As far as it being "BS" is concerned, there are a couple reasons for it.
First, lobbying by professional engineers. I'm studying to get my degree in Computer Engineering (very close to electrical engineering -- a little less EE, a little more CS), and trust me, it's no cakewalk. I like having a special word, just for people who have accomplished what I intend to accomplish.
Second, there is a need for a qualification as to what exactly an engineer is. In the mind of most individuals, an engineer is a highly qualified, highly educated individual with a certain background that indicates that s/he will be able to apply "engineering principles" to any given problem.
Now, in your experience, this isn't a particularly big deal. But what if I hire an "engineer" to build me a bridge, or an airplane, or an MRI machine? Suddenly, lives are at stake, and it is important that someone who calls themselves an "engineer" really has the background to back it up.
That's the whole point of restricting the use of the word "engineer" to only trained engineers. The same goes for MD, CPA, lawyer, etc. There are usually big things at stake when you hire one of these individuals, so you want to know exactly what you're getting when you hire someone that refers to him/herself as one.
Hell, they even have an engineering discipline for what you do -- engineering business systems-- it's called "Industrial Engineering". It's considered to be about the lightest form of engineering (some engineers even call IE's "mangineers", from "manager", like PHB) -- but you still have to do your statistics, calculus, physics, thermodynamics, electrical science, etc, and it's a good deal harder than most other non-engineering undergraduate degrees.
I know where you're coming from. My signature used to be "Forget college! I'm going pro!" I did what you do.
And trust me when I say: When I've finished this program, I'll do what I used to do BETTER for having wasted my time studying "very advanced maths" that I USED to think were totally irrelevant to my chosen field. (IMO, calculus and statistics aren't that advanced, just very, very relevant.)
A trained engineer brings something else ENTIRELY to the table. It's no coincidence that HR departments typically hold engineering degrees in higher regard than just about anything else out there.
As far as your title problem goes, looking at your experience, I would very nearly call you an "analyst" of some kind. You take processes, analyze them, and make them better.
Just keep in mind that in many locations, the use of the term "Engineer" when referring to one's self is regulated.
In the United States, for example, each state has certification known as "Professional Engineer". Generally, the requirements are:
1. A four year BS degree accredited by ABET as an engineering degree (NOT an ABET accredited CS program).
2. Passing a preliminary exam known as the "Fundamentals of Engineering" exam.
3. A variable amount of years working under an already licensed Professional Engineer. (depending on education level and the state itself)
4. Passing a final "Professional Engineer" exam.
If you call yourself an "Engineer" and are not licensed, you may be opening yourself up to certain liabilities.
For example, under Texas law (Title 6, subtitle A, Chapter 1001, Subchapter A):
1001.301 (b) A person may not, unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter, directly or indirectly use or cause to be used as a professional, business, or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim, asset, or means of advantage or benefit any of, or a variation or abbreviation of, the following terms:
(1) "engineer";
(2) "professional engineer";
(3) "licensed engineer";
(4) "registered engineer";
(5) "registered professional engineer";
(6) "licensed professional engineer"; or
(7) "engineered."
It provides for penalties as well -- up to $3000 per day -- but that penalty is relatively small. The key is in the civil liability incurred in illegally advertising yourself as an "engineer" to your clientelle.
Various states have various laws regarding the use of the term "engineer", so your usage may or may not be legal. Just keep in mind that you're skating on thin ice ANY TIME you refer to yourself as ANY kind of engineer if you aren't a licensed public engineer in the USA.
Other countries generally have similar laws, ESPECIALLY if they British or former British colonies (UK, Canada, Australia, etc).
Re:a MUSICAL exercise and a question about ADHD
on
How Do You Get Work Done?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
My question is (and this is REALLY going to piss off some people), does ADD/ADHD REALLY EXIST? Is it an officially recognized disorder by the CDC or some other government body, or well-respected independent body? Or is this a massive bullshit campaign?
It's simple -- check the DSM IV. The DSM-IV is the fouth edition of the criteria professional psychologists use to diagnose mental disorders. It is essentially the bible of psychology. And according to the DSM-IV, ADHD does exist. The DSM-IV definition is apparently:
Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
* Persisting for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and immature, the patient has either inattention or hyperactivity-impulsivity (or both) as shown by:
Inattention. At least 6 of the following often apply:
-Fails to pay close attention to details or makes careless errors in schoolwork, work or other activities
-Has trouble keeping attention on tasks or play
-Doesn't appear to listen when being told something
-Neither follows through on instructions nor completes chores, schoolwork, or jobs (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand)
-Has trouble organizing activities and tasks
-Dislikes or avoids tasks that involve sustained mental effort (homework, schoolwork)
Loses materials needed for activities (assignments, books, pencils, tools, toys)
Easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
Forgetful
Hyperactivity-Impulsivity. At least 6 of the following often apply:
HYPERACTIVITY
-Squirms in seat or fidgets
-Inappropriately leaves seat
-Inappropriately runs or climbs (in adolescents or adults, the may be only a subjective feeling of restlessness)
-Has trouble quietly playing or engaging in leisure activity
-Appears driven or "on the go"
-Talks excessively
IMPULSIVITY
-Answers questions before they have been completely asked
-Has trouble or awaiting turn
-Interrupts or intrudes on others
* Begins before age 7.
* Symptoms must be present in at least 2 types of situations, such as school, work, home.
