has the bloody history, and while the '04-05 ruling isn't valid, it's still a pretty good indicator that Canadian courts don't (currently) consider torrenting illegal in and of itself. (As always, I'm not a lawyer, you probably aren't either, etc, etc, etc.)
I'll agree the levy didn't do much for musicians, but I never expected it to. (My understanding was that they were going to divvy up the money based on album sales or some such jazz, meaning that it threw a few bucks at Celine and that's about it.) But at the time it was considered to open the legal argument that you're not "stealing" music if you were required to pay a levy (read: fine) when you bought the drive. (Again, no-one's argued this in court, so who the hell knows how it'll play out).
But you're correct that the government could get around to passing a stupid law any minute now to appease the Americans. (Never mind that we're the global leader in *buying* their stuff.)
As I understood it, it was from the ISP directly. It listed the files it had detected being shared, along with a bunch of scary text about how she could be liable for this, that, and the other. I never saw the full letter (I did most of the explaining over the phone).
IP enforcement in Canada chases after the seeders, because that part is still illegal.
Citation needed. Have you heard about any uploading cases in the last 5-8 years?
Only anecdotal - my parent's got a nastygram from their ISP listing the various movies that a houseguest was torrenting. Nothing came of it (other than the houseguest losing internet privileges), but it tells me that someone is still paying attention.
Now, I don't personally worry too much (if only because I tend to torrent obscure things that no-one cares about, and as you mention, seeding is polite and leeching sucks), but it's worth taking note of.
Piracy = increased sales? Canadians are one of the few who are protected under the law and can download as much pirated product as they like. The studies suggest that piracy leads to more purchases of the same type of material (music, movies, etc) so it can be true that we both pirate and purchase at the same time.
Bear in mind we're "protected" because we pay a levy on blank media - effectively it's impossible for a Canadian to "illegally download" material because we've already paid for it when we bought the hard drive.
IP enforcement in Canada chases after the seeders, because that part is still illegal.
I'd account a fair bit of the sales increase to people ditching cable - between iTunes and Netflix, I can watch every show I want for substantially less than what cable would be. (I still get my internet and phone through the cable company because I loathe Telus with a fiery passion, so the cable company is content.)
As a college student I am sick are tired of "help you be a more well-rounded".
And I can't really say I blame you, for the most part. But I'd say the fault is in what they require you to take.
Personal example: I attended in the late 90s, CompSci major. I have never used my non-CompSci science requirements. (Physics, EAS). That's not the field I was going into, I wasn't terribly excited by the courses, and they were largely a waste of time.
The end all and be all of why I am in college is to get a job. Filler classes just get in the way of actually learning what's important.
I'd point out that "not burning out and going crazy" is also important. Also, the opportunity to just... try out some stuff that interests you. Again, personal example: I took Psych for a lot of my Arts classes, and they've been amazingly helpful in my work (Cognition and Perception maps very nicely to UI development, for instance). Metaphysics helped me survive logic. Micro- and macro-economics have been handy.
The big difference is that I got to pick those courses, which meant I picked stuff I was interested in, and complemented my main classes. That's what I mean by "well-rounded" - you get to stretch out, get out of your department, learn a few things to make you an interesting person.
And it can help you get a job - having a background in CompSci/Psychology has opened a few doors, if only so the interviewer can ask "what made you take that combination"?
Even worse are team projects, where the A students get screwed and the D students get an easy grade that they didn't earn.
Depends how they're done - my Practical Programming team project let you choose your own teams at first, then any loners or smaller teams were merged in.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that the smart and hard-working kids filled up their teams *real* fast.
Reduced maybe, but not solved. Simply having access to the questions with unlimited time to locate the correct solution is a major advantage when taking timed multiple choice tests. The problem is the format, so the format must be changed to solve the problem.
Read the article again - there was a time restriction on the test. It just wasn't a problem because of the other flaws in the test structure (immediate feedback, small question pool, second try allowed)
How do you proctor when a lot of institutions use online courses to collect tuition from students who live impractical distances away? Yes, you can find local proctors, and some institutions do, but for the institutions that prioritize the "cash grab" aspect that's not going to happen.
