ulimately, the consumer pays the cost - if it is a tax or the manufacturers pay it will be passed on to the consumer as a higher price for the item.
Companies tend to like a tax - they can charge it and blame it on the politicians since it appears seperate from the price of the item;
Politicians tend to prefer a hidden cost so they bear no fallout from the added burden.
What is more effective - well, I tend to think if manufacturers have to pay for disposal and take back equipment they will try to find a way to make it profitable - since they could keep any excess fees collected; governments tend not to be as cost driven and are more likely to spend the money elsewhere and then go back to consumers for more money. Then again, I tend to view free market solutions as more efficient.
Manufacturers can also pressure suppliers to build recyclable components as well; the German requirement for companies to take cradle to grave responsibility for waste is driving research into how to make cars more recyclable, so it's not unreasonable to think similar things would happen with computers. Machines, could for example be built for upgradability - after a year you could pull a CPU / memory module and replace it with a new and faster component, keeping power supplies, drives, etc. While PC's would still become obsolete, you could lessen the waste stream by better design.
Another option is a biodegrable PC - or at least bidegradble components - such as someone has done with a cell phone prototype.
The goal, IMHO, should be to reuse as much as possible to keep from filling dumps with old PC's.
I had the chance to use one of these things about five years ago. As part of a class, one thing we did was to take light intensity and temperature data. The really nice thing about the Newton was that, well before any of the Palm devices, you were able to take data, and then manipulate it right on the spot.
AFAIK, the Newton got discontinued because there was no demand for it. They weren't selling well, so Apple decided that it wouldn't make them anymore. Had it come around several years later, just as Palms, etc, were exploding into the market, the current tablet PC market would be a lot different.
I have an MP100, and it was ahead of it's time. It did a lot of things well (except HWR), and with a better processor HWR would've come along (and IAR Graffiti was available for the Newt).
Later I had a 2K with keyboard and modem for a review I was writing. It truly was a very usuable laptop replacement, I carried it to class in grad school. Unfortunately, the price killed it - I also had a PalmPilot, as an organizer it's size and lower cost made it a far better machine than the Newton. For whatever reason, Apple decided not to develop the Newt to it's true potential while Palm created a new market.
Well, we didn't miss the cheering citizen's lining the streets welcoming the German soldiers and Hitler, or that the Austrian National Socialist Party and their leader Arthur Seyss-Inquart (6.25)were more than willing to do the German's bidding.
Were all Austrians in favor of the anschluss - probably not, but to put Austria in the same camp as the other countries Hitler "annexed" is a bit of a stretch - despite a US postal issue of the 50's. It did, however become convenient after the war to help Austria avoid Germany's fate and let Fiegl and other create a unified Austria.
The fact remains that it was a bulletin board, not a file cabinet either locked or unlocked. And never mind that the hallway on the 3rd floor of Building 4 doesn't get much foot traffic, compared to the Infinite Corridor -- it's still a bulletin board if you go there to look.
You left out one detail in the analogy - there was a door to the hallway with a lock, someone determined how to open that lock using infromation from other locks to which they have been given the combo, and went and opend that lock to try to get infromation before they had been given the combo to that lock.
That it was the same as other locks may not be good security practices, but it was still a lock; just as the URL they modified was the weak security the schools used to maintain information secure until they wanted it made public.
But even to use your hallway anolgy - the school said - "here are hallways we have granted you access to; others exist and we will let you go into them at these future dates." If you go wandering on your own, don't be surprised if someone gets upset - just because you can get access to soemthing doesn't mean you have the absolute right to do so; especially in this case where teh schools made it clear when the information was to become available.
What I find humorous is the people who tried to find out their status early generally got blamk screens - so they screwed themselves for nothing.
Famous computer visionary Nicholas Negroponte of the MIT Media Lab is developing and promoting a $100 laptop with proposed specifications...
Whenever I see those words, coupled with a low cost, I'm reminded of the visionaries thatactually shipped a successful product with the planned specs at the qouted price point.
For example, with that sort of money on hand, I recommend they buy Intel (or AMD) and Seagate, then almost give the CPUs/disks away - make the whole box a commodity.
And what sort of return on investment am I, the shareholder, going to make on this? You're going to make back as much on the software as you would have been making on the hardware and the software? Explain.
Apple.
I doubt MS would do that, because they've studiously avoided the CPU hardware business since they stopped selling CP/M hardware. My guess it's too capital intensive and requires significant R&D to stay on top and therefore unlike software has lower margins. MS has never given any indication that they want to go into manufacturing - even the hardware they do sell have long lifespans and don't require innovation to stay competitive (mice and keyboards).
MS has let the hardware companies and manufacturers struggle with tight margins / rapid change while they sit back and sell OS's to everyone.
In addition, hardware prices have fallen dramatically and it hasn't hurt MS that much - 15 years ago a 486DX box and monitor was nearly $2k US - now you can get a machine for $429 with LCD monitor, printer, ethernet, modem and an MS OS. My guess is solid state technology will result in more features at current price points - i.e. large capacity solid state hd's that you can move from camera to PC and PC functions included to peripherals that don't have them today - imagine a digital camera that, with the addition of a mouse / keyboard / monitor lets you edited your pictures and the send them to a printer. MS could still be the OS, if only because they have the money and focus to do so. Linux, for all its strengths, lacks a single focus that drives innovation and creates a single, integrated system - it tends to follow MS' lead to stay a "me too" product. I'm not saying that's bad or the model is flawed, just that MS single minded purpose gives it some strengths that need to be considered when going up against it. Now, a hardware manufacturer, could, ala Apple, create an integrated Linux / hardware product that works out of the box and is innovative, but they would have to do it in a way that prevents others from then copying it and undercutting their prices - a free rider problem. Given the nature of the GPL, that may be hard to do.
Finally, don't under estimate MS' political clout. Regulations and treaties exist for a reason, and that is to maintain the status quo and support entrenched companies.