* The disorder impairs school, social or occupational functioning.
* The symptoms do not occur solely during a Pervasive Developmental Disorder or any psychotic disorder including Schizophrenia.
* The symptoms are not explained better by a Mood, Anxiety, Dissociative or Personality Disorder.
Code Number is based on the symptoms during the past 6 months:
314.00 Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Type. The patient has recently met the criteria for inattention but not for hyperactivity-impulsivity.
314.01 Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type. The patient has recently met the criteria for hyperactivity-impulsivity but not for inattention.
314.01 Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Combined Type. The patient has recently met the criteria for both inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity. (Most ADHD children have symptoms of the Combined Type.)
Specify "In Partial Remission" for patients (especially adults or adolescents) whose current symptoms do not fulfill the criteria.
I think that everyone who has responded to my post is missing the point.
I'm not disputing that according to Microsoft's license that they can revoke it. I don't know. It was just a handy example -- which may not have been the best one. I'm disputing the claim of the original post that I am replying to that contracts that are perpetual are _automatically_ invalid.
While I'm not a lawyer, there is such a thing as a "valid" perpetual contract, which is what I was trying to illustrate. It seems to me that the class of valid perpetual contract is one which requires no future performance on the part of the parties. A purchase is an example of such a contract -- once the contract is is fully executed, there is no additional obligation between the parties, and thus the final outcome is perpetual and irrevocable.
An example of an invalid perpetual contract is one in which you agree to work for someone in perpetuity for a one time amount of money -- that essentially makes you a slave and ties you to each other for all time. That is not allowed.
However, in a contract like the one between SCO and IBM -- which I read off of SCO's website, btw -- the requirement for future performance is very limited. The only real burden on SCO's part is the one time assignment of rights to use the protected works. This means that SCO really has no perpetual obligation, so it's unlikely (again, IMO) to be able to get the contract voided on account of it's perpetuity.
... unless the contract involves property rights, which is essentially how I believe the law treats this.
If you sell a car to someone, it's perpetual.
If you sell someone the right to use a peice of software, you are essentially selling them intellectual "property" (gee, thus the term.) Unless the contract specifies otherwise, the grant is perpetual -- it's not like MS can take away my right to use the copy of Windows 95 just cause they want to -- they have to prove I violated their license first.
To Reign in Hell by Steven Brust has to be one of the best books I've read. This is one of the very few books I've ever read that made me say "Woah" after reading it.
Brief synopsis is that, in the beginning, God (Yaweh) was randomly formed out of chaos. Having will, he created a small bubble of order so that chaos could not reclaim him. Over time, more sentient beings appeared out of chaos and came across this island of stability; these new comers nominally accepted Yaweh as a leader, and through the cooperative efforts of all the island of stability grew.
However, chaos was forever nibbling at this island, even sending storms raging through it, periodically killing some of the inhabitants.
Eventually, Yaweh got it into his mind to create a permenant island of stability so that everyone would be protected from distruction for all time; however, many would die in the creation, so he was convinced with great reservation to claim that he is "God" so that he has the authority to compel everyone to help him and risk their lives.
Satan and others question what right Yaweh has to make this claim and give these orders, and these questions eventually yield revolt.
In my opinion, this is a MUST READ for anyone at all interested in Christian doctrine -- especially bible-thumpers, it will open their minds if they don't reject it outright. An outstanding book, and one that will remain on my bookshelf for all time.
Out of curiousity, has anyone ever considered the possibility of a group of people individually filing a claim in small claims court against a company that is doing something they don't like?
In this case, for example, what if we could mobilize a few thousand people who use Linux professionally to sue SCO for slander? Professionals who use Linux are risking their reputation on it; SCO saying that Linux uses stolen code reflects badly on the professional. If what SCO is saying is untrue, that's slander and is in fact causing damages, yes?
Now, here's the trick -- if 5000 professionals who are effected by this in the USA were to file claims in small claims court of say, $1000, then SCO would have to simultaneously defend 5000 cases, or risk losing $5 million in damages.
What kind of effect do you think that would have on a company of SCO's size? Catastrophic, I'd think. And what's nice is that since they're impuning our professional judgment without providing any truth, we should have a cause of action.
If this is doable, this could be a serious way for a large community such as the free software community to show extreme displeasure with companies that do stuff like this, and for it to really count.
Any lawyers or anyone with professional knowledge out there that can comment?
I was bitching about their lack of security as early as 1997... by default, they shunt(ed) all contact information into a publicly accessable x500 server. It wasn't a commonly known thing, and you had to take proactive steps to remove yourself from it (go down to an office, fill out a form, etc)
From ksparger@vaevictis.stf.org Fri Aug 1 10:42:46 1997 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 10:42:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Vaevictis To: info@x500.utexas.edu Subject: Questions regarding the x500 service. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status:
Hi:)
Sorry to pester you (I know how much of a pain it can be to administrate an internet service:p)...
I'm a freshman taking English 301 (Composition class), and we've just recently been assigned a proposal argument.
My proposal is that the university change the policy on the x500 so that instead of having the student's information accessable by default, the student would need to sign a release form. (in other words, the exact opposite of the way it's done now... as a new student, I was horrified to find that my personal information (home address and telephone number, specifically) was being given to all comers..)
I would like to know the following information, if it's not too troublesome for you to give to me:)
What would need to be done to change the student's default from "distribute information" to "withhold information" in the x500 directory?
