I disagree. Two points. One: Academia by itself has very different goals than business, and thus is not trying to be super-in-touch with the business world. It cares whether you have a new explanation of how cancer cells mutate, or whether you have a new interpretation of "Canterbury Tales". That stuff may or may not be marketable, but it's extremely hard to fake. And if you use someone else's results to arrive at your conclusion without giving them due credit, the whole community is going to be pissed at you. If you want to have a career in academics, you need to learn quickly that faking it won't get you very far. So what do you really expect from a class taught by an academic?
In business, it may be suitable to get to a solution however possible, while barely staying in the lines of legality. This may include copying a competitor's business model or product idea, say. I have no problem with this, this is how business works. However, I would argue that these are skills that don't need to be taught at any university as the idea of how to copy is pretty obvious. What universities try to teach is how to create something of your own. While you can stay in business creating nothing of your own, you are also relying on somebody, somewhere to create something you can copy. A creator is more valuable to a business than a good copier.
In short, I fail to see why universities should not emphasize original work, and I do not believe their sole purpose is to support industry anyways.
I wanted to come here and post this exact question after reading the article. I'm not really sure how Engineering students can "e-cheat" in most of their classes.
I suppose it could be that the engineering students are more likely to cheat in the humanities courses that they are forced to take. This makes sense as these classes are outside their major and many of the engineering students don't really want to be in these types of classes anyways. They might want to just pass the class and get out with as little fuss as possible.
This might be elaborated on in the journal article itself, but I do not have a subscription. Anyone at a college campus want to read the journal article and expound?
Okay... But seven minutes might make a difference if you don't really know what is going on. And would it be too much to ask for him to stand up and say, "Excuse me kids, I have to go do President stuff now," and then go actually get briefed on all the details available? Nobodies asking him to jump up and scream "Nuke IRAN!!" at a whim, just go start the process ASAP in an emergency. That's what an emergency is
Exactly this. For every movie of his I've watched, there has come at least two or three points in the film where I've thought to myself, "Okay, I see your point, but your methods and reasoning are just plain BAD. Furthermore, you've just given everybody who doesn't want to listen the perfect excuse to criticize you and ignore you. WHY?"
I disagree that it is the government's job to make a list of private