If I was a student at Penn State I'd be asking for a partial refund of my fees.
Please. Should students with DSL be reimbursed if they don't use the modem pool (which the tech fee also funds)? What if the tech fee funded a computer lab in the chem building (as was done at my school) - would you be demanding a partial refund of your fees due to such projects? Besides, in my experience the computer savy Linux users used the services supplied by the tech fee to a far greater degree than most students anyway (with the possible exception of those exceedingly rare individuals who didn't own a computer and lived in the labs). Personally, I don't think the Linux users are going to gain much support with such an arguement (though the Mac users will due to popular support).
"Instead of just reading an email (...just reading an email?!?), a Linux user would have to read the email, save the attachment, give the attachment executable permissions, and then run the executable."
And people wonder why Linux isn't sweeping the market. Simplicity sells, and for good reasons. I'm a technophile and I value security, but even I don't want to go through a dozen and a half steps just to open a file that I 'know' to be safe.
The Windows operating systems certainly have their problems - particularly with how certain defaults are set up. However making life more difficult for the end user definitely won't win any support.
Amen to the University of Florida! Many of us absolutely require fast internet connections for our work - downloading journal articles, nucleotide searches, etc - and programs such as Kazaa only serve to hinder legitimate work. In fact, I'd strongly support the University of Florida in their actions even if downloading RIAA music was legal. My field must be unique - not once have I heard a story where Kazaa (or other P2P program) was required professionally. If something is required for work, there are far better, and faster, ways to obtain it than through P2P.
What I find absolutely amazing though, is that after reading slashdot posters calling time and time again for net admins to cut off virally / worm infected computers from the net, I haven't seen a single post saying "You go U of FL! Thanks for trying to curb the propagation of malicious programs!"
I must be totally missing something. Would someone please explain to me what the whole controversy is behind this 'black box'?
From my limited understanding, the 'black box' stores a record of the car's mechanical stats retroactively five seconds prior to an accident - and even then we're talking about a relatively major accident, not a minor fender bender. This device isn't a GPS unit, it doesn't 'call home', nor does it record conversations (which wouldn't consist of anything more than "Oh shiii... *crunch*" anyway). What privacy are we trying to protect? When we file the police report or an insurance claim don't we voluntarily report much of this information anyway? When the police officer or insurance agent asks "How fast were you traveling?", am I to believe that you all claim "I'm sorry, I won't answer that question as I feel it invades my privacy"? Either I'm missing a key fact, or my definition of privacy is grossly out of sync.
Yes, there are traffic laws. But the fact is nearly everyone pushes them to one extant or another.
Absolutely. However, should one choose to break the law and that choice becomes a contributing factor in an accident, then the individual should be held responsible for making that choice.
If the numbers that the telemarketing industry is throwing about are even half right, this could end our current economic recovery. Telemarketers alledge that they create several billion dollars in sales every year, several billion dollars that will go up in smoke in October. Be careful what you wish for.
I've never understood this logic. Telemarketers get (earn?) their money from customers, so if they can't contact potential customers then the customers are left with some additional disposable income. The customer says "Hey! I have some extra money" and they go out and buy an extra shirt. The money doesn't disappear from the economy, it just moves to a different area.
Similarly I've never understood why sick days "cause millions of damage to our economy each year!" (especially since vacations days don't create the same headlines). A sick person tends to buy cold medicine and visit the doctor (or Six Flags)... isn't that pumping money into those sectors?
About two years ago there was a technician in the lab next door who loved to spend time writing emails to friends, bidding on ebay, and playing little net games. Her slacking often hurt other members of the lab, but her boss - a great scientist, but a lousy manager - lacked the balls to confront the issue. Out of frustration, some gal got the idea to 'net send' a message to the account when the technician was screwing off. The message was pretty simple, something like "Please limit your computer usage to work related activities. Thank you. System Administrator", but boy did that shock her and amazingly her productivity increased (the computer was by far the biggest time suck).
