What you are effectively saying is that your definition of right and wrong has no basis what so ever other than your gut feeling.
My $.02 since you asked:
Stanford: Perfectly acceptable reaction in a moral sense. They can accept or reject whomever they wish for any reason. On the other hand, their reaction has no rational basis and is most likely very stupid in the long run.
Students: Perfectly acceptable behavior in a moral sense. The information was presumed available, and of immediate and pertinant interest to them. However they were twarted, because Stanford hadn't posted the information yet. I cannot think of any reasonable arguement that can be made that this behavior was wrong.
Additionally I find your assertion that what is right and wrong is simply a matter of opinion or perspective apalling. If your assertion were true nothing would be right simply because nothing could be wrong. That's taking subjective morality a little far...
Me: Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein all beleived in god
Me: Therefore, by your preposition all three are ignorant
It appears that #3 is a contradition of #1, therefore by a proof of contradiction #1 cannot be true.
Additionally:
GP: Scientists don't believe in a god
This is appeal to authority which can in some cases be cited as evidence. However it can be refuted by demonstrating that other experts in the same field (in this case scientific ones) dispute the claim. So I cited other experts.
No, I just don't believe that this particular act can be construed as morally or ethically wrong under any sane system of ethics. I'm asking you to prove me wrong by demonstrating one such system: the one you hold.
> Let's see - one person discovers how to get to a page,
That's the person I was refering to.
> and a bunch of others folow their directions - not much original thought or out of the box thinking there.
True, but you claim this behavior is unethical; I don't see why. Please explain.
> More like a bunch of drones who read from a script when you call their companies tech support line.
Actually I'd say it's more like a group of engineers who doesn't want to wait to have a computer get moved and instead just moves it themselves so they can get on with their jobs. The reaction from the Universities would be the beuracracy firing them for violating the rules. Everyone knows that the engineers should sit on their butts and let a grunt spend two weeks processing and moving the computer instead of wasting 30 whole minutes moving it themselves. (Yes this has actually happened...)
All well and good. The University is a private institution and technically can do just about anything it wants to. That doesn't make them an authority on right and wrong, which is what we are talking about.
> Well, I'm saying they were wrong, and I'd wager that's the majority opinion of society.
You keep asserting this without any reasoning to back it up. I want to understand your reasoning, I couldn't care less about your opinion or your conclusion.
Why is it that you feel it is wrong? An appeal to public sentiment isn't going to get you anywhere; it is easy to show that public opinion can be very wrong.
Am I to conclude from your post that Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein (as well as many others) are all ignorant? After all, that is the implication you make....
In the interests of accuracy, I'd like to point out that Aquinas, while he created much original and interesting work, is not the originator of the prime mover arguement, that arguement would be from Maimonides who is considered one of Aquinas's primary influences and who in turn was influced by Aristotle.
> How do you teach someone how to apply knowledge they've acquired?
The same way people learn everything maybe: through use? If U.S. schools tought math by using it to do something instead of as a bunch of problems to be "worked out", perhaps math scores would be higher?
Hitler wasn't smart, he was deluded. He convinced others that he was smart.
> Smarts do not imply kindness.
While that is true, "smarts" generally implies enough wisdom to know that screwing someone for short-term, transiant, non-essential gain is a very poor long term strategy. By this measure both Hitler and Mao did not possess "smarts".
> Looking at information you're not supposed to look at is doing the wrong thing.
This pretext is not obvious. I can equally say, and some cultures do assert, that hiding information from the community is doing the wrong thing and therefor it is heroic to free it. Simply stating it will not make it so. Why is your statement true? What is your reasoning?
> Would you propose that the students should get no punishment at all?
The information seems irrelevent to the task of an admissions officer, and "punishment" assumes both wrong doing and responsibility or need to correct it. I don't buy any of the assumptions required to even ask that question.
> The fact is that the students did the Wrong Thing ®
How did they do the wrong thing? Be specific and reasonable. Everyone who is claiming this keeps making some vague remarks, show me your reasoning explicitly. I'm willing to consider your point, but only if you posit a full arguement to that affect.
RTFA:
The students didn't get the information because Stanford didn't post it (presumably, they were waiting until d-day). All they got was a screen that said that the information wasn't available yet. What upset Stanford is that the students tried to get the information, not that they succeeded.
While we are on the subject, I'd like to point out that as a busness owner I'm deeply offended and concerned by the implication made by Harvard and Stanford that a separate and different set of ethics applies in business than in the rest of human relations.