Would it require a change at the actual x500 site (ie, configuration files?), or would it require that some other group (the registrar, perhaps?) change policy?
What kind of security measures are installed to log accesses of information? For instance, I know for a fact that you don't attempt identd lookups, do you log access attempts by hostname, IP address, or do you log at all?
What are the scenarios if it is found that someone used information acquired from this database for illegal/unethical purposes? ie, could you even prove where a certain access came from if you had to in court?
Anyhow, thanks for your time, it's much appreciated:)
If you don't know the information for any of the above questions, I would appreciate it if you could tell me who could (if you know, anyway:))
Thanks a lot, Kyle Sparger
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 11:13:04 -0500 To: Vaevictis From: "William C. Green" Subject: Re: Questions regarding the x500 service. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: RO
You should read our FAQ and all associated links: http://x500.utexas.edu/x500info/faq.html
Specifically, Appendix C Subchapter 9 with special attention to section 9-201 of the General Information Catalog.
I would suggest you begin your inquiry with the Registrars office, although many other offices would be involved. My understanding is that any change would need to be approved by the Regents. This question is more complicated than it would appear.
As part of your argument, you should consider the implications of not having a directory service, or, a service that is restricted to UT Austin access only.
Er, they likely won't just be using straight up SCSI. Let's look at the TCO. I will say that I don't really "buy" the database argument, because my understanding is that the big guys tended to price by horsepower, not size, but I could be wrong.
Lets assume the following, using what I think are probably conservative numbers --
1. 2 million total accounts, one character each 2. 10 server active 'sites' 3. Each character uses approximately 5MB of space 4. 60% change in data set between backups. 5. Each 'galaxy' has overhead of some unknown amount, which I will not take into account in this TCO equation.
Let's consider the storage costs: 1. Each site will need approximately 1TB of data for characters; probably 2TB to be able to do flashcopy for backup purposes; assume 500GB for overhead. Note that they won't be able to use just a standard SCSI RAID, they'll need a real workhorse of a machine. Depending on how cheapie they're willing to go, they might get a mid-range FC Array like the IBM FASTtT700 or a real storage server like the ESS. Cost will run between $210k and $2 million. Per site. However, with the high load, they'll probably need something with oodles of cache, so I'd lean towards the ESS and call it $2 million per site. 2. Disaster recovery. They'll probably use something like the 3590E or H for tape; they'll probably want to store 2 weeks of data with probably 60% change per day -- that works out to about 52.5TB of data. That'll need about 3 3494 frames at ~$100000 ea. That's $300k per site. Then drives -- each drive costs about $40k, and if each drive does about 75GB/hr average and you need to back up in 8 hrs, you need at least 3 drives, plus another 4 or so for tape maintenance -- $280k per site. Tape will cost about $10k extra, per site. 3. Online backups -- this will essentially require you to duplicate the storage equipment once per site, so we end up doubling our hardware costs.
Per site, we're looking at:
$2 million for DASD
$600 thousand for tape
----
$2.6 million in storage alone.
To do the online backups, which I find probable, double that number ($5.2 million); multiply by ten sites, and you get $52 million investment cost. Divide that by 2 million characters, and your approximate cost per character is $26 in storage, per character.
Note that this doesn't even begin to take into account the recurring fees -- vendor support, which you can expect to be at least $10k per month per site, in-house technical support, which you can expect to run probably $20k per month per site, nor does it take into account ANY management software, any bandwidth to transfer to the online backup site, etc,.
More than you thought, huh? Probably by a factor of thousands.
Please write the following on a blackboard 100 times:
ENTERPRISE HARDWARE IS SIGNIFIGANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE COMMODITY INTEL COMPATIBLE HARDWARE I AM USED TO. IT IS ALSO EXPONENTIALLY MORE EXPENSIVE AS YOU SCALE.
It's fairly simple. Check your contract. Does it guarantee patches will be installed on build? If not, maybe it should. Escalate the issue to one of their managers; maybe you can convince them to change the policy, and once the policy is changed, you should not be charged.:)
I happen to work for a fairly large dedicated hosting company, and the majority of the clients that really loathe us simply don't understand the service they've signed up for.
Just because it's a dedicated server doesn't mean it's a managed server. Dedicated means it's yours; managed means they either fully manage or help to manage the server.
Personally, I think that the ISP is responsible for providing to you the RAQ3 in the most secure configuration available (ie, with all patches installed on delivery), but once it's delivered, it becomes your responsibility unless your contract says otherwise.
On a side note, ditch the RAQ3. Cobalt is notoriously bad about providing updates on a timely basis; they didn't release a RAQ3 patch for the recent BIND exploit until three weeks after it had been published on BUGTRAQ.
I just had an IBM full-line presentation at work the other day, and the new 'z/OS' is just an evolutionary difference, kind of like just a new version of OS390.
Basically, this whole xSeries/zSeries/pSeries/etc is just a new name, it's not a real change in the product.
xSeries -- 'x' stands for 'x-architecture' which is their name for technology they've migrated from their mainframe line to increase the availability of Intel Servers. An example would be their 'lightpath' technology, which is quite nifty. Press a button, and an LED lights up next to failing components on the motherboard.
pSeries -- 'p' stands for 'performance.' Just a renamed RS/6000.
iSeries -- 'i' stands for 'integrated'. Same as the old AS400.
zSeries -- 'z' stands for 'zero downtime'. Same as the old S/390.
