I'd say it's a pretty big flaw in the system, and the MPAA/RIAA can only shoot themselves in the feet by trying to exploit it.
As people get wise to the fact that they're going to get busted using their own networks, they'll use other peoples' networks. More and more often, the MPAA/RIAA will sue the wrong guy. They've had a free ride so far, but if half their lawsuits target innocents, they're going to have their offices burned down by an angry mob.
WEP is even worse. We know how crackable it is... but now the lawyers will say, "Well, he secured his network, so it can't possibly have been someone outside..." and it'll make it even easier for them to sue the wrong guy.
In any case, I can't wait to see how this turns out. I use WEP, but I don't exactly rotate my key every day. It'll be interesting to see how this case turns out so I can know if a secure or unsecure wireless node is best for covering my ass when someone else uses it illegally.
Out of curiousity, would you mind sharing approximately how well it's doing from a unit sales per timeframe standpoint? People like me want to know!:-)
We should have only one law: "Don't do anything to harm someone else intentionally".
The Golden Rule, of sorts!
Unfortunately for this idea, there is a subjective moral base to most of our laws. Your idea would repeal all kinds of laws in various states that are covered, such as gays getting married, couples buying sex toys, adults gambling, people eating kittens, and so on.
I'm not saying repealing those laws is good or bad, but I am saying it would make you unpopular.:-)
So people who illegally download RIAA music are more likely to be shoplifters and petty thieves.
But people who download legal creative commons music are much less likely to be thieves...
So this means that the RIAA's music itself is responsible for the ethical downfall of our society! The next time your house is robbed, you know the RIAA did it!
For reasons like these, the student evaluations are not used to reward/punish professors, except in a somewhat limited fashion.
I totally agree with you on the limited usefulness of student evaluations.
I was just wishfully thinking that there would be a way to get people to say, "Yeah, you should go to this University because I hear they have really good teachers," instead of, "you should go to this University because it's name has a great reputation."
The people that complain that the author just wussed out, or that engineering is just hard are missing an opportunity to actually improve the programs here.
I spent much of my undergrad time puttering around community colleges doing computer science. There were some really great instructors at the community colleges, and a few not-so-great ones.
When I (finally) transferred, the percentage of good professors dropped drastically. There were quite a number of them that were downright incomprehensible. Something about research and tenure. Here I was paying more for tuition and getting less out of it. Incredible. Is this a system that makes sense?
The funny thing was, all the community college instructors were generally so good at what they did, that I had assumed all teachers were good, and that every shortcoming was just my inability to grasp the subject. So at the University, when I got my ass utterly kicked by a first semester statistics course, I was completely disheartened. How would I ever face the mountain of work in all those math classes and physics and... oh, man.
Well, the good news is, after independent verification, that the stats professor I had was SHIT. Not worth the price of his shoes when it came to instruction. I took statistics again the following semester with someone everyone recommended, and got an A without undue effort. Half the effort, and I get an A instead of an F.
This wasn't my fault for not studying enough, and it wasn't the math being too hard; it was simply that the quality of instruction was worthless.
I completely disagree with the idea that a prof teaching up to bachelors levels needs a PhD. This limits the pool of profs to people with PhDs, and a smaller-than-normal percentage of them are going to be good teachers, and a larger-than-normal percentage of them are going to want to be teachers, because that's one of the main things you do with a PhD. Better to draw off the pool of MSs, as well. Of course, this doesn't make the institution look as good, so it never happens.
What we need is a system whereby profs are ranked on their teaching ability instead of their credentials and their works. (How do you change this thinking? People want to send their kids to MIT because of the reputation, not the instruction. I don't know.) Some people are crap racecar drivers, and they don't get to play in the Indy 500. Some people are crap teachers, but why do they get to play at the University? It makes no sense.
I eventually got an MS in computer science. The computer part was cake. I attribute this to the excessive amount of time I spent getting As in computer science classes at De Anza Community College for years longer than I had to. That was a great computer science school.
Sex is like a good steak: it doesn't put you on a higher emotional plane with the cow. I shall assume either that your girlfriend was reading when you typed that, or that you have such shallow emotional experiences that you really do connect an act as base as sex with complex human emotion.
Boy, someone needs to teach you how to enjoy steak! You have a long way to go...
I ask any reasonable person (most slashdotters excluded here;-) ) to name a benefit of fornication.
...How about an emotional connection deeper than that achieveable through platonic means?
It's possible to minimize the risks associated with sex, just like it's possible to minimize the risks involved in driving a car. People still take their lives into their own hands and drive places, which is arguably more dangerous than having sex.
I totally agree: having sex is more dangerous than not. But driving is also more dangerous than not. People take unecessary risks to improve their quality of life every day. If someone's quality of life isn't improved by sex, then don't have sex. Just like driving.
