/. readers must be slipping up... (either that, or its a Saturday:-) )I can't believe that no one else noticed that Eolas is just a "B" short of being Ebolas: one of the most deadly virii on the planet!!!
IITs, just like MIT or any other *huge* institution, doesn't run on an organization wide mandate to espouse any one technology over the other... the goal is to provide students with a "well rounded education" in all aspects of (computer) engineering.
Having said that, individual "teacher"s (from professors, all the way down to TA/RAs) very often do have opinions, and do exert those opinions vociferously: the result is that students (especially who interact with such professors on a faculty-advisor or thesis-advisor level) do get oriented towards a certain technology philosophy. This "orientation" can be on a philosophical level (Open Source as opposed to Closed Source), specifically at an OS level (Linux-*BSD-Windows) or evend down to nuances (How else can I explain my strange predeliction for using keyboard shortcuts for almost everything, and barely using my mouse?).
However I did not encounter any kind of thought policing: if you agreed with the professor, great. If you did not, you probably would not be working with that particular professor, but with someone more oriented to your views.
Open source does make enormous sense of a country like India. However, the way to leverage Open Source is definitely not by thought-policing. Especially in places like the IITs, which should be (and mostly are) institutions inculcating and encouraging independent and creative thinking. The way to encourage OSS (or any such technology philosophies for that matter) is through intelligent debate, not an institutional mandate.
Most DVD ads use the word Own it somewhere. For example:
This Ad
It doesnot say license it, or You can only play this on players that we approve of or even mention the fact that the content on the disc is encrypted. Two points here:
1) If I own something, I am free to do whatever I please with it. If I own my house, I am free to make whatever changes to my house that suits my needs. The architect or builder doesn't come running down the street with a court order to stop me, even though I am modifying the architecture which could be the intellectual property of the architect. The car manufacturer doen't sue me if I indulge in speeding. Yet the DVD manufacturer seems hellbent on exercising control on the DVD even after ownership has been transferred to me. Why is that legal, again?
2) If the manufacturer does not let me know that the DVD is encrypted, and claims that I "own" the copy in their advertising, and then trys to tell me what I can or cannot do with my copy, isn't that tantamount to fraudulent advertising?
I don't claim to understand law, but something looks very wrong here from a commonsense perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
/. readers must be slipping up... (either that, or its a Saturday :-) )I can't believe that no one else noticed that Eolas is just a "B" short of being Ebolas: one of the most deadly virii on the planet!!!
Whoa!!! Watch out!!!!! do you really want to be sued by SCO for publishing *some more* of their proprietary source code?
IITs, just like MIT or any other *huge* institution, doesn't run on an organization wide mandate to espouse any one technology over the other... the goal is to provide students with a "well rounded education" in all aspects of (computer) engineering.
Having said that, individual "teacher"s (from professors, all the way down to TA/RAs) very often do have opinions, and do exert those opinions vociferously: the result is that students (especially who interact with such professors on a faculty-advisor or thesis-advisor level) do get oriented towards a certain technology philosophy. This "orientation" can be on a philosophical level (Open Source as opposed to Closed Source), specifically at an OS level (Linux-*BSD-Windows) or evend down to nuances (How else can I explain my strange predeliction for using keyboard shortcuts for almost everything, and barely using my mouse?).
However I did not encounter any kind of thought policing: if you agreed with the professor, great. If you did not, you probably would not be working with that particular professor, but with someone more oriented to your views.
Open source does make enormous sense of a country like India. However, the way to leverage Open Source is definitely not by thought-policing. Especially in places like the IITs, which should be (and mostly are) institutions inculcating and encouraging independent and creative thinking. The way to encourage OSS (or any such technology philosophies for that matter) is through intelligent debate, not an institutional mandate.
Does anyone else find this ironic that three machines with the highest uptime(s) in the Microsoft campus all run Linux?
... the very day Fox News starts being a fair unbiased newssource (again(?) )...
It doesnot say license it, or You can only play this on players that we approve of or even mention the fact that the content on the disc is encrypted.
Two points here
1) If I own something, I am free to do whatever I please with it. If I own my house, I am free to make whatever changes to my house that suits my needs. The architect or builder doesn't come running down the street with a court order to stop me, even though I am modifying the architecture which could be the intellectual property of the architect. The car manufacturer doen't sue me if I indulge in speeding. Yet the DVD manufacturer seems hellbent on exercising control on the DVD even after ownership has been transferred to me. Why is that legal, again?
2) If the manufacturer does not let me know that the DVD is encrypted, and claims that I "own" the copy in their advertising, and then trys to tell me what I can or cannot do with my copy, isn't that tantamount to fraudulent advertising?
I don't claim to understand law, but something looks very wrong here from a commonsense perspective.