Re:It's a university computer...
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You're absolutely right. There isn't much to debate here. All colleges and universities I know of have similar acceptable use policies and this is completely within their legal bounds. I am against the Patriot Act as much as the next guy but this simply isn't the "what the f@$#" article that everyone has been waiting for.
When I attended SUNY Geneseo, the dean made me take down my personal web page. It consisted of a classified ad listing for students to buy/sell their textbooks. There was no money in it for me at all but the school used a broad interpretation of their rules to take it down anyway. The real reason was because the school has an agreement with a local book store saying that all book orders will be placed through that store and no where else. I think that is even more controversial than what we are talking about here but they still got a way with it. Small town politics.
I haven't heard about Plan 9 since taking distributed computing classes in college. I'm surprised this operating system hasn't caught on faster. Its sweet.
You have a good point. I'm not aware of a method to test whether a person is under the influence of marijuana. If a breathalizer-type test was available for marijuana, the argument to legalize it would gain tremendous ground.
Ed - Understand. As a programmer I can say that it is often times better to implement less than more. Every decision you make as a developer is a compromise. By not checking all the way up the chain, you gain performance and reduce the amount of errors you may introduce by doing so. One may say he assumed it is the responsibility of everyone before them to check the previous cert-- the next will say the programmer should not have checked anyway. If the programmer assumed it was his responsibility to check the entire chain of certs, he would have been compromising in some other way or making assumptions otherwise. There is rarely a right or wrong answer.
Blame belongs on Big Evil Empire because they time and time again fail to do the simple things like follow these standards. Sure, everyone has bugs. Is it wrong to blame Big Evil Empire because they continually implement these standards incorrectly and sometimes they do it intensionally because they think it is a better way or it suits them better?
I am so shocked to hear Microsoft didn't follow the standards when implementing SSL. I wonder what other technologies they have failed to implement according to the standards everyone else follows?
You are right on one level; however, completely ignorant of the big picture. First off, let me state that I am a.NET developer for over a year and, honestly, I believe.NET has great potential. My first impression of ASP.NET and Visual Studio.NET was, well, extremely impressed. The fact the most.NET developers I have talked with (including those with over 10-years web development) think.NET is this magic technology that is going to solve all the world's problems is absolutely rediculous! The second these people get some.NET marketing blown up their ass and a pretty IDE in front of their face, they think the world of cross-browser compatibility, HTML, Javascript, etc has been replaced by a God-like alternative. Suddenly, Microsoft makes everyone think if it doesn't work with.NET, it must be you fault (not using Internet Explorer). Big surprise here. This is the strong arm they have been trying to push for years! Will.NET UI run on a Solaris workstation? Hell no! Will Microsoft target this market? Absolutely not! Do they claim they support alternative browsers for their web applications? Sure; however, that is just marketing BS. You may ask what is this magical.NET's ability to support these "alternative" browsers? Let me say, it is minimal. As far as simple web pages go (simple forms, buttons, hyperlinks) sure, they work the rest; however, when it comes to anything higher-level (i.e. the developer actually needing an understanding of how this shit works in the real world without all the fancy IDE (which in my opinion is something any web developer should understand in the first place (how can you develop a web page and not need to understand that HTTP is a stateless protocol as Microsoft "suggests" is not a necessary concept?))). most.NET developers are completely in the dark and when something doesn't "work" it must be _impossible_ to do. No! Microsoft is not dropping-the-ball on this marketing and releasing.NET so early was not a "misstep"-- Microsoft is dilgently attacking the DEVELOPERS into making them believe that the other alternatives "don't work"! Go look at the newsgroups! Microsoft is blatently telling people that if it doesn't work in.NET, it must be the next guy's fault (however, removing themselves from liability by letting they "MVP's" do their work)! So back to my original statement-- I like.NET; I think it has great potential. But, why the hell do you want to replace something that is already working-- something that is already matured-- and something that has proven it's ability, stability, and efficiency?