Yeah, I knew I was being too bold in my suggestion of the bare minimum.:-) I'd agree with you on Prolog, and maybe to an only slightly lesser extent on LISP.
Prolog is definitely something else, and it gives you a new way of thinking about problems.
However I am more concernd (a reason that I am an ex-CS major too) that the university doesnt offer a single course in PERL, Python, Ruby, PHP, or any of the currently popular languages except Java, and some C as a side benefit from some classes.
Yikes, what a nightmare. I'm so glad I didn't have to jump through these hoops when I was a CS undergrad/grad student. Learn yet another language? Unless the language demonstrates another paradigm, it's just another language to learn. I can do that in my spare time at home--why would I pay thousands a semester to do it?
Don't give me BS about the basic concepts being all the preperation you need from any language.
I agree, or else we'd all learn MIX and be done with it. But there is such a thing as overkill.
Face it, I knew how Ruby worked (even that weird block thing) within an hour of first examining it. Was I a pro? No. Could I code fast? No. I'd have to look everything up. But I challenge you to tell me how it's worth my time (not to mention money) to learn any more about the language in a university setting.
Learning Object-Oriented Concepts in University, though, that's something that can be applied directly to Ruby (which, I might add, didn't exist when I was in school.)
What you really need is practice programmming in new languages, followed by more practice.
You are right, assuming you want to be proficient in a language. Do it! If you want, you can pay me $3000 and I'll send you a piece of paper that says you did it after a year is up.
See, the University's job is not to make you proficient in a language, but rather in the structure of languages so you can become proficient in any of them. (I grant that it used to be C was a very common language and it was useful, practically, to know it. But now I think it's more useful because it's a "close to the metal" language and because it's C++-like.)
Here's what languages you should learn in school: one procedural language (like C), one OO language (like C++ or Java), and one assembly language (like MIPS). Once you learn any of those, the rest are just variations on a theme.
However if you learn the coding side first you will pick up the theory anyways as a means to making your programs work.
I disagree. In this case, it's what you don't know that will hurt you. In some cases, yes, you will eventually stumble upon the best way to solve some problems, but some problems have already been solved, and you can stand on the shoulders of quite a few giants by listening to what they have to say in school.
There are a lot of so-called design patterns you learn in school that can be applied to real-life with ease.
What if you have a pool of n people and you want to select people randomly out of the pool with no repeats?
Answer: use the same algorithm as you use to shuffle cards.:-)
What in your Ruby programming class prepared you for that?
But others might not be so obvious. For instance, let's say I need to write a piece of software that will examine any program I feed it and tell me if that program will complete successfully or if it will loop forever.
Computer scientists will very quickly rattle off the answer to this problem.
So it's unlikely they're going to sue the USPTO, right.
But, statistically speaking, the USPTO must be violating a number of patents, some of which are critical to its operation.
What we need is the sympathetic owner of any of these other patents to sue them! (I don't know if that's even possible, but hey, one can dream of software patent elimination, by hook or by crook.)
Speaking as someone who passed the 5wpm test, I'd say Morse code is a great art in its own way, and I have a lot of respect for it. But it's just a hurdle that covers a part of ham radio that most people will never use.
Look, the FCC isn't saying you can't do code...it's just not requiring it. Make the written tests as hard as you want if you want to raise the bar of entry. Hell, give usage tests to make sure people obey all the laws. Whatever. And people who really like Morse Code will learn it anyway.
I'd request the FCC give tests that are applicable to the current state of ham radio. I don't think that's so unreasonable.
An Indian coworker of mine years ago would come back from his India visits with armloads of cheap computer books. $20 is on the mark.
Besides being paperback, the quality of the binding and product overall was definitely substandard. Under heavy use, I'd expect the $80 hardcover to easily withstand more than 4x the abuse.
But what I really really want is a frigging PDF version of this book. I'd pay $50 for it. Hear me, publishers? Think of the profits!
...of the space shuttle.
Yeah--if they don't put a Ronald Reagan mask inside the helmet of that suit, I'm going to be incredibly disappointed. What a lost opportunity!
My 1995 monitor crapped out and so I took the opportunity to get an LCD screen. (Most excellent, of course.) Naturally, being a Berkeley freak, I wanted to minimize the landfill impact so I decided to recycle the old beast. (I look the other way when considering the enormous environmental cost of actually producing a machine.:-)
I went on Tuesday to a recycling place. I gave them my monitor, they took $10. That's $1/year on the monitor. Not bad considering the original cost. Don't balk at the cost. If you can afford a system, you can afford to pay someone to recycle it.
On Fridays, Californians get to recycle monitors and TVs for free*. And computers are $5 all the time. Laptops are free.