Please tell us what ethical system you are using that feels this is unethical (Kant, Locke, Rousseau, Rand, etc.). If you are using something you made up please explain your reasoning in detail.
As I said before, and you ignored me, this isn't unethical; you are just too used to the corporate group think to separate ethics from beuracratic bull.
I have really bad news for you, MOST engineers end up in management. Many of the guys applying to business school are engineers who either couldn't hack it and wanted out, or who were tough stuff and wanted to be able to get promoted. The trick is figuring out who is who....
You've been working as a consultant too long. The sort of people who think like you do fit in perfectly in the giant beuracracy that is the modern corporation because they follow all of the stupid rules and don't rock the boat. (Incedentally, because Harvard and Stanford target this mega-corporations with their graduates, it is likely that this is the reason for the rejections.)
The kind of person who thinks out of the box and does rock the boat is the type of person you want running or working at your company (but usually only smaller companies hire them...). I know I wouldn't care one way or the other if I were hiring them at my company. I don't see anything unethical about it (I can't identify a victim), but following some directions is certainly not impressive enough to warrent hiring on the spot.
As I always tell people: OpenBSD is great, provided you actually read the doucumentation! Since you seem to want OpenBSD to work exactly like Linux so that you don't have to read anything, I'm going to suggest that you just stick with Linux. This isn't intended an insult; for some reason, some people just don't want to read the fine manuals. Those people need to avoid OpenBSD like the plauge. Put another way, your post makes it obvious that you didn't read the instructions...
>I downloadeed a snapshot of the ports tree
Two things:
Use packages whenever possible
Ports snapshots are for -current, if you must use ports, use the tgz from the same version of the OS. Unlike Gentoo and FreeBSD, the OpenBSD 3rd party software is synced with the OS; in general -current ports and packages will not work correctly with -release and -stable
> Many packages are not there
Or you just didn't look for them when they wern't were you expeced them to be; for example, w32codec is in graphics/win32-codecs/.
1. micro-benchmarks arn't relaible use application benchmarks (i.e. the best thing to do is install it and see before putting it into production)
Routing - OBSD is really fast and uses almost no resouces on my small network (~30computers, 1.5Mbit connection that stays at about 90+% useage;); i'm using an old K6-II 400/w 64MB of ram and a 2GB hdd. CPU usage hasn't topped 3%, disk isn't used except durring boot up and memory stays at about 20%
Multimedia and Development- For reference my render times, encoding times, and compile times are only maginally different(to the point of statistical noise) between Linux, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD.
Disk speed - I don't notice a difference, I can still cap out a 100MB/s network with my OBSD server when I transfer large files
Encryption - OBSD has the best hardware encryption support, if you need crypto, OBSD is the fastest.
Misc details:
OpenBSD 3.7 uses an N:1 threading model. So Linux and FreeBSD clearly beat it here. There is work going on at the hack-a-thon to transition to a 1:1 model based on Plan9 rfork, so expect this to change in the future.
SMP - OpenBSD still uses biglock so for applications that use a bunch of system calls OpenBSD will be slower.
The threading is mostly noticed when you try to run XMMS and then scroll throught the playlist, or when you try to run a SQL server. The devs know about them and are working hard to fix it. The big-lock is surprising less troublesome then it was with linux and FreeBSD, I don't know why. I presume they intend to remove it in favor of another option in the future.
I use OBSD exclusive now and am VERY happy with it. I've used almost every major Linux disto and the three major BSDs and OBSD is my clear favorate. The documentation is superb, the system is well integrated, and everything just works. It is a lot less stressful to use and admin than any other system I've ever used. If you have a spare computer I'd suggest trying it out. Note, the biggest "downside" to OBSD is that users are expected to actually learn. The documentation is top notch but it doesn't help you if you don't read it.
As a side point, I've had a ton of general OpenSource advocacy success with OBSD. For some reason I have much better results(i.e. people are happy and keep using OpenSource software) when I help them install OBSD vs. when I install Linux. Take from that what you will.
Depends, for awhile me and my friends played risk 3 nights a week. A game only took about 2-2.5 hrs. If you want a long game try Diplomacy or Republic of Rome (for those who think Diplomacy isn't hard-core enough...).
Speaking of A&A have you played the new version 2? I've seen it at the hobby store but havn't had the cash to pick it up. Does anyone know if it's worth the cash? How does it compare to the original?
