My comparison to shrink wrap licenses is probably out of line. The code of conduct is probably available on-line and/or included in the admissions packet. But, just like so many commercial agreements, who really reads all of those pages of legalese? And, does it even matter if burried in all of that legal stuff is some sort of Orwellian, no matter what you do you're doing something illegal?
Finally, remember that this is a sizeable institution vs. a lowly, poor student. Does the student have the time and finances to challenge the institution over some wording in the code of conduct that might be construed as being a commercial contract?
Probably not. As a guess you are required to agree to the code of conduct as condition of your admission.
Think of it as the moral equivalent of shrink-wrap licensing where you have to open the package to read the license and by opening the package you agree to the license.
I think the folks at Anonymous at are a level a tad higher than "script kiddie."
On the other hand, open season on script kiddies could be interesting. Hopefully, the local government would kick in a bounty to cover the cost of ammunition. Just do something like the old systems for exterminating other pests so you turn in a left ear to claim your bounty.
Disclaimers first. I am not an Israeli and I'm not Jewish. I have no "skin in the game". I just observe and comment.
That being said, I consider any action taken by Israel against anonymous to be appropriate in the current situation. Anonymous is a self-appointed legislatue, police, judge, jury and executioner also known as a vigilante. If they mess with the wrong people and get whacked because they did, they desrve it. Given the opportunity, I'd be more than happy to buy a beer (or other libation of choice) for whoever did the whacking.
Finally, I'm the proud oner of a book autographed by Paul Tibbets (Return of the Enola Gay). You would probably consider him to be a "war criminal."
Mossad is very good at what it does. As with the current action in Gaza, the idea to be "communicated" is that, if you attempt to hurt us, we will hurt you more than you can imagine. Usually, people get the message. Those who don't usually end up dead.
Mossad will probably convince them that it's not a good idea. Mossad is known for not "playing nice" when anything or anyone actually threatens Israel.
...Second, why does anyone care if there is a 'spike' in discussion with the 2012 doomsayers? You think there WOULDN'T be a spike in discussion around December 2012? And who cares if there is? The good news, is that by January, all the 2012 end of the world nonsense will be over (Even if they are right;) )...
I actually find the "2012 end of the world" hokum to be quite useful. It helps me identify the idiots. Somehow get the Mayan 2012 calendar end as the subject of conversation in a group and then note who buys into it. Do not ask these people anything in the way of meaningful questions. Stick to subjects like what they watched on television if you must talk to them although even that can be scary.
Cheers, Dave
Personally i find reality tv a much better argument for the world ending soon than the Myan calendar.
That's why I said:
"Stick to subjects like what they watched on television if you must talk to them although even that can be scary."
...Second, why does anyone care if there is a 'spike' in discussion with the 2012 doomsayers? You think there WOULDN'T be a spike in discussion around December 2012? And who cares if there is? The good news, is that by January, all the 2012 end of the world nonsense will be over (Even if they are right;) )...
I actually find the "2012 end of the world" hokum to be quite useful. It helps me identify the idiots. Somehow get the Mayan 2012 calendar end as the subject of conversation in a group and then note who buys into it. Do not ask these people anything in the way of meaningful questions. Stick to subjects like what they watched on television if you must talk to them although even that can be scary.
I kind of missed that since the OP mentioned Xen (which takes over the host). You're probably right that he didn't know enough about various virtual environments to ask the right question.
I used VMware workstation for a while about 10 years ago (long story). It was definitely accecptable (even back then). Not sure what VMware has to offer in the way of free trials for workstation other than their pre-canned VM images. That's the only gotcha with that route.
Yeah. But you have to pay for it. If the OP just wants to experiment with different environments, I'd suggest he go with what he can try for free. VMware ESXi is free as in beer but at least the means no out of pocket for just trying it. I used an old Dell PIII (1.6GHz) running Windows XP Home to run the management console. About the worst thing about ths arrangement was that I only had network access to the Dell box so I was running VNC on it to provide a remote desktop (1 level of indirection) and then ran the various VMs (2nd level of indirection). Let's just say that the cursor didn't keep up with the mouse; not even close.