No it doesn't, you can't take one conclusion and apply it to a situation with different premises. That would be irrational. The premise for why accessing a website is OK is because web sites exist for transmitting information to someone and the technology itself has the means to deny permission to individuals or groups. Therefore, if you can acess it, you can assume you are intended to.
Email OTOH, has no such mechanism, therefore, sending email to an address, unsolicited can be considered tresspass.
Sure email does - I can bounce any mail from a trusted sender, employ challege response, use a spam filter / blacklists etc - most people simply prefer not tu use the technolgy available to deny access to email. Email also eists to transfer information. Therefore, based on your assertion for why accessing the web pages was acceptable, if some can send you email, the sender can ssume you intended them to and it's ok to send whatever you want. Sure, blocking sneders makes admining email harder, but so does putting up firewalls and adding password access to other data. If you take the abscence of using available tech to deny access to services accessible via the internet, then you if you say what they did was acceptable so is spam.
My reasoning is simply that Stanford did not provide them the URL and told them when they would get a decision - they chose to take another URL, redo it and attempt to access information Stanford clearly did not yet want released.
Had it simply been a button "Click here for decison" and Stanford put up the reults and they clicked the button, then I'd say they did nothing unethical. But that's not what happened.
I accept the general rules of netiquette, which includes the assumption that information posted in a manner that can be read by someone by simply going to a URL is intended to be read by that someone. This doesn't let you crack passwords or break apps but these guys followed a link and were presented with a page. There is no sane reason what-so-ever to assume they shouldn't view it, because if someone felt that they shouldn't, they could have easily changed the file permisions to deny them the ability to do so.
Secondly, I assert that for something to be wrong there has to be a rational reason; to do otherwise is to invite insanity. As far as I currently know, there is no conceivable, rational basis for such a claim reguarding this situation.
Your read of netiquette would be ok but for one fundemental flaw - you ignore the original poster of teh URL posted instructions on how to modify it so as to gain access to pages not yet released. That's what makes it different from simply going to a public link. They attempted to access information they new Stanford et al did not want them to hev yet, and they paid a price for that.
And while Stanford does not have to provide a rational reason, it's quite possible that decisons change at the last minute and they do not want soemone to get the wrong one before they finalize the acceptances.
And Stanford didn't leave(ing) it written down and lying around were I might find it, the applicants went looking behind clsoed but unlocked doors.
Your view means spam is ok because you make your email account accessable to the web, all I have to do is fiqure out an address.
This is a corporate mentality: If it's there in plain site you should ignore it unless you have permission. That is a compleately unjustified attitude. Publicly available information is by it's nature public, and information available to someone logged in on a server is by it's nature theirs to see.
The information was not public nor in plain sight - you had to modify a URL in order to reach it; it wasn't something you could reach via a click here link - which is what I would consider to be public or in plain sight.
How is what they did different from someone accessing info on your machine if you fail to adequately protect it?
As a side note, they'd be in viloation of Stanford's and reason enough not to admit someone who seems willingto violate it even before admission, and soemthing Stanford probably includes for signature on an application:
The "Fundamental Standard" Code of Conduct: The Fundamental Standard has set the standard of conduct for students at Stanford since 1896. It states: Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens. Failure to do this will be sufficient cause for removal from the University. Over the years, the Fundamental Standard has been applied to a great variety of situations. Actions that have been found to be in violation of it include:
Misuse of University computer equipment or e-mail
There is no standard penalty which applies to violations of the Fundamental Standard. Infractions have led to penalties ranging from formal warning and community service to expulsion. In each case, the nature and seriousness of the offense, the motivation underlying the offense and precedent in similar cases are considered.
what happens when it's a big contract and they decide to "see if we won?"
Yeah, I think you want to see if you won a contract.
"x is really going to buy Y?"
And yes, you should check to see if x is going to buy y.
I think you were trying to make a point but left out a few details.
Getting information is an important part of business. While I will agree there are morals invovled, and certain lines that should not be crossed, I dont see any of those in your arguments.
What I did not explicity state was would they consider it ok to access a customer or comepitor's computer without permission to get that information; if they knew how to get the info.
I'd put it under the "do unto others..." category.
So tell me, do you believe all ethical or moral systems allow you to access any information, anywhere, for any reason, simply because you can, even if the person who creates that information clearly did not want it accessed?
"There's another alternative - buy a commercial package that does what you need - and given MS' profits for teh last qtr I'd say a lot of people are chosing that alternative."
Then why don't you just go ahead and buy it instead of complaining about my free work? That is the whole point! Instead of putting money where your mouth is, you people keep complaining about volunteer work.
I do buy it, and I'm not complaining about your work. I take issue with the OSS evangelists that want people / organizations to use OSS and then get upset when the same people say that they won't use it because it doesn't meet their needs. I don't expect a programmer to modify their work because I want them too, but there are OSS advocates who seem to believe it should be used simply because it is free and readily modifiable. Those are the ones that need to buy a clue (or create a GPL's version) if they really want to revolutionalize the way software is created and distributed.
You obviously don't care to be part of that effort, that's fine; I respect that.
"since most people neither care nor consider themselves lucky that someone bothered to develop OSS software - they just want stuff that works."
Good for them, but those people are not the problem. The people who keep complaining about OSS instead of buying whatever commercial software they need, are the problem.
If I want everybody to use my software, then I'd make it userfriendly. But if I write a piece of software for fun for free, then what gives you the right to keep complaining about it all day all night?
Yes, there are people who complain the software XYZ hasn't implemented some feature and go on to demand the developer do so - ignoring those idiots is an unfortunate by product of making software freely available.
OTOH, if someone says you should adopted OSS for you're own use, pointing out the reasons it won't work for you is perfectly legitimate - you're not expecting them to fix those problems unless they want you to adopt the software.
