There could NEVER be a good reason for a virus to be written for research or private use, and with this law juries can rightfully just assume the ill intent of the creator.
What about the situation where a software developer creates a tool for some legitimate purpose, that some lowlife then decides to co-opt for malicious purposes?
To be sure, the guy on the stand is the ne'er-do-well, but the creator who had nothing but good intentions could get unnecessarily tied up in this somehow.
Researching tabletop fusion isn't what makes them crackpots. I think it's understood that the crackpots are the ones that claim to have succeeded, but can't reproduce their experiments. So as long as your colleagues don't fall into that category, I think they were not the intended targets of that particular barb.
False. I'm vegetarian and I'm healthy. My girlfriend is vegan and she's healthy. Carl Lewis was vegan when he won Olympic gold in the 90s. There are tons of vegetarian/vegan athlete communities across the web. Your argument just doesn't hold water.
I couldn't personally care less about the eating habits of others, and I'm the last person to try and talk someone into giving up meat or taking up vegetarianism or whatever, but this widely held belief that meat is somehow essential to human health is wholly unfounded.
Can they even do a whole course on Creationism? I think they'll be all out of evidence/arguments in the first lecture...
Absolutely they can! In the theology department where content of that nature belongs.
I have no qualms with religion being studied as it is an undeniably vast and rich area of human sociology and history. But it is not a science in any sense of the word.
I don't think universities should discriminate against the nature of an applicant's work, but they without a doubt should be able to discriminate based on the rigor and relevance of that work. We trust in that process to smack down crackpot tabletop fusion physicists. Why can't we trust it here? Show me a prof with scientific evidence of god (that passes muster in the scientific community) and he can teach science all day long. Kind of like when Rembrandt said "show me an angel, and I will paint you one."
My high school only offered one computer science class, and it was at the AP level. That being said, it was an exceptional introduction to programming in an object-oriented language. Day 1, our teacher listed poor reasons a student should stay in the class. Among his reasons he listed: "I'm really good at video games.", "I can type really fast.", "I know how to do HTML and have a Geocities page.", and "My parents said I can get rich by coding.".
A bunch of people transferred out of the class after that, but I think the 15 or so of us who stayed all got 5s on the exam.
Wait, wait, wait. The whole point of publication is to open up your results so that other scientists can poke holes in it and the science can be redone and improved upon. Isn't it kind of a bogus statement say something like "this paper shouldn't have been published"? And with outrage, no less. Could the science really have been that bad and still be approved for publication to begin with? It must have been subject to at least a bit of peer review prior to its release.
How come no one was outraged about the guy who reinvented integration (http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/12/06/0416250/Medical-Researcher-Rediscovers-Integration)?!
I'm not really sure how you got modded insightful by avoiding the question (how to configure a Windows PC for older people), but then again I'm not exactly sure while I'll be modded flamebait for simply saying the following:
I recently gave my parents two little netbooks with Windows XP installed. I set myself up with a password protected admin account, and then gave them vanilla XP "limited user" accounts. Asked them what resolution they liked the best. Made sure they had desktop icons for their most frequently used apps and websites. Explained to them that they should probably call me up and ask if any download sites they happen to visit are reputable, and to be weary of what their friends send them in emails. I set them up with GMail accounts and configured the spam filtering for them, and then had little cards made up that they could give to their friends with the address on it. I install updates, patches, and whatever they seem to think they need/want whenever I happen to come by for a visit (every couple of months).
That being said, it's been about a year or so now and neither one of them has done anything to damage or slow down their computers. They use their computers daily to check emails, chat on Skype, instant message, listen to music, etc, etc. My dad even does some bookkeeping on his. My mom plays Sodoku and subscribes to the icanhazcheeseburger feed. Most of the time I can help walk them through "complicated" things like adding contacts to their address book with a short phone call. No fuss, no muss.
I don't really understand why people seem to have such a hard time with Windows.
"Programming Pearls" by Jon Bentley has long been one of my favorites. The first two chapters or so are especially interesting because every other page hits you with an "AHA!" solution to some seemingly complex problem.
"Computer Ethics: A Cautionary Tale" by Forester and Morrison is pretty interesting, also; though, it's not really technical at all, just thoughtful.
