A quick survey of "Acceptable Use Policy" from several universities including NC State allow for "Authorized users may access University IT resources for occasional, inconsequential personal uses, with no expectation of privacy..." and usually include a bunch of restrictions that apply more to employees than students except where "The use does not negatively impact the availability or performance of the University IT resources" and "no cost is incurred by the University".
Your tuition covered the use of the equipment for academic purposes which means as long as you are doing something specific to your class assignments then you are free to continue using the equipment for as long as you like with the exception of a lab being closed due to a class. If you are using the computer for personal use and someone else needs access to the computer then you will be asked to stop. It's done all the time and it shouldn't be a surprise to you.
You can quite easily dip the finger nail into the drink without anybody noticing. It's not like you are forced to use cartoon like exaggerated movements.
You pay tuition for education. Your tuition covers the use of campus resources to further your education. Tuition doesn't cover any use of university resources outside of education or recreation.
It is strictly illegal for anybody (including law enforcement without a warrant) to use ANY means to view something on your property that isn't clearly visible to a common pedestrian or vehicle going past.
I doubt the law is that draconian or even enforceable. I countered with:
So have they issued warrants against Google yet?
You know because they used a satellite to photograph the contents of the Jane's backyard and she did say "ANY means to view something on your property".
and the rest of the real engineers, do some actual work.
With the difficulty you are having with context, I sure hope you aren't a real engineer.
During that 12 week class you spend about a week learning a couple of formulas that you realize will be very helpful when coding accounting software, but just as you're getting into it they switch topics and start teaching you about business management and then spend 4 weeks on "How to use Excel"...
If only they would offer a more specialized class after the introductory course is taken.
This looks like MIT's marketing department is running their learning programmes now
This is nothing new. MIT is known for issuing press releases for their staff and students that read like something that never been accomplished before despite the fact that it's not only been done a long while back some of it is still in practice.
In your subject you claim "Software Engineer" is a myth and in your first sentence you called the term "software engineer" a bit of a misnomer.
I'm pointing out that you're mistaken.
To use your analogy: Automotive Engineers are a myth because all of your generalizations are based on automotive mechanics who aren't known for documenting their work.
Could you imagine if, say, aerospace engineers didn't document their work? Automotive engineers?
A "software engineer" that didn't document their work is a code slinger pretending to be an engineer.
I think you've confused software developers who work in the consumer applications sector (release fast, often and cheaply) with software engineers in the industrial, manufacturing, enterprise, and control systems sector.
JavaDocs are only as good as the person writing the documentation. I've seen useless JavaDocs which were nothing more than a list of API calls, and I've seen JavaDocs that were so well done that it could have easily been published to a book.
You'd think they would remember RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. which affirmed that space shifting (from media to hard disk) for personal use was considered fair use under the act.
hey'd probably get more money because they could hold a vast section of the internet to hostage
The problem is that more people use Windows at home than Linux. This is why Windows is the largest "soft" target.
Linux at home is not immune. Why? Because home users are less likely to be careful about their security and more likely to download malware. They also tend to tolerate software operating slower than normal because they incorrectly associate it with the age of the computer.
Computers running at an enterprise level (aka. the ones running the internet) are harder targets than what you would find running on a personal computer at the typical household regardless of OS .
Again, they do the same sort of thing a CATV does, but by aggregating several discrete receptions across several discrete connections. This to my IANAL eyes is why Aereo should have been allowed to continue until someone changed laws regarding OTA reception and access.
The act used to define and regulate a cable system only specifies that the cable system sends video transmissions directly to the subscriber and makes no mention about the protocol or method used to send that video transmission over wire or cable. So the fact that Aereo used discrete transmissions versus multicasting isn't relevant to the act.
They'd released the i860 (RISC, not x86-compatible) in 1989 and tech magazines were saying it would kill x86. Windows NT was originally written for the i860 and only later ported to x86, so even Windows looked like it might not be tied to x86 in the long term.
This is technically true. Windows NT was originally designed to be OS/2 version 3.0 and at first they targeted the i860 which never did well, so they changed to the MIPS platform. Prior to release Microsoft decided to make it their next Windows platform and the rest was history.
What made Windows NT unique at the time was the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) that allowed Microsoft to target multiple processor platforms. At release, Windows NT supported i386 (called IA-32 at the time), Alpha, and MIPS.
Excluding the part where slingbox users are the end-to-end owners of their personal redirect service and Aereo being a for-profit company in the business of leasing access to an antenna, I can see how you can think of them being the exact same thing.
I wouldn't be surprised if they require at least one passenger sitting at the "control point" within the driverless car at all times the car is in operation on a public road. They may even require that the passenger sitting at the "control point" be licensed to drive.
By "control point" I mean a seat near an emergency stop button or cut off switch.
Maybe what I need to see is this clarified: Could I, as a New Yorker, rent a rooftop in the city, put up an antenna and run a wire to my ground floor apartment several blocks over? If the answer is yes, then why can't Aereo do the same thing on my behalf? Where does it say I have to OWN the antenna and transmission medium versus RENT?
To paraphrase the SCOTUS: Because Aereo is not only an equipment provider but also a service provider, the supreme court ruled that the business model that Aereo operated under was substantially similar to a cable system that the fact that Aereo didn't constantly transmit a signal but instead was directly controlled by the customer didn't provide a significant enough technological difference to warrant not treating them as a cable system.
