"'This sends a clear message that there are consequences if companies allow their resources to further copyright infringement,' said Matt Oppenheim, RIAA Senior Vice President, Business and Legal Affairs." (emphasis mine)
I think this is the first time I've <b>ever</b> heard the RIAA call it this rather than theft.
They're also attracting a few geeks. I've always thought Apple's put out nice hardware, and for the past few years I've been thinking of getting one to put BSD or Linux on. Well, Apple went and did that for us, so given that I've secured employment when the university hands me the piece of paper, I'll be getting a Powerbook sometime this May.
Today (well... at least now... Jan. 6) I believe is Epiphany. It's when most Orthodox Christianity celebrates Christmas for real. It's in rememberance of the magi visiting.
The state has absolutely no obligation to protect me (despite what the "we must think of the children!" crowd thinks), but it does have an obligation to enforce its laws.
And what might be the purpose of these laws, if not to protect the citizens?
(Disclaimer: I'm biased. This major was made for me. I chose my major when I was a freshman in high school, and I would've chosen it earlier had it existed in its current form before that. Also, I can only speak for UIUC's (U. of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, or as I like to call it, Under-Construction) program, since I've spent all of my college career there so far in the CompE program, and I'm currently a senior.)
CompE here is more or less a blend of EE and CS. It's actually not much different than a double major in the two (which I once considered, but realized that I couldn't finish in four years and keep my sanity). Oh, before I forget, ECE = Electrical and Computer Engineering (the department name). Here's a brief rundown of the main points of the three programs here:
EE: The majority of the technical classes focus on analog circuits and signals. A lot of people here with EE degrees get into microwave/radio communications and high-power applications, but there's plenty more to be done. You're also required to take a rudimentary digital design course which gives a broad overview of CPU design by the end. You do have two CS required courses, which give you a great CS foundation, but there's a LOT more you could learn, and with just two semesters' worth of CS, you really don't end up with enough practice (the best way to learn how to program is to program a lot). Also, the math requirements aren't quite as stringent as CS or CompE. You can take plenty more CompE-style electives (CPU architecture, digital signal processing, x86 assembly, VLSI design, etc.).
CS: The general consensus among the EE and CompE crowds (and even some CS folk) is that it's an easier program. Of course, I'm sure much of this reputation comes from the people in ECE who partway into the program realized that they really just don't like ECE, or they don't want to take the analog and electromagnetics requirements for CompE. You get an excellent background in stuff any good CS program should have (combinatorics, data structures, software engineering, etc.) You can also specialize in many fields (OS design, AI, graphics, etc.) The physical science requirements are very slightly relaxed compared to ECE. Compared to CompE, the low-level programming is incredibly weak (IMHO, an understanding of low-level programming will help you tremendously in high-level programming). Take CS if you want a career in any sort of programming, software engineering, or some sort of algorithm research.
CompE: We have all the core technical classes common to EE and CS, plus our own core (CPU architecture, an incredibly practical low-level programming course, and a lab involving designing circuits with TTL, a PLD, and a microcontroller). Our technical electives can come from either CS or EE, so you can specialize or generalize as much as you want. Unfortunately, we have to take a hefty dose of analog signal processing, electromagnetics, and solid-state devices. CompE is perfect for anybody wanting to go into CPU design, embedded systems, or low-level programming of any sort. I'd really reccomend this major for anybody who isn't sure whether CS or EE is better, since you'll have no problem finding a career in either field.
Really, the best thing you can do is just jump in, take a few classes in any of these that you're interested in, and then make a descision. Even if you end up in a career you don't like, any of these three degrees have a reasonable amount of lateral mobility (especially CompE) between any field in electronics or software.
Err... that's DCMA, right? Anyway, not only would it be illegal to make and posess ass-shields, it would be illegal to even *link* to blueprints for them. But the NY Times would still get away with it.
That is, of course, dependent on two things. The first is that we HAVE made decent estimates of the amount of mass in galaxies, and second, that our understanding of gravity is correct. Not that I'm completely discounting the theory of dark matter -- I believe it exists, even though I have very limited knowledge in this area -- but I'm just pointing out that things the scientific community seems so sure about today may be completely disproven tomorrow, and it wouldn't upset me much at all.
"Let's see Miranda's gone, Fair Use is gone, Free Speech is gone, the Right to Bear Arms is gone (flame away!), and I'm guessing the next thing will either be that we have to billet soldiers in our houses or that the government will be able to search whatever it wants whenever it wants."
