I believe one of the reasons why students cheat on the Humanities is because we don't value the humanities and we force students to take course that they simply aren't interested in.
Cognitive psychology, accounting and pharmacology (three subjects from the list in the summary) are not "humanities". And you can bet the only reason that person wasn't doing maths or computing coursework was that he wasn't up to standard in those subjects. People cheat because they want the results without doing the work.
What I believe these services do is allow students the opportunity to get through work they simply will never have any interest in--or they BELIEVE they won't be interested in. When was the last time a person with an English Degree really had value in society?
If they don't think they will be interested, why do they choose that subject?
And since when is essay writing all that valuable in say the techie world?
The "techie world" isn't a world, and the techies that can write good proposals and reports and can communicate effectively with customers or with other departments in the company are likely to do better than those who can't.
You know, over the past 6+ years I have brought my position out on multiple occasions only to have my position labelled "protectionist" and discarded. But we have a problem in the U.S. We are exporting money that doesn't return. Some call it trade deficit. Some call it exporting jobs. Others call it outsourcing. Whatever you call it, big business is sending out a lot of money that never returns to the U.S. What's more, in order to do that, the foreign workers have to be educated in our technologies in order to replicate what we have done.
So we lost manufacturing and technology. All we have remaining is "intellectual property" which is really a thing that is not universally agreed upon. The things that made the US great aren't here any longer and while many of us were complaining about it leaving, government paid off by big business persisted in letting it happen.
The USA did it to the UK, now China is doing it to both of us. What comes around goes around.
wtf? You seriously think there was ever any remote likelihood that anybody would actually try and stone her to death?
A Muslim woman publicly and prominently stands up against the Islamic religious authorities? I think there's every chance she's at risk of violence, and that there are those who would like to stone her to death (although that might be difficult for them to implement, so I expect they'd content themselves with other means).
And she rightly says, "If I, as a Muslim woman, had said about him what he said about me then I would be arrested in these times of the war against terror."
Inciting violence is something that I do. I did it or not; it's not something dependent on how many people might like to comply
Go back and read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" again -- the classic defence of freedom of speech. He just happens to give an example of how a particular speech act can be acceptable speech in one context and unacceptable incitement to violence in another, and the sole difference is how likely anybody is to act on it. What Gareth Compton did falls almost exactly midway between Mill's two cases, so I grant that it's not clear-cut that he's guilty, but I reckon it is clear-cut that he has a case to answer.
Given that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a Muslim secularist and campaigner for democracy and women's rights (amongst other things), I think that there is a real chance that there are many who wouldn't see calling for her to be stoned to death as a joke, and there is good reason for the tweet to be considered incitement to violence. Joking about the death of a random celeb is one thing; it's another thing when that person really is already at serious risk of violence.
If one of the quotes from TFA is to be believed then my hypothesis would be that they are offended by Stargate's treatment of religion:
Whiting then expressed optimism that Dark Comet would end up returning Cheyenne Mountain’s assets to him. He compared his situation in the “hostile takeover” to that of Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark in the first Iron Man movie, but said the motives for it were personal and even religious.
In this field, that could be anything from which operating system they were using to which version of a storyline is canonical.
No, it's not that. The philosophy of science doesn't hold dogmas, it identifies dogmas. Such as the metaphysical dogma of materialism. All attempts so far to eliminate that dogma from science have failed, and it doesn't look likely that it will ever be eliminated.
The civil liberties are already being violated, or do you think your private information being sprayed around the web is not a violation of your rights?
So not caused by this proposal, then.
This supposed solution will still allow that, because it will not work. If the mediation becomes overzealous, then the civil liberties of the poster and the host are both hurt when false claims are made.
It's a no-win proposition for everyone. The only real way to protect the rights of the people whose private data is leaked or whose reputation is being slandered is for them to have options of actions with actual teeth.
If the mediation doesn't have real teeth, then it can't do anything however overzealous it becomes. If it does have real teeth then it's what you are calling for. I'm increasingly getting the feeling that you're living up to your name and just trolling.
The only way to protect the hosts and the alleged slanderers is to put a barrier to entry to the actions of the supposedly wronged and to make false reports have serious consequences, too.
Of course, that would exclude those who cannot afford the barrier, and those with a genuine case but who are intimidated by the "serious consequences" if the alleged libellers (not slanderers) can afford better lawyers. You're proposing a system that only works for the rich. We already have one of those, thanks.
What civil liberties will this erode? Have you read what the minister actually said yet? I've agreed all along with the "cost your government and businesses [ie, me, indirectly]loads of money to still not work", so why not argue on those grounds rather than setting up a civil liberties straw man that the government will easily knock down?
Write a letter to whom? You don't necessarily know who put the offending content up, but whoever is hosting it should. At the moment if you ask the host then they're likely to hide behind the data protection act and refuse to tell you without a court order. Wouldn't it be nice if they passed your complaint on to whoever put up the offending content and tried to resolve the issue without the need for a court order -- that is, if they provided a mediation service?
All this becomes moot if the host is not in the UK, of course, which is the real issue. The problem is that it won't work, not that it's eroding civil liberties.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe one of the reasons why students cheat on the Humanities is because we don't value the humanities and we force students to take course that they simply aren't interested in.
Cognitive psychology, accounting and pharmacology (three subjects from the list in the summary) are not "humanities". And you can bet the only reason that person wasn't doing maths or computing coursework was that he wasn't up to standard in those subjects. People cheat because they want the results without doing the work.
What I believe these services do is allow students the opportunity to get through work they simply will never have any interest in--or they BELIEVE they won't be interested in. When was the last time a person with an English Degree really had value in society?