> and a bunch of others follow their directions - not much original thought or out of the box thinking there.
True, but you claim this behavior is unethical; I don't see why. Please explain.
The universities provided them with a timeline for the process, told them when they'd be notified, and did not provide them with a URL to access their information before that date. Instead of waiting, some people decided to try an end run around the system. In this case, I think it was pretty clear that the school didn't want that info publicly available prior to its official release; that coupled with either an explicit or implicit agreement to follow the school's rules (which would include notification timelines) makes what they did unethical.
Is it a major breach of ethics? No, what they did was minor compared to other things people will do to get into B-school. Still, it was enough to give pause and ask "what else might they do if given the opportunity?" and the schools chose not to take the risk.
> More like a bunch of drones who read from a script when you call their companies tech support line.
Actually I'd say it's more like a group of engineers who doesn't want to wait to have a computer get moved and instead just moves it themselves so they can get on with their jobs. The reaction from the Universities would be the beuracracy firing them for violating the rules. Everyone knows that the engineers should sit on their butts and let a grunt spend two weeks processing and moving the computer instead of wasting 30 whole minutes moving it themselves. (Yes this has actually happened...)
Having dealt with a fair amount of maddening bureaucracies, I'm not surprised. I do think it's different - in your example, some is trying to do what they feel is right and best for the organization; the problem there is the system not necessarily the individuals and management should be smart enough to realize it. (although having had to find the SOB that put a ground on my system because they plugged in an unauthorized device, I admit I took great satisfaction physically separating the electric cord from the device)
It's more like the same engineers rifling the boss' file cabinet to see if the decision had been made to move it. I happen to think if you should get permission before accessing things to which you obviously haven't been granted access.
You know, just because someone expects someone else to abide by their decision, doesn't in any way oblige that other one to actually do so.
You seem to believe that the mere act of making something accessible via the internet is sufficient to grant anyone access to that information if they can figure out how to get to it.
By you're reasoning, if someone knows how to remotely access files on your computer, it is not unethical for them to do so since you have made them available via the internet.
That's like saying because you're connected to the internet, and your security isn't 100%, it's OK to take a look at what's on your machine.
No. It's like saying that because I'm connected to the Internet and running a publicly available web server, it's OK to take a look at what's available through that web server. Replace the web server with a P2P Lapp, news server or whatever, and the point still stands.
But if you go out of your way (run a web server and post the document there) to make it possible for me, it is reasonable to expect that you meant it for my use.
Ok, since a mail server connects to the internet and someone went out of their way to make it available for use, it's ok to spam it?
After all, the server is readily accessible, many email address re public, and it's possible to guess others via a brute force mass mailing (after all, the original URL required a guess at what to replace to make the individuals info accessible).
After all, you also point out:
You know, just because someone expects someone else to abide by their decision, doesn't in any way oblige that other one to actually do so.
So just because you may not want spam but want email doesn't mean a spammer should respect as long as your email server and address work.
The kind of person who thinks out of the box and does rock the boat is the type of person you want running or working at your company (but usually only smaller companies hire them...). I know I wouldn't care one way or the other if I were hiring them at my company. I don't see anything unethical about it (I can't identify a victim), but following some directions is certainly not impressive enough to warrent hiring on the spot.
Let's see - one person discovers how to get to a page, and a bunch of others folow their directions - not much original thought or out of the box thinking there. More like a bunch of drones who read from a script when you call their companies tech support line.
Most of us don't care if you, or anyone else, uses the stuff we write. Your needs weren't considered in the first place; the code was written because we needed it.
If you use the result, great; maybe you'll use it to solve some problem that will bug us some day. But if you don't, it's not going to bother us in the slightest because unless we're being paid to care about what you want, there's no reason for us to do it -- and we don't.
Which is why people who are trying to gain broader acceptance of OSS face an uphill battle - they're competing with people who want to identify and meet the needs of their customers.
It's great that people code for their own enjoyment; I understand that because I've done it as well(but my code is no where near the level of people releasing OSS code, which is OK because it does what I need it to do) and that's why I take pictures.
What I was looking at was what is impeding wider use of OSS software and the challenges of getting it to be a viable alternative in the marketplace.
That's what I find interesting - watching how some are trying to turn OSS into a movement while being unable to exert any control over what the people coding are doing - it's a quite a social / economic phenomena.
I don't want to work with somebody that cuts corners and refuses to play by the rules - what happens when it's a big contract and they decide to "see if we won?" or decide to see if "x is really going to buy Y?"
Sorry, no, you have the wrong idea here. This would be akin to checking to see if the deposit from a contract had come through yet so that it could be used to do more work. This isn't like they were trying to obtain information they weren't entitled to know. It was them just seeing if they had been accepted or not. Most probably didn't realize they were doing anything wrong. Also knowing if this was wrong or not takes someone much more technically oriented than most business school applicants are going to be. They weren't trying to get into the CS or EE program after all. I don't expect managers to have a freaking clue about security unless they're over IT. Even then I don't really expect it, technical knowledge and management seem to be mutually exclusive things.
Checking a deposit means you look at your account, which you control, what they did would be more akin to walking into the other companies office and pulling the contract, or finding a way into their computer system to see if a payment had been authorized but not yet made.
My point is how they got the information was wrong - the schools said they'd let them know by a certain date, and they found a back door way to get the information.
If they didn't know what they were doing was unethical, then they have a more fundemental problem of not being smart enough to know when they may be crossing the line.
They showed they lack good judgment and a sense of ethics.
Lack of good judgement maybe; but how is it unethical to try to get information concerning yourself ? Or are you trying to imply that Stanford is some sort of ethical authority ?
What matters is how they got the information - they could have calle dthe school and asked for, for example.
I don't want to work with somebody that cuts corners and refuses to play by the rules - what happens when it's a big contract and they decide to "see if we won?" or decide to see if "x is really going to buy Y?"