Seems they're one step ahead of you already. From what I've been able to piece together after weeks of trying to ignore the whole Elian matter, I'm fairly sure that nobody ever issued a warrant to search the home of Juan Gonzales. That didn't stop an insane amount of officers invading his home to get Elian. Hmm... I wonder which Constitutional right will fall next...
Mmm... I want one. I'm actually quite surprized, not only do they look tasty, but I don't see any preservatives in the ingredients list, and they're vegetarian. I think I'll have to get a few of these to try them out.
So, voting ability should only be granted to those who're 18 and older -- and to *everyone* who is 18 and older? So you're saying felons and the insane -- as long as they're over the age of 18 -- are better suited for making a rational descision than people under the age of 18? That's just not how things work.
I'll be 20 this October, so I have a group of friends that ranges a good deal between the ages of about 16 and 24. At least in my opinion, a hefty number of them who are under 18 are far more able to go through the thought process involved in voting than many older people I've met.
Age restrictions are about the most insane thing I've seen in this country. Uncle Sam says you're old enough to drive a car when you're 16, but good luck trying to vote, drink, or even find a rental car (the rental thing is a nightmare if your car needs repairs, which just happened to me about a month ago). Think about it. This is the same as saying you're not responsible enough to influence your government's direction, consume alcohol, use a credit card, gamble, and a few other things, but you are responsible enough to control something that's involved in a hideous amount of deaths in this country. Speaking of something that's instrumental in a horrifying amount of deaths, think about guns for a second. I don't know the exact age you need to be to own/operate a gun, but I'm fairly sure it's less than 16. I'll uphold our right to bear arms, but it makes no sense to say that somebody's responsible enough to handle a tool designed to kill (legitimate uses included -- like hunting and self-defense) without also saying that person's responsible enough to handle a tool designed for transportation. Then, once you finally turn 18, you can vote. As an added bonus, Uncle Sam says you can even go sign up to risk your life for your country. In fact, if you're male, you're *required* to sign up for the draft (*cough* blatant sexism *cough*). But don't you dare go near that beer bottle for another three years.
The biggest problem with this is that age restrictions are the only *practical* way to handle these things (that is, of course, if you're under the impression that things like this should be restricted at all). So, as I don my asbestos suit, let me just say that if age restrictions must be put on things like this, they should at least be done in some sort of logical progression.
If you REALLY want to help, you should try training some of the faculty to take advantage of the hardware. One of the best examples of why this is needed is my high school. It had several hundred PCs (one per classroom, plus a few labs) -- many of which were fairly up to date (one of the labs had PIIs, and they might have been upgraded since I graduated in '98).
For the most part, they were just used as overglorified word processors.
There were two exceptions to this: the joke we called our CS department, and one lone math classroom. I won't even start on the CS department. And out of the two years I was in that math classroom, we only used the computers about ten times. Even with the hideous software on those things, we still had the potential to use the computers for ALL the lessons both years (this leads to a MUCH deeper understanding of the topic since you don't get the student caught up in all the grunt work -- I was fortuante enough to take a section of diffeq using Mathematica last semester at UIUC, and I felt like I actually understood the concepts instead of just plugging numbers into equations and solving).
Outside of that, I didn't get a single opportunity to use the classroom PCs. Off the top of my head, I can think of several areas that they would have been beneficial: research for my history and government classes (we even had decent bandwidth, but it was completely unused!), aid visualization of bonds in chemistry, ability to tweak parameters to see what hapens to economic graphs, find other works by the same author in my literature class, scan/sequence sheet music in orchestra to get a feel of what it's supposed to sound like, etc., etc., etc.
Why wasn't I offered those opportunities? The teachers and administration had no idea that half of that could be done, and they had no idea how to actually do any of it.
So I guess the biggest thing to keep in consideration is that the hardware's useless somebody trains the faculty how to use it.
Unfortunately, I don't have any experience in this (though I just bought a Liberetto over the net just 5 min. ago... I've been searching for something like one of these for a long time). So how could I possibly be of help? Well, if you can't get two PCMCIA ethernet cards working, you could try a parallel ethernet adapter (I think they're called "pocket adapters").
I just got some e-mail from CoSource (see http://www.cosource.com/) saying their beta just went live, too. For those of you who've been hiding under a rock, CoSource and sourceXchange are very similar, but CoSource is a bit more informal (e.g. there's not usually just one mega investor, it's usually lots of us "unwashed Linux masses" who each front up a small amount of cash).
... to something they don't understand is to regulate it. Crypto case-in-point. Either that or they've been smoking something pretty serious. Hmm... that'd put them in the "drug dealers/child molesters/terrorists" category, and everybody knows that those are the only people who use crypto.;)
(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I think I have a decent understanding of the GPL).