If they don't think they will be interested, why do they choose that subject?
And since when is essay writing all that valuable in say the techie world?
The "techie world" isn't a world, and the techies that can write good proposals and reports and can communicate effectively with customers or with other departments in the company are likely to do better than those who can't.
You know, over the past 6+ years I have brought my position out on multiple occasions only to have my position labelled "protectionist" and discarded. But we have a problem in the U.S. We are exporting money that doesn't return. Some call it trade deficit. Some call it exporting jobs. Others call it outsourcing. Whatever you call it, big business is sending out a lot of money that never returns to the U.S. What's more, in order to do that, the foreign workers have to be educated in our technologies in order to replicate what we have done.
So we lost manufacturing and technology. All we have remaining is "intellectual property" which is really a thing that is not universally agreed upon. The things that made the US great aren't here any longer and while many of us were complaining about it leaving, government paid off by big business persisted in letting it happen.
The USA did it to the UK, now China is doing it to both of us. What comes around goes around.
The issue isn't whether security is needed. The issue is what security is proportionate and effective.
How do you get "Kuiper Belt" from "pies"?
"Hail Pluto!"
Doesn't work, does it?
Stoning people to death is clearly just wrong, and I do find it deeply ironic that she seems to dislike it only when she might be the victim.
You clearly know nothing about her or her situation.
wtf? You seriously think there was ever any remote likelihood that anybody would actually try and stone her to death?
A Muslim woman publicly and prominently stands up against the Islamic religious authorities? I think there's every chance she's at risk of violence, and that there are those who would like to stone her to death (although that might be difficult for them to implement, so I expect they'd content themselves with other means).
And she rightly says, "If I, as a Muslim woman, had said about him what he said about me then I would be arrested in these times of the war against terror."
Huh?
Inciting violence is something that I do. I did it or not; it's not something dependent on how many people might like to comply
Go back and read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" again -- the classic defence of freedom of speech. He just happens to give an example of how a particular speech act can be acceptable speech in one context and unacceptable incitement to violence in another, and the sole difference is how likely anybody is to act on it. What Gareth Compton did falls almost exactly midway between Mill's two cases, so I grant that it's not clear-cut that he's guilty, but I reckon it is clear-cut that he has a case to answer.
Given that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a Muslim secularist and campaigner for democracy and women's rights (amongst other things), I think that there is a real chance that there are many who wouldn't see calling for her to be stoned to death as a joke, and there is good reason for the tweet to be considered incitement to violence. Joking about the death of a random celeb is one thing; it's another thing when that person really is already at serious risk of violence.
Well, I can't speak for you, but K-9 doesn't do it for me.
If one of the quotes from TFA is to be believed then my hypothesis would be that they are offended by Stargate's treatment of religion:
In this field, that could be anything from which operating system they were using to which version of a storyline is canonical.
What is "science" if not the collection of presuppositions, working practices and conclusions of scientists?
I figure the other use is to snap a candid pic of the newly positive, for like a reality show or something.
Considering the shot it's going to get, that show is only going to air on rather -- er -- specialist channels.
No, it's not that. The philosophy of science doesn't hold dogmas, it identifies dogmas. Such as the metaphysical dogma of materialism. All attempts so far to eliminate that dogma from science have failed, and it doesn't look likely that it will ever be eliminated.
Also, science holds no dogma.
Is that a dogma that science holds?
But they have the patent.
Because you don't know what the word "breeding" means?
Well, this is /. after all...
Er -- do you assume that fundamentalist Christianity is the only religion there is?
Put all of their personal details online -- address, SSN, mother's maiden name, first school. After all, information wants to be free...
And it will be Alliance v. Horde all over again when it overlaps Bingland.
The civil liberties are already being violated, or do you think your private information being sprayed around the web is not a violation of your rights?
So not caused by this proposal, then.
This supposed solution will still allow that, because it will not work. If the mediation becomes overzealous, then the civil liberties of the poster and the host are both hurt when false claims are made.
It's a no-win proposition for everyone. The only real way to protect the rights of the people whose private data is leaked or whose reputation is being slandered is for them to have options of actions with actual teeth.
If the mediation doesn't have real teeth, then it can't do anything however overzealous it becomes. If it does have real teeth then it's what you are calling for. I'm increasingly getting the feeling that you're living up to your name and just trolling.
The only way to protect the hosts and the alleged slanderers is to put a barrier to entry to the actions of the supposedly wronged and to make false reports have serious consequences, too.
Of course, that would exclude those who cannot afford the barrier, and those with a genuine case but who are intimidated by the "serious consequences" if the alleged libellers (not slanderers) can afford better lawyers. You're proposing a system that only works for the rich. We already have one of those, thanks.
The phrase "correlation is not causation" is strongly correlated with stupidity.
Yes, but correlation is not ... oh, wait ...
FUCK YOU for telling us how to manage "free speech". It's why we are Americans and not British.
Actually, I thought that was because you were better than us Brits at getting out of paying taxes.
What civil liberties will this erode? Have you read what the minister actually said yet? I've agreed all along with the "cost your government and businesses [ie, me, indirectly]loads of money to still not work", so why not argue on those grounds rather than setting up a civil liberties straw man that the government will easily knock down?
Write a letter to whom? You don't necessarily know who put the offending content up, but whoever is hosting it should. At the moment if you ask the host then they're likely to hide behind the data protection act and refuse to tell you without a court order. Wouldn't it be nice if they passed your complaint on to whoever put up the offending content and tried to resolve the issue without the need for a court order -- that is, if they provided a mediation service?
All this becomes moot if the host is not in the UK, of course, which is the real issue. The problem is that it won't work, not that it's eroding civil liberties.