VMware tends to be fussy about the hardware. I had a non-descript Athlon dual core that ran VMware just fine but lacked horsepower and wa maxed out on RAM at 4GB. I decided to buy a 6 core Athlon, new motherboard and 16 GB of RAM. VMware installed just fine but the clock drifted all over the place (several seconds per minute). Finally gave up on VMware and went Xen. Xen worked just fine but lacked all of the nice management tools and virtual networking stuff that VMware had. SIGH.
Also, it will only install if you have a supported network card in your target box. Check the hardware requirements.
Oh yeah, one other downside of VMware is the management console only runs on Windoze (at least when I was using it about a year or so ago). You will still need a separate, standalone Windows box
I worked for a defense contractor so we saw very little of "a" but lots of "b". The problem was that classifying everything made it that much harder to get anything done so there was always a push to read the classification guide as narrowly as possible from the trenches and a push from management to keep everything classified so no one made any mistakes and released something that they shouldn't. We became very adept at finding unclassified sources so we could keep the development unclassified and only inserting the classified numbers towards the end of the development (they didn't usually differ but we would point to say an article in "Aviation Week" that we said was "close enough").
Lots of uninformed babble on/. (as usual). Nobody seems to ask the question of, "How does some information become classified?" Hint: it isn't just somebody says, "This should be a secret." Typically there is a organization document called the "Classification Guide" that provides (of all things) guidance on what sorts of information should be considered classified. Generally, these are derived from some higher organizaton's document that is more general with some unlucky person getting stuck with the job of crafting a new, more specific document from the older higher level one. And typically this person won't know the technical details of how the guide will be applied or even necessarily what it will be applied to.
This all sounds really good until reality sets in. In the one case I have in mind, the higher level document said that system capabilities such as effective ranges and such should be classified. The system I was working on was an over the horizon radar with the range dictated by atmospheric physics and documented in standard textbooks on radar (e.g., Skolnik). But the effective range was still classified on our system because that was the sort of information the classification guide said should be classified.
So, if you quoted the number in the textbook, you were fine. If you quoted the number from internal documentation, you were breaking the law. Don't expect everything a large organization does to make sense. It won't.
I worked at a place that had a beer fridge. 4:30 pm was unofficially known as beer:30. Can't say much one way or the other about any code that got written late in the day. The good developers wrote good code regardless of whether or not they had had a beer. I can say that morale and productivity both took a hit when the place went "corporate" and no longer stocked the beer fridge.
Some things are counterintuitive. Supposedly the beer should have been a hit on productivity. Instead, everyone relaxed and talked and worked out dependencies and interactions along with the usual BSing. End result was a better product.
I'm only a few years behind the poster. Got a job doing software QA at a company that deals with tape technology and lots of Linux and all flavors of Unix. I was a good match because I've been working with Unix since the late '80s (VMS before that) and Linux since the mid '90s. The company was having trouble finding anyone who wanted to deal with or had experience with tape or "legacy" Unix systems. Funny thing is that there are a lot of people who still use AIX, HP-UX and Solaris, have a lot of money wrapped up in the systems and infrastructure, have no plans to trash stuff that still works and will pay quite well for people who can work on them.
Now if I could just find someone who still uses punch cards, I'd really have it made.
Move the lawyers to the basement and move the lab rats to the offices the lawyers vacated. Anyone else with nearby offices will porobably consider having the lab rats instead of the lawyers as neighbors to be an improvement. If there's flooding again, we lose a few lawyers, the world is an even better place and the rats survive.
On the other hand, we need to make sure a few lawyers survive. They do serve a purpose since, after all, there are some things that even a rat won't do.
