VMWare since at least 4.0, has only let you change the MAC address to a limited subset of possible addresses. You can't change it to anything you want to.
Remember, these are people all over the world tracking U.S. satellites. It's quite possible that some of them consider US the bad guys, or at least don't think of us as particularly good, so there is no ethical problem.
It shouldn't be, but apparently it is. People keep coming to me after they've trashed their systems. I ask way they opened an unknown attachment and they always say the same thing "But it was from my co-worker/friend/family member X. They wouldn't send me anything bad!". That's after I've told them literally dozens of times that modern viruses spoof the name of the sender and that person X's machine may be infected, or someone who has both person X and them in their address book may be infected. Don't ever open any attachment unless you know what it is. If your not sure what it is it only takes 2 seconds to hit the reply button and ask "What's this".... It never sinks in. Even after the "I love you" virus, etc. They just can't be educated.
And no, I don't think that moving to *nix is the answer either. I've had users follow instructions included with an email virus to type in a password required to unzip the payload, then run it. Those users will certainly be willing to type in "rm *" or whatever instructions come along with a virus. Their user files, the only thing of value on the machine, are toast either way. These are the same folks that will never back up their data either, so they really are toast.
Actually no. Many/most times when they've pulled you over for something, when they ask to search it's a fishing expedition because they've seen something somewhat suspicous or your behaviour is suspicous. Being suspicious is far different than having probable cause. If they have probable cause they can search it anyway. Chances are they don't, so the worst they can do is make you wait while they call in a officer with a drug-sniffing dog, and have it sniff the outside of the car.
I thought it was funny, but not 1/10th as funny as the 'Triumph the insult comic dog' bit on geeks waiting in a line to see Star Wars II. That thing had my holding my sides I was laughing so hard. That's true geek-depreciating humor that any geek can appreciate;)
Apparently you didn't read my other post in the thread. *I like the BSD license*. However many/most folks who release their software as GPL (which is the topic at hand) don't. They don't want it to be re-released under a more open or more restrictive license. They don't want a fork released with a different license. If you care about that stuff, releasing it with a GPL license with a privision that the license can be changed in the future *is* dumb.
When you release something as BSD, you are specifically releasing it with only the requirement for keeping the copyright notice. Any one using it for other purposes can't remove that need for the copyright notice. They can't change that restriction, which is the only one, in your license. If you leave it open for "any future versions of the BSD license", which might remove that requirement, you might lose that. If that requirement is important to you, than yes, it's dumb to put the future-versions clause in there.
The 'or later' clause isn't needed. If a you own the original copyright on some software and a newer version of a license comes out that you like, you are perfectly free to release your code under that license as well.
How does that 'cap the damage' if RMS goes nuts and changes the GPL v57 to be like the BSD license that he doesn't like? Then folks could go ahead and make proprietary forks of your code, even if you later released a only v2 throught v6.55 version. Suddenly your code is under the BSD license (or whatever kind of bizzare license he, or his descendants, changes it to).
(Please note: I don't think there is anything wrong with the BSD license. I prefer it myself. I think it's truely free, but many folks on/. prefer the GPL because it forces code release.)
Which would be the dumbest thing to do, ever. Who's to say whoever is in charge of 'making' the GPL vXXX doesn't add in all sorts of nasty things that an original author might not like. What if they release it as a horribly restrictive license? What if they open it up to being as open as the BSD license? Who knows what some other group might change the license to in the future. Licensing your code under a license another group could change at a whim is dumb. Really, really dumb.
Patients sign up all the time for experimental procedures using new techniques or new drugs. Sometimes the risks are known to be low, othertimes they are known to be extremely high (possibly fatal).
As long as the patient (or if the patient is a minor, the parents) know the possible risks and both they and the doctor conclude that the condition is serious enough to warrent the risks, yes, it is certainly ethical.
If you read the article, you know that his condition was continually worsening. He was having ~11 grand mal seizures a week. He couldn't hold a job and it didn't look like he could go on living independently. His future looked very bleak and there weren't any other effective treatments. He and his parents and the doctor all agreed that the risky treatment was a viable option and went with it. This isn't Natzi Germany where perfectly healthy people were subjected to experiments just to find out the limits of the human body. This was an attempt to cure someone of a real medical problem that was destroying their life.
Sorry, that sounds a little too much like a bug Intel claimed would only affect someone once every 27,000 years when it turns out it would hit some folks every 24 days on average. I think I'll stick with AMD.
True. I don't know if they went so far as to epoxy the serial and parallel ports or not. However, I think one of the other reasons they sealed off the USB/firewire was to prevent uploads of stuff as well as downloads of sensitive data. I think with USB ports sitting around they thought people might be too tempted to upload their MP3 collection, favorite game, etc, and of course whatever accompanying trojan/virus/spyware they were infected with at home and didn't know about (or worse, were trying to hit the company with, sneaking around the firwall/email-filter). Someone would have to be seriously bored out of their minds to try to upload their games/MP3's using Kermit.;)
Someone just has to move a jumper on the motherboard, then put it back to reset the password. Making them chisel out the USB port leaves a little more physical evidence of what went on.;) Do both.
I know of several companies which have filled in all the USB/firewire ports on most of the computers with epoxy. Only people who actually have a real need for devices using those ports have working USB/firewire (there are no floppies or CD/DVD burners in 'regular' staff machines either)
I've got to disagree. Unless you need serious hardware performance (for playing games, etc) for a specific app, running VMWare is much better than dual booting. I do it all the time. If I were to dual boot I'd have to close down a lot of applications I'm using to switch to the other OS to use a different one under it. As it is with VMWare I just tab to the VMWare window, use the app, then tab back to the rest of the apps I need.