Which brings us back to the basic truth - if the school doesn't care enough to proctor the exam, why should the students care?
My science teacher (in high school) allowed us one 8.5 x 11 "cheat sheet" for the finals. While most teachers gave you the sheet (usually formulas, periodic table), this one let us bring in whatever we wanted.
So we sat down, typed the entire glossary, every formula, and whatever else we could think of, formatted it in columns at 4-point, and had about two column-inches to spare. Teacher's only comment was (a) I should have charged the other students for all the work I put in, and (b) banned magnifying glasses for future years.
(And similar to the parent, I ended up using very little of it, but all the typing helped keep it in mind for the test.)
I would counter that if the school is taking your money, and then specifically structures the class in a way to minimize any contact with an instructor, they don't have a lot of moral ground to stand on when it comes to inappropriate behavior. These students paid for instruction, and got a poorly designed website instead. If the school was at all concerned about cheating, they'd wouldn't let the students take two tries at an online multiple-choice exam.
To my mind, everyone got what they wanted - the university received hundreds of dollars in tuition, the student received credit and a good mark. Strictly a business transaction.
(To forestall the obvious: no, this isn't how education should work - but this is how it *does* work. And it's not a new development. So students learning how to work the system is just a natural reaction.)
But should you be allowed to use google docs? You know that cloud app where you and all your fellow students could have the same document open at the same time and use it to give eachother the answers.
That's what allegedly happened here.
Its supossed to be a test, not a group project.
As I read it, the trick went thusly.
Person 1 takes the exam, writing down the questions and the answer they chose. Since the website told him immediately if he's right or wrong, he notes that as well. (They do a bit of quick Googling to see if they can confirm the answer, but that's just increasing odds here). They score around 70%. (This is important, because this is the "honest" score - this test has no "cheating" at all).
Person 2 takes the exam. Some of the questions will be repeats from the first test, in which case he either already has the correct answer or can eliminate a wrong answer. He updates the document as he goes.
Repeat with person 3 & 4, as they take their tests (getting progressively better marks). Then they all re-take the test to improve their marks.
Plugging this hole is as simple as not giving that immediate feedback on right/wrong answers (either by not giving them a mark at all until the exam window closes, or not giving specific-answer feedback).
I don't think you understand the difference between "open book" and "open google".
I don't think you understand that there *is* no difference.
An open book exam is supposed to test your understanding, not your memorization. That's why they let you have the book - to refresh the odd bits of terminology or formulas that you're blanking on mid-exam. If you don't know what you're looking for, the book doesn't help.
If they can pass the test using only google, then they're certainly what in the eyes of that test passes for a good programmer.
That wasn't precisely how they did it.
There were three flaws in the online test, that I could see:
First - the pool of questions was small enough that the students could expect to see most of the same questions. That meant it was worthwhile for the students to share questions/answers.
Second - the tests game immediate feedback on what questions you answered correctly. That meant that the GDoc updated "live" - as soon as you know the correct answer, the entire team does.
Third - they allowed each student to take the test twice (and keep the higher of the two marks). This allowed the team to alternate who took the first (low scoring) turn through the test, but still score reasonably well on their second pass (IIRC, the article says the lead student generally scored about 70%, but with four students it still averaged to As across the board.)
This isn't really a new "scam" - instructors have always skimped on the question pool, and it's always been trivial to get copies of old exams for test-prep. The only "improvement" I see is letting students try twice.
3.5 had pretty much the same rules for miniatures.
3.5 very strongly pointed you towards miniatures, but 4E really cemented the "board game miniatures" approach.
3.5 still referred to things in feet (and you converted to squares), 4E refers to all your ranges in squares directly. 4E removed any pretense on trying to put radii on a map, replacing the (admittedly awkward) circle templates with straight squares.