Damn. I have mod points. I went to mod this as "insightful" and fat fingered the mod menu so I dinged the comment as "Redundant" (which in some ways it is but not to the point of modding it down). So, the gist of this comment is I get my mod point back, your comment gets bumped back up to where it was and, unfortunately, now I can't mod it up either since I've posted to the discussion.
Note: the goose will probably be annoyed after your first choice. Annoyed gueese have a way of convincing you that your current quill selection is good enough.
Not to interrupt the flame war in progress, but these guys didn't own the land:
The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property.
At least, according to the gubb-mint lawyers.
I don't know how this is different from having the police fly over in a plane to observe these guys.
From TFA:
...22-acre property owned by Magana...
That being said, courts have usually said that the 4th Amendment only applies where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Typically that means nothing done outdoors is considered private.
Silicon Valley in its current incarnation is evidence of a VERY capitalist society. So is selling people pet rocks. Nothing morally wrong with either as long as the customer understands what they're getting.
But, in the case of the current "products" coming out of Silicon Valley, don't confuse "users" with "customers." And, you betcha, Facebook's and Google's customers know what they are buying and are quite happy to pay the price. It's just that the customers aren't the users.
Slashdot Mirror
My comparison to shrink wrap licenses is probably out of line. The code of conduct is probably available on-line and/or included in the admissions packet. But, just like so many commercial agreements, who really reads all of those pages of legalese? And, does it even matter if burried in all of that legal stuff is some sort of Orwellian, no matter what you do you're doing something illegal?
Finally, remember that this is a sizeable institution vs. a lowly, poor student. Does the student have the time and finances to challenge the institution over some wording in the code of conduct that might be construed as being a commercial contract?
Cheers,
Dave
Nice thing about laws that make everyone guilty is that you get to selectively prosecute those you don't like.
I think George Orwell came up with that a long time ago.
Cheers,
Dave
I suspect that runs afoul of contract law.
Probably not. As a guess you are required to agree to the code of conduct as condition of your admission.
Think of it as the moral equivalent of shrink-wrap licensing where you have to open the package to read the license and by opening the package you agree to the license.
Cheers,
Dave
I think the folks at Anonymous at are a level a tad higher than "script kiddie."
On the other hand, open season on script kiddies could be interesting. Hopefully, the local government would kick in a bounty to cover the cost of ammunition. Just do something like the old systems for exterminating other pests so you turn in a left ear to claim your bounty.
Cheers,
Dave
Disclaimers first. I am not an Israeli and I'm not Jewish. I have no "skin in the game". I just observe and comment.
That being said, I consider any action taken by Israel against anonymous to be appropriate in the current situation. Anonymous is a self-appointed legislatue, police, judge, jury and executioner also known as a vigilante. If they mess with the wrong people and get whacked because they did, they desrve it. Given the opportunity, I'd be more than happy to buy a beer (or other libation of choice) for whoever did the whacking.
Finally, I'm the proud oner of a book autographed by Paul Tibbets (Return of the Enola Gay). You would probably consider him to be a "war criminal."
Cheers,
Dave
Mossad is very good at what it does. As with the current action in Gaza, the idea to be "communicated" is that, if you attempt to hurt us, we will hurt you more than you can imagine. Usually, people get the message. Those who don't usually end up dead.
Cheers,
Dave
Mossad will probably convince them that it's not a good idea. Mossad is known for not "playing nice" when anything or anyone actually threatens Israel.
Cheers,
Dave
When asked what he was doing, did he respond, "Impersonating an office sir."
You can all groan now.
Cheers,
Dave
Dang. I eat meat at almost evey meal. Now I know that I've been missing out on something besides dessert.
Cheers,
Dave
...Second, why does anyone care if there is a 'spike' in discussion with the 2012 doomsayers? You think there WOULDN'T be a spike in discussion around December 2012? And who cares if there is? The good news, is that by January, all the 2012 end of the world nonsense will be over (Even if they are right ;) )...