They're really just changing the naming. Why? Well, a good deal of it is that they want to differentiate the products and start getting some cooperation between server divisions instead of having them compete as much as they have in the past. The nomenclature very specifically positions each product in a specific market segment. x
Series is for when you need the efficiency of an Intel server but the high availability features of a mainframe. pSeries is when you need performance. Need solutions in a box? Go for the iSeries. Can't stand ANY downtime at all, ever? Go with zSeries.
Of course, this will require some arguing on the part of the defense lawyers, but, imo, DVD's are a computer program -- look at all the "extras", such as games, etc! That requires a program on some level!
Read 1201(f)(1):
--------------------
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular potion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independantly created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been redily available to the person engaging in the circumvention to the extent any such acts do not constitute infrigement under this title.
-------------------- This is an exception! Exploit it!
IMO, it applies because (a) we can establish that the contents of DVD's are a program, (b) the program (DeCSS) can be used to acheive interoperability between an independantly developed computer program (linux) and the program we have been authorized to use (by buying the DVD).
The only real thorn is the "particular portion" part.
Lame, but I don't think it actually violates the GPL.
From what I recall, the GPL doesn't state that you can't restrict who you distribute to. It states that you can't restrict the redistribution rights of those who you end up distributing to.
In other words, Corel can say "You must be 18 for us to give this to you", but they can't do anything if you turn around and redistribute the GPL'd code you got from them.
What I find most amusing is that they claim that they've "vindicated" themselves.
Well, I don't think they did, as the CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE in the two results shows that they did _not_ do what they could have/should have done in the first place -- tune with experts from both sides.
First benchmark: WinNT is 2.5 times faster than Linux in file serving WinNT is 3.7 times faster than Linux in web serving
Second benchmark: WinNT is 2.7/1.9 times faster than Linux serving to Win95/WinNT clients. WinNT is 2.2 times faster than Linux serving web pages
Now, I don't know about you, but I feel that 150% is a massive difference -- and then there's the fact that the file serving is all screwy too.
I see no vindication, except on our side -- Mindcraft screwed up the first benchmarks, exactly as it was said they did.
From what I've seen, the Judge has only found that Microsoft is a monopoly, not that it's guilty of breaking any laws.
Remember -- being a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. It's only when you use the power inherent in being a monopoly to maintain that monopoly, or establish a monopoly in another market, that a company is commiting an illegal act.
Okay, well, maybe that's not the only time it's illegal to be a monopoly, but in THIS case, the judge has yet to decide that Microsoft has broken the law -- he's just established with this ruling that Microsoft COULD have broken the law. If he had decided that Microsoft was not a monopoly, then that would mean that Microsoft could not have broken any anti-monopolistic laws at all.
Fairly simple: First off, I trust them (the perl developers) to be able to handle strings smarter and more efficiently than I can -- they've been developing perl for 10 years. I don't have so much confidence that I think I can develop something better very quickly. Lots of modules to do stuff I need to do -- rapid development. I find perl far easier reading than I do C (for example) -- it's easier for me to maintain (at least, when I write the code). Most of the disadvantages of perl can be "fixed" using various available utilities (FastCGI, mod_perl, just buying extra RAM [which really is more cost efficient than me spending a ton of time developing a new string handler library]) Fast learning! Lots of documentation, all very well organized. If I don't know how to do something, I can learn in a hurry with perl. C is not so easy. It's more fault tolerant than C/C++. I make lots of mistakes when I code (I'm not perfect by any means). I can find them and correct them far faster with perl than C.
*shrug* Perl has built in handling of strings and good memory management. With C, I have to find or write another good library to help.
Perl just makes things simpler, and it's trade-offs make it more useful than not for my requirements.
The problem with this comparison is that unlike AMD, the Linux community could afford to wait 8 years to be noticed. AMD probably can't.
People who worked on Linux just had to give their spare time, but AMD needs to make money from their work, and they need to make a LOT of it. How many billions of dollars did that Fab in Germany cost them? How much do they have to pay their engineers per year? How much on misc. R&D?
You're right. They do use the OpenPIC standard. I've been looking for a socket-7 motherboard that uses this standard for something close to 3 years now, and I haven't seen a single one. I wanted to use it with Cyrix chips (the original 6x86), and with K6-3 -- they're nowhere to be found.
If you see one, let me know. I'd love to buy one. Dual k6-3 would be awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, you do realize is that if you do the major face-lift you just described, the resultant degree is an MIS degree, right? :)
As far as it being "BS" is concerned, there are a couple reasons for it.
First, lobbying by professional engineers. I'm studying to get my degree in Computer Engineering (very close to electrical engineering -- a little less EE, a little more CS), and trust me, it's no cakewalk. I like having a special word, just for people who have accomplished what I intend to accomplish.
Second, there is a need for a qualification as to what exactly an engineer is. In the mind of most individuals, an engineer is a highly qualified, highly educated individual with a certain background that indicates that s/he will be able to apply "engineering principles" to any given problem.
Now, in your experience, this isn't a particularly big deal. But what if I hire an "engineer" to build me a bridge, or an airplane, or an MRI machine? Suddenly, lives are at stake, and it is important that someone who calls themselves an "engineer" really has the background to back it up.