The original purpose of a cable TV system was to provide reception of OTA broadcasts to areas (within the broadcast market) which may have difficulty receiving those same signals via outdoor antenna. According to SCOTUS, Aereo didn't do anything significantly different.
Fox is the redirecting us to this discussion by trying to apply the Aereo ruling to their case. I'm in agreement with you that despite Fox's best efforts the Aereo ruling isn't a factor in this case, since we are talking about what people do with their video once it reaches the confines of their own homes.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet it really doesn't.
A quick survey of "Acceptable Use Policy" from several universities including NC State allow for "Authorized users may access University IT resources for occasional, inconsequential personal uses, with no expectation of privacy..." and usually include a bunch of restrictions that apply more to employees than students except where "The use does not negatively impact the availability or performance of the University IT resources" and "no cost is incurred by the University".
Your tuition covered the use of the equipment for academic purposes which means as long as you are doing something specific to your class assignments then you are free to continue using the equipment for as long as you like with the exception of a lab being closed due to a class. If you are using the computer for personal use and someone else needs access to the computer then you will be asked to stop. It's done all the time and it shouldn't be a surprise to you.
You can quite easily dip the finger nail into the drink without anybody noticing. It's not like you are forced to use cartoon like exaggerated movements.
You pay tuition for education. Your tuition covers the use of campus resources to further your education. Tuition doesn't cover any use of university resources outside of education or recreation.
If they are happy then why should it bother you?
The parent comment was:
I doubt the law is that draconian or even enforceable. I countered with:
You know because they used a satellite to photograph the contents of the Jane's backyard and she did say "ANY means to view something on your property".
With the difficulty you are having with context, I sure hope you aren't a real engineer.
So have they issued warrants against Google yet?
I seem to remember those two existing prior to twenty years.
If only they would offer a more specialized class after the introductory course is taken.
This is nothing new. MIT is known for issuing press releases for their staff and students that read like something that never been accomplished before despite the fact that it's not only been done a long while back some of it is still in practice.
In your subject you claim "Software Engineer" is a myth and in your first sentence you called the term "software engineer" a bit of a misnomer.
I'm pointing out that you're mistaken.
To use your analogy: Automotive Engineers are a myth because all of your generalizations are based on automotive mechanics who aren't known for documenting their work.
A "software engineer" that didn't document their work is a code slinger pretending to be an engineer.
I think you've confused software developers who work in the consumer applications sector (release fast, often and cheaply) with software engineers in the industrial, manufacturing, enterprise, and control systems sector.
That troll never gets old....
I think you mentioned another reason documentation is lacking in FOSS. It gives an incentive towards paying for support.
JavaDocs are only as good as the person writing the documentation. I've seen useless JavaDocs which were nothing more than a list of API calls, and I've seen JavaDocs that were so well done that it could have easily been published to a book.
You'd think they would remember RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. which affirmed that space shifting (from media to hard disk) for personal use was considered fair use under the act.
Actually they are a hatchbacks (aka station wagons) but the marketing people renamed them as SUVs to make them more hip and trendy.
The problem is that more people use Windows at home than Linux. This is why Windows is the largest "soft" target.
Linux at home is not immune. Why? Because home users are less likely to be careful about their security and more likely to download malware. They also tend to tolerate software operating slower than normal because they incorrectly associate it with the age of the computer.
Computers running at an enterprise level (aka. the ones running the internet) are harder targets than what you would find running on a personal computer at the typical household regardless of OS .
The act used to define and regulate a cable system only specifies that the cable system sends video transmissions directly to the subscriber and makes no mention about the protocol or method used to send that video transmission over wire or cable. So the fact that Aereo used discrete transmissions versus multicasting isn't relevant to the act.
I don't know. That would be interesting to check out. Maybe one day...
Correct. I still have the Beta and Release CDs.
This is technically true. Windows NT was originally designed to be OS/2 version 3.0 and at first they targeted the i860 which never did well, so they changed to the MIPS platform. Prior to release Microsoft decided to make it their next Windows platform and the rest was history.
What made Windows NT unique at the time was the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) that allowed Microsoft to target multiple processor platforms. At release, Windows NT supported i386 (called IA-32 at the time), Alpha, and MIPS.
Excluding the part where slingbox users are the end-to-end owners of their personal redirect service and Aereo being a for-profit company in the business of leasing access to an antenna, I can see how you can think of them being the exact same thing.
I wouldn't be surprised if they require at least one passenger sitting at the "control point" within the driverless car at all times the car is in operation on a public road. They may even require that the passenger sitting at the "control point" be licensed to drive.
By "control point" I mean a seat near an emergency stop button or cut off switch.
To paraphrase the SCOTUS: Because Aereo is not only an equipment provider but also a service provider, the supreme court ruled that the business model that Aereo operated under was substantially similar to a cable system that the fact that Aereo didn't constantly transmit a signal but instead was directly controlled by the customer didn't provide a significant enough technological difference to warrant not treating them as a cable system.
The original purpose of a cable TV system was to provide reception of OTA broadcasts to areas (within the broadcast market) which may have difficulty receiving those same signals via outdoor antenna. According to SCOTUS, Aereo didn't do anything significantly different.
Fox is the redirecting us to this discussion by trying to apply the Aereo ruling to their case. I'm in agreement with you that despite Fox's best efforts the Aereo ruling isn't a factor in this case, since we are talking about what people do with their video once it reaches the confines of their own homes.