I actually find the "2012 end of the world" hokum to be quite useful. It helps me identify the idiots. Somehow get the Mayan 2012 calendar end as the subject of conversation in a group and then note who buys into it. Do not ask these people anything in the way of meaningful questions. Stick to subjects like what they watched on television if you must talk to them although even that can be scary.
Cheers,
Dave
Personally i find reality tv a much better argument for the world ending soon than the Myan calendar.
That's why I said:
"Stick to subjects like what they watched on television if you must talk to them although even that can be scary."
Cheers,
Dave
...Second, why does anyone care if there is a 'spike' in discussion with the 2012 doomsayers? You think there WOULDN'T be a spike in discussion around December 2012? And who cares if there is? The good news, is that by January, all the 2012 end of the world nonsense will be over (Even if they are right ;) )...
I actually find the "2012 end of the world" hokum to be quite useful. It helps me identify the idiots. Somehow get the Mayan 2012 calendar end as the subject of conversation in a group and then note who buys into it. Do not ask these people anything in the way of meaningful questions. Stick to subjects like what they watched on television if you must talk to them although even that can be scary.
Cheers,
Dave
I kind of missed that since the OP mentioned Xen (which takes over the host). You're probably right that he didn't know enough about various virtual environments to ask the right question.
I used VMware workstation for a while about 10 years ago (long story). It was definitely accecptable (even back then). Not sure what VMware has to offer in the way of free trials for workstation other than their pre-canned VM images. That's the only gotcha with that route.
Cheers,
Dave
Yeah. But you have to pay for it. If the OP just wants to experiment with different environments, I'd suggest he go with what he can try for free. VMware ESXi is free as in beer but at least the means no out of pocket for just trying it. I used an old Dell PIII (1.6GHz) running Windows XP Home to run the management console. About the worst thing about ths arrangement was that I only had network access to the Dell box so I was running VNC on it to provide a remote desktop (1 level of indirection) and then ran the various VMs (2nd level of indirection). Let's just say that the cursor didn't keep up with the mouse; not even close.
Cheers,
Dave
VMware tends to be fussy about the hardware. I had a non-descript Athlon dual core that ran VMware just fine but lacked horsepower and wa maxed out on RAM at 4GB. I decided to buy a 6 core Athlon, new motherboard and 16 GB of RAM. VMware installed just fine but the clock drifted all over the place (several seconds per minute). Finally gave up on VMware and went Xen. Xen worked just fine but lacked all of the nice management tools and virtual networking stuff that VMware had. SIGH.
Also, it will only install if you have a supported network card in your target box. Check the hardware requirements.
If you want to try VMware, there is a free version: http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere-hypervisor/overview.html
Oh yeah, one other downside of VMware is the management console only runs on Windoze (at least when I was using it about a year or so ago). You will still need a separate, standalone Windows box
Cheers,
Dave
I worked for a defense contractor so we saw very little of "a" but lots of "b". The problem was that classifying everything made it that much harder to get anything done so there was always a push to read the classification guide as narrowly as possible from the trenches and a push from management to keep everything classified so no one made any mistakes and released something that they shouldn't. We became very adept at finding unclassified sources so we could keep the development unclassified and only inserting the classified numbers towards the end of the development (they didn't usually differ but we would point to say an article in "Aviation Week" that we said was "close enough").
Cheers,
Dave
Lots of uninformed babble on /. (as usual). Nobody seems to ask the question of, "How does some information become classified?" Hint: it isn't just somebody says, "This should be a secret." Typically there is a organization document called the "Classification Guide" that provides (of all things) guidance on what sorts of information should be considered classified. Generally, these are derived from some higher organizaton's document that is more general with some unlucky person getting stuck with the job of crafting a new, more specific document from the older higher level one. And typically this person won't know the technical details of how the guide will be applied or even necessarily what it will be applied to.