That's the whole point of restricting the use of the word "engineer" to only trained engineers. The same goes for MD, CPA, lawyer, etc. There are usually big things at stake when you hire one of these individuals, so you want to know exactly what you're getting when you hire someone that refers to him/herself as one.
Hell, they even have an engineering discipline for what you do -- engineering business systems-- it's called "Industrial Engineering". It's considered to be about the lightest form of engineering (some engineers even call IE's "mangineers", from "manager", like PHB) -- but you still have to do your statistics, calculus, physics, thermodynamics, electrical science, etc, and it's a good deal harder than most other non-engineering undergraduate degrees.
I know where you're coming from. My signature used to be "Forget college! I'm going pro!" I did what you do.
And trust me when I say: When I've finished this program, I'll do what I used to do BETTER for having wasted my time studying "very advanced maths" that I USED to think were totally irrelevant to my chosen field. (IMO, calculus and statistics aren't that advanced, just very, very relevant.)
A trained engineer brings something else ENTIRELY to the table. It's no coincidence that HR departments typically hold engineering degrees in higher regard than just about anything else out there.
As far as your title problem goes, looking at your experience, I would very nearly call you an "analyst" of some kind. You take processes, analyze them, and make them better.
Just keep in mind that in many locations, the use of the term "Engineer" when referring to one's self is regulated.
In the United States, for example, each state has certification known as "Professional Engineer". Generally, the requirements are:
1. A four year BS degree accredited by ABET as an engineering degree (NOT an ABET accredited CS program).
2. Passing a preliminary exam known as the "Fundamentals of Engineering" exam.
3. A variable amount of years working under an already licensed Professional Engineer. (depending on education level and the state itself)
4. Passing a final "Professional Engineer" exam.
If you call yourself an "Engineer" and are not licensed, you may be opening yourself up to certain liabilities.
For example, under Texas law (Title 6, subtitle A, Chapter 1001, Subchapter A):
1001.301
(b) A person may not, unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter, directly or indirectly use or cause to be used as a professional, business, or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim, asset, or means of advantage or benefit any of, or a variation or abbreviation of, the following terms:
(1) "engineer";
(2) "professional engineer";
(3) "licensed engineer";
(4) "registered engineer";
(5) "registered professional engineer";
(6) "licensed professional engineer"; or
(7) "engineered."
It provides for penalties as well -- up to $3000 per day -- but that penalty is relatively small. The key is in the civil liability incurred in illegally advertising yourself as an "engineer" to your clientelle.
Various states have various laws regarding the use of the term "engineer", so your usage may or may not be legal. Just keep in mind that you're skating on thin ice ANY TIME you refer to yourself as ANY kind of engineer if you aren't a licensed public engineer in the USA.
Other countries generally have similar laws, ESPECIALLY if they British or former British colonies (UK, Canada, Australia, etc).
It's simple -- check the DSM IV. The DSM-IV is the fouth edition of the criteria professional psychologists use to diagnose mental disorders. It is essentially the bible of psychology. And according to the DSM-IV, ADHD does exist. The DSM-IV definition is apparently:
Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
* Persisting for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and immature, the patient has either inattention or hyperactivity-impulsivity (or both) as shown by:
Inattention. At least 6 of the following often apply:
-Fails to pay close attention to details or makes careless errors in schoolwork, work or other activities
-Has trouble keeping attention on tasks or play
-Doesn't appear to listen when being told something
-Neither follows through on instructions nor completes chores, schoolwork, or jobs (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand)
-Has trouble organizing activities and tasks
-Dislikes or avoids tasks that involve sustained mental effort (homework, schoolwork)
Loses materials needed for activities (assignments, books, pencils, tools, toys)
Easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
Forgetful
Hyperactivity-Impulsivity. At least 6 of the following often apply:
HYPERACTIVITY
-Squirms in seat or fidgets
-Inappropriately leaves seat
-Inappropriately runs or climbs (in adolescents or adults, the may be only a subjective feeling of restlessness)
-Has trouble quietly playing or engaging in leisure activity
-Appears driven or "on the go"
-Talks excessively
IMPULSIVITY
-Answers questions before they have been completely asked
-Has trouble or awaiting turn
-Interrupts or intrudes on others
* Begins before age 7.
* Symptoms must be present in at least 2 types of situations, such as school, work, home.
* The disorder impairs school, social or occupational functioning.
* The symptoms do not occur solely during a Pervasive Developmental Disorder or any psychotic disorder including Schizophrenia.
* The symptoms are not explained better by a Mood, Anxiety, Dissociative or Personality Disorder.
Code Number is based on the symptoms during the past 6 months:
314.00 Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Type. The patient has recently met the criteria for inattention but not for hyperactivity-impulsivity.
314.01 Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type. The patient has recently met the criteria for hyperactivity-impulsivity but not for inattention.
314.01 Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Combined Type. The patient has recently met the criteria for both inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity. (Most ADHD children have symptoms of the Combined Type.)
Specify "In Partial Remission" for patients (especially adults or adolescents) whose current symptoms do not fulfill the criteria.
I think that everyone who has responded to my post is missing the point.
I'm not disputing that according to Microsoft's license that they can revoke it. I don't know. It was just a handy example -- which may not have been the best one. I'm disputing the claim of the original post that I am replying to that contracts that are perpetual are _automatically_ invalid.
