I was in a similar position a couple of years ago when I was graduating from high school. I decided to go to college for the following reasons:
To get A Degree: Regardless of what degree I came in for... employers like to see a degree of some sort. It shows not just ability but desire to further yourself.
To lean more: I've learned a lot in college that I never even knew I could learn. A lot of this hasn't been from classes (though a lot has) but from people.
College is fun: Lets face it! College is fun! Don't miss the opportunity to go while you are young. Even if you aren't into parties and drinking, there is just a lot of fun to be had when you get a bunch of crazy students together.
The rest of your question was what major should you choose? I attend Rochester Institute of Technology. Much like you, I am interested in network administration/system administration. I don't really like programming, and I definately don't want to do it for a living. RIT has both a CS degree and an IT degree. I finally decided on the CS degree because A) I want to know HOW to program, B) it means more, C) I can minor in IT, and D) I think that I've just learned a whole lot more about computing in general than many of the IT students.
My school's (Rochester Institute of Technology) CS department has a cheat checker that looks for similarties (regardless of comments, variable names, etc) and generates a count of the possible number of similarities. From this, the professors are able to set a threshold for a maximum number of similarties (depending on the assignment). The ones above the threshhold are looked over by 3+ professors and a consensus is reached from there.
I tried for quite some time to get DSL from (Bellatlantic at the time) and finally did. First they said that I "didn't qualify". After pestering people about that they said it could be anything from distance to fiber in the ground. I finally got them to retest the line (physcally send out an engineer) and I was good to go (after 5 days and 4 techs at my house I finally had DSL). It would be nice if they could just hook up the fiber... but the fiber only runs to the neighborhood and/or house... not INTO the house. Figures.
That doesn't make a difference. Congress is the only part of our government that has the ability to enact law or policy. What you may be hinting at is that there is nothing prohibiting the government from abridging speech in practice, they just have no legal claim to do so.
I've found that in my experience, most of the network is managed by university employees, but most of the grunt work (network administration, tech support, etc) is managed by the students because of the cheap labor they offer. Most of the network planning and implementation is done by the university employees and management though.
This would be the same as if I trademarked a common string of characters (like st) and tried to sue everyone who used the characters st in their company name.
Perhaps this is a bit of a digression from the original question, but I think it's a point that needs to be made.
People in the US complain constantly about the current state of things, how they are unsatisfied. I am one of these individuals, I personally believe that things need a lot of change. However, if anyone is taking away our freedom it is ourselves. I know it's been said a hundred times, but what right to we have to complain in a nation where roughly %50 of the population turn out for the most major elections (I might also note that that percentage is much higher in that group that owns 90% of the wealth). Our government has a complex system of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. But in that system, the citizens were supposed to be the ultimate judges.
I think that the apathy towards politics today is caused by a culture that thrives on instant gratification. The US Goverment was designed for slow change. Citizens can't expect their vote to make an immediate effect. In order for the behemoth that is the government to change direction, it must first slow down, turn, then speed up again. The system is not perfect, it doesn't prevent corruption from happening. But with responsible citizenship, that corruption can be corrected and stopped from accelerating.
Shaun
"Vote Libertarian and win a Free Country!"
I voted 'electronically' but maybe dont want to
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
I voted in this election in Fairfax County VA. Our voting booths were a board with all the canidates and you would press the name of the candidate(s) you want and it would light up. Then you would hit a big green "VOTE" button and it would be registered. There was a pencil on a string for write-in's.
This was aparently 'high-tech' as voting goes, but I'm not sure I prefer it. From a personal standpoint, this was my first election. It was all kind of anti-climatic because it didn't feel real just pressing a few buttons and leaving. I think that if I had used more physical methods, that it would have felt more realistic.
I think that perhaps if I had used an electronic system that prints me an 'election recipt' of sorts, that would make me feel better.
I must agree with you that many radicals (and probably many of the/. readers) have idealistic ideas that are not clearly thought out. Most people forget to esablish and cement their ideas. They rarely have any form of philosophy or ideology to support those obsurd thoughts of theirs. However, what abut some of the ideas that ARE legitimate. Totalatarian forms of government are clearly designed as well to calm radicals and extingquish their ideas. But we (we being the majority of what could be considered 'civilized' world society) have moved away from that. The American Revolution was a case of us being fed up with the 'status quo' and as a whole we decided to change it.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that while the system may be designed to eliminate radicals, that doesn't mean that if the radicals become the majority (AND have legitimized ideas) that they can't change the system.
I can't see how the school has any legal ability to take away his computer. His net access (which they are providing) sure, but not his computer. They didn't have any sort of warrent, and if they did they wouldn't have any legal right to take his property.
Q: What is this Motion all about?
Q: The MPAA is only asking the Court to enter an injunction against Eric Corley, a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein" and those persons acting in concert with him, in the use of DeCSS hyperlinks.
If they are only asking that EG get the injunction... then why all the letters?
"(2) linking any Internet web site, either directly or through a series of links, to any other Internet web site containing DeCSS."
Through a series of links? Common, if you try hard enough I'm sure someone can find a series of links that connects the MPAA to DeCSS (or make a series of links... THAT is ridiculous, they have to limit the "series" at a certain number of links if they want to claim this.
