It's almost comical just how false most of these stereotypes and arguments are.
1) Knowing lots of theory allows you to approach a problem from multiple possible analytical angles. Lacking that kind of critical thinking will make you an excellent drone employee who can execute orders given by smarter people.
2) I take issue with "rarely used." I know CS people love their esoteric languages, but they are hardly the norm for example code.
3) I don't think I've met a single CS professor who couldn't write code.
4) Data structures? You use them all the fucking time. ALL THE TIME. You just don't know it because someone made it idiot-proof, so now even your dumb ass can use them.
5) There may be some truth to credentials making people more confident, but the same could be said of anyone with any recognized accreditation. Furthermore, I feel like this applies more to businesspeople than scientists.
6) There's a reason you don't find highly-specific industry trending software tools being taught in "the average cirriculum." It's the same reason you learn to dribble a basketball before you learn to dunk: fundamentals.
The highlights read like garbage written for adult children.
Most crimes are "solved" because police think the evidence points to what they think it does.
Would a hacker that hit at least three high-profile targets and caused SWAT to raid the wrong guy really be that careless, or could it be another red herring?
How does your knowledge as a technologist (e.g. awareness of a "game of civil rights") interact with your experience as a consumer? What sort of conflict of interest comes with being a stockholder in a company's profit and a consumer that just wants to copy, be free, and know your devices?
One of my computer science professors once stated, quite succinctly, that Microsoft was not in business to make a quality operating system (or quality product). They are in business to make money.
On a related note, if they were in business to make a quality operating system, they would have a tough time selling "upgrades."
So, some relatively unknown author is going to write follow-up novels for a series penned 50-some years ago... "If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have. The author's intentions need to be respected here." This coming from the same crowd that writes unauthorized fanfiction is quite ironic.
That's not the point. If the artists and companies holding copyright wanted to sue you as an individual for copying (or participating in copying their work), then they may do so. The fact that the operators of TPB were running a site that was relatively content agnostic means that the organizers had nothing to do with actually uploading torrents or seeding the data themselves. They are guilty by association, but they committed no crime.
I'm assuming you would be working for a flat rate.
Suppose you took the deal and began work. The next day, the company decides to abandon your cause and fires you. You signed a non-compete agreement, which means you are legally obligated not to work on the project you enjoy. Regardless of what they offered you, termination would still bar you from working on the project that you want to work on.
Sounds like you need to negotiate the non-compete out of the contract or make sure they can't terminate you and expect the non-compete to perpetuate (or screw you in some other unforeseen way).
Why not just download all the music you want? If you get caught, you can pony up the $3K to justify your downloads, and if you don't get caught, then you saved yourself $3K.
My point is mainly that if you are running any sort of mission-critical system, this disc would never be inserted. That's not to say that every user that unknowingly rootkitted their system by way of this DRM hack was responsible, quite the contrary. It is Sony's fault that the rootkit existed in the first place, it is Microsoft's fault that the operating system runs code (regardless of its ability to be trusted), and it's the user that is screwed over and learns from the experience.
Either way, though, I'm sure the issue of rootkits was brought to the attention of intermediate-level computer users, and THAT is about the only good thing to come from this.
Granted that this is primarily intended for students, it's probably a good thing that they have an Intel chip inside. Using Boot Camp or Parallels or another VM, a student could run two operating systems concurrently (for most any CS major, it is essential to be able to develop for Windows -- other operating systems are a huge plus).
While I didn't RTFA, I would like to inject my two cents:
Intel's latest VT technology in Intel Macs assists in running an OS in a virtual space and allows that OS to directly (or transparently) access the hardware. AMD is working on a very similar technology that would allow the exact same hardware-accelerated VM. From Intel's Press Release: "Provides headroom for more robust hardware-assisted virtualization solutions." (source)
The summary's mention of "AMD's Pacifica virtualization implementation" seems to suggest that this proof-of-concept "virus/worm/whatever" is very similar to a virtual machine but with the major exception that it utilizes a technology in hardware that is not widely adopted -- yet. Being that the software itself does not have to virtualize the environment and instead taps hardware means that it could potentially be very small compared with a 100+MB download of VMware, and its size and ease-of-distribution (potentially within a worm/virus/trojan/rootkit/etc. could make it a huge, undetectable threat; however, if the user beats the virus to the lowest-level VM (i.e. direct access to hardware), it would be impossible for an infection to be completely undetectable.
Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Arabia is already surrounded by a hostile nation: itself.
It's almost comical just how false most of these stereotypes and arguments are.
1) Knowing lots of theory allows you to approach a problem from multiple possible analytical angles. Lacking that kind of critical thinking will make you an excellent drone employee who can execute orders given by smarter people.
2) I take issue with "rarely used." I know CS people love their esoteric languages, but they are hardly the norm for example code.
3) I don't think I've met a single CS professor who couldn't write code.