And that's just the two obvious changes - 3.5 really wanted you to use miniatures; 4E pretty much requires it.
Why is anybody still playing D&D instead of something better?
Because it entirely depends on how you define "better".
If you're looking for a proper simulation, you can do far better than D&D. (I'm fond of GURPS myself). But if you're just wanting to roll dice, bust some heads, and get the loot, D&D (3 or 4) does well, and you won't have problems finding other players.
(Disclaimer: I have entirely too many RPG books on my shelf.)
It might have been "only" 16 years, but you can buy the two core books and reuse nearly your entire Gurps3E library. (I believe Vehicles is the only book that's pretty much useless in 4th. But that's OK because it was pretty much useless in 3rd as well;) )
The reason for D&D Next is simple, and can be described with two points.
First: 3.5 and 4E are very different styles of play. 4E feels and plays like an action movie - you don't sweat the mundane equipment, encumbrance is pretty much ignored, and everything you do has an awesome name. While a lot of the basic mechanics are familiar, it's balanced very differently - and it's close enough that players can compare and decide "meh, I prefer the old way".
Second: the 3.5 OGL meant that there are a lot of publishers invested in 3rd edition. Worse, the 4th edition licensing is far more restrictive (and requires you to abandon your 3rd edition lines). This meant a lot of third-party publishers decided "hey, we'll stick with 3rd."
Put these together, and you have (for the first time), the ability to *not* upgrade to the new edition, but yet still get new product (through Pathfinder and the like). Which puts D&D in the position of competing with itself. Add the fact that they have not done a fantastic job of in-store support or... well, general *balance* on 4E, and they're in the worse position of competing and *losing*.
Thus... D&D "Next". We're not calling it 5th edition (because we want to avoid "edition wars"). And it's being hyped as modular, in hopes that they can lure the 3E players back into the fold. I don't personally think it'll work, because D&D players are suddenly realizing that it's possible to play more than The One True Game (and hey, look - there's a *lot* of RPG systems out there!), so that genie is well out of the bottle.
I don't see how it's relevant, since the Olympic Committee isn't a profit making corporation, but is actually only a group who organise a non-profit event for the promotion of sports worldwide, right? What's a trademark if they're not actually trading in anything after all.
The Olympics haven't been non-profit in many years. (I'm sure they're officially non-profit for tax purposes, but not in the "we don't make money at this" sense).
For instance, between 2005-2008, the IOC (home of "Olympics, Inc.") generated nearly six billion dollars in revenue. And remember, the terms of hosting the Games is that you, not they, are responsible for any and all cost overruns.
There's plenty of reading out there showing the real reasons why cities and countries bid for the Five Ring Circus. (Vancouver in particular is a nice case study.)
he'll probably get fired. under US law i think its illegal to have a company officer with a felony conviction
That's assuming there won't be a plea bargain or diversion program or conditional discharge or one of the many other opportunities available to rich people who haven't annoyed anyone in power.
"How often do you acquire pirated software or software that is not fully licensed - all of the time, most of the time, occasionally, rarely, or never?"
Results were:
Always: 5%
Mostly: 9%
Occasionally: 17%
Rarely: 26%
Never: 38%
Don't Know / Refuse: 5%
So that 57% number can be interpreted as people who have acquired "pirated" or "not fully licensed" software at some point - it makes no effort to differentiate how often that software is used.
Not to mention, I'm not sure how FLOSS software fits into the definition - considering who's asking, I wouldn't be surprised of "fully licensed" is explained as "you paid for it".
Either way, almost half of their "OMG" number is in the "rarely" category, which really cuts the legs off the argument.
I envision the "less precise" CPUs being used in consumer laptops where people are just watching movies or listening to music.
It does not matter if the MPEG4 conversion is slightly off with the color, because the consumer's eye won't detect it. The selling point will be a laptop or tablet that lasts 10x longer on a battery charge.