While I'm not a lawyer, there is such a thing as a "valid" perpetual contract, which is what I was trying to illustrate. It seems to me that the class of valid perpetual contract is one which requires no future performance on the part of the parties. A purchase is an example of such a contract -- once the contract is is fully executed, there is no additional obligation between the parties, and thus the final outcome is perpetual and irrevocable.
An example of an invalid perpetual contract is one in which you agree to work for someone in perpetuity for a one time amount of money -- that essentially makes you a slave and ties you to each other for all time. That is not allowed.
However, in a contract like the one between SCO and IBM -- which I read off of SCO's website, btw -- the requirement for future performance is very limited. The only real burden on SCO's part is the one time assignment of rights to use the protected works. This means that SCO really has no perpetual obligation, so it's unlikely (again, IMO) to be able to get the contract voided on account of it's perpetuity.
... unless the contract involves property rights, which is essentially how I believe the law treats this.
If you sell a car to someone, it's perpetual.
If you sell someone the right to use a peice of software, you are essentially selling them intellectual "property" (gee, thus the term.) Unless the contract specifies otherwise, the grant is perpetual -- it's not like MS can take away my right to use the copy of Windows 95 just cause they want to -- they have to prove I violated their license first.
To Reign in Hell by Steven Brust has to be one of the best books I've read. This is one of the very few books I've ever read that made me say "Woah" after reading it.
Brief synopsis is that, in the beginning, God (Yaweh) was randomly formed out of chaos. Having will, he created a small bubble of order so that chaos could not reclaim him. Over time, more sentient beings appeared out of chaos and came across this island of stability; these new comers nominally accepted Yaweh as a leader, and through the cooperative efforts of all the island of stability grew.
However, chaos was forever nibbling at this island, even sending storms raging through it, periodically killing some of the inhabitants.
Eventually, Yaweh got it into his mind to create a permenant island of stability so that everyone would be protected from distruction for all time; however, many would die in the creation, so he was convinced with great reservation to claim that he is "God" so that he has the authority to compel everyone to help him and risk their lives.
Satan and others question what right Yaweh has to make this claim and give these orders, and these questions eventually yield revolt.
In my opinion, this is a MUST READ for anyone at all interested in Christian doctrine -- especially bible-thumpers, it will open their minds if they don't reject it outright. An outstanding book, and one that will remain on my bookshelf for all time.
Out of curiousity, has anyone ever considered the possibility of a group of people individually filing a claim in small claims court against a company that is doing something they don't like?
In this case, for example, what if we could mobilize a few thousand people who use Linux professionally to sue SCO for slander? Professionals who use Linux are risking their reputation on it; SCO saying that Linux uses stolen code reflects badly on the professional. If what SCO is saying is untrue, that's slander and is in fact causing damages, yes?
Now, here's the trick -- if 5000 professionals who are effected by this in the USA were to file claims in small claims court of say, $1000, then SCO would have to simultaneously defend 5000 cases, or risk losing $5 million in damages.
What kind of effect do you think that would have on a company of SCO's size? Catastrophic, I'd think. And what's nice is that since they're impuning our professional judgment without providing any truth, we should have a cause of action.
If this is doable, this could be a serious way for a large community such as the free software community to show extreme displeasure with companies that do stuff like this, and for it to really count.
Any lawyers or anyone with professional knowledge out there that can comment?
I was bitching about their lack of security as early as 1997... by default, they shunt(ed) all contact information into a publicly accessable x500 server. It wasn't a commonly known thing, and you had to take proactive steps to remove yourself from it (go down to an office, fill out a form, etc)
:)
:p)...
:)
:)
:))
From ksparger@vaevictis.stf.org Fri Aug 1 10:42:46 1997
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 10:42:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Vaevictis
To: info@x500.utexas.edu
Subject: Questions regarding the x500 service.
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Hi
Sorry to pester you (I know how much of a pain it can be to administrate an internet service
I'm a freshman taking English 301 (Composition class), and we've just recently been assigned a proposal argument.
My proposal is that the university change the policy on the x500 so that instead of having the student's information accessable by default, the
student would need to sign a release form. (in other words, the exact opposite of the way it's done now... as a new student, I was horrified to find that my personal information (home address and telephone number, specifically) was being given to all comers..)
I would like to know the following information, if it's not too troublesome for you to give to me
What would need to be done to change the student's default from "distribute information" to "withhold information" in the x500
directory?
Would it require a change at the actual x500 site (ie, configuration files?), or would it require that some other group (the registrar, perhaps?) change policy?
What kind of security measures are installed to log accesses of information? For instance, I know for a fact that you don't attempt identd lookups, do you log access attempts by hostname, IP address, or do you log at all?
What are the scenarios if it is found that someone used information acquired from this database for illegal/unethical purposes? ie, could you even prove where a certain access came from if you had to in court?
Anyhow, thanks for your time, it's much appreciated
If you don't know the information for any of the above questions, I would
appreciate it if you could tell me who could (if you know, anyway
Thanks a lot,
Kyle Sparger
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 11:13:04 -0500
To: Vaevictis
From: "William C. Green"
Subject: Re: Questions regarding the x500 service.
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Status: RO
You should read our FAQ and all associated links: http://x500.utexas.edu/x500info/faq.html
Specifically, Appendix C Subchapter 9 with special attention to section 9-201 of the General Information Catalog.
