must obtain IRB approval prior to conducting the research.
As part of the IRB approval process, there are several criteria that the board looks for. The relevant criterion here is "informed consent." That is, are the participants given enough information about the study to make their own reasonable decisions about whether they wish to participate and consent to the research. For some studies, informed consent simply is not feasible (as in the case here). In such cases, the researchers must convince the IRB that a) the risk to the participants is not unreasonable, b) that there is a valid research contribution, c) that the deception is necessary to the study, and d) that the deception is revealed to the participants after the study and that the real reasons for the study are given, along with the opportunity for the participant to opt out from having his or her data included.
It is the researcher's responsibility to make sure that the participants' rights are observed, and the IRB's responsibility to provide oversight to make sure the researchers are being responsible. That applies just as much to any researcher, whether an undergrad, a grad student, or a faculty member.
The problem is not with tools like 401(ok) enabling people to bypass the artificial restriction in iTunes of not being able to stream music accross subnets -- there's nothing intrinsically bad or wrong or illegal about it. For example, I can stream music to my laptop on the wireless network on campus from my music collection on my home computer. As long as I legitimately have a copy of that music, its all fair game.
The problem arises when people start constructing mechanisms to allow people to share their music with complete strangers. That's when things get much more into shadow.
Remember the apple mantra: Don't steal music.
iTunes music streaming is for personal use only. 401(ok) doesn't change that.
What you do is map 139 on your local machine to 9139 on the remote machine.
No. It's the reverse. What I do is map 9139 on the local machine to 139 on the remote machine. The difficulty arises in just how to tell OS X's samba to use port 9139 (my tunneled port) instead of port 139 (the standard port).
In OS X, you have two options: connect to the samba share through the Finder's cmd-k dialog, or use mount_smbfs. In neither case have I found a way to override the default SMB port (139) to use my tunneled port (9139 in my case).
Do you happen to recall the name of that app? Of the 8 hits found in that search, I don't see anything that seems to do what you describe.
That app probably won't do what I need, anyway. Setting up ssh to redirect a port through the ssh connection (i.e. an SSH tunnel) is a simple matter of using the -L option. The hard part here is that there is no obvious way to instruct OS X to use a non-standard port for samba. Even the commandline version (mount_smbfs) provides no port override (at least, none documented in the man page).
The nearest thing to a solution I can find is to run ssh as root so I can tunnel local port 139 to remote port 139. This solution works as long as I never plan on running an smb server and as long as I can and am willing to setup the tunnel as root.
Since I maintain my own machine, I get put on the semi-trusted network, which means that I can't directly mount my smb share. On my Linux box, I work around this by tunneling SMB through an ssh tunnel, but on my OS X machine, I can't find a way to override the SMB port to the tunneled port (sure, I could use smbclient, but that's just not lickable). I've tried a few variations on the URL from the Finder's cmd-k dialog:
smb://username@localhost:tunnelport/share?WORKGR OU P=wkgp
smb://username@localhost/share?WORKGROUP=wkgrp;P OR T=tunnelport
and many variants, but not seems to work. Any suggestions? Has anyone figured out how to override the SMB port?
When I spoke to a customer service rep a couple of weeks ago, she informed me that there are plans to add another distribution center in FL, so delivery times to Atlanta and the rest of the South should dramatically improve.
Regarding customer service, I have never had trouble getting a response from them by email; the reply is just usually not so germaine to my question. Your best bet for customer service from netflix (they probably won't like this) is to call them. They are usually very responsive over the phone.
Additionally, their DVD collection is very impressive. I had a problem the first few months with some titles being out-of-stock, but a couple of months ago all those movies became available; presumably they increased their inventory.
First, the standard disclaimers: my comments are my own and should not be taken as necessarily representative of the GA Tech administration.
There's a much better and more accurate article on the topic at the AJC. Take the AP version with a grain of salt.