This all sounds really good until reality sets in. In the one case I have in mind, the higher level document said that system capabilities such as effective ranges and such should be classified. The system I was working on was an over the horizon radar with the range dictated by atmospheric physics and documented in standard textbooks on radar (e.g., Skolnik). But the effective range was still classified on our system because that was the sort of information the classification guide said should be classified.
So, if you quoted the number in the textbook, you were fine. If you quoted the number from internal documentation, you were breaking the law. Don't expect everything a large organization does to make sense. It won't.
Cheers,
Dave
I worked at a place that had a beer fridge. 4:30 pm was unofficially known as beer:30. Can't say much one way or the other about any code that got written late in the day. The good developers wrote good code regardless of whether or not they had had a beer. I can say that morale and productivity both took a hit when the place went "corporate" and no longer stocked the beer fridge.
Some things are counterintuitive. Supposedly the beer should have been a hit on productivity. Instead, everyone relaxed and talked and worked out dependencies and interactions along with the usual BSing. End result was a better product.
Cheers,
Dave
Caffeine is NOT a recreational drug; it is a necessity of life.
Cheers,
Dave
P.S. Interesting obervation in your sig. I wonder if Douglas Adams realized that when he came up with 42.
I'm only a few years behind the poster. Got a job doing software QA at a company that deals with tape technology and lots of Linux and all flavors of Unix. I was a good match because I've been working with Unix since the late '80s (VMS before that) and Linux since the mid '90s. The company was having trouble finding anyone who wanted to deal with or had experience with tape or "legacy" Unix systems. Funny thing is that there are a lot of people who still use AIX, HP-UX and Solaris, have a lot of money wrapped up in the systems and infrastructure, have no plans to trash stuff that still works and will pay quite well for people who can work on them.
Now if I could just find someone who still uses punch cards, I'd really have it made.
Cheers,
Dave
LSD wasn't developed at Berkeley (as per another post). Its use was popularized there though. The obervation:
Two thing came out of Bekeley in the '60s: LSD and Unix. This is not a coincidence.
still holds.
Cheers,
Dave
Move the lawyers to the basement and move the lab rats to the offices the lawyers vacated. Anyone else with nearby offices will porobably consider having the lab rats instead of the lawyers as neighbors to be an improvement. If there's flooding again, we lose a few lawyers, the world is an even better place and the rats survive.
On the other hand, we need to make sure a few lawyers survive. They do serve a purpose since, after all, there are some things that even a rat won't do.
Cheers,
Dave
Damn. I have mod points. I went to mod this as "insightful" and fat fingered the mod menu so I dinged the comment as "Redundant" (which in some ways it is but not to the point of modding it down). So, the gist of this comment is I get my mod point back, your comment gets bumped back up to where it was and, unfortunately, now I can't mod it up either since I've posted to the discussion.
At leats it's Friday.
Cheers,
Dave
1) Find a goose.
2) Pluck a large quill feather.
3) If the point isn't fine enough, keep plucking
Note: the goose will probably be annoyed after your first choice. Annoyed gueese have a way of convincing you that your current quill selection is good enough.
Cheers,
Dave
Not to interrupt the flame war in progress, but these guys didn't own the land:
At least, according to the gubb-mint lawyers.
I don't know how this is different from having the police fly over in a plane to observe these guys.
From TFA:
That being said, courts have usually said that the 4th Amendment only applies where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Typically that means nothing done outdoors is considered private.
Cheers,
Dave
Silicon Valley in its current incarnation is evidence of a VERY capitalist society. So is selling people pet rocks. Nothing morally wrong with either as long as the customer understands what they're getting.
But, in the case of the current "products" coming out of Silicon Valley, don't confuse "users" with "customers." And, you betcha, Facebook's and Google's customers know what they are buying and are quite happy to pay the price. It's just that the customers aren't the users.
Cheers,
Dave