I'm a little behind on the Palladium discussion. Since it is new to me, I am wondering if it is surprising to anyone else that Palladium can be found in Microsoft documents dating back 12 years? Search the page for "Palladium" and you'll find it at the bottom of the page.
I always wondered if moderators can tell when a message was posted. Sure, this may have been redudant, but it was the first one posted. Everyone else is redudant, not me.:)
press release: Judge orders Indymedia NL to remove links to Radikal mirrors Indymedia NL 21.06.2002 01:55
Amsterdam, 20 june 2002
The court case, initiated by Deutsche Bahn (German Rail, DB) against Indymedia NL, has turned out negative for the latter organisation.
Indymedia NL regrets the facts that the judge in the verdict does not elaborate on which kinds of links are permissible and which are not. This ruling will therefore have severe consequences for every person or organisation that has placed links on the Internet. Due to the structure of Internet, it is possible to reach any website on the internet, by way of combinations of links and indirect links.
Deutsche Bahn insisted a couple of weeks ago that Indymedia NL should remove a number of indirect links of mirrors of the website of the periodical Radikal. Through the linked start page, numerous articles are available, including two articles concerning ways of blocking nuclear transports. These two articles have been ruled illegal in the Netherlands by the same judge on April 25th 2002. Indymedia NL refused to adhere to the demand.
In the verdict of June 20th, the judge has ordered to remove the hyperlinks and to keep them removed, in as far as these hyperlinks lead to the Radikal articles, either directly or indirectly and notwithstanding whether these hyperlinks were placed by visitors. If Indymedia NL does not comply with this order, a penal sum of 5,000 Euros per day can be imposed. The judge ordered that, like an Internet Service Provider but just as much like the editors of a newspaper, Indymedia NL is, in principle, responsible for the content that has been published with its help.
The verdict is surprising, since Indymedia NL does not link directly to illegal articles. Until now, only direct links to illegal material were forbidden in the Netherlands. Out of this verdict however, it follows that indirect links to illegal material are also forbidden, because Indymedia NLs links only point to copies of the front page of the German periodical Radikal. It takes more clicks to reach the illegal articles.
Indymedia NL considers the ruling a dramatic limitation of the possibilities of the Internet and the freedom of speech. Indymedia NL will probably try to appeal this decision out of principal considerations.
I do agree with you about developers underestimating; however, I find that developers underestimating is a direct result of management not giving the developers enough time to plan a project. When a project hasn't been planned, it is nearly impossible to forsee all the obstacles ahead for baseing an estimate. On the other hand, if the project was fully designed on paper and documented before anything was implementated, the implementation would go much quicker and there would be a base document for developers to look back on.
Think about building a house. It is nearly as complex as building a software application; however, would you ever let a construction team start building your house without having a set of blueprints? This is my point. How can management tell their team to start buildling without taking the time to draw up the plans. I can understand managing a project without having the development experience but in that case, that manager must know enough to let his/her team take the time to do the job the right way, including design and implementation.
And to further my point about requirements gathering. The manager usually gives an extremely vague spec to the engineers. In terms of building a house, this spec is usually along the lines of-- Requirements-- 1. Kitchen
A. Sink
B. Refrigerator 2. Living room
A. Windows
B. Fireplace 3. Bathroom
A. Sink
B. Toilet
C. Shower 4. Front door
A. Door knob
The developer would look at a plan like this and ask-- What about? A. Bedroom B. Lights C. Plumbing D. Electricity E. Roof F. Walls ETC
When you ask these questions, the manager is like, yeah of course we need all those and looks at you like you're stupid and says the foundation better be done by next week (which isn't in the spec mind you).
Now, why can't we spend a little more time thinking about this project and actually design it before jumping in? And why can't management see that they are the root cause of problems on a software project? The main reason is because software development isn't something you can see. When you build a house, you can go on-site and look at everything that is going on. With software, all you can do is scroll around a text window trying to decypher code. Maybe, it shouldn't be the job of the manager to evaluate progress on a project. Maybe managers need to utilize their lead developers better and actually listen to them for a change.