The fact that GA Tech uses software to detect possible cheating should not come as a surprise to anyone. Such systems have been in use at many schools across the country for many different disciplines besides CS. Nor should anyone be disturbed by the use of such systems: their purpose is to detect possible cheating, which according the AJC article was clearly verboten to the students in the class.
In the real world, a completely different set of rules may exist, but the fact remains that if your boss tells you he wants you to do something on your own, then you'd damn well better do it on your own. When a teacher instructs a student to perform a task on his own, he so instructs not to make life more difficult for the student, but to ensure that the student is capable of independently executing the skills necessary for the completion of the assignment. When that student eventually enters the real world, he has demonstrated the ability to perform the skills to be expected of him in the real world, so when he then has the ability to collaborate with his peers, he can actually contribure to the group's performance. A student who has always relied on others to get by will offer minimal assistance to a group and will typically act as a hinderance.
So sure, in the real world you won't be fired for collaborating with your peers, but you will be if you can't get anything done without collaborating with your peers.
I'm sure everyone will agree that speed is crucial, but simplicity takes a little more convincing. One of the distinctions that many people fail to make is the difference between the complexity of a task and the simplicity of the interface to that task. Where Apple has made a lot of progress is in maintaining the simple interface to a complex task. Consider the rocker arrows on many of the progress dialogs: in its default configuration, the dialog informs you of the percentage of the task completed (by the visual cue of the progress bar). Click on the rocker arrow, and you get a veritable cornucopia of information -- what file/folder is being processed, how many have been processed/how many remain, time elapsed/remaining, etc.
Just because an interface is simple, doesn't mean that it can't be complex. Just because an interface is complicated doesn't mean that it's powerful.
Perhaps you should re-read the Judge's argument behind his decision. There is great potential for harm to the Plaintiff if DeCSS remains public (which it will despite this ruling, but I digress), and there is very little harm to the Defendants if they are forced to remove the material pending an outcome in this case.
The Judge has not sided with the Plaintiff that DeCSS violates the law; the judge has merely stated that the Plaintiff *could* win, and that pending the outcome of the case, DeCSS should be blocked. This seems very straightforeward to me.
It doesn't mean that the case has decided; this is only a preliminary injunction.
Scola: I wish it were that simple. As has already been pointed out, you have to deal with issues of different libraries, kernel versions, etc. To say that Linux is Linux is Linux is more or less true. The problem is that a binary built on one distribution may not work on a different distro, simply because the other distro doesn't come standard with the same libraries or because it uses incompatible but analagous libraries. Sure, one can take a binary built against one distro and figure out which libraries you need and get it to work yourself, but on a product that truly 'supports Linux,' that information should be made easily available rather than "hidden" behind the RPM.
Disclaimer: I'm not RedHat bashing here; all I'm saying is that supporting Red Hat is not the same thing as supporting Linux. I have nothing against RH -- heck, I'm using it right now.
Once you have agreed to the conditions of the program you will then be able to download the OpenMail server installation image for RedHat Linux 6.0, the OpenMail MAPI Service Provider for the Microsoft Outlook client, and the OpenMail Motif Client for Linux (OMGUI).
By releasing binaries built against and ackaged for RH6 they seem to be implying that they aren't really supporting Linux as they are Red Hat.
Slashdot Mirror
To put everything in context :
1 barrel of oil (bbl) is 42 gallons, so 340 million gallons of oil is a little over 8 million bbl.
How many bbl do we use in the US? According the the CIA world factbook, the US consumed 20.8 million bbl/day in 2005. (It's almost certainly higher today.) That means we've just found enough oil to replace about 2/5ths of one day's worth of oil demand in the US.
It's a baby step in the right direction...
The Mac binaries available on the download page are built for PPC macs. If you've got the developer tools installed on an Intel Mac, you'll want to modify the Makefile to change the X11PATH line to:
/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/X11R6
X11PATH =
Then just "make linux"
Now that we've penetrated the earth's crust, we just need to make sure we don't touch the ooze and turn green and hairy!
;-)
Oh, come on, there've got to be some Doctor Who fans out there!