A byte is the minimal atomic unit of memory on the system. SRAMS have a word size that refers to the Y number above. When you design a controller ASIC you have a byte-size you intend to use. So to simply system design you make your byte-size match the wordsize of the SRAM. You can also see this in some embeded micro controllers and DSPs.
You are confusing external SRAMS with External DRAMS and embeded terminology and PC terminology. The type of SRAM that the article refers to is used primarily in embeded systems. It is in an ARRAY of x slots * y bits.
Through some strange twist of history, in some areas embeded systems and controllers, a byte of SRAM refers to a word regaurdless of word length. That's why SRAMs are usually labeled with bits, to avoid confusion of PC vs. controllers terminology.
Slashdot Mirror
Students: Perfectly acceptable behavior in a moral sense. The information was presumed available, and of immediate and pertinant interest to them. However they were twarted, because Stanford hadn't posted the information yet. I cannot think of any reasonable arguement that can be made that this behavior was wrong.
Additionally I find your assertion that what is right and wrong is simply a matter of opinion or perspective apalling. If your assertion were true nothing would be right simply because nothing could be wrong. That's taking subjective morality a little far...
- GP: If you believe in a god you are ignorant.
- Me: Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein all beleived in god
- Me: Therefore, by your preposition all three are ignorant
It appears that #3 is a contradition of #1, therefore by a proof of contradiction #1 cannot be true.Additionally:
GP: Scientists don't believe in a god
This is appeal to authority which can in some cases be cited as evidence. However it can be refuted by demonstrating that other experts in the same field (in this case scientific ones) dispute the claim. So I cited other experts.
No, I just don't believe that this particular act can be construed as morally or ethically wrong under any sane system of ethics. I'm asking you to prove me wrong by demonstrating one such system: the one you hold.
That's the person I was refering to.
> and a bunch of others folow their directions - not much original thought or out of the box thinking there.
True, but you claim this behavior is unethical; I don't see why. Please explain.
> More like a bunch of drones who read from a script when you call their companies tech support line.
Actually I'd say it's more like a group of engineers who doesn't want to wait to have a computer get moved and instead just moves it themselves so they can get on with their jobs. The reaction from the Universities would be the beuracracy firing them for violating the rules. Everyone knows that the engineers should sit on their butts and let a grunt spend two weeks processing and moving the computer instead of wasting 30 whole minutes moving it themselves. (Yes this has actually happened...)
You keep asserting this without any reasoning to back it up. I want to understand your reasoning, I couldn't care less about your opinion or your conclusion.
Why is it that you feel it is wrong? An appeal to public sentiment isn't going to get you anywhere; it is easy to show that public opinion can be very wrong.
Am I to conclude from your post that Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein (as well as many others) are all ignorant? After all, that is the implication you make....
In the interests of accuracy, I'd like to point out that Aquinas, while he created much original and interesting work, is not the originator of the prime mover arguement, that arguement would be from Maimonides who is considered one of Aquinas's primary influences and who in turn was influced by Aristotle.
The same way people learn everything maybe: through use? If U.S. schools tought math by using it to do something instead of as a bunch of problems to be "worked out", perhaps math scores would be higher?
> Smarts do not imply kindness.
While that is true, "smarts" generally implies enough wisdom to know that screwing someone for short-term, transiant, non-essential gain is a very poor long term strategy. By this measure both Hitler and Mao did not possess "smarts".
This pretext is not obvious. I can equally say, and some cultures do assert, that hiding information from the community is doing the wrong thing and therefor it is heroic to free it. Simply stating it will not make it so. Why is your statement true? What is your reasoning?
> Would you propose that the students should get no punishment at all?
The information seems irrelevent to the task of an admissions officer, and "punishment" assumes both wrong doing and responsibility or need to correct it. I don't buy any of the assumptions required to even ask that question.
How did they do the wrong thing? Be specific and reasonable. Everyone who is claiming this keeps making some vague remarks, show me your reasoning explicitly. I'm willing to consider your point, but only if you posit a full arguement to that affect.
RTFA: The students didn't get the information because Stanford didn't post it (presumably, they were waiting until d-day). All they got was a screen that said that the information wasn't available yet. What upset Stanford is that the students tried to get the information, not that they succeeded.
While we are on the subject, I'd like to point out that as a busness owner I'm deeply offended and concerned by the implication made by Harvard and Stanford that a separate and different set of ethics applies in business than in the rest of human relations.
As I said before, and you ignored me, this isn't unethical; you are just too used to the corporate group think to separate ethics from beuracratic bull.