I'd imagine that they would become successfull and capable businessmen. After all, the ability to get good information is the cornerstone of making good decisions.
Again, there is a right way and a wrong way to get information - people don't expect nor allow others to walk into their office and read whatever they want, ven if teh door is unlocked.
If I can't trust you to do what is right, I don't want to work with you.
Are you sure you aren't confusing moral right with your own expectations of human behiviour ? Because, to the best of my knowledge, there's absolutely nothing unethical in reading information concerning myself, even if someone else is trying to keep it a secret.
Again, it depends on how you get the information - if someone tells me that you have a file on me in your house, I don't have the right to break in and read it.
That's assuming that what they did was wrong. I fail to see how it was-the information was there, Stanford had it posted on public pages (granted, the URLs werent listed, but the fact that they were there at all without any encryption or password required shows that they were available to anyone).
That's like saying beacuse you're connected to the internet, and your security isn't 100%, it's OK to take a look at what's on your machine.
The schools told the applicants when they would be informed of their decision, and expected them to abide by the the timeline; applying for admission, IMHO, was agreeing to follow the school's timeline and so they should have realized what they did was unethical
What they did is morally no different than walking through an unlocked door to the admission office, walking unchallenged to a file cabinet and pulling and reading your app. Just because you can do it doesn't make it right.
They showed they lack good judgment and a sense of ethics.
I don't want to work with somebody that cuts corners and refuses to play by the rules - what happens when it's a big contract and they decide to "see if we won?" or decide to see if "x is really going to buy Y?"
If I can't trust you to do what is right, I don't want to work with you.
Yes, waiting for B-school admission is a high stress period - but stressful situations is when people's character shows. I can understand HBS and Stanford's stance - they, and their alumni, don't want to be associated with the type of people that will create another Enron.
Overall, they were probably to dumb to get in - from what I saw, the "hack" was a no-brainier - append some code to the end of the URL to hit a page rather than some smart piece of coding; more importantly - didn't they think that there would be alums of schools on the boards that would see th "hack" and let their schools now? And that these alums would be know who to talk to so that the school could investigate and take whatever action is deemed appropriate? If one of the "hackers" had been smart, they'd email the Dean of Admissions and ask - "Someone posted this as a way to check admissions status - is it OK if I use it?"
Most of the time the point is just "fun". We don't do this to serve you, we do it for our own enjoyment. However, sometimes the point is "to get stuff done". In which case we do just enough to the job done and then we put up what we've got so others don't have to start from scratch.
That's great, and if you're doing it for fun, more power to you. It's the OSS folks that complain about companies / governments/ individuals not adopting OSs that miss the point - people do care about how well the can get stuff done, and poor UI's or msiisng features that intefere with that makes them look elswhere.
If you need more than my bare minimum then I expect you to code what you need, not come whining back to me that I didn't do what you need. The alternative is to start from scratch, so I think you should consider yourself lucky that I went to the bother of putting my stuff out there (and it is a bother).
There's another alternative - buy a commercial package that does what you need - and given MS' profits for teh last qtr I'd say a lot of people are chosing that alternative. That's the key - if OSS deveopers want people to use their software, then it has to be a viable alternative; simply being free is not enough if it doesn't do what is needed.
Just as you can't be bothered to add features; users can't be bothered to improve OSS when other alternatives exist; they decide their time and money are better spent elsewhere.
Which is why it is good that you do OSS development for fun, since most people neither care nor consider themselves lucky that someone bothered to develop OSS software - they just want stuff that works.
Ultimately, if you can't take open source and tailor it to your own needs then you need to either put up or shut up. Either put up code or cash to get it to do what you want or shut up and use what you've been given.
They do - look at MS revenues or Apple's compared to donations for OSS projects, or even Redhat's revenue.
They have broadcasted videos without those consent forms and those videos have won. One I remember from the early days of the show (before it became all babies and groin injuries and the videos were actually funny) was of an old woman sitting on a bench and a tame squirrel coming up and and climbing all over her and "kissing" her. The video won and the father of the family specifically mentioned that they had no idea who the woman was and they would like to locate her and give her some of the prize money.
Well, it most likely depends on the jurisdiction. Since AFHV's probably does a lot of work in CA USA, their laws would be of interest. The CA code states: 3344. (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.
So if AFHV is selling copies of that video the person may have a reason to sue and might win. IANAL, so that is just speculation on my part, based on my lay reading of CA Code.
Bottom line - if you don't have a signed release you are may not have the right to use the photo commercially.
Does not matter. The rights belong to the photographer.
Only the ownership of the video or photo, which doesn't mean they have the right to publish it.
That is why people who film complete strangers and win on shows like America's Funniest Home Videos cannot be sued for the prize money by those strangers. It has been tried probably, but I have been unable to find any case where the videographer has not prevailed.
Maybe becasue of this little requirement for submissions to AFHV:
Entrants whose clips are chosen for inclusion in a program must sign a Release and Indemnity in the form presented attesting, among other things, to the fact that they are the rightful owners of the submitted clips and that the clip may be submitted and broadcast without obtaining permission from or making any payment to any third party. All persons appearing in the clips must sign consent forms and/or releases (which shall grant to Producer the right to use such person's name, voice and likeness) before the submission can be eligible for prize awards. Parent or guardian must sign the consent/release form for minors. Failure to provide requested releases and/or consents will result in disqualification of entrant. These release and/or consent forms will be provided by the Producer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the submission of a videotape constitutes the submitter's permission to use the videotape (and the name, voice and likeness of the submitter) in and in connection with the program and all exploitations thereof, including, without limitation, advertising and promotion and, further, constitutes the submitter's representation that all necessary consents and permissions therefor have been obtained.
Slashdot Mirror
ulimately, the consumer pays the cost - if it is a tax or the manufacturers pay it will be passed on to the consumer as a higher price for the item.