But grad students? I don't see any problem with that at all. In fact, they don't need anyone's permission to do what they did. However, in good faith, they did get the approval of the Human Subjects Committee.
Actually, grad students are just as subject to IRB (Institute Research Board) human subjects approval as faculty. Any research involving human subjects and that is intended to ever be published must obtain IRB approval prior to conducting the research.
As part of the IRB approval process, there are several criteria that the board looks for. The relevant criterion here is "informed consent." That is, are the participants given enough information about the study to make their own reasonable decisions about whether they wish to participate and consent to the research. For some studies, informed consent simply is not feasible (as in the case here). In such cases, the researchers must convince the IRB that a) the risk to the participants is not unreasonable, b) that there is a valid research contribution, c) that the deception is necessary to the study, and d) that the deception is revealed to the participants after the study and that the real reasons for the study are given, along with the opportunity for the participant to opt out from having his or her data included.
It is the researcher's responsibility to make sure that the participants' rights are observed, and the IRB's responsibility to provide oversight to make sure the researchers are being responsible. That applies just as much to any researcher, whether an undergrad, a grad student, or a faculty member.
Buy Buy Buy!
/. that UPS was undervalued!
My labmate has a friend who knows this girl who dated my cousin's brother's nephew's mother who read on
The problem is not with tools like 401(ok) enabling people to bypass the artificial restriction in iTunes of not being able to stream music accross subnets -- there's nothing intrinsically bad or wrong or illegal about it. For example, I can stream music to my laptop on the wireless network on campus from my music collection on my home computer. As long as I legitimately have a copy of that music, its all fair game.
The problem arises when people start constructing mechanisms to allow people to share their music with complete strangers. That's when things get much more into shadow.
Remember the apple mantra: Don't steal music.
iTunes music streaming is for personal use only. 401(ok) doesn't change that.
What you do is map 139 on your local machine to 9139 on the remote machine.
No. It's the reverse. What I do is map 9139 on the local machine to 139 on the remote machine. The difficulty arises in just how to tell OS X's samba to use port 9139 (my tunneled port) instead of port 139 (the standard port).
That's precisely what I'm trying to do. In Linux I use the following command:
//localhost/share mountpoint \
smbmount
-o port=tunnelport,username=myusername, \
workgroup=mywrkgrp
(lines wrapped for clarity)
In OS X, you have two options: connect to the samba share through the Finder's cmd-k dialog, or use mount_smbfs. In neither case have I found a way to override the default SMB port (139) to use my tunneled port (9139 in my case).
See this comment for more info.
Do you happen to recall the name of that app? Of the 8 hits found in that search, I don't see anything that seems to do what you describe.
That app probably won't do what I need, anyway. Setting up ssh to redirect a port through the ssh connection (i.e. an SSH tunnel) is a simple matter of using the -L option. The hard part here is that there is no obvious way to instruct OS X to use a non-standard port for samba. Even the commandline version (mount_smbfs) provides no port override (at least, none documented in the man page).
The nearest thing to a solution I can find is to run ssh as root so I can tunnel local port 139 to remote port 139. This solution works as long as I never plan on running an smb server and as long as I can and am willing to setup the tunnel as root.
Since I maintain my own machine, I get put on the semi-trusted network, which means that I can't directly mount my smb share. On my Linux box, I work around this by tunneling SMB through an ssh tunnel, but on my OS X machine, I can't find a way to override the SMB port to the tunneled port (sure, I could use smbclient, but that's just not lickable). I've tried a few variations on the URL from the Finder's cmd-k dialog:
R OU P=wkgp
P OR T=tunnelport
smb://username@localhost:tunnelport/share?WORKG
smb://username@localhost/share?WORKGROUP=wkgrp;
and many variants, but not seems to work. Any suggestions? Has anyone figured out how to override the SMB port?
I haven't seen a KDE port yet (probably because of QT)...
KDE support is in the unstable branch of fink. See the announcement. Packages are available in source and in binary form.