The institution didn't monitor computer usage (as far as I know), but I always wondered what they would have found if they had. I knew several individuals who downloaded massive quantities of MP3s (just testing them out so they could, uh, later buy the album... yeah) or pirated software using the high speed connection. I'm sure the press would have had a heck of a good time had the institution been audited (supported by government grants and all).
Sir, as an microbiologist who has published and peer-reviewed papers, both written and received grants, and have given talks at several scientific meetings, I can say that you don't have the faintest clue as to what you're talking about.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Papers, or in the case of the cold fusion scientists - press conferences, that go against conventional thought must provide additional evidence, additional controls, and extremely meticulous record keeping. Simply because you are a fan of cold fusion, does not make Dr. Pons' and Dr. Fleischmann's experiments quality experiments. Cold fusion could be shown to be a reality tomorrow, and Dr. Pons' and Dr. Fleischmann's experiments still wouldn't be considered good science (nor would they win the Nobel prize). Likewise, just because some individuals made a mistake regarding cold fusion, doesn't mean that the field should be disregarded entirely.
You'll find that scientists in general are very open minded about accepting unconventional ideas, provided there is strong evidence to support those ideas. In fact, I know that both my peers and I would absolutely love to have papers which show some well accepted dogma to be incorrect. Similarly, you'll also find that after reading story after story of "Scientist finds amazing cure for cancer!!", scientists tend to give the mass media very little, if any, attention regarding scientific issues. We know the media doesn't know the first thing about science (though we'd like them to, and we work hard to educate them), and that our results are unfortunately often grossly over exaggerated and only half the story told (sometimes in our favor, sometimes painting us as unethical, evil beings).
You're absolutely correct - there are many stories where (now) heroes like Galileo, Tesla and Darwin who were outcast and discredited for their revolutionary ideas. However, simply being shunned and discredited for one's ideas doesn't make them a hero - Water memory, Vitamin O, polywater, and (dare I say) timecube. Should the people who came up with these ideas be regarded as heroes? For every hero, there are plenty of individuals who were forgotten, disregarded and even labeled as frauds - and rightfully so.
Scientists who disregard cold fusion do so, not because of Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann, but for other reasons all together. As far as I can tell, the only people that are angry with the two scientists are those working in the field of cold fusion, who believe that it may be possible, and now have to work under a legacy of some poor experimental work. If cold fusion is shown to be true, it'll be despite of Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann's work, not because of it.
Simply because the cold fusion hypothesis is not dead does not make Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann any more correct in their findings. The scientists weren't ostracized because they claimed to have experimental evidence to support cold fusion - had the evidence proved true, the world would have been ecstatic. The problem was in how the scientists presented their results.
Anyone who presents their data to the popular press prior to being peer reviewed should be heavily criticized. Even the most senior and brightest scientist make mistakes, become too enthusiastic, or may fail to run the proper controls. Furthermore, given that their data changed over time (from one Watt in, four out to one Watt in, ten out) with no reasoning, backing or explanation, one has to question the accuracy of their data.
Great scientists sometimes make big mistakes, such as with Dr. Atassi and his experiment with pepzymes. Unlike the cold fusion scientists, Dr. Atassi went through the peer review process and later didn't play the ego game. Personally, I think Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann were greatly mislead by their enthusiasm (I wouldn't go nearly so far as to call them frauds). Just as the mistakes of these two scientists don't invalidate the field of cold fusion, the successes of the field don't make their claims any more accurate.
The University of Washington had a "student run" program where returning students could volunteer to help freshmen move into their dorm room. In return for their help, the UW would supply the volunteers with free food (Usually through SubWay, Dominos, etc, with a student leader ordering the food using UW budget codes). After everyone moved in, the group would disband and everyone would forget about it until the following fall.
Approximately six years ago, the student leader who was in charge of ordering food decided in Winter quarter that he would use the budget codes and try to order up some food for him and his friends (http://tinyurl.com/mhck) . What was Eric's excuse when he was eventually caught? "I was just trying to show how insecure the system was" and "I was really doing Res. Life a favor". Sound familiar? Eric Feigenbaum then wrote a series of articles to the student newspaper, The Daily, regarding his experience and how the university didn't appreciate his 'generous act'.