Sounds way too familiar. My company made the plunge into.NET last fall for a product that is shipping this week. I was brought on to lead the development; however, was given absolutely no control over the design of the application. The project was lead by a group of people who have never done web design a day in their life and they were making the design decisions. When something goes wrong or we hit a roadblock, the developers get blamed but management doesn't realize that the fact that they won't let their developers spend 5 minutes on design or planning is the main cause for all the problems.
In my opinion, the reasons there is bad software is 99% management's fault. 1. They think they can make decisions on how to write software when they don't know anything about it. I even know a manager that has a secretary read/write his email because he can't use a computer. He has a monitor on his desk with a color printout of a web browser taped to his screen as a joke (no kidding). 2. Requirements gathering needs a lot of improvement. How many times are the requirements written by the same managers I just described above? The managers don't understand how or why these requirements are even necessary and when you ask them to elaborate or get more information from the customer, they don't think it is necessary. They just make something up, tell you some BS, and never ask the customer. In the end, the developers have to go back and change everything and management gets pissed when it takes twice as long to make a huge functional change than it did to put it in in the first place. They don't understand why and once again, the developer gets blamed. 3. Management thinks developers are stupid. They don't look at their developers as experts in the field, they look at them as grunts just implementing their product. When a grunt asks a question or makes a suggestion, management turns their back and sticks their nose in the air. What could a developer possibly have to say that means anything to their bottomline? 4. Management never asks their developers for an opinion. They consistently make estimates based on buzzwords instead of asking their development team for input. How could a manager with no development experience possibly make an estimate without knowing what has to be done?
IMO, there needs to be a layer between management and the development team or management needs a degree in computer science. If a manager doesn't understand what it means to develop software, how can they expect to support their team and manage the project?
In the end, management thinks their development team is incompentant because the project didn't go smoothly and thd developers get burned out because they aren't allowed to use their skills and are forced to brute force a piece of shit product.
Has anyone successfully overcome these obstacles with management? What is the course of action to make management realize what they are doing wrong?
It seems to me you were contacting a recruiter in the first place. Are you not happy with your current employement or is the reason for seeking a new job simply for more cash? If the answer truly is just money, then you should have asked your employer for a raise in the first place. Now that you've pursued other opportunities and threw it back in your employers face, you probably lost a little bit of respect at your current job. Sure, they can't afford to lose you right now so they need to counter the offer. Are you in the middle of the project right now? That would answer why you are a valuable asset at this time. Once they are done with that, you will be the first to go. If you aren't happy with your current employer, then you can't just demand money from them and say that is the only reason for staying. Further, the money is not the only thing keeping you there so why not just go to the next job anyway? If I was your current employer, I would view this as unprofessional and inconsiderate. If you really wanted to stay with your current employer, you should have been up front with them in the first place instead of going over their head. Everyone has the right to seek a better opportunity; however, using it to leverage your current position is simply wrong. Rule of thumb. Always be up front and honest but only tell the people who need to know.
What makes you think lifeforms from different worlds are going to be anything like ourselves? We are a carbon-based lifeform, we need oxygen, gravity, water, etc. Why can't the next lifeform we discover survive in a vacuum. Maybe they are just that advanced they can travel this far and survive in this type of atmosphere. Or maybe, they created some kind of device that allows them to survive in our atmosphere (i.e. a space suit)? Yeah, life could never exist there. Just like Earth must be flat. I think one thing our generation has adapted since the previous is the feeling that anything is possible. Why shouldn't we at least entertain the thought?
Oh, they probably won't go but I'm sure they'll find a way to make millions on a movie or a reality TV show about it. Come to think of it, they already have....
Slashdot Mirror
They should have used their own search engine to find out why--
1 Google
Google is a search engine that makes heavy use of link popularity as a primary way to rank web sites
Country US
They are putting themselves out of business.
You're absolutely right. There isn't much to debate here. All colleges and universities I know of have similar acceptable use policies and this is completely within their legal bounds. I am against the Patriot Act as much as the next guy but this simply isn't the "what the f@$#" article that everyone has been waiting for.