Split the difference - universities are already doing most of the basic research on the taxpayer dime. Let *them* do the rest of the research, use the profits to fund the universities and lower tuition.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, more strictly it's legal because the government and courts can't quite get on the same page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada
has the bloody history, and while the '04-05 ruling isn't valid, it's still a pretty good indicator that Canadian courts don't (currently) consider torrenting illegal in and of itself. (As always, I'm not a lawyer, you probably aren't either, etc, etc, etc.)
I'll agree the levy didn't do much for musicians, but I never expected it to. (My understanding was that they were going to divvy up the money based on album sales or some such jazz, meaning that it threw a few bucks at Celine and that's about it.) But at the time it was considered to open the legal argument that you're not "stealing" music if you were required to pay a levy (read: fine) when you bought the drive. (Again, no-one's argued this in court, so who the hell knows how it'll play out).
But you're correct that the government could get around to passing a stupid law any minute now to appease the Americans. (Never mind that we're the global leader in *buying* their stuff.)
As I understood it, it was from the ISP directly. It listed the files it had detected being shared, along with a bunch of scary text about how she could be liable for this, that, and the other. I never saw the full letter (I did most of the explaining over the phone).
IP enforcement in Canada chases after the seeders, because that part is still illegal.
Citation needed. Have you heard about any uploading cases in the last 5-8 years?
Only anecdotal - my parent's got a nastygram from their ISP listing the various movies that a houseguest was torrenting. Nothing came of it (other than the houseguest losing internet privileges), but it tells me that someone is still paying attention.
Now, I don't personally worry too much (if only because I tend to torrent obscure things that no-one cares about, and as you mention, seeding is polite and leeching sucks), but it's worth taking note of.
Piracy = increased sales? Canadians are one of the few who are protected under the law and can download as much pirated product as they like. The studies suggest that piracy leads to more purchases of the same type of material (music, movies, etc) so it can be true that we both pirate and purchase at the same time.
Bear in mind we're "protected" because we pay a levy on blank media - effectively it's impossible for a Canadian to "illegally download" material because we've already paid for it when we bought the hard drive.
IP enforcement in Canada chases after the seeders, because that part is still illegal.
I'd account a fair bit of the sales increase to people ditching cable - between iTunes and Netflix, I can watch every show I want for substantially less than what cable would be. (I still get my internet and phone through the cable company because I loathe Telus with a fiery passion, so the cable company is content.)
As a college student I am sick are tired of "help you be a more well-rounded".
And I can't really say I blame you, for the most part. But I'd say the fault is in what they require you to take.
Personal example: I attended in the late 90s, CompSci major. I have never used my non-CompSci science requirements. (Physics, EAS). That's not the field I was going into, I wasn't terribly excited by the courses, and they were largely a waste of time.
The end all and be all of why I am in college is to get a job. Filler classes just get in the way of actually learning what's important.
I'd point out that "not burning out and going crazy" is also important. Also, the opportunity to just... try out some stuff that interests you. Again, personal example: I took Psych for a lot of my Arts classes, and they've been amazingly helpful in my work (Cognition and Perception maps very nicely to UI development, for instance). Metaphysics helped me survive logic. Micro- and macro-economics have been handy.
The big difference is that I got to pick those courses, which meant I picked stuff I was interested in, and complemented my main classes. That's what I mean by "well-rounded" - you get to stretch out, get out of your department, learn a few things to make you an interesting person.
And it can help you get a job - having a background in CompSci/Psychology has opened a few doors, if only so the interviewer can ask "what made you take that combination"?
Even worse are team projects, where the A students get screwed and the D students get an easy grade that they didn't earn.
Depends how they're done - my Practical Programming team project let you choose your own teams at first, then any loners or smaller teams were merged in.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that the smart and hard-working kids filled up their teams *real* fast.
filler classes also have more cheating and whats up with classes loaded with essays.
Why should some taking say IT / CS classes have to write a book report on the great gatsby??
"Filler" classes are supposed to help you be a more well-rounded graduate, not to mention let you expand your horizons.
The problem is that universities tend to be far too restrictive on what you can take for your "electives".