Personally I become extremely nervous when someone decides to conduct some unannounced public service, especially through illegal means. Usually the "I'm just misunderstood. I was really trying to help out" excuse comes out after the individual gets caught, but some individuals will come forward first, hoping that it'll cover their tracks. For example, I had one employee to came up to me and said that they learned how to use the copier without first putting in their copy code. Turns out the employee decided to "test" his method by making over 5000 copies over a period of three days (all after hours). Another employee within the firm reported that some equipment was missing (it would have been discovered later that week). It was eventually discovered that the very same employee had stolen the equipment the night before.
I don't know the first thing about Adrian Lamo besides what's written in the referenced article. He may be the most honest, altruistic, and generally nice guy in the world. Good for him. The problem is that the next Adrian Lamo may not be.
Slashdot Mirror
Please. Should students with DSL be reimbursed if they don't use the modem pool (which the tech fee also funds)? What if the tech fee funded a computer lab in the chem building (as was done at my school) - would you be demanding a partial refund of your fees due to such projects? Besides, in my experience the computer savy Linux users used the services supplied by the tech fee to a far greater degree than most students anyway (with the possible exception of those exceedingly rare individuals who didn't own a computer and lived in the labs). Personally, I don't think the Linux users are going to gain much support with such an arguement (though the Mac users will due to popular support).
"Instead of just reading an email (...just reading an email?!?), a Linux user would have to read the email, save the attachment, give the attachment executable permissions, and then run the executable."
And people wonder why Linux isn't sweeping the market. Simplicity sells, and for good reasons. I'm a technophile and I value security, but even I don't want to go through a dozen and a half steps just to open a file that I 'know' to be safe.
The Windows operating systems certainly have their problems - particularly with how certain defaults are set up. However making life more difficult for the end user definitely won't win any support.
What I find absolutely amazing though, is that after reading slashdot posters calling time and time again for net admins to cut off virally / worm infected computers from the net, I haven't seen a single post saying "You go U of FL! Thanks for trying to curb the propagation of malicious programs!"
From my limited understanding, the 'black box' stores a record of the car's mechanical stats retroactively five seconds prior to an accident - and even then we're talking about a relatively major accident, not a minor fender bender. This device isn't a GPS unit, it doesn't 'call home', nor does it record conversations (which wouldn't consist of anything more than "Oh shiii... *crunch*" anyway). What privacy are we trying to protect? When we file the police report or an insurance claim don't we voluntarily report much of this information anyway? When the police officer or insurance agent asks "How fast were you traveling?", am I to believe that you all claim "I'm sorry, I won't answer that question as I feel it invades my privacy"? Either I'm missing a key fact, or my definition of privacy is grossly out of sync.
Absolutely. However, should one choose to break the law and that choice becomes a contributing factor in an accident, then the individual should be held responsible for making that choice.
If the numbers that the telemarketing industry is throwing about are even half right, this could end our current economic recovery. Telemarketers alledge that they create several billion dollars in sales every year, several billion dollars that will go up in smoke in October. Be careful what you wish for.
I've never understood this logic. Telemarketers get (earn?) their money from customers, so if they can't contact potential customers then the customers are left with some additional disposable income. The customer says "Hey! I have some extra money" and they go out and buy an extra shirt. The money doesn't disappear from the economy, it just moves to a different area.
Similarly I've never understood why sick days "cause millions of damage to our economy each year!" (especially since vacations days don't create the same headlines). A sick person tends to buy cold medicine and visit the doctor (or Six Flags)... isn't that pumping money into those sectors?
Had to fix the title - I just couldn't let that one slide. Definitely time for bed.
The institution didn't monitor computer usage (as far as I know), but I always wondered what they would have found if they had. I knew several individuals who downloaded massive quantities of MP3s (just testing them out so they could, uh, later buy the album... yeah) or pirated software using the high speed connection. I'm sure the press would have had a heck of a good time had the institution been audited (supported by government grants and all).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Papers, or in the case of the cold fusion scientists - press conferences, that go against conventional thought must provide additional evidence, additional controls, and extremely meticulous record keeping. Simply because you are a fan of cold fusion, does not make Dr. Pons' and Dr. Fleischmann's experiments quality experiments. Cold fusion could be shown to be a reality tomorrow, and Dr. Pons' and Dr. Fleischmann's experiments still wouldn't be considered good science (nor would they win the Nobel prize). Likewise, just because some individuals made a mistake regarding cold fusion, doesn't mean that the field should be disregarded entirely.