What about gcc? I haven't taken a look at the sources, but I'm sure that somewhere in there (maybe in the data files, which are also placed under the GPL), there's pre-defined stuff that ends up in your executables. But you can legally create closed-source binaries with gcc. My understanding is that this is because your programs aren't a "derivative work" of gcc (search the text of the GPL for the full legal mumbo jumbo), even though gcc is a vital step in making closed-source binaries. The same should apply to your program. But this could all be thrown out the window if your program has some complex macros that're statically shoved into the final works (e.g. you CAN'T legally produce closed-source binaries with ANY compiler if you statically link with a GPLed library).
Also, I just realized there's a flame war waiting to burst out about my semantics: in this case, I'm using "closed-source" as a synonym of "non GPLed".
Slashdot Mirror
"'This sends a clear message that there are consequences if companies allow their resources to further copyright infringement,' said Matt Oppenheim, RIAA Senior Vice President, Business and Legal Affairs." (emphasis mine)
I think this is the first time I've <b>ever</b> heard the RIAA call it this rather than theft.
What about a tsunami? Would it just pass you by, or would you be ripped to shreds?
They're also attracting a few geeks. I've always thought Apple's put out nice hardware, and for the past few years I've been thinking of getting one to put BSD or Linux on. Well, Apple went and did that for us, so given that I've secured employment when the university hands me the piece of paper, I'll be getting a Powerbook sometime this May.
Today (well... at least now... Jan. 6) I believe is Epiphany. It's when most Orthodox Christianity celebrates Christmas for real. It's in rememberance of the magi visiting.
I was thinking of a different two words.
No message here, either :)
Somebody just posted to Slashdot with the correct usage of "cite" and "site" in the same post?!? What's this world coming to?
CompE here is more or less a blend of EE and CS. It's actually not much different than a double major in the two (which I once considered, but realized that I couldn't finish in four years and keep my sanity). Oh, before I forget, ECE = Electrical and Computer Engineering (the department name). Here's a brief rundown of the main points of the three programs here:
Really, the best thing you can do is just jump in, take a few classes in any of these that you're interested in, and then make a descision. Even if you end up in a career you don't like, any of these three degrees have a reasonable amount of lateral mobility (especially CompE) between any field in electronics or software.
Err... that's DCMA, right? Anyway, not only would it be illegal to make and posess ass-shields, it would be illegal to even *link* to blueprints for them. But the NY Times would still get away with it.
Looks like somebody forgot to close a quote in that HTML there. Take a look at
http://minidisco.com/minispecs/lunchbots.html
To see the ninja soup bowl things.
That is, of course, dependent on two things. The first is that we HAVE made decent estimates of the amount of mass in galaxies, and second, that our understanding of gravity is correct. Not that I'm completely discounting the theory of dark matter -- I believe it exists, even though I have very limited knowledge in this area -- but I'm just pointing out that things the scientific community seems so sure about today may be completely disproven tomorrow, and it wouldn't upset me much at all.
"Let's see Miranda's gone, Fair Use is gone, Free Speech is gone, the Right to Bear Arms is gone (flame away!), and I'm guessing the next thing will either be that we have to billet soldiers in our houses or that the government will be able to search whatever it wants whenever it wants."
Seems they're one step ahead of you already. From what I've been able to piece together after weeks of trying to ignore the whole Elian matter, I'm fairly sure that nobody ever issued a warrant to search the home of Juan Gonzales. That didn't stop an insane amount of officers invading his home to get Elian. Hmm... I wonder which Constitutional right will fall next...
.fart?
(hoping somebody catches the SNL reference...)
When you go to school here and you hear about cool stuff like this on Slashdot before any source on campus.
IBM's site seems to be down at the moment, but you can use the USPTO's site. Indeed, very frightening.
Mmm... I want one. I'm actually quite surprized, not only do they look tasty, but I don't see any preservatives in the ingredients list, and they're vegetarian. I think I'll have to get a few of these to try them out.
See this morning's (Monday's) FoxTrot comic strip (the website is at http://www.foxtrot.com/, but it's a week behind the newspapers).
So, voting ability should only be granted to those who're 18 and older -- and to *everyone* who is 18 and older? So you're saying felons and the insane -- as long as they're over the age of 18 -- are better suited for making a rational descision than people under the age of 18? That's just not how things work.
I'll be 20 this October, so I have a group of friends that ranges a good deal between the ages of about 16 and 24. At least in my opinion, a hefty number of them who are under 18 are far more able to go through the thought process involved in voting than many older people I've met.