I would suggest you begin your inquiry with the Registrars office, although many other offices would be involved. My understanding is that any change would need to be approved by the Regents.
This question is more complicated than it would appear.
As part of your argument, you should consider the implications of not having a directory service, or, a service that is restricted to UT Austin
access only.
Host access information is kept in rolling logs.
Er, they likely won't just be using straight up SCSI. Let's look at the TCO. I will say that I don't really "buy" the database argument, because my understanding is that the big guys tended to price by horsepower, not size, but I could be wrong.
Lets assume the following, using what I think are probably conservative numbers --
1. 2 million total accounts, one character each
2. 10 server active 'sites'
3. Each character uses approximately 5MB of space
4. 60% change in data set between backups.
5. Each 'galaxy' has overhead of some unknown amount, which I will not take into account in this TCO equation.
Let's consider the storage costs:
1. Each site will need approximately 1TB of data for characters; probably 2TB to be able to do flashcopy for backup purposes; assume 500GB for overhead. Note that they won't be able to use just a standard SCSI RAID, they'll need a real workhorse of a machine. Depending on how cheapie they're willing to go, they might get a mid-range FC Array like the IBM FASTtT700 or a real storage server like the ESS. Cost will run between $210k and $2 million. Per site. However, with the high load, they'll probably need something with oodles of cache, so I'd lean towards the ESS and call it $2 million per site.
2. Disaster recovery. They'll probably use something like the 3590E or H for tape; they'll probably want to store 2 weeks of data with probably 60% change per day -- that works out to about 52.5TB of data. That'll need about 3 3494 frames at ~$100000 ea. That's $300k per site. Then drives -- each drive costs about $40k, and if each drive does about 75GB/hr average and you need to back up in 8 hrs, you need at least 3 drives, plus another 4 or so for tape maintenance -- $280k per site. Tape will cost about $10k extra, per site.
3. Online backups -- this will essentially require you to duplicate the storage equipment once per site, so we end up doubling our hardware costs.
Per site, we're looking at:
$2 million for DASD
$600 thousand for tape
----
$2.6 million in storage alone.
To do the online backups, which I find probable, double that number ($5.2 million); multiply by ten sites, and you get $52 million investment cost. Divide that by 2 million characters, and your approximate cost per character is $26 in storage, per character.
Note that this doesn't even begin to take into account the recurring fees -- vendor support, which you can expect to be at least $10k per month per site, in-house technical support, which you can expect to run probably $20k per month per site, nor does it take into account ANY management software, any bandwidth to transfer to the online backup site, etc,.
More than you thought, huh? Probably by a factor of thousands.
Please write the following on a blackboard 100 times:
ENTERPRISE HARDWARE IS SIGNIFIGANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE COMMODITY INTEL COMPATIBLE HARDWARE I AM USED TO. IT IS ALSO EXPONENTIALLY MORE EXPENSIVE AS YOU SCALE.
Zeno Lee,
:)
It's fairly simple. Check your contract. Does it guarantee patches will be installed on build? If not, maybe it should. Escalate the issue to one of their managers; maybe you can convince them to change the policy, and once the policy is changed, you should not be charged.
I happen to work for a fairly large dedicated hosting company, and the majority of the clients that really loathe us simply don't understand the service they've signed up for.
Just because it's a dedicated server doesn't mean it's a managed server. Dedicated means it's yours; managed means they either fully manage or help to manage the server.
Personally, I think that the ISP is responsible for providing to you the RAQ3 in the most secure configuration available (ie, with all patches installed on delivery), but once it's delivered, it becomes your responsibility unless your contract says otherwise.
On a side note, ditch the RAQ3. Cobalt is notoriously bad about providing updates on a timely basis; they didn't release a RAQ3 patch for the recent BIND exploit until three weeks after it had been published on BUGTRAQ.
I just had an IBM full-line presentation at work the other day, and the new 'z/OS' is just an evolutionary difference, kind of like just a new version of OS390.
Basically, this whole xSeries/zSeries/pSeries/etc is just a new name, it's not a real change in the product.
xSeries -- 'x' stands for 'x-architecture' which is their name for technology they've migrated from their mainframe line to increase the availability of Intel Servers. An example would be their 'lightpath' technology, which is quite nifty. Press a button, and an LED lights up next to failing components on the motherboard.
pSeries -- 'p' stands for 'performance.' Just a renamed RS/6000.
iSeries -- 'i' stands for 'integrated'. Same as the old AS400.
zSeries -- 'z' stands for 'zero downtime'. Same as the old S/390.
They're really just changing the naming. Why? Well, a good deal of it is that they want to differentiate the products and start getting some cooperation between server divisions instead of having them compete as much as they have in the past. The nomenclature very specifically positions each product in a specific market segment. x
Series is for when you need the efficiency of an Intel server but the high availability features of a mainframe. pSeries is when you need performance. Need solutions in a box? Go for the iSeries. Can't stand ANY downtime at all, ever? Go with zSeries.
Okay, so don't accept it.
Problem solved.
Of course, this will require some arguing on the part of the defense lawyers, but, imo, DVD's are a computer program -- look at all the "extras", such as games, etc! That requires a program on some level!
Read 1201(f)(1):
--------------------
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular potion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independantly created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been redily available to the person engaging in the circumvention to the extent any such acts do not constitute infrigement under this title.