Companies tend to like a tax - they can charge it and blame it on the politicians since it appears seperate from the price of the item;
Politicians tend to prefer a hidden cost so they bear no fallout from the added burden.
What is more effective - well, I tend to think if manufacturers have to pay for disposal and take back equipment they will try to find a way to make it profitable - since they could keep any excess fees collected; governments tend not to be as cost driven and are more likely to spend the money elsewhere and then go back to consumers for more money. Then again, I tend to view free market solutions as more efficient.
Manufacturers can also pressure suppliers to build recyclable components as well; the German requirement for companies to take cradle to grave responsibility for waste is driving research into how to make cars more recyclable, so it's not unreasonable to think similar things would happen with computers. Machines, could for example be built for upgradability - after a year you could pull a CPU / memory module and replace it with a new and faster component, keeping power supplies, drives, etc. While PC's would still become obsolete, you could lessen the waste stream by better design.
Another option is a biodegrable PC - or at least bidegradble components - such as someone has done with a cell phone prototype.
The goal, IMHO, should be to reuse as much as possible to keep from filling dumps with old PC's.
I had the chance to use one of these things about five years ago. As part of a class, one thing we did was to take light intensity and temperature data. The really nice thing about the Newton was that, well before any of the Palm devices, you were able to take data, and then manipulate it right on the spot.
AFAIK, the Newton got discontinued because there was no demand for it. They weren't selling well, so Apple decided that it wouldn't make them anymore. Had it come around several years later, just as Palms, etc, were exploding into the market, the current tablet PC market would be a lot different.
I have an MP100, and it was ahead of it's time. It did a lot of things well (except HWR), and with a better processor HWR would've come along (and IAR Graffiti was available for the Newt).
Later I had a 2K with keyboard and modem for a review I was writing. It truly was a very usuable laptop replacement, I carried it to class in grad school. Unfortunately, the price killed it - I also had a PalmPilot, as an organizer it's size and lower cost made it a far better machine than the Newton. For whatever reason, Apple decided not to develop the Newt to it's true potential while Palm created a new market.
Only 2/3? I would've guessed that number would be considerably higher, like 4/6 or 8/12 or something...
Heh - I'd guess 13/12 or so...
Just goes to show, as one writer put it, you can never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public
In case you missed it, Austria was annexed by Germany - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschlu%DF
Well, we didn't miss the cheering citizen's lining the streets welcoming the German soldiers and Hitler, or that the Austrian National Socialist Party and their leader Arthur Seyss-Inquart (6.25)were more than willing to do the German's bidding.
Were all Austrians in favor of the anschluss - probably not, but to put Austria in the same camp as the other countries Hitler "annexed" is a bit of a stretch - despite a US postal issue of the 50's. It did, however become convenient after the war to help Austria avoid Germany's fate and let Fiegl and other create a unified Austria.
The fact remains that it was a bulletin board, not a file cabinet either locked or unlocked. And never mind that the hallway on the 3rd floor of Building 4 doesn't get much foot traffic, compared to the Infinite Corridor -- it's still a bulletin board if you go there to look.
You left out one detail in the analogy - there was a door to the hallway with a lock, someone determined how to open that lock using infromation from other locks to which they have been given the combo, and went and opend that lock to try to get infromation before they had been given the combo to that lock.
That it was the same as other locks may not be good security practices, but it was still a lock; just as the URL they modified was the weak security the schools used to maintain information secure until they wanted it made public.
But even to use your hallway anolgy - the school said - "here are hallways we have granted you access to; others exist and we will let you go into them at these future dates." If you go wandering on your own, don't be surprised if someone gets upset - just because you can get access to soemthing doesn't mean you have the absolute right to do so; especially in this case where teh schools made it clear when the information was to become available.
What I find humorous is the people who tried to find out their status early generally got blamk screens - so they screwed themselves for nothing.
Famous computer visionary Nicholas Negroponte of the MIT Media Lab is developing and promoting a $100 laptop with proposed specifications...
Whenever I see those words, coupled with a low cost, I'm reminded of the visionaries thatactually shipped a successful product with the planned specs at the qouted price point.
For example, with that sort of money on hand, I recommend they buy Intel (or AMD) and Seagate, then almost give the CPUs/disks away - make the whole box a commodity.
And what sort of return on investment am I, the shareholder, going to make on this? You're going to make back as much on the software as you would have been making on the hardware and the software? Explain.
Apple.
I doubt MS would do that, because they've studiously avoided the CPU hardware business since they stopped selling CP/M hardware. My guess it's too capital intensive and requires significant R&D to stay on top and therefore unlike software has lower margins. MS has never given any indication that they want to go into manufacturing - even the hardware they do sell have long lifespans and don't require innovation to stay competitive (mice and keyboards).
MS has let the hardware companies and manufacturers struggle with tight margins / rapid change while they sit back and sell OS's to everyone.
In addition, hardware prices have fallen dramatically and it hasn't hurt MS that much - 15 years ago a 486DX box and monitor was nearly $2k US - now you can get a machine for $429 with LCD monitor, printer, ethernet, modem and an MS OS. My guess is solid state technology will result in more features at current price points - i.e. large capacity solid state hd's that you can move from camera to PC and PC functions included to peripherals that don't have them today - imagine a digital camera that, with the addition of a mouse / keyboard / monitor lets you edited your pictures and the send them to a printer. MS could still be the OS, if only because they have the money and focus to do so. Linux, for all its strengths, lacks a single focus that drives innovation and creates a single, integrated system - it tends to follow MS' lead to stay a "me too" product. I'm not saying that's bad or the model is flawed, just that MS single minded purpose gives it some strengths that need to be considered when going up against it. Now, a hardware manufacturer, could, ala Apple, create an integrated Linux / hardware product that works out of the box and is innovative, but they would have to do it in a way that prevents others from then copying it and undercutting their prices - a free rider problem. Given the nature of the GPL, that may be hard to do.