Reduced maybe, but not solved. Simply having access to the questions with unlimited time to locate the correct solution is a major advantage when taking timed multiple choice tests. The problem is the format, so the format must be changed to solve the problem.
Read the article again - there was a time restriction on the test. It just wasn't a problem because of the other flaws in the test structure (immediate feedback, small question pool, second try allowed)
How do you proctor when a lot of institutions use online courses to collect tuition from students who live impractical distances away? Yes, you can find local proctors, and some institutions do, but for the institutions that prioritize the "cash grab" aspect that's not going to happen.
Which brings us back to the basic truth - if the school doesn't care enough to proctor the exam, why should the students care?
My science teacher (in high school) allowed us one 8.5 x 11 "cheat sheet" for the finals. While most teachers gave you the sheet (usually formulas, periodic table), this one let us bring in whatever we wanted.
So we sat down, typed the entire glossary, every formula, and whatever else we could think of, formatted it in columns at 4-point, and had about two column-inches to spare. Teacher's only comment was (a) I should have charged the other students for all the work I put in, and (b) banned magnifying glasses for future years.
(And similar to the parent, I ended up using very little of it, but all the typing helped keep it in mind for the test.)
I would counter that if the school is taking your money, and then specifically structures the class in a way to minimize any contact with an instructor, they don't have a lot of moral ground to stand on when it comes to inappropriate behavior. These students paid for instruction, and got a poorly designed website instead. If the school was at all concerned about cheating, they'd wouldn't let the students take two tries at an online multiple-choice exam.
To my mind, everyone got what they wanted - the university received hundreds of dollars in tuition, the student received credit and a good mark. Strictly a business transaction.
(To forestall the obvious: no, this isn't how education should work - but this is how it *does* work. And it's not a new development. So students learning how to work the system is just a natural reaction.)
more tests need to be open book / open Google.
But should you be allowed to use google docs? You know that cloud app where you and all your fellow students could have the same document open at the same time and use it to give eachother the answers.
That's what allegedly happened here.
Its supossed to be a test, not a group project.
As I read it, the trick went thusly.
Plugging this hole is as simple as not giving that immediate feedback on right/wrong answers (either by not giving them a mark at all until the exam window closes, or not giving specific-answer feedback).
I don't think you understand the difference between "open book" and "open google".
I don't think you understand that there *is* no difference.
An open book exam is supposed to test your understanding, not your memorization. That's why they let you have the book - to refresh the odd bits of terminology or formulas that you're blanking on mid-exam. If you don't know what you're looking for, the book doesn't help.
If they can pass the test using only google, then they're certainly what in the eyes of that test passes for a good programmer.
That wasn't precisely how they did it.
There were three flaws in the online test, that I could see:
First - the pool of questions was small enough that the students could expect to see most of the same questions. That meant it was worthwhile for the students to share questions/answers.
Second - the tests game immediate feedback on what questions you answered correctly. That meant that the GDoc updated "live" - as soon as you know the correct answer, the entire team does.
Third - they allowed each student to take the test twice (and keep the higher of the two marks). This allowed the team to alternate who took the first (low scoring) turn through the test, but still score reasonably well on their second pass (IIRC, the article says the lead student generally scored about 70%, but with four students it still averaged to As across the board.)
This isn't really a new "scam" - instructors have always skimped on the question pool, and it's always been trivial to get copies of old exams for test-prep. The only "improvement" I see is letting students try twice.
3.5 had pretty much the same rules for miniatures.
3.5 very strongly pointed you towards miniatures, but 4E really cemented the "board game miniatures" approach.
3.5 still referred to things in feet (and you converted to squares), 4E refers to all your ranges in squares directly. 4E removed any pretense on trying to put radii on a map, replacing the (admittedly awkward) circle templates with straight squares.
And that's just the two obvious changes - 3.5 really wanted you to use miniatures; 4E pretty much requires it.
Why is anybody still playing D&D instead of something better?