When I spoke to a customer service rep a couple of weeks ago, she informed me that there are plans to add another distribution center in FL, so delivery times to Atlanta and the rest of the South should dramatically improve.
Regarding customer service, I have never had trouble getting a response from them by email; the reply is just usually not so germaine to my question. Your best bet for customer service from netflix (they probably won't like this) is to call them. They are usually very responsive over the phone.
Additionally, their DVD collection is very impressive. I had a problem the first few months with some titles being out-of-stock, but a couple of months ago all those movies became available; presumably they increased their inventory.
First, the standard disclaimers: my comments are my own and should not be taken as necessarily representative of the GA Tech administration.
There's a much better and more accurate article on the topic at the AJC. Take the AP version with a grain of salt.
The fact that GA Tech uses software to detect possible cheating should not come as a surprise to anyone. Such systems have been in use at many schools across the country for many different disciplines besides CS. Nor should anyone be disturbed by the use of such systems: their purpose is to detect possible cheating, which according the AJC article was clearly verboten to the students in the class.
In the real world, a completely different set of rules may exist, but the fact remains that if your boss tells you he wants you to do something on your own, then you'd damn well better do it on your own. When a teacher instructs a student to perform a task on his own, he so instructs not to make life more difficult for the student, but to ensure that the student is capable of independently executing the skills necessary for the completion of the assignment. When that student eventually enters the real world, he has demonstrated the ability to perform the skills to be expected of him in the real world, so when he then has the ability to collaborate with his peers, he can actually contribure to the group's performance. A student who has always relied on others to get by will offer minimal assistance to a group and will typically act as a hinderance.
So sure, in the real world you won't be fired for collaborating with your peers, but you will be if you can't get anything done without collaborating with your peers.
I'm sure everyone will agree that speed is crucial, but simplicity takes a little more convincing. One of the distinctions that many people fail to make is the difference between the complexity of a task and the simplicity of the interface to that task. Where Apple has made a lot of progress is in maintaining the simple interface to a complex task. Consider the rocker arrows on many of the progress dialogs: in its default configuration, the dialog informs you of the percentage of the task completed (by the visual cue of the progress bar). Click on the rocker arrow, and you get a veritable cornucopia of information -- what file/folder is being processed, how many have been processed/how many remain, time elapsed/remaining, etc.
Just because an interface is simple, doesn't mean that it can't be complex. Just because an interface is complicated doesn't mean that it's powerful.
Perhaps you should re-read the Judge's argument behind his decision. There is great potential for harm to the Plaintiff if DeCSS remains public (which it will despite this ruling, but I digress), and there is very little harm to the Defendants if they are forced to remove the material pending an outcome in this case.
The Judge has not sided with the Plaintiff that DeCSS violates the law; the judge has merely stated that the Plaintiff *could* win, and that pending the outcome of the case, DeCSS should be blocked. This seems very straightforeward to me.
It doesn't mean that the case has decided; this is only a preliminary injunction.
Scola: I wish it were that simple. As has already been pointed out, you have to deal with issues of different libraries, kernel versions, etc. To say that Linux is Linux is Linux is more or less true. The problem is that a binary built on one distribution may not work on a different distro, simply because the other distro doesn't come standard with the same libraries or because it uses incompatible but analagous libraries. Sure, one can take a binary built against one distro and figure out which libraries you need and get it to work yourself, but on a product that truly 'supports Linux,' that information should be made easily available rather than "hidden" behind the RPM.
Disclaimer: I'm not RedHat bashing here; all I'm saying is that supporting Red Hat is not the same thing as supporting Linux. I have nothing against RH -- heck, I'm using it right now.
From their description page:
Once you have agreed to the conditions of the program you will then be able to download the OpenMail server installation image for RedHat Linux 6.0, the OpenMail MAPI Service Provider for the Microsoft Outlook client, and the OpenMail Motif Client for Linux (OMGUI).
By releasing binaries built against and ackaged for RH6 they seem to be implying that they aren't really supporting Linux as they are Red Hat.
...you'll lose your keys between the cushions ;)