I have really bad news for you, MOST engineers end up in management. Many of the guys applying to business school are engineers who either couldn't hack it and wanted out, or who were tough stuff and wanted to be able to get promoted. The trick is figuring out who is who....
The kind of person who thinks out of the box and does rock the boat is the type of person you want running or working at your company (but usually only smaller companies hire them...). I know I wouldn't care one way or the other if I were hiring them at my company. I don't see anything unethical about it (I can't identify a victim), but following some directions is certainly not impressive enough to warrent hiring on the spot.
This is about Business school not undergrad; I doubt there are angry parents at that point....
As I always tell people: OpenBSD is great, provided you actually read the doucumentation! Since you seem to want OpenBSD to work exactly like Linux so that you don't have to read anything, I'm going to suggest that you just stick with Linux. This isn't intended an insult; for some reason, some people just don't want to read the fine manuals. Those people need to avoid OpenBSD like the plauge. Put another way, your post makes it obvious that you didn't read the instructions...
>I downloadeed a snapshot of the ports tree
Two things:
- Use packages whenever possible
- Ports snapshots are for -current, if you must use ports, use the tgz from the same version of the OS. Unlike Gentoo and FreeBSD, the OpenBSD 3rd party software is synced with the OS; in general -current ports and packages will not work correctly with -release and -stable
> Many packages are not there Or you just didn't look for them when they wern't were you expeced them to be; for example, w32codec is in graphics/win32-codecs/.1. micro-benchmarks arn't relaible use application benchmarks (i.e. the best thing to do is install it and see before putting it into production)
Routing - OBSD is really fast and uses almost no resouces on my small network (~30computers, 1.5Mbit connection that stays at about 90+% useage;); i'm using an old K6-II 400 /w 64MB of ram and a 2GB hdd. CPU usage hasn't topped 3%, disk isn't used except durring boot up and memory stays at about 20%
Multimedia and Development- For reference my render times, encoding times, and compile times are only maginally different(to the point of statistical noise) between Linux, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD.
Disk speed - I don't notice a difference, I can still cap out a 100MB/s network with my OBSD server when I transfer large files
Encryption - OBSD has the best hardware encryption support, if you need crypto, OBSD is the fastest.
Misc details:
OpenBSD 3.7 uses an N:1 threading model. So Linux and FreeBSD clearly beat it here. There is work going on at the hack-a-thon to transition to a 1:1 model based on Plan9 rfork, so expect this to change in the future.
SMP - OpenBSD still uses biglock so for applications that use a bunch of system calls OpenBSD will be slower.
The threading is mostly noticed when you try to run XMMS and then scroll throught the playlist, or when you try to run a SQL server. The devs know about them and are working hard to fix it. The big-lock is surprising less troublesome then it was with linux and FreeBSD, I don't know why. I presume they intend to remove it in favor of another option in the future.
I use OBSD exclusive now and am VERY happy with it. I've used almost every major Linux disto and the three major BSDs and OBSD is my clear favorate. The documentation is superb, the system is well integrated, and everything just works. It is a lot less stressful to use and admin than any other system I've ever used. If you have a spare computer I'd suggest trying it out. Note, the biggest "downside" to OBSD is that users are expected to actually learn. The documentation is top notch but it doesn't help you if you don't read it.
As a side point, I've had a ton of general OpenSource advocacy success with OBSD. For some reason I have much better results(i.e. people are happy and keep using OpenSource software) when I help them install OBSD vs. when I install Linux. Take from that what you will.
Depends, for awhile me and my friends played risk 3 nights a week. A game only took about 2-2.5 hrs. If you want a long game try Diplomacy or Republic of Rome (for those who think Diplomacy isn't hard-core enough...).
Speaking of A&A have you played the new version 2? I've seen it at the hobby store but havn't had the cash to pick it up. Does anyone know if it's worth the cash? How does it compare to the original?
As to the question, disassembling the code to make sure can't hurt anyone and would avoid lots of rumor mongering and conspiricy theories.
Thanks for your reply.
A byte is the minimal atomic unit of memory on the system. SRAMS have a word size that refers to the Y number above. When you design a controller ASIC you have a byte-size you intend to use. So to simply system design you make your byte-size match the wordsize of the SRAM. You can also see this in some embeded micro controllers and DSPs.
Through some strange twist of history, in some areas embeded systems and controllers, a byte of SRAM refers to a word regaurdless of word length. That's why SRAMs are usually labeled with bits, to avoid confusion of PC vs. controllers terminology.