Because it entirely depends on how you define "better".
If you're looking for a proper simulation, you can do far better than D&D. (I'm fond of GURPS myself). But if you're just wanting to roll dice, bust some heads, and get the loot, D&D (3 or 4) does well, and you won't have problems finding other players.
(Disclaimer: I have entirely too many RPG books on my shelf.)
It might have been "only" 16 years, but you can buy the two core books and reuse nearly your entire Gurps3E library. (I believe Vehicles is the only book that's pretty much useless in 4th. But that's OK because it was pretty much useless in 3rd as well ;) )
The reason for D&D Next is simple, and can be described with two points.
First: 3.5 and 4E are very different styles of play. 4E feels and plays like an action movie - you don't sweat the mundane equipment, encumbrance is pretty much ignored, and everything you do has an awesome name. While a lot of the basic mechanics are familiar, it's balanced very differently - and it's close enough that players can compare and decide "meh, I prefer the old way".
Second: the 3.5 OGL meant that there are a lot of publishers invested in 3rd edition. Worse, the 4th edition licensing is far more restrictive (and requires you to abandon your 3rd edition lines). This meant a lot of third-party publishers decided "hey, we'll stick with 3rd."
Put these together, and you have (for the first time), the ability to *not* upgrade to the new edition, but yet still get new product (through Pathfinder and the like). Which puts D&D in the position of competing with itself. Add the fact that they have not done a fantastic job of in-store support or... well, general *balance* on 4E, and they're in the worse position of competing and *losing*.
Thus... D&D "Next". We're not calling it 5th edition (because we want to avoid "edition wars"). And it's being hyped as modular, in hopes that they can lure the 3E players back into the fold. I don't personally think it'll work, because D&D players are suddenly realizing that it's possible to play more than The One True Game (and hey, look - there's a *lot* of RPG systems out there!), so that genie is well out of the bottle.
I don't see how it's relevant, since the Olympic Committee isn't a profit making corporation, but is actually only a group who organise a non-profit event for the promotion of sports worldwide, right? What's a trademark if they're not actually trading in anything after all.
The Olympics haven't been non-profit in many years. (I'm sure they're officially non-profit for tax purposes, but not in the "we don't make money at this" sense).
For instance, between 2005-2008, the IOC (home of "Olympics, Inc.") generated nearly six billion dollars in revenue. And remember, the terms of hosting the Games is that you, not they, are responsible for any and all cost overruns.
There's plenty of reading out there showing the real reasons why cities and countries bid for the Five Ring Circus. (Vancouver in particular is a nice case study.)
There is no d3. The lowest die is d4.
Then you don't use cool enough dice.
he'll probably get fired. under US law i think its illegal to have a company officer with a felony conviction
That's assuming there won't be a plea bargain or diversion program or conditional discharge or one of the many other opportunities available to rich people who haven't annoyed anyone in power.
Horrible, dystopian, inevitable.
two better ones: hackable, spoofable
(from http://portal.bsa.org/globalpiracy2011/)
"How often do you acquire pirated software or software that is not fully licensed - all of the time, most of the time, occasionally, rarely, or never?"
Results were:
So that 57% number can be interpreted as people who have acquired "pirated" or "not fully licensed" software at some point - it makes no effort to differentiate how often that software is used.
Not to mention, I'm not sure how FLOSS software fits into the definition - considering who's asking, I wouldn't be surprised of "fully licensed" is explained as "you paid for it".
Either way, almost half of their "OMG" number is in the "rarely" category, which really cuts the legs off the argument.
I envision the "less precise" CPUs being used in consumer laptops where people are just watching movies or listening to music.
It does not matter if the MPEG4 conversion is slightly off with the color, because the consumer's eye won't detect it. The selling point will be a laptop or tablet that lasts 10x longer on a battery charge.
In other words, the Walmart Netbook?
Split the difference - universities are already doing most of the basic research on the taxpayer dime. Let *them* do the rest of the research, use the profits to fund the universities and lower tuition.