I wrote a script for a commercial where the three characters (PC, Mac, Linux) meet a few months ago on my blog (http://egyptiankarim.com/blog/?p=76/), but it's really more of an Apple commercial that plays up the whole *nix core of Mac OS (an Apple pitch to *nix users, that is).
It's totally fair. An abandoned building has little to no value and if these kids managed to hack some squatted domain, they probably wouldn't get much flack.
The Washington Monument is a highly visible, highly valuable, historic landmark and if you deface it it affects a lot more people.
I don't know about anyone else, but your analogy just made it easier for me to see fault in these kids' actions.
We also have the technology to play soccer (and football, golf, basketball, baseball, tennis), be mayor of a city, owner of an amusement park, fly an airplane, use a firearm, and drive a sportscar...
Should the videogame incarnations of these activities therefore be subject to the same flack that Guitar Hero gets?
I don't necessarily think that's the most "optimal" way. My fundamental understanding of calculus only came after I saw it in motion (as it were) through experimentation in physics class. Also, I didn't have my insights into several different (computer science) data types until after I had a firm grounding in linear algebra.
I think math and science should be side by side because they compliment each other. One helps with the understanding the other.
Again, I just think it's all about how you balance the load. You have to teach enough math to make the science solid, but you need enough science to keep the math interesting. Moreover, the satisfaction of teaching math through the practical lens of scientific experimentation, is an invaluable tool.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL but aren't there are other realms in the law where mere possession can be considered intent to distribute?
There could NEVER be a good reason for a virus to be written for research or private use, and with this law juries can rightfully just assume the ill intent of the creator.
What about the situation where a software developer creates a tool for some legitimate purpose, that some lowlife then decides to co-opt for malicious purposes?
To be sure, the guy on the stand is the ne'er-do-well, but the creator who had nothing but good intentions could get unnecessarily tied up in this somehow.
http://xkcd.com/378/
Researching tabletop fusion isn't what makes them crackpots. I think it's understood that the crackpots are the ones that claim to have succeeded, but can't reproduce their experiments. So as long as your colleagues don't fall into that category, I think they were not the intended targets of that particular barb.
Thank you.
we need to eat both in order to be healthier.
False. I'm vegetarian and I'm healthy. My girlfriend is vegan and she's healthy. Carl Lewis was vegan when he won Olympic gold in the 90s. There are tons of vegetarian/vegan athlete communities across the web. Your argument just doesn't hold water.
I couldn't personally care less about the eating habits of others, and I'm the last person to try and talk someone into giving up meat or taking up vegetarianism or whatever, but this widely held belief that meat is somehow essential to human health is wholly unfounded.
Can they even do a whole course on Creationism? I think they'll be all out of evidence/arguments in the first lecture...
Absolutely they can! In the theology department where content of that nature belongs.
I have no qualms with religion being studied as it is an undeniably vast and rich area of human sociology and history. But it is not a science in any sense of the word.
I don't think universities should discriminate against the nature of an applicant's work, but they without a doubt should be able to discriminate based on the rigor and relevance of that work. We trust in that process to smack down crackpot tabletop fusion physicists. Why can't we trust it here? Show me a prof with scientific evidence of god (that passes muster in the scientific community) and he can teach science all day long. Kind of like when Rembrandt said "show me an angel, and I will paint you one."
My high school only offered one computer science class, and it was at the AP level. That being said, it was an exceptional introduction to programming in an object-oriented language. Day 1, our teacher listed poor reasons a student should stay in the class. Among his reasons he listed: "I'm really good at video games.", "I can type really fast.", "I know how to do HTML and have a Geocities page.", and "My parents said I can get rich by coding.".
A bunch of people transferred out of the class after that, but I think the 15 or so of us who stayed all got 5s on the exam.
You could take every key but "a" away and websites/services will still be filled with denizens sporting aol email addressees posting:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Isn't it ironically cool to have an AOL email address yet? I thought it was the new hipster trend.