* "In compliance with SB-20/SB-50 you may bring in up to 5 monitors, TVs or Console TVs on Fridays for no charge. There is some paperwork to fill out and you must be a California Resident. Please bring California ID."
Ooops, you're right. I retract that statement. I had assumed since he was accused of taking the pix they must have been found on the computer. Damn, what an ugly case.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not count time in the john to make it even MORE? Our President works hard in the john. It's no vacation, believe me.
Poor guy... All these years and he's still not happy!
I'd say it's a pretty big flaw in the system, and the MPAA/RIAA can only shoot themselves in the feet by trying to exploit it.
As people get wise to the fact that they're going to get busted using their own networks, they'll use other peoples' networks. More and more often, the MPAA/RIAA will sue the wrong guy. They've had a free ride so far, but if half their lawsuits target innocents, they're going to have their offices burned down by an angry mob.
WEP is even worse. We know how crackable it is... but now the lawyers will say, "Well, he secured his network, so it can't possibly have been someone outside..." and it'll make it even easier for them to sue the wrong guy.
In any case, I can't wait to see how this turns out. I use WEP, but I don't exactly rotate my key every day. It'll be interesting to see how this case turns out so I can know if a secure or unsecure wireless node is best for covering my ass when someone else uses it illegally.
Yeah right. You're in on it, too, obviously!
Out of curiousity, would you mind sharing approximately how well it's doing from a unit sales per timeframe standpoint? People like me want to know! :-)
The Golden Rule, of sorts!
Unfortunately for this idea, there is a subjective moral base to most of our laws. Your idea would repeal all kinds of laws in various states that are covered, such as gays getting married, couples buying sex toys, adults gambling, people eating kittens, and so on.
I'm not saying repealing those laws is good or bad, but I am saying it would make you unpopular. :-)
But people who download legal creative commons music are much less likely to be thieves...
So this means that the RIAA's music itself is responsible for the ethical downfall of our society! The next time your house is robbed, you know the RIAA did it!
[all tongue in cheek, sorry]
I totally agree with you on the limited usefulness of student evaluations.
I was just wishfully thinking that there would be a way to get people to say, "Yeah, you should go to this University because I hear they have really good teachers," instead of, "you should go to this University because it's name has a great reputation."
Oh man, I sense an FCC fine coming on! How do ya like that, magnetar!
I spent much of my undergrad time puttering around community colleges doing computer science. There were some really great instructors at the community colleges, and a few not-so-great ones.
When I (finally) transferred, the percentage of good professors dropped drastically. There were quite a number of them that were downright incomprehensible. Something about research and tenure. Here I was paying more for tuition and getting less out of it. Incredible. Is this a system that makes sense?
The funny thing was, all the community college instructors were generally so good at what they did, that I had assumed all teachers were good, and that every shortcoming was just my inability to grasp the subject. So at the University, when I got my ass utterly kicked by a first semester statistics course, I was completely disheartened. How would I ever face the mountain of work in all those math classes and physics and ... oh, man.
Well, the good news is, after independent verification, that the stats professor I had was SHIT. Not worth the price of his shoes when it came to instruction. I took statistics again the following semester with someone everyone recommended, and got an A without undue effort. Half the effort, and I get an A instead of an F.
This wasn't my fault for not studying enough, and it wasn't the math being too hard; it was simply that the quality of instruction was worthless.
I completely disagree with the idea that a prof teaching up to bachelors levels needs a PhD. This limits the pool of profs to people with PhDs, and a smaller-than-normal percentage of them are going to be good teachers, and a larger-than-normal percentage of them are going to want to be teachers, because that's one of the main things you do with a PhD. Better to draw off the pool of MSs, as well. Of course, this doesn't make the institution look as good, so it never happens.
What we need is a system whereby profs are ranked on their teaching ability instead of their credentials and their works. (How do you change this thinking? People want to send their kids to MIT because of the reputation, not the instruction. I don't know.) Some people are crap racecar drivers, and they don't get to play in the Indy 500. Some people are crap teachers, but why do they get to play at the University? It makes no sense.
I eventually got an MS in computer science. The computer part was cake. I attribute this to the excessive amount of time I spent getting As in computer science classes at De Anza Community College for years longer than I had to. That was a great computer science school.
Boy, someone needs to teach you how to enjoy steak! You have a long way to go...
It's possible to minimize the risks associated with sex, just like it's possible to minimize the risks involved in driving a car. People still take their lives into their own hands and drive places, which is arguably more dangerous than having sex.
I totally agree: having sex is more dangerous than not. But driving is also more dangerous than not. People take unecessary risks to improve their quality of life every day. If someone's quality of life isn't improved by sex, then don't have sex. Just like driving.
Prolog is definitely something else, and it gives you a new way of thinking about problems.