Relavent UCSD Policies
UC Business and Finance Bulletin G-29, Procedures for Investigating Misuse of University Resources Appendix C, Whistle Blower Policy
Acceptable Use Policies
When I attended SUNY Geneseo, the dean made me take down my personal web page. It consisted of a classified ad listing for students to buy/sell their textbooks. There was no money in it for me at all but the school used a broad interpretation of their rules to take it down anyway. The real reason was because the school has an agreement with a local book store saying that all book orders will be placed through that store and no where else. I think that is even more controversial than what we are talking about here but they still got a way with it. Small town politics.
BTW, Plan 9 is brought to you by the same Bell Labs research group that bought you Unix (according to a Plan 9 developer I talked to).
I haven't heard about Plan 9 since taking distributed computing classes in college. I'm surprised this operating system hasn't caught on faster. Its sweet.
You have a good point. I'm not aware of a method to test whether a person is under the influence of marijuana. If a breathalizer-type test was available for marijuana, the argument to legalize it would gain tremendous ground.
Good point.
Ed - Understand. As a programmer I can say that it is often times better to implement less than more. Every decision you make as a developer is a compromise. By not checking all the way up the chain, you gain performance and reduce the amount of errors you may introduce by doing so. One may say he assumed it is the responsibility of everyone before them to check the previous cert-- the next will say the programmer should not have checked anyway. If the programmer assumed it was his responsibility to check the entire chain of certs, he would have been compromising in some other way or making assumptions otherwise. There is rarely a right or wrong answer.
Monopolistic is the key in your reply. It is easy to blame the big guy when they are screwing you.
Blame belongs on Big Evil Empire because they time and time again fail to do the simple things like follow these standards. Sure, everyone has bugs. Is it wrong to blame Big Evil Empire because they continually implement these standards incorrectly and sometimes they do it intensionally because they think it is a better way or it suits them better?
I am so shocked to hear Microsoft didn't follow the standards when implementing SSL. I wonder what other technologies they have failed to implement according to the standards everyone else follows?
You are right on one level; however, completely ignorant of the big picture. First off, let me state that I am a .NET developer for over a year and, honestly, I believe .NET has great potential. My first impression of ASP.NET and Visual Studio.NET was, well, extremely impressed. The fact the most .NET developers I have talked with (including those with over 10-years web development) think .NET is this magic technology that is going to solve all the world's problems is absolutely rediculous! The second these people get some .NET marketing blown up their ass and a pretty IDE in front of their face, they think the world of cross-browser compatibility, HTML, Javascript, etc has been replaced by a God-like alternative. Suddenly, Microsoft makes everyone think if it doesn't work with .NET, it must be you fault (not using Internet Explorer). Big surprise here. This is the strong arm they have been trying to push for years! Will .NET UI run on a Solaris workstation? Hell no! Will Microsoft target this market? Absolutely not! Do they claim they support alternative browsers for their web applications? Sure; however, that is just marketing BS. You may ask what is this magical .NET's ability to support these "alternative" browsers? Let me say, it is minimal. As far as simple web pages go (simple forms, buttons, hyperlinks) sure, they work the rest; however, when it comes to anything higher-level (i.e. the developer actually needing an understanding of how this shit works in the real world without all the fancy IDE (which in my opinion is something any web developer should understand in the first place (how can you develop a web page and not need to understand that HTTP is a stateless protocol as Microsoft "suggests" is not a necessary concept?))). most .NET developers are completely in the dark and when something doesn't "work" it must be _impossible_ to do. No! Microsoft is not dropping-the-ball on this marketing and releasing .NET so early was not a "misstep"-- Microsoft is dilgently attacking the DEVELOPERS into making them believe that the other alternatives "don't work"! Go look at the newsgroups! Microsoft is blatently telling people that if it doesn't work in .NET, it must be the next guy's fault (however, removing themselves from liability by letting they "MVP's" do their work)! So back to my original statement-- I like .NET; I think it has great potential. But, why the hell do you want to replace something that is already working-- something that is already matured-- and something that has proven it's ability, stability, and efficiency?