--------------------
This is an exception! Exploit it!
IMO, it applies because (a) we can establish that the contents of DVD's are a program, (b) the program (DeCSS) can be used to acheive interoperability between an independantly developed computer program (linux) and the program we have been authorized to use (by buying the DVD).
The only real thorn is the "particular portion" part.
[ksparger@vaevictis ~]$ tar -zxvf jfs-0.0.1.tar.gz
linux-2.2.12/Documentation/
linux-2.2.12/Documentation/filesystems/
linux-2.2.12/Documentation/filesystems/00-INDEX
linux-2.2.12/Documentation/filesystems/jfs.txt
linux-2.2.12/Documentation/Configure.help
linux-2.2.12/arch/
linux-2.2.12/arch/i386/
linux-2.2.12/arch/i386/defconfig
linux-2.2.12/fs/
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/dprintf.c
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/fs_ioctl.c
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/jfs_acl.c
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/jfs_bufmgr.c
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/jfs_cachemgr.c
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/jfs_chkdsk.c
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/jfs_close.c
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/jfs_clrbblks.c
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/jfs_create.c
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/jfs_dasdlim.c
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/jfs_debug.c
linux-2.2.12/fs/jfs/ref/jfs_defragfs.c
etc, etc, etc
Looks like a "patch" of some kind to me.
After 5 years of being in jail, and completely out of communication with everyone, what are the chances that his backups would still be there?
Last I heard, his surrendering that right was a condition of parole.
He was released on parole, which means he agreed to the condition.
Ergo, he surrendered the right.
Lame, but I don't think it actually violates the GPL.
From what I recall, the GPL doesn't state that you can't restrict who you distribute to. It states that you can't restrict the redistribution rights of those who you end up distributing to.
In other words, Corel can say "You must be 18 for us to give this to you", but they can't do anything if you turn around and redistribute the GPL'd code you got from them.
The proprietary code is another story, though...
What I find most amusing is that they claim that they've "vindicated" themselves.
Well, I don't think they did, as the CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE in the two results shows that they did _not_ do what they could have/should have done in the first place -- tune with experts from both sides.
First benchmark:
WinNT is 2.5 times faster than Linux in file serving
WinNT is 3.7 times faster than Linux in web serving
Second benchmark:
WinNT is 2.7/1.9 times faster than Linux serving to Win95/WinNT clients.
WinNT is 2.2 times faster than Linux serving web pages
Now, I don't know about you, but I feel that 150% is a massive difference -- and then there's the fact that the file serving is all screwy too.
I see no vindication, except on our side -- Mindcraft screwed up the first benchmarks, exactly as it was said they did.
Yes, yes, I know what it says later on. The judge does indeed strongly imply that he's going to rule against Microsoft.
Regardless, it's not a verdict yet, and it's just NOT over until the verdict is rendered.
IE: Don't get too comfortable yet -- there's still room for the unexpected to happen.
*chuckle* Why do you think they waited till Friday AFTER the main markets had already closed to release the findings of fact?
The judge knew they would be bad for MS, and knew it could set off a panic in the stock market.
From what I've seen, the Judge has only found that Microsoft is a monopoly, not that it's guilty of breaking any laws.
Remember -- being a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. It's only when you use the power inherent in being a monopoly to maintain that monopoly, or establish a monopoly in another market, that a company is commiting an illegal act.
Okay, well, maybe that's not the only time it's illegal to be a monopoly, but in THIS case, the judge has yet to decide that Microsoft has broken the law -- he's just established with this ruling that Microsoft COULD have broken the law. If he had decided that Microsoft was not a monopoly, then that would mean that Microsoft could not have broken any anti-monopolistic laws at all.
Fairly simple:
First off, I trust them (the perl developers) to be able to handle strings smarter and more efficiently than I can -- they've been developing perl for 10 years. I don't have so much confidence that I think I can develop something better very quickly.
Lots of modules to do stuff I need to do -- rapid development.
I find perl far easier reading than I do C (for example) -- it's easier for me to maintain (at least, when I write the code).
Most of the disadvantages of perl can be "fixed" using various available utilities (FastCGI, mod_perl, just buying extra RAM [which really is more cost efficient than me spending a ton of time developing a new string handler library])
Fast learning! Lots of documentation, all very well organized. If I don't know how to do something, I can learn in a hurry with perl. C is not so easy.
It's more fault tolerant than C/C++. I make lots of mistakes when I code (I'm not perfect by any means). I can find them and correct them far faster with perl than C.
*shrug* Perl has built in handling of strings and good memory management. With C, I have to find or write another good library to help.
Perl just makes things simpler, and it's trade-offs make it more useful than not for my requirements.
The problem with this comparison is that unlike AMD, the Linux community could afford to wait 8 years to be noticed. AMD probably can't.
People who worked on Linux just had to give their spare time, but AMD needs to make money from their work, and they need to make a LOT of it. How many billions of dollars did that Fab in Germany cost them? How much do they have to pay their engineers per year? How much on misc. R&D?
You're comparing apples and oranges here.
You're right. They do use the OpenPIC standard. I've been looking for a socket-7 motherboard that uses this standard for something close to 3 years now, and I haven't seen a single one. I wanted to use it with Cyrix chips (the original 6x86), and with K6-3 -- they're nowhere to be found.
If you see one, let me know. I'd love to buy one. Dual k6-3 would be awesome.