I have tried to explain the situation to as many non-tech people as I can. And most of them get it (though are not quite as outraged as me). You have to focus on things that concern them such as the fact that they are not BUYING DVD's... but merely buying a liscense to view them in a way that the MPAA sees fit. That one usually gets them (if they even own a DVD player).
This brings up an interesting question. Correct me if I'm wrong (I have not degree in law) but by giving their own news company (CNN) 'exclusive' rights to report on a particular subject matter (DeCSS), isn't Time Warner participating in unfair business practices (legally)?
Sony doesn't have to hack into your computer to block traffic. Sony is a 'extremely' large multinational company with many corporate ties. Lets say that Sony simply gives 3com $5,000,000 a year to implement filtering, hardwired into their cards. Do you think 3com is going to deny? You can claim that they will, for fear of loosing customers. But in reality, probably 80% of 3com's customers are people who don't care about Napster. Sony most certainly has the power to do what he is claiming (or at least most of it).
"That argument, however, requires the company to prove that AOL is responsible, and that the technology itself--rather than MP3Board's use of the technology--is illegal. Outside attorneys say each of those tasks will be difficult."
Why is it this way for AOL but not for Napster. AOL has a good reputation and therefore plantiffs are expected to have to prove the legality of not the company but the program itself. The same scenario with Napster though, the reputation of the company (non-existant as far as I can tell) somehow changes law so that the plantiff merely has to show that the company had malicious intent.
Napster as a program is no more illegal than the AOL client (let alone GNUTella). Perhaps Napster as a company had malicious intent while AOL may not have (at least as an aware corporate entity), but the intent of either company should be proven in the same manner, leaving the company's standing reputation aside.
If that logic works (indeed the logic that is the basis for the RIAA vs. Napster case), then shouldn't you also be able to blame AOL itself (ie AOL v5.0). It also "helps users find illegal music". That is just one example of how huge this issue is. That logic extends all the way to newspapers and phonebooks and (yes) speech!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what is more amazing.
:-)
-Slashdot had an article about the end of the X-Files at EXACTLY 10:00PM
or
-I checked Slashdot for an article on the X-Files at EXACTLY 10:00PM
I was in a similar position a couple of years ago when I was graduating from high school. I decided to go to college for the following reasons:
To get A Degree: Regardless of what degree I came in for... employers like to see a degree of some sort. It shows not just ability but desire to further yourself.
To lean more: I've learned a lot in college that I never even knew I could learn. A lot of this hasn't been from classes (though a lot has) but from people.
College is fun: Lets face it! College is fun! Don't miss the opportunity to go while you are young. Even if you aren't into parties and drinking, there is just a lot of fun to be had when you get a bunch of crazy students together.
The rest of your question was what major should you choose? I attend Rochester Institute of Technology. Much like you, I am interested in network administration/system administration. I don't really like programming, and I definately don't want to do it for a living. RIT has both a CS degree and an IT degree. I finally decided on the CS degree because A) I want to know HOW to program, B) it means more, C) I can minor in IT, and D) I think that I've just learned a whole lot more about computing in general than many of the IT students.
Well, I hope that helps!
No wonder the cable companies are trying to limit/charge people who use too much bandwidth.
It's probably a massive conspiracy by the RIAA/MPAA trying to stop those evil "pirates".
Enough conspiracies for today anyways.
My school's (Rochester Institute of Technology) CS department has a cheat checker that looks for similarties (regardless of comments, variable names, etc) and generates a count of the possible number of similarities. From this, the professors are able to set a threshold for a maximum number of similarties (depending on the assignment). The ones above the threshhold are looked over by 3+ professors and a consensus is reached from there.
-Shaun
I tried for quite some time to get DSL from (Bellatlantic at the time) and finally did. First they said that I "didn't qualify". After pestering people about that they said it could be anything from distance to fiber in the ground. I finally got them to retest the line (physcally send out an engineer) and I was good to go (after 5 days and 4 techs at my house I finally had DSL). It would be nice if they could just hook up the fiber... but the fiber only runs to the neighborhood and/or house... not INTO the house. Figures.
What I find more distrubing is that the MPAA considers its profits as important to protect as "people's lives".
That doesn't make a difference. Congress is the only part of our government that has the ability to enact law or policy. What you may be hinting at is that there is nothing prohibiting the government from abridging speech in practice, they just have no legal claim to do so.
Well the dolphins ARE the second smartest species on the earth (right after mice).
I've found that in my experience, most of the network is managed by university employees, but most of the grunt work (network administration, tech support, etc) is managed by the students because of the cheap labor they offer. Most of the network planning and implementation is done by the university employees and management though.
This would be the same as if I trademarked a common string of characters (like st) and tried to sue everyone who used the characters st in their company name.
Perhaps this is a bit of a digression from the original question, but I think it's a point that needs to be made.
People in the US complain constantly about the current state of things, how they are unsatisfied. I am one of these individuals, I personally believe that things need a lot of change. However, if anyone is taking away our freedom it is ourselves. I know it's been said a hundred times, but what right to we have to complain in a nation where roughly %50 of the population turn out for the most major elections (I might also note that that percentage is much higher in that group that owns 90% of the wealth). Our government has a complex system of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. But in that system, the citizens were supposed to be the ultimate judges.