If they can sell used cars, why not go into the business of selling and supporting PCs too?
To start, the Microsoft version costs $99
I'm a little behind on the Palladium discussion. Since it is new to me, I am wondering if it is surprising to anyone else that Palladium can be found in Microsoft documents dating back 12 years? Search the page for "Palladium" and you'll find it at the bottom of the page.
Proud day for you and your family.
I always wondered if moderators can tell when a message was posted. Sure, this may have been redudant, but it was the first one posted. Everyone else is redudant, not me. :)
press release: Judge orders Indymedia NL to remove links to Radikal mirrors
Indymedia NL 21.06.2002 01:55
Amsterdam, 20 june 2002
The court case, initiated by Deutsche Bahn (German Rail, DB) against
Indymedia NL, has turned out negative for the latter organisation.
Indymedia NL regrets the facts that the judge in the verdict does not
elaborate on which kinds of links are permissible and which are not. This
ruling will therefore have severe consequences for every person or
organisation that has placed links on the Internet. Due to the structure of
Internet, it is possible to reach any website on the internet, by way of
combinations of links and indirect links.
Deutsche Bahn insisted a couple of weeks ago that Indymedia NL should
remove a number of indirect links of mirrors of the website of the
periodical Radikal. Through the linked start page, numerous articles are
available, including two articles concerning ways of blocking nuclear
transports. These two articles have been ruled illegal in the Netherlands
by the same judge on April 25th 2002. Indymedia NL refused to adhere to the
demand.
In the verdict of June 20th, the judge has ordered to remove the hyperlinks
and to keep them removed, in as far as these hyperlinks lead to the Radikal
articles, either directly or indirectly and notwithstanding whether these
hyperlinks were placed by visitors. If Indymedia NL does not comply with
this order, a penal sum of 5,000 Euros per day can be imposed. The judge
ordered that, like an Internet Service Provider but just as much like the
editors of a newspaper, Indymedia NL is, in principle, responsible for the
content that has been published with its help.
The verdict is surprising, since Indymedia NL does not link directly to
illegal articles. Until now, only direct links to illegal material were
forbidden in the Netherlands. Out of this verdict however, it follows that
indirect links to illegal material are also forbidden, because Indymedia
NLs links only point to copies of the front page of the German periodical
Radikal. It takes more clicks to reach the illegal articles.
Indymedia NL considers the ruling a dramatic limitation of the
possibilities of the Internet and the freedom of speech. Indymedia NL will
probably try to appeal this decision out of principal considerations.
I do agree with you about developers underestimating; however, I find that developers underestimating is a direct result of management not giving the developers enough time to plan a project. When a project hasn't been planned, it is nearly impossible to forsee all the obstacles ahead for baseing an estimate. On the other hand, if the project was fully designed on paper and documented before anything was implementated, the implementation would go much quicker and there would be a base document for developers to look back on.
Think about building a house. It is nearly as complex as building a software application; however, would you ever let a construction team start building your house without having a set of blueprints? This is my point. How can management tell their team to start buildling without taking the time to draw up the plans. I can understand managing a project without having the development experience but in that case, that manager must know enough to let his/her team take the time to do the job the right way, including design and implementation.
And to further my point about requirements gathering. The manager usually gives an extremely vague spec to the engineers. In terms of building a house, this spec is usually along the lines of--
Requirements--
1. Kitchen
A. Sink
B. Refrigerator
2. Living room
A. Windows
B. Fireplace
3. Bathroom
A. Sink
B. Toilet
C. Shower
4. Front door
A. Door knob
The developer would look at a plan like this and ask--
What about?
A. Bedroom
B. Lights
C. Plumbing
D. Electricity
E. Roof
F. Walls
ETC
When you ask these questions, the manager is like, yeah of course we need all those and looks at you like you're stupid and says the foundation better be done by next week (which isn't in the spec mind you).