Slashdot Mirror
VMWare since at least 4.0, has only let you change the MAC address to a limited subset of possible addresses. You can't change it to anything you want to.
Anyone infected is supposed to download a revolver and shoot themselves in the head for being stupid enough to open an unknown attachment.
Remember, these are people all over the world tracking U.S. satellites. It's quite possible that some of them consider US the bad guys, or at least don't think of us as particularly good, so there is no ethical problem.
It's called lunch. Deal with it.
And no, I don't think that moving to *nix is the answer either. I've had users follow instructions included with an email virus to type in a password required to unzip the payload, then run it. Those users will certainly be willing to type in "rm *" or whatever instructions come along with a virus. Their user files, the only thing of value on the machine, are toast either way. These are the same folks that will never back up their data either, so they really are toast.
Actually no. Many/most times when they've pulled you over for something, when they ask to search it's a fishing expedition because they've seen something somewhat suspicous or your behaviour is suspicous. Being suspicious is far different than having probable cause. If they have probable cause they can search it anyway. Chances are they don't, so the worst they can do is make you wait while they call in a officer with a drug-sniffing dog, and have it sniff the outside of the car.
"Now get in the kitchen and make me a pot pie!"
Yeah, it's only been doing it since 2000... So just a little over 5 years. That's a ding? Hmm, exactly how many years have you been using XML anyhow?
I thought it was funny, but not 1/10th as funny as the 'Triumph the insult comic dog' bit on geeks waiting in a line to see Star Wars II. That thing had my holding my sides I was laughing so hard. That's true geek-depreciating humor that any geek can appreciate ;)
What? One person's individual experience has no real bearing on what others might experience? Shocking!
If the worker had access to the data it would be much easier to make copies of them than to suffer the fallout of the tapes going 'missing'.
When you release something as BSD, you are specifically releasing it with only the requirement for keeping the copyright notice. Any one using it for other purposes can't remove that need for the copyright notice. They can't change that restriction, which is the only one, in your license. If you leave it open for "any future versions of the BSD license", which might remove that requirement, you might lose that. If that requirement is important to you, than yes, it's dumb to put the future-versions clause in there.
The 'or later' clause isn't needed. If a you own the original copyright on some software and a newer version of a license comes out that you like, you are perfectly free to release your code under that license as well.
(Please note: I don't think there is anything wrong with the BSD license. I prefer it myself. I think it's truely free, but many folks on /. prefer the GPL because it forces code release.)
Yep. If they didn't want it on google, they should have said so in their robots.txt file
Which would be the dumbest thing to do, ever. Who's to say whoever is in charge of 'making' the GPL vXXX doesn't add in all sorts of nasty things that an original author might not like. What if they release it as a horribly restrictive license? What if they open it up to being as open as the BSD license? Who knows what some other group might change the license to in the future. Licensing your code under a license another group could change at a whim is dumb. Really, really dumb.
As long as the patient (or if the patient is a minor, the parents) know the possible risks and both they and the doctor conclude that the condition is serious enough to warrent the risks, yes, it is certainly ethical.
If you read the article, you know that his condition was continually worsening. He was having ~11 grand mal seizures a week. He couldn't hold a job and it didn't look like he could go on living independently. His future looked very bleak and there weren't any other effective treatments. He and his parents and the doctor all agreed that the risky treatment was a viable option and went with it. This isn't Natzi Germany where perfectly healthy people were subjected to experiments just to find out the limits of the human body. This was an attempt to cure someone of a real medical problem that was destroying their life.
Don't be evil. Just do what Evil folks want. Got it.
Sorry, that sounds a little too much like a bug Intel claimed would only affect someone once every 27,000 years when it turns out it would hit some folks every 24 days on average. I think I'll stick with AMD.
Right, because no one else has other software needs than yours.
True. I don't know if they went so far as to epoxy the serial and parallel ports or not. However, I think one of the other reasons they sealed off the USB/firewire was to prevent uploads of stuff as well as downloads of sensitive data. I think with USB ports sitting around they thought people might be too tempted to upload their MP3 collection, favorite game, etc, and of course whatever accompanying trojan/virus/spyware they were infected with at home and didn't know about (or worse, were trying to hit the company with, sneaking around the firwall/email-filter). Someone would have to be seriously bored out of their minds to try to upload their games/MP3's using Kermit. ;)
Someone just has to move a jumper on the motherboard, then put it back to reset the password. Making them chisel out the USB port leaves a little more physical evidence of what went on. ;) Do both.
That wouldn't worry me. Odds are your disk will probably suffer from the 'click of death' by the time you get home. ;)
I know of several companies which have filled in all the USB/firewire ports on most of the computers with epoxy. Only people who actually have a real need for devices using those ports have working USB/firewire (there are no floppies or CD/DVD burners in 'regular' staff machines either)
I've got to disagree. Unless you need serious hardware performance (for playing games, etc) for a specific app, running VMWare is much better than dual booting. I do it all the time. If I were to dual boot I'd have to close down a lot of applications I'm using to switch to the other OS to use a different one under it. As it is with VMWare I just tab to the VMWare window, use the app, then tab back to the rest of the apps I need.
Replicators can make Orian sex slaves? Sweet!