I think that the apathy towards politics today is caused by a culture that thrives on instant gratification. The US Goverment was designed for slow change. Citizens can't expect their vote to make an immediate effect. In order for the behemoth that is the government to change direction, it must first slow down, turn, then speed up again. The system is not perfect, it doesn't prevent corruption from happening. But with responsible citizenship, that corruption can be corrected and stopped from accelerating.
Shaun
"Vote Libertarian and win a Free Country!"
I voted in this election in Fairfax County VA. Our voting booths were a board with all the canidates and you would press the name of the candidate(s) you want and it would light up. Then you would hit a big green "VOTE" button and it would be registered. There was a pencil on a string for write-in's.
This was aparently 'high-tech' as voting goes, but I'm not sure I prefer it. From a personal standpoint, this was my first election. It was all kind of anti-climatic because it didn't feel real just pressing a few buttons and leaving. I think that if I had used more physical methods, that it would have felt more realistic.
I think that perhaps if I had used an electronic system that prints me an 'election recipt' of sorts, that would make me feel better.
Just my two cents.
responses to shaunj@esi-intl.com please.
I must agree with you that many radicals (and probably many of the /. readers) have idealistic ideas that are not clearly thought out. Most people forget to esablish and cement their ideas. They rarely have any form of philosophy or ideology to support those obsurd thoughts of theirs. However, what abut some of the ideas that ARE legitimate. Totalatarian forms of government are clearly designed as well to calm radicals and extingquish their ideas. But we (we being the majority of what could be considered 'civilized' world society) have moved away from that. The American Revolution was a case of us being fed up with the 'status quo' and as a whole we decided to change it.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that while the system may be designed to eliminate radicals, that doesn't mean that if the radicals become the majority (AND have legitimized ideas) that they can't change the system.
According to the winword spellchecker, both are correct. So we know that Microsoft can't help us with our problems. And what a suprise that is ahem
I can't see how the school has any legal ability to take away his computer. His net access (which they are providing) sure, but not his computer. They didn't have any sort of warrent, and if they did they wouldn't have any legal right to take his property.
"the activities of Napster's users" Exactly like they said... the users! NOT napster themself!
The MPAA FAQ about DeCSS and hyperlinking says:
Q: What is this Motion all about?
Q: The MPAA is only asking the Court to enter an injunction against Eric Corley, a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein" and those persons acting in concert with him, in the use of DeCSS hyperlinks.
If they are only asking that EG get the injunction... then why all the letters?
According to what they said it does. The letter says "linking to DeCSS directly, or through a series of links".
"(2) linking any Internet web site, either directly or through a series of links, to any other Internet web site containing DeCSS."
Through a series of links? Common, if you try hard enough I'm sure someone can find a series of links that connects the MPAA to DeCSS (or make a series of links... THAT is ridiculous, they have to limit the "series" at a certain number of links if they want to claim this.
I have tried to explain the situation to as many non-tech people as I can. And most of them get it (though are not quite as outraged as me). You have to focus on things that concern them such as the fact that they are not BUYING DVD's... but merely buying a liscense to view them in a way that the MPAA sees fit. That one usually gets them (if they even own a DVD player).
This brings up an interesting question. Correct me if I'm wrong (I have not degree in law) but by giving their own news company (CNN) 'exclusive' rights to report on a particular subject matter (DeCSS), isn't Time Warner participating in unfair business practices (legally)?
Sony doesn't have to hack into your computer to block traffic. Sony is a 'extremely' large multinational company with many corporate ties. Lets say that Sony simply gives 3com $5,000,000 a year to implement filtering, hardwired into their cards. Do you think 3com is going to deny? You can claim that they will, for fear of loosing customers. But in reality, probably 80% of 3com's customers are people who don't care about Napster. Sony most certainly has the power to do what he is claiming (or at least most of it).
Sorry to use the cliche but...
The News.com article says:
"That argument, however, requires the company to prove that AOL is responsible, and that the technology itself--rather than MP3Board's use of the technology--is illegal. Outside attorneys say each of those tasks will be difficult."
Why is it this way for AOL but not for Napster. AOL has a good reputation and therefore plantiffs are expected to have to prove the legality of not the company but the program itself. The same scenario with Napster though, the reputation of the company (non-existant as far as I can tell) somehow changes law so that the plantiff merely has to show that the company had malicious intent.
Napster as a program is no more illegal than the AOL client (let alone GNUTella). Perhaps Napster as a company had malicious intent while AOL may not have (at least as an aware corporate entity), but the intent of either company should be proven in the same manner, leaving the company's standing reputation aside.
Much better put than my post, I didn't remember all the names and inventions.
If that logic works (indeed the logic that is the basis for the RIAA vs. Napster case), then shouldn't you also be able to blame AOL itself (ie AOL v5.0). It also "helps users find illegal music". That is just one example of how huge this issue is. That logic extends all the way to newspapers and phonebooks and (yes) speech!