Now, why can't we spend a little more time thinking about this project and actually design it before jumping in? And why can't management see that they are the root cause of problems on a software project? The main reason is because software development isn't something you can see. When you build a house, you can go on-site and look at everything that is going on. With software, all you can do is scroll around a text window trying to decypher code. Maybe, it shouldn't be the job of the manager to evaluate progress on a project. Maybe managers need to utilize their lead developers better and actually listen to them for a change.
Sounds way too familiar. My company made the plunge into .NET last fall for a product that is shipping this week. I was brought on to lead the development; however, was given absolutely no control over the design of the application. The project was lead by a group of people who have never done web design a day in their life and they were making the design decisions. When something goes wrong or we hit a roadblock, the developers get blamed but management doesn't realize that the fact that they won't let their developers spend 5 minutes on design or planning is the main cause for all the problems.
In my opinion, the reasons there is bad software is 99% management's fault.
1. They think they can make decisions on how to write software when they don't know anything about it. I even know a manager that has a secretary read/write his email because he can't use a computer. He has a monitor on his desk with a color printout of a web browser taped to his screen as a joke (no kidding).
2. Requirements gathering needs a lot of improvement. How many times are the requirements written by the same managers I just described above? The managers don't understand how or why these requirements are even necessary and when you ask them to elaborate or get more information from the customer, they don't think it is necessary. They just make something up, tell you some BS, and never ask the customer. In the end, the developers have to go back and change everything and management gets pissed when it takes twice as long to make a huge functional change than it did to put it in in the first place. They don't understand why and once again, the developer gets blamed.
3. Management thinks developers are stupid. They don't look at their developers as experts in the field, they look at them as grunts just implementing their product. When a grunt asks a question or makes a suggestion, management turns their back and sticks their nose in the air. What could a developer possibly have to say that means anything to their bottomline?
4. Management never asks their developers for an opinion. They consistently make estimates based on buzzwords instead of asking their development team for input. How could a manager with no development experience possibly make an estimate without knowing what has to be done?
IMO, there needs to be a layer between management and the development team or management needs a degree in computer science. If a manager doesn't understand what it means to develop software, how can they expect to support their team and manage the project?
In the end, management thinks their development team is incompentant because the project didn't go smoothly and thd developers get burned out because they aren't allowed to use their skills and are forced to brute force a piece of shit product.
Has anyone successfully overcome these obstacles with management? What is the course of action to make management realize what they are doing wrong?
It seems to me you were contacting a recruiter in the first place. Are you not happy with your current employement or is the reason for seeking a new job simply for more cash? If the answer truly is just money, then you should have asked your employer for a raise in the first place. Now that you've pursued other opportunities and threw it back in your employers face, you probably lost a little bit of respect at your current job. Sure, they can't afford to lose you right now so they need to counter the offer. Are you in the middle of the project right now? That would answer why you are a valuable asset at this time. Once they are done with that, you will be the first to go. If you aren't happy with your current employer, then you can't just demand money from them and say that is the only reason for staying. Further, the money is not the only thing keeping you there so why not just go to the next job anyway? If I was your current employer, I would view this as unprofessional and inconsiderate. If you really wanted to stay with your current employer, you should have been up front with them in the first place instead of going over their head. Everyone has the right to seek a better opportunity; however, using it to leverage your current position is simply wrong. Rule of thumb. Always be up front and honest but only tell the people who need to know.
How does a 1/2 thick camera really fit in the credit card slot in your wallet?
Mace or pepper spray.
What makes you think lifeforms from different worlds are going to be anything like ourselves? We are a carbon-based lifeform, we need oxygen, gravity, water, etc. Why can't the next lifeform we discover survive in a vacuum. Maybe they are just that advanced they can travel this far and survive in this type of atmosphere. Or maybe, they created some kind of device that allows them to survive in our atmosphere (i.e. a space suit)? Yeah, life could never exist there. Just like Earth must be flat. I think one thing our generation has adapted since the previous is the feeling that anything is possible. Why shouldn't we at least entertain the thought?
Oh, they probably won't go but I'm sure they'll find a way to make millions on a movie or a reality TV show about it. Come to think of it, they already have....