You'll find that scientists in general are very open minded about accepting unconventional ideas, provided there is strong evidence to support those ideas. In fact, I know that both my peers and I would absolutely love to have papers which show some well accepted dogma to be incorrect. Similarly, you'll also find that after reading story after story of "Scientist finds amazing cure for cancer!!", scientists tend to give the mass media very little, if any, attention regarding scientific issues. We know the media doesn't know the first thing about science (though we'd like them to, and we work hard to educate them), and that our results are unfortunately often grossly over exaggerated and only half the story told (sometimes in our favor, sometimes painting us as unethical, evil beings).
You're absolutely correct - there are many stories where (now) heroes like Galileo, Tesla and Darwin who were outcast and discredited for their revolutionary ideas. However, simply being shunned and discredited for one's ideas doesn't make them a hero - Water memory, Vitamin O, polywater, and (dare I say) timecube. Should the people who came up with these ideas be regarded as heroes? For every hero, there are plenty of individuals who were forgotten, disregarded and even labeled as frauds - and rightfully so.
Scientists who disregard cold fusion do so, not because of Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann, but for other reasons all together. As far as I can tell, the only people that are angry with the two scientists are those working in the field of cold fusion, who believe that it may be possible, and now have to work under a legacy of some poor experimental work. If cold fusion is shown to be true, it'll be despite of Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann's work, not because of it.
Anyone who presents their data to the popular press prior to being peer reviewed should be heavily criticized. Even the most senior and brightest scientist make mistakes, become too enthusiastic, or may fail to run the proper controls. Furthermore, given that their data changed over time (from one Watt in, four out to one Watt in, ten out) with no reasoning, backing or explanation, one has to question the accuracy of their data.
Great scientists sometimes make big mistakes, such as with Dr. Atassi and his experiment with pepzymes. Unlike the cold fusion scientists, Dr. Atassi went through the peer review process and later didn't play the ego game. Personally, I think Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann were greatly mislead by their enthusiasm (I wouldn't go nearly so far as to call them frauds). Just as the mistakes of these two scientists don't invalidate the field of cold fusion, the successes of the field don't make their claims any more accurate.
The University of Washington had a "student run" program where returning students could volunteer to help freshmen move into their dorm room. In return for their help, the UW would supply the volunteers with free food (Usually through SubWay, Dominos, etc, with a student leader ordering the food using UW budget codes). After everyone moved in, the group would disband and everyone would forget about it until the following fall. Approximately six years ago, the student leader who was in charge of ordering food decided in Winter quarter that he would use the budget codes and try to order up some food for him and his friends (http://tinyurl.com/mhck) . What was Eric's excuse when he was eventually caught? "I was just trying to show how insecure the system was" and "I was really doing Res. Life a favor". Sound familiar? Eric Feigenbaum then wrote a series of articles to the student newspaper, The Daily, regarding his experience and how the university didn't appreciate his 'generous act'. Personally I become extremely nervous when someone decides to conduct some unannounced public service, especially through illegal means. Usually the "I'm just misunderstood. I was really trying to help out" excuse comes out after the individual gets caught, but some individuals will come forward first, hoping that it'll cover their tracks. For example, I had one employee to came up to me and said that they learned how to use the copier without first putting in their copy code. Turns out the employee decided to "test" his method by making over 5000 copies over a period of three days (all after hours). Another employee within the firm reported that some equipment was missing (it would have been discovered later that week). It was eventually discovered that the very same employee had stolen the equipment the night before. I don't know the first thing about Adrian Lamo besides what's written in the referenced article. He may be the most honest, altruistic, and generally nice guy in the world. Good for him. The problem is that the next Adrian Lamo may not be.