Quite frankly, these "refutations" are pretty.... poor.
ResNet services and wiring may not be modified or extended beyond the area of their intended use. This applies to all network, hardware, computer lab and in-room data jacks.
This one is questionable, since it does (or can) extend use outside the room.
So could a really long cable. The area of his intended use is Residence (hence the name ResNet), and I fail to see how using wireless instead of a really long cable changes that.
And why would a really long cable be okay under this policy? And arguing that because the service is named "ResNet" that his service is intended to be used anywhere in the residence is rather a stretch!
This is a better point, but he's not using ResNet to provide outsiders with access. If they hack his basestation, he did not provide them with access, they stole his. Totally different ballgame. More so if he really locks down access.
No, if someone hacks his basestation, they stole the universities access. There are many millions of dollars worth of data on that network, and the university has a right to protect it. The policy says that he can't give outsiders access to the network, period. It doesn't matter whether he intends to do so or not.
The University of Colorado specific or commercially obtained network resources may not be retransmitted outside of the University community.
And not being sure about the location or range, this could also apply.
It says "community" not property, and since he's a paying student, wherever he goes, the community goes.
He's retransmitting the network resources. By doing so he is potentially allowing outsiders access to the network. That is in violation of the policy.
This is really an incredible argument. You are claiming that he has a right to have access wherever he is. The rule quoted, however, says nothing at all like that. It says that he MUST NOT provide access to anyone else.
When I was choosing between getting a TiVo or a ReplayTV, I did it entirely on the basis of the privacy policy -- ReplayTV was quite explicit that it would not gather information about you. Why are Slashdot readers so interested in TiVo, when ReplayTV is available and less underhanded?
From what I've seen, CS seems to be taught poorly far more often than it is
taught well. Many places seem to teach it as a set of recipes to memorize --
I've actually seen a course where the students were taught "the seven kinds
of linear search"! Other places aren't as bad, but still teach it as if CS
was a matter of knowing what to type when: "Here's how to make a window come
up using Microsoft's Visual C++ 5.1..."
The results tend to be rather dismal. In a Master's level class I once
gave an assignment where teams of four students had one week to find (not fix)
as many bugs as possible in a 400-line C program. Many of them complained
that a 400-line program was impossibly large, and the only "bug" they could
find was that there weren't enough comments. I've seen Ph.D. students
who were unable to learn Java, and others who complained that writing a
linked list in C was absurdly difficult.
I beleive that CS is mainly a matter of building up useful ways to think
about problems. How do you take the problem requirements, and come up with
a mechanism for implementing them? What ways of formulating your problem
allow it to be modified more easily? The particular language or compiler
that you are using isn't very important -- they just give you slightly
different tools to work with.
In one introductory CS course I co-taught, we started by teaching Scheme, then
switched to ML, and then finally had them use Java. Since Scheme's syntax
is so minimal, we could rapidly get to the point where memorizing recipes
couldn't work -- they actually had to think about the problem. ML's type
system made a great forum for showing them data abstraction, and how they
didn't always have to think about what is going on at the lowest levels
of the system when they are programming. Java introduced them to objects
and procedural programming. Most of all, they learned that they didn't have
to worry about learning new computer languages and that their skills didn't
depend on particular language features.
The results? Well, several years previously I had TA'd a traditional CS
course, and had made up an assignment to write a program to manipulate
polynomials. The students had problems with it, and it was decided that
the assignment was too difficult for them. In my class I gave the students
the same assignment, except that I took out all the hints, and added a
second part as long as the first. A bunch of my students came up to me
and thanked me for giving them a short, easy assignment just when all their
other classes were having midterms.
Now, I won't claim that this isn't the only way to teach CS, and probably
there are even better ways. However, I do think that this shows that there
are better teaching methods than the common "How to program such-and-such
using such-and-such language" courses.
The reason I bought one of the first ReplayTVs, and not a TiVo, is because of the privacy policy, which seems to be commonly ignored. ReplayTV says that information about what you watch will remain private, whereas TiVo refused to say anything similar.
I hope that this move by ReplayTV won't mean the end of snoop-free digital recorders.
Slashdot Mirror
No, if someone hacks his basestation, they stole the universities access. There are many millions of dollars worth of data on that network, and the university has a right to protect it. The policy says that he can't give outsiders access to the network, period. It doesn't matter whether he intends to do so or not.
He's retransmitting the network resources. By doing so he is potentially allowing outsiders access to the network. That is in violation of the policy.This is really an incredible argument. You are claiming that he has a right to have access wherever he is. The rule quoted, however, says nothing at all like that. It says that he MUST NOT provide access to anyone else.
When I was choosing between getting a TiVo or a ReplayTV, I did it entirely on the basis of the privacy policy -- ReplayTV was quite explicit that it would not gather information about you. Why are Slashdot readers so interested in TiVo, when ReplayTV is available and less underhanded?
From what I've seen, CS seems to be taught poorly far more often than it is
taught well. Many places seem to teach it as a set of recipes to memorize --
I've actually seen a course where the students were taught "the seven kinds
of linear search"! Other places aren't as bad, but still teach it as if CS
was a matter of knowing what to type when: "Here's how to make a window come
up using Microsoft's Visual C++ 5.1..."
The results tend to be rather dismal. In a Master's level class I once
gave an assignment where teams of four students had one week to find (not fix)
as many bugs as possible in a 400-line C program. Many of them complained
that a 400-line program was impossibly large, and the only "bug" they could
find was that there weren't enough comments. I've seen Ph.D. students
who were unable to learn Java, and others who complained that writing a
linked list in C was absurdly difficult.
I beleive that CS is mainly a matter of building up useful ways to think
about problems. How do you take the problem requirements, and come up with
a mechanism for implementing them? What ways of formulating your problem
allow it to be modified more easily? The particular language or compiler
that you are using isn't very important -- they just give you slightly
different tools to work with.
In one introductory CS course I co-taught, we started by teaching Scheme, then
switched to ML, and then finally had them use Java. Since Scheme's syntax
is so minimal, we could rapidly get to the point where memorizing recipes
couldn't work -- they actually had to think about the problem. ML's type
system made a great forum for showing them data abstraction, and how they
didn't always have to think about what is going on at the lowest levels
of the system when they are programming. Java introduced them to objects
and procedural programming. Most of all, they learned that they didn't have
to worry about learning new computer languages and that their skills didn't
depend on particular language features.
The results? Well, several years previously I had TA'd a traditional CS
course, and had made up an assignment to write a program to manipulate
polynomials. The students had problems with it, and it was decided that
the assignment was too difficult for them. In my class I gave the students
the same assignment, except that I took out all the hints, and added a
second part as long as the first. A bunch of my students came up to me
and thanked me for giving them a short, easy assignment just when all their
other classes were having midterms.
Now, I won't claim that this isn't the only way to teach CS, and probably
there are even better ways. However, I do think that this shows that there
are better teaching methods than the common "How to program such-and-such
using such-and-such language" courses.
The reason I bought one of the first ReplayTVs, and not a TiVo, is because of the privacy policy, which seems to be commonly ignored. ReplayTV says that information about what you watch will remain private, whereas TiVo refused to say anything similar.
I hope that this move by ReplayTV won't mean the end of snoop-free digital recorders.
-- Sam Weber