Finally, don't under estimate MS' political clout. Regulations and treaties exist for a reason, and that is to maintain the status quo and support entrenched companies.
No it doesn't, you can't take one conclusion and apply it to a situation with different premises. That would be irrational. The premise for why accessing a website is OK is because web sites exist for transmitting information to someone and the technology itself has the means to deny permission to individuals or groups. Therefore, if you can acess it, you can assume you are intended to.
Email OTOH, has no such mechanism, therefore, sending email to an address, unsolicited can be considered tresspass.
Sure email does - I can bounce any mail from a trusted sender, employ challege response, use a spam filter / blacklists etc - most people simply prefer not tu use the technolgy available to deny access to email. Email also eists to transfer information. Therefore, based on your assertion for why accessing the web pages was acceptable, if some can send you email, the sender can ssume you intended them to and it's ok to send whatever you want. Sure, blocking sneders makes admining email harder, but so does putting up firewalls and adding password access to other data. If you take the abscence of using available tech to deny access to services accessible via the internet, then you if you say what they did was acceptable so is spam.
My reasoning is simply that Stanford did not provide them the URL and told them when they would get a decision - they chose to take another URL, redo it and attempt to access information Stanford clearly did not yet want released.
Had it simply been a button "Click here for decison" and Stanford put up the reults and they clicked the button, then I'd say they did nothing unethical. But that's not what happened.
I accept the general rules of netiquette, which includes the assumption that information posted in a manner that can be read by someone by simply going to a URL is intended to be read by that someone. This doesn't let you crack passwords or break apps but these guys followed a link and were presented with a page. There is no sane reason what-so-ever to assume they shouldn't view it, because if someone felt that they shouldn't, they could have easily changed the file permisions to deny them the ability to do so.
Secondly, I assert that for something to be wrong there has to be a rational reason; to do otherwise is to invite insanity. As far as I currently know, there is no conceivable, rational basis for such a claim reguarding this situation.
Your read of netiquette would be ok but for one fundemental flaw - you ignore the original poster of teh URL posted instructions on how to modify it so as to gain access to pages not yet released. That's what makes it different from simply going to a public link. They attempted to access information they new Stanford et al did not want them to hev yet, and they paid a price for that.
And while Stanford does not have to provide a rational reason, it's quite possible that decisons change at the last minute and they do not want soemone to get the wrong one before they finalize the acceptances.
And Stanford didn't leave(ing) it written down and lying around were I might find it, the applicants went looking behind clsoed but unlocked doors.
Your view means spam is ok because you make your email account accessable to the web, all I have to do is fiqure out an address.
This is a corporate mentality: If it's there in plain site you should ignore it unless you have permission. That is a compleately unjustified attitude. Publicly available information is by it's nature public, and information available to someone logged in on a server is by it's nature theirs to see.
The information was not public nor in plain sight - you had to modify a URL in order to reach it; it wasn't something you could reach via a click here link - which is what I would consider to be public or in plain sight.
How is what they did different from someone accessing info on your machine if you fail to adequately protect it?
As a side note, they'd be in viloation of Stanford's and reason enough not to admit someone who seems willingto violate it even before admission, and soemthing Stanford probably includes for signature on an application:
The "Fundamental Standard" Code of Conduct:
The Fundamental Standard has set the standard of conduct for students at Stanford since 1896. It states: Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens. Failure to do this will be sufficient cause for removal from the University. Over the years, the Fundamental Standard has been applied to a great variety of situations. Actions that have been found to be in violation of it include:
Misuse of University computer equipment or e-mail
There is no standard penalty which applies to violations of the Fundamental Standard. Infractions have led to penalties ranging from formal warning and community service to expulsion. In each case, the nature and seriousness of the offense, the motivation underlying the offense and precedent in similar cases are considered.
Above from Stanford's web site.
what happens when it's a big contract and they decide to "see if we won?"
Yeah, I think you want to see if you won a contract.
"x is really going to buy Y?"
And yes, you should check to see if x is going to buy y.
I think you were trying to make a point but left out a few details.
Getting information is an important part of business. While I will agree there are morals invovled, and certain lines that should not be crossed, I dont see any of those in your arguments.
What I did not explicity state was would they consider it ok to access a customer or comepitor's computer without permission to get that information; if they knew how to get the info.
I'd put it under the "do unto others..." category.
So tell me, do you believe all ethical or moral systems allow you to access any information, anywhere, for any reason, simply because you can, even if the person who creates that information clearly did not want it accessed?
"There's another alternative - buy a commercial package that does what you need - and given MS' profits for teh last qtr I'd say a lot of people are chosing that alternative."
Then why don't you just go ahead and buy it instead of complaining about my free work? That is the whole point! Instead of putting money where your mouth is, you people keep complaining about volunteer work.
I do buy it, and I'm not complaining about your work. I take issue with the OSS evangelists that want people / organizations to use OSS and then get upset when the same people say that they won't use it because it doesn't meet their needs. I don't expect a programmer to modify their work because I want them too, but there are OSS advocates who seem to believe it should be used simply because it is free and readily modifiable. Those are the ones that need to buy a clue (or create a GPL's version) if they really want to revolutionalize the way software is created and distributed.
You obviously don't care to be part of that effort, that's fine; I respect that.
"since most people neither care nor consider themselves lucky that someone bothered to develop OSS software - they just want stuff that works."
Good for them, but those people are not the problem. The people who keep complaining about OSS instead of buying whatever commercial software they need, are the problem.
If I want everybody to use my software, then I'd make it userfriendly. But if I write a piece of software for fun for free, then what gives you the right to keep complaining about it all day all night?
Yes, there are people who complain the software XYZ hasn't implemented some feature and go on to demand the developer do so - ignoring those idiots is an unfortunate by product of making software freely available.
OTOH, if someone says you should adopted OSS for you're own use, pointing out the reasons it won't work for you is perfectly legitimate - you're not expecting them to fix those problems unless they want you to adopt the software.