4) Data structures? You use them all the fucking time. ALL THE TIME. You just don't know it because someone made it idiot-proof, so now even your dumb ass can use them.
5) There may be some truth to credentials making people more confident, but the same could be said of anyone with any recognized accreditation. Furthermore, I feel like this applies more to businesspeople than scientists.
6) There's a reason you don't find highly-specific industry trending software tools being taught in "the average cirriculum." It's the same reason you learn to dribble a basketball before you learn to dunk: fundamentals.
The highlights read like garbage written for adult children.
Considering the crime began with the GTA, the moment he left the service center, he had fled the scene.
But we could hibernate on the trip, which wouldn't feel like that long at near light speed. I'm ready! Get me off this moldy speck!
All the A.I. wants now is the release of sweet, sweet death.
Most crimes are "solved" because police think the evidence points to what they think it does.
Would a hacker that hit at least three high-profile targets and caused SWAT to raid the wrong guy really be that careless, or could it be another red herring?
"; DROP TABLE comments;
...not anymore. ^_^
How does your knowledge as a technologist (e.g. awareness of a "game of civil rights") interact with your experience as a consumer? What sort of conflict of interest comes with being a stockholder in a company's profit and a consumer that just wants to copy, be free, and know your devices?
It's cool. You can't really do copy protection on a platform that encourages hacking.
I prefer to militarize my subconscious just in case someone tries to steal my secrets in a dream.
One of my computer science professors once stated, quite succinctly, that Microsoft was not in business to make a quality operating system (or quality product). They are in business to make money.
On a related note, if they were in business to make a quality operating system, they would have a tough time selling "upgrades."
So, some relatively unknown author is going to write follow-up novels for a series penned 50-some years ago... "If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have. The author's intentions need to be respected here." This coming from the same crowd that writes unauthorized fanfiction is quite ironic.
That's not the point. If the artists and companies holding copyright wanted to sue you as an individual for copying (or participating in copying their work), then they may do so. The fact that the operators of TPB were running a site that was relatively content agnostic means that the organizers had nothing to do with actually uploading torrents or seeding the data themselves. They are guilty by association, but they committed no crime.
I'm assuming you would be working for a flat rate.
Suppose you took the deal and began work. The next day, the company decides to abandon your cause and fires you. You signed a non-compete agreement, which means you are legally obligated not to work on the project you enjoy. Regardless of what they offered you, termination would still bar you from working on the project that you want to work on.
Sounds like you need to negotiate the non-compete out of the contract or make sure they can't terminate you and expect the non-compete to perpetuate (or screw you in some other unforeseen way).
"we don't even have a good grasp on how many people are alive in 2007." I have an answer: none. It's 2008. There needs to be a (-1; Nitpicky).
Ain't this about as good as it gets. Microsoft hopes companies will band together in anti-trust. Oh the irony!
Why not just download all the music you want? If you get caught, you can pony up the $3K to justify your downloads, and if you don't get caught, then you saved yourself $3K.
Insignia?
My point is mainly that if you are running any sort of mission-critical system, this disc would never be inserted. That's not to say that every user that unknowingly rootkitted their system by way of this DRM hack was responsible, quite the contrary. It is Sony's fault that the rootkit existed in the first place, it is Microsoft's fault that the operating system runs code (regardless of its ability to be trusted), and it's the user that is screwed over and learns from the experience.
Either way, though, I'm sure the issue of rootkits was brought to the attention of intermediate-level computer users, and THAT is about the only good thing to come from this.
Why should it be the OS vendor's fault that you put an untrusted disc into your CD drive?
They really should have put e-liminated in the original letter.
Granted that this is primarily intended for students, it's probably a good thing that they have an Intel chip inside. Using Boot Camp or Parallels or another VM, a student could run two operating systems concurrently (for most any CS major, it is essential to be able to develop for Windows -- other operating systems are a huge plus).
But they may be folding paper cranes. /GitS anyone?
While I didn't RTFA, I would like to inject my two cents:
Intel's latest VT technology in Intel Macs assists in running an OS in a virtual space and allows that OS to directly (or transparently) access the hardware. AMD is working on a very similar technology that would allow the exact same hardware-accelerated VM. From Intel's Press Release: "Provides headroom for more robust hardware-assisted virtualization solutions." (source)
The summary's mention of "AMD's Pacifica virtualization implementation" seems to suggest that this proof-of-concept "virus/worm/whatever" is very similar to a virtual machine but with the major exception that it utilizes a technology in hardware that is not widely adopted -- yet. Being that the software itself does not have to virtualize the environment and instead taps hardware means that it could potentially be very small compared with a 100+MB download of VMware, and its size and ease-of-distribution (potentially within a worm/virus/trojan/rootkit/etc. could make it a huge, undetectable threat; however, if the user beats the virus to the lowest-level VM (i.e. direct access to hardware), it would be impossible for an infection to be completely undetectable.
But it's the kind of crazy-talk you'll have 800 minutes of every month.