Wait, wait, wait. The whole point of publication is to open up your results so that other scientists can poke holes in it and the science can be redone and improved upon. Isn't it kind of a bogus statement say something like "this paper shouldn't have been published"? And with outrage, no less. Could the science really have been that bad and still be approved for publication to begin with? It must have been subject to at least a bit of peer review prior to its release. How come no one was outraged about the guy who reinvented integration (http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/12/06/0416250/Medical-Researcher-Rediscovers-Integration)?!
Whoa, whoa, whoa... Let's just calm this the hell down for a second.
:)
Vespas rock!
Funny that you mention Willy Wonka... I just bought a new Mac laptop, and there was a golden ticket inside!
I'm not really sure how you got modded insightful by avoiding the question (how to configure a Windows PC for older people), but then again I'm not exactly sure while I'll be modded flamebait for simply saying the following:
I recently gave my parents two little netbooks with Windows XP installed. I set myself up with a password protected admin account, and then gave them vanilla XP "limited user" accounts. Asked them what resolution they liked the best. Made sure they had desktop icons for their most frequently used apps and websites. Explained to them that they should probably call me up and ask if any download sites they happen to visit are reputable, and to be weary of what their friends send them in emails. I set them up with GMail accounts and configured the spam filtering for them, and then had little cards made up that they could give to their friends with the address on it. I install updates, patches, and whatever they seem to think they need/want whenever I happen to come by for a visit (every couple of months).
That being said, it's been about a year or so now and neither one of them has done anything to damage or slow down their computers. They use their computers daily to check emails, chat on Skype, instant message, listen to music, etc, etc. My dad even does some bookkeeping on his. My mom plays Sodoku and subscribes to the icanhazcheeseburger feed. Most of the time I can help walk them through "complicated" things like adding contacts to their address book with a short phone call. No fuss, no muss.
I don't really understand why people seem to have such a hard time with Windows.
"Programming Pearls" by Jon Bentley has long been one of my favorites. The first two chapters or so are especially interesting because every other page hits you with an "AHA!" solution to some seemingly complex problem.
"Computer Ethics: A Cautionary Tale" by Forester and Morrison is pretty interesting, also; though, it's not really technical at all, just thoughtful.
I wrote a script for a commercial where the three characters (PC, Mac, Linux) meet a few months ago on my blog (http://egyptiankarim.com/blog/?p=76/), but it's really more of an Apple commercial that plays up the whole *nix core of Mac OS (an Apple pitch to *nix users, that is).
"We're taking over 150 atmospheres of pressure!"
"How many atmospheres can this ship take?"
"Well, it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between 0 and 1."
Now if they could only find away to modify the HP of my Intimidating Shout... :)
He's talking about the Apple employees from TFA. That's why "poor" and "slaves" are in quotation marks.
I think anyway...
Well, that's only an opinion reached through a personal cost-benefit analysis.
Perhaps finding a new job and home is easier than the alternatives for some other people.
Or perhaps some people realize that just because something is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued as an option.
Vaporware from an organization called Nada.
I laughed out loud with that summary.
"I can't let you do that, Dave."
Scissors and rocks cower in fear all around the world.
It's totally fair. An abandoned building has little to no value and if these kids managed to hack some squatted domain, they probably wouldn't get much flack.
The Washington Monument is a highly visible, highly valuable, historic landmark and if you deface it it affects a lot more people.
I don't know about anyone else, but your analogy just made it easier for me to see fault in these kids' actions.
And if you take away the platform, he'll probably start railing against PC games!
;)
We also have the technology to play soccer (and football, golf, basketball, baseball, tennis), be mayor of a city, owner of an amusement park, fly an airplane, use a firearm, and drive a sportscar...
Should the videogame incarnations of these activities therefore be subject to the same flack that Guitar Hero gets?
I don't necessarily think that's the most "optimal" way. My fundamental understanding of calculus only came after I saw it in motion (as it were) through experimentation in physics class. Also, I didn't have my insights into several different (computer science) data types until after I had a firm grounding in linear algebra.
I think math and science should be side by side because they compliment each other. One helps with the understanding the other.
Again, I just think it's all about how you balance the load. You have to teach enough math to make the science solid, but you need enough science to keep the math interesting. Moreover, the satisfaction of teaching math through the practical lens of scientific experimentation, is an invaluable tool.