> and a bunch of others follow their directions - not much original thought or out of the box thinking there.
True, but you claim this behavior is unethical; I don't see why. Please explain.
The universities provided them with a timeline for the process, told them when they'd be notified, and did not provide them with a URL to access their information before that date. Instead of waiting, some people decided to try an end run around the system. In this case, I think it was pretty clear that the school didn't want that info publicly available prior to its official release; that coupled with either an explicit or implicit agreement to follow the school's rules (which would include notification timelines) makes what they did unethical.
Is it a major breach of ethics? No, what they did was minor compared to other things people will do to get into B-school. Still, it was enough to give pause and ask "what else might they do if given the opportunity?" and the schools chose not to take the risk.
> More like a bunch of drones who read from a script when you call their companies tech support line.
Actually I'd say it's more like a group of engineers who doesn't want to wait to have a computer get moved and instead just moves it themselves so they can get on with their jobs. The reaction from the Universities would be the beuracracy firing them for violating the rules. Everyone knows that the engineers should sit on their butts and let a grunt spend two weeks processing and moving the computer instead of wasting 30 whole minutes moving it themselves. (Yes this has actually happened...)
Having dealt with a fair amount of maddening bureaucracies, I'm not surprised. I do think it's different - in your example, some is trying to do what they feel is right and best for the organization; the problem there is the system not necessarily the individuals and management should be smart enough to realize it. (although having had to find the SOB that put a ground on my system because they plugged in an unauthorized device, I admit I took great satisfaction physically separating the electric cord from the device)
It's more like the same engineers rifling the boss' file cabinet to see if the decision had been made to move it. I happen to think if you should get permission before accessing things to which you obviously haven't been granted access.
You know, just because someone expects someone else to abide by their decision, doesn't in any way oblige that other one to actually do so.
You seem to believe that the mere act of making something accessible via the internet is sufficient to grant anyone access to that information if they can figure out how to get to it.
By you're reasoning, if someone knows how to remotely access files on your computer, it is not unethical for them to do so since you have made them available via the internet.
That's like saying because you're connected to the internet, and your security isn't 100%, it's OK to take a look at what's on your machine.
No. It's like saying that because I'm connected to the Internet and running a publicly available web server, it's OK to take a look at what's available through that web server. Replace the web server with a P2P Lapp, news server or whatever, and the point still stands.
But if you go out of your way (run a web server and post the document there) to make it possible for me, it is reasonable to expect that you meant it for my use.
Ok, since a mail server connects to the internet and someone went out of their way to make it available for use, it's ok to spam it?
After all, the server is readily accessible, many email address re public, and it's possible to guess others via a brute force mass mailing (after all, the original URL required a guess at what to replace to make the individuals info accessible).
After all, you also point out:
You know, just because someone expects someone else to abide by their decision, doesn't in any way oblige that other one to actually do so.
So just because you may not want spam but want email doesn't mean a spammer should respect as long as your email server and address work.
The kind of person who thinks out of the box and does rock the boat is the type of person you want running or working at your company (but usually only smaller companies hire them...). I know I wouldn't care one way or the other if I were hiring them at my company. I don't see anything unethical about it (I can't identify a victim), but following some directions is certainly not impressive enough to warrent hiring on the spot.
Let's see - one person discovers how to get to a page, and a bunch of others folow their directions - not much original thought or out of the box thinking there. More like a bunch of drones who read from a script when you call their companies tech support line.
Most of us don't care if you, or anyone else, uses the stuff we write. Your needs weren't considered in the first place; the code was written because we needed it.
If you use the result, great; maybe you'll use it to solve some problem that will bug us some day. But if you don't, it's not going to bother us in the slightest because unless we're being paid to care about what you want, there's no reason for us to do it -- and we don't.
Which is why people who are trying to gain broader acceptance of OSS face an uphill battle - they're competing with people who want to identify and meet the needs of their customers.
It's great that people code for their own enjoyment; I understand that because I've done it as well(but my code is no where near the level of people releasing OSS code, which is OK because it does what I need it to do) and that's why I take pictures.
What I was looking at was what is impeding wider use of OSS software and the challenges of getting it to be a viable alternative in the marketplace.
That's what I find interesting - watching how some are trying to turn OSS into a movement while being unable to exert any control over what the people coding are doing - it's a quite a social / economic phenomena.
I don't want to work with somebody that cuts corners and refuses to play by the rules - what happens when it's a big contract and they decide to "see if we won?" or decide to see if "x is really going to buy Y?"
Sorry, no, you have the wrong idea here. This would be akin to checking to see if the deposit from a contract had come through yet so that it could be used to do more work. This isn't like they were trying to obtain information they weren't entitled to know. It was them just seeing if they had been accepted or not. Most probably didn't realize they were doing anything wrong. Also knowing if this was wrong or not takes someone much more technically oriented than most business school applicants are going to be. They weren't trying to get into the CS or EE program after all. I don't expect managers to have a freaking clue about security unless they're over IT. Even then I don't really expect it, technical knowledge and management seem to be mutually exclusive things.
Checking a deposit means you look at your account, which you control, what they did would be more akin to walking into the other companies office and pulling the contract, or finding a way into their computer system to see if a payment had been authorized but not yet made.
My point is how they got the information was wrong - the schools said they'd let them know by a certain date, and they found a back door way to get the information.
If they didn't know what they were doing was unethical, then they have a more fundemental problem of not being smart enough to know when they may be crossing the line.
They showed they lack good judgment and a sense of ethics.
Lack of good judgement maybe; but how is it unethical to try to get information concerning yourself ? Or are you trying to imply that Stanford is some sort of ethical authority ?
What matters is how they got the information - they could have calle dthe school and asked for, for example.