Age restrictions are about the most insane thing I've seen in this country. Uncle Sam says you're old enough to drive a car when you're 16, but good luck trying to vote, drink, or even find a rental car (the rental thing is a nightmare if your car needs repairs, which just happened to me about a month ago). Think about it. This is the same as saying you're not responsible enough to influence your government's direction, consume alcohol, use a credit card, gamble, and a few other things, but you are responsible enough to control something that's involved in a hideous amount of deaths in this country. Speaking of something that's instrumental in a horrifying amount of deaths, think about guns for a second. I don't know the exact age you need to be to own/operate a gun, but I'm fairly sure it's less than 16. I'll uphold our right to bear arms, but it makes no sense to say that somebody's responsible enough to handle a tool designed to kill (legitimate uses included -- like hunting and self-defense) without also saying that person's responsible enough to handle a tool designed for transportation. Then, once you finally turn 18, you can vote. As an added bonus, Uncle Sam says you can even go sign up to risk your life for your country. In fact, if you're male, you're *required* to sign up for the draft (*cough* blatant sexism *cough*). But don't you dare go near that beer bottle for another three years.
The biggest problem with this is that age restrictions are the only *practical* way to handle these things (that is, of course, if you're under the impression that things like this should be restricted at all). So, as I don my asbestos suit, let me just say that if age restrictions must be put on things like this, they should at least be done in some sort of logical progression.
If you REALLY want to help, you should try training some of the faculty to take advantage of the hardware. One of the best examples of why this is needed is my high school. It had several hundred PCs (one per classroom, plus a few labs) -- many of which were fairly up to date (one of the labs had PIIs, and they might have been upgraded since I graduated in '98).
For the most part, they were just used as overglorified word processors.
There were two exceptions to this: the joke we called our CS department, and one lone math classroom. I won't even start on the CS department. And out of the two years I was in that math classroom, we only used the computers about ten times. Even with the hideous software on those things, we still had the potential to use the computers for ALL the lessons both years (this leads to a MUCH deeper understanding of the topic since you don't get the student caught up in all the grunt work -- I was fortuante enough to take a section of diffeq using Mathematica last semester at UIUC, and I felt like I actually understood the concepts instead of just plugging numbers into equations and solving).
Outside of that, I didn't get a single opportunity to use the classroom PCs. Off the top of my head, I can think of several areas that they would have been beneficial: research for my history and government classes (we even had decent bandwidth, but it was completely unused!), aid visualization of bonds in chemistry, ability to tweak parameters to see what hapens to economic graphs, find other works by the same author in my literature class, scan/sequence sheet music in orchestra to get a feel of what it's supposed to sound like, etc., etc., etc.
Why wasn't I offered those opportunities? The teachers and administration had no idea that half of that could be done, and they had no idea how to actually do any of it.
So I guess the biggest thing to keep in consideration is that the hardware's useless somebody trains the faculty how to use it.
Unfortunately, I don't have any experience in this (though I just bought a Liberetto over the net just 5 min. ago... I've been searching for something like one of these for a long time). So how could I possibly be of help? Well, if you can't get two PCMCIA ethernet cards working, you could try a parallel ethernet adapter (I think they're called "pocket adapters").
I just got some e-mail from CoSource (see http://www.cosource.com/) saying their beta just went live, too. For those of you who've been hiding under a rock, CoSource and sourceXchange are very similar, but CoSource is a bit more informal (e.g. there's not usually just one mega investor, it's usually lots of us "unwashed Linux masses" who each front up a small amount of cash).
... to something they don't understand is to regulate it. Crypto case-in-point. Either that or they've been smoking something pretty serious. Hmm... that'd put them in the "drug dealers/child molesters/terrorists" category, and everybody knows that those are the only people who use crypto. ;)
Whoops, I meant for that to be in the main thread, not a reply to this one (which I missed, somehow). Sorry.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I think I have a decent understanding of the GPL).
What about gcc? I haven't taken a look at the sources, but I'm sure that somewhere in there (maybe in the data files, which are also placed under the GPL), there's pre-defined stuff that ends up in your executables. But you can legally create closed-source binaries with gcc. My understanding is that this is because your programs aren't a "derivative work" of gcc (search the text of the GPL for the full legal mumbo jumbo), even though gcc is a vital step in making closed-source binaries. The same should apply to your program. But this could all be thrown out the window if your program has some complex macros that're statically shoved into the final works (e.g. you CAN'T legally produce closed-source binaries with ANY compiler if you statically link with a GPLed library).
Also, I just realized there's a flame war waiting to burst out about my semantics: in this case, I'm using "closed-source" as a synonym of "non GPLed".