Yikes, what a nightmare. I'm so glad I didn't have to jump through these hoops when I was a CS undergrad/grad student. Learn yet another language? Unless the language demonstrates another paradigm, it's just another language to learn. I can do that in my spare time at home--why would I pay thousands a semester to do it?
Don't give me BS about the basic concepts being all the preperation you need from any language.
I agree, or else we'd all learn MIX and be done with it. But there is such a thing as overkill.
Face it, I knew how Ruby worked (even that weird block thing) within an hour of first examining it. Was I a pro? No. Could I code fast? No. I'd have to look everything up. But I challenge you to tell me how it's worth my time (not to mention money) to learn any more about the language in a university setting.
Learning Object-Oriented Concepts in University, though, that's something that can be applied directly to Ruby (which, I might add, didn't exist when I was in school.)
What you really need is practice programmming in new languages, followed by more practice.
You are right, assuming you want to be proficient in a language. Do it! If you want, you can pay me $3000 and I'll send you a piece of paper that says you did it after a year is up.
See, the University's job is not to make you proficient in a language, but rather in the structure of languages so you can become proficient in any of them. (I grant that it used to be C was a very common language and it was useful, practically, to know it. But now I think it's more useful because it's a "close to the metal" language and because it's C++-like.)
Here's what languages you should learn in school: one procedural language (like C), one OO language (like C++ or Java), and one assembly language (like MIPS). Once you learn any of those, the rest are just variations on a theme.
However if you learn the coding side first you will pick up the theory anyways as a means to making your programs work.
I disagree. In this case, it's what you don't know that will hurt you. In some cases, yes, you will eventually stumble upon the best way to solve some problems, but some problems have already been solved, and you can stand on the shoulders of quite a few giants by listening to what they have to say in school.
There are a lot of so-called design patterns you learn in school that can be applied to real-life with ease.
What if you have a pool of n people and you want to select people randomly out of the pool with no repeats?
Answer: use the same algorithm as you use to shuffle cards. :-)
What in your Ruby programming class prepared you for that?
But others might not be so obvious. For instance, let's say I need to write a piece of software that will examine any program I feed it and tell me if that program will complete successfully or if it will loop forever.
Computer scientists will very quickly rattle off the answer to this problem.
Non-CS people might spend rather longer on it.
So it's unlikely they're going to sue the USPTO, right.
But, statistically speaking, the USPTO must be violating a number of patents, some of which are critical to its operation.
What we need is the sympathetic owner of any of these other patents to sue them! (I don't know if that's even possible, but hey, one can dream of software patent elimination, by hook or by crook.)
--whoa, I guess it is the amps. Sorry!
Speaking as someone who passed the 5wpm test, I'd say Morse code is a great art in its own way, and I have a lot of respect for it. But it's just a hurdle that covers a part of ham radio that most people will never use.
Look, the FCC isn't saying you can't do code...it's just not requiring it. Make the written tests as hard as you want if you want to raise the bar of entry. Hell, give usage tests to make sure people obey all the laws. Whatever. And people who really like Morse Code will learn it anyway.
I'd request the FCC give tests that are applicable to the current state of ham radio. I don't think that's so unreasonable.
Besides being paperback, the quality of the binding and product overall was definitely substandard. Under heavy use, I'd expect the $80 hardcover to easily withstand more than 4x the abuse.
But what I really really want is a frigging PDF version of this book. I'd pay $50 for it. Hear me, publishers? Think of the profits!
Breaking news!
"Linux crap according to BSD enthusiast"
Way to scoop the story, Forbes. I yield to your titanic journalistic might.
...of the space shuttle. Yeah--if they don't put a Ronald Reagan mask inside the helmet of that suit, I'm going to be incredibly disappointed. What a lost opportunity!
At that rate Microsoft will run out of cash in 2037! Sell! Sell!
I went on Tuesday to a recycling place. I gave them my monitor, they took $10. That's $1/year on the monitor. Not bad considering the original cost. Don't balk at the cost. If you can afford a system, you can afford to pay someone to recycle it.
On Fridays, Californians get to recycle monitors and TVs for free*. And computers are $5 all the time. Laptops are free.
* "In compliance with SB-20/SB-50 you may bring in up to 5 monitors, TVs or Console TVs on Fridays for no charge. There is some paperwork to fill out and you must be a California Resident. Please bring California ID."Here's the ACCRC pricelist in Berkeley.
You're absolutely right, of course. I just think that currently punishments are not on par with the damage done to the victim.
But yes, you caught me speaking a little over-the-top when I said that. :-)
Ooops, you're right. I retract that statement. I had assumed since he was accused of taking the pix they must have been found on the computer. Damn, what an ugly case.
One more thing: I'll bet you a beer that the strongest encryption PGP offers today will be crackable in under an hour (of real time) within 35 years.