I don't want to work with somebody that cuts corners and refuses to play by the rules - what happens when it's a big contract and they decide to "see if we won?" or decide to see if "x is really going to buy Y?"
I'd imagine that they would become successfull and capable businessmen. After all, the ability to get good information is the cornerstone of making good decisions.
Again, there is a right way and a wrong way to get information - people don't expect nor allow others to walk into their office and read whatever they want, ven if teh door is unlocked.
If I can't trust you to do what is right, I don't want to work with you.
Are you sure you aren't confusing moral right with your own expectations of human behiviour ? Because, to the best of my knowledge, there's absolutely nothing unethical in reading information concerning myself, even if someone else is trying to keep it a secret.
Again, it depends on how you get the information - if someone tells me that you have a file on me in your house, I don't have the right to break in and read it.
That's assuming that what they did was wrong. I fail to see how it was-the information was there, Stanford had it posted on public pages (granted, the URLs werent listed, but the fact that they were there at all without any encryption or password required shows that they were available to anyone).
That's like saying beacuse you're connected to the internet, and your security isn't 100%, it's OK to take a look at what's on your machine.
The schools told the applicants when they would be informed of their decision, and expected them to abide by the the timeline; applying for admission, IMHO, was agreeing to follow the school's timeline and so they should have realized what they did was unethical
What they did is morally no different than walking through an unlocked door to the admission office, walking unchallenged to a file cabinet and pulling and reading your app. Just because you can do it doesn't make it right.
They showed they lack good judgment and a sense of ethics.
I don't want to work with somebody that cuts corners and refuses to play by the rules - what happens when it's a big contract and they decide to "see if we won?" or decide to see if "x is really going to buy Y?"
If I can't trust you to do what is right, I don't want to work with you.
Yes, waiting for B-school admission is a high stress period - but stressful situations is when people's character shows. I can understand HBS and Stanford's stance - they, and their alumni, don't want to be associated with the type of people that will create another Enron.
Overall, they were probably to dumb to get in - from what I saw, the "hack" was a no-brainier - append some code to the end of the URL to hit a page rather than some smart piece of coding; more importantly - didn't they think that there would be alums of schools on the boards that would see th "hack" and let their schools now? And that these alums would be know who to talk to so that the school could investigate and take whatever action is deemed appropriate? If one of the "hackers" had been smart, they'd email the Dean of Admissions and ask - "Someone posted this as a way to check admissions status - is it OK if I use it?"
Most of the time the point is just "fun". We don't do this to serve you, we do it for our own enjoyment. However, sometimes the point is "to get stuff done". In which case we do just enough to the job done and then we put up what we've got so others don't have to start from scratch.
That's great, and if you're doing it for fun, more power to you. It's the OSS folks that complain about companies / governments/ individuals not adopting OSs that miss the point - people do care about how well the can get stuff done, and poor UI's or msiisng features that intefere with that makes them look elswhere.
If you need more than my bare minimum then I expect you to code what you need, not come whining back to me that I didn't do what you need. The alternative is to start from scratch, so I think you should consider yourself lucky that I went to the bother of putting my stuff out there (and it is a bother).
There's another alternative - buy a commercial package that does what you need - and given MS' profits for teh last qtr I'd say a lot of people are chosing that alternative. That's the key - if OSS deveopers want people to use their software, then it has to be a viable alternative; simply being free is not enough if it doesn't do what is needed.
Just as you can't be bothered to add features; users can't be bothered to improve OSS when other alternatives exist; they decide their time and money are better spent elsewhere.
Which is why it is good that you do OSS development for fun, since most people neither care nor consider themselves lucky that someone bothered to develop OSS software - they just want stuff that works.
Ultimately, if you can't take open source and tailor it to your own needs then you need to either put up or shut up. Either put up code or cash to get it to do what you want or shut up and use what you've been given.
They do - look at MS revenues or Apple's compared to donations for OSS projects, or even Redhat's revenue.
They have broadcasted videos without those consent forms and those videos have won. One I remember from the early days of the show (before it became all babies and groin injuries and the videos were actually funny) was of an old woman sitting on a bench and a tame squirrel coming up and and climbing all over her and "kissing" her. The video won and the father of the family specifically mentioned that they had no idea who the woman was and they would like to locate her and give her some of the prize money.
Well, it most likely depends on the jurisdiction. Since AFHV's probably does a lot of work in CA USA, their laws would be of interest. The CA code states:
3344. (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice,
signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products,
merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or
soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services,
without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the
prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for
any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result
thereof.
So if AFHV is selling copies of that video the person may have a reason to sue and might win. IANAL, so that is just speculation on my part, based on my lay reading of CA Code.
Bottom line - if you don't have a signed release you are may not have the right to use the photo commercially.
Does not matter. The rights belong to the photographer.
Only the ownership of the video or photo, which doesn't mean they have the right to publish it.
That is why people who film complete strangers and win on shows like America's Funniest Home Videos cannot be sued for the prize money by those strangers. It has been tried probably, but I have been unable to find any case where the videographer has not prevailed.
Maybe becasue of this little requirement for submissions to AFHV:
Entrants whose clips are chosen for inclusion in a program must sign a Release and Indemnity in the form presented attesting, among other things, to the fact that they are the rightful owners of the submitted clips and that the clip may be submitted and broadcast without obtaining permission from or making any payment to any third party. All persons appearing in the clips must sign consent forms and/or releases (which shall grant to Producer the right to use such person's name, voice and likeness) before the submission can be eligible for prize awards. Parent or guardian must sign the consent/release form for minors. Failure to provide requested releases and/or consents will result in disqualification of entrant. These release and/or consent forms will be provided by the Producer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the submission of a videotape constitutes the submitter's permission to use the videotape (and the name, voice and likeness of the submitter) in and in connection with the program and all exploitations thereof, including, without limitation, advertising and promotion and, further, constitutes the submitter's representation that all necessary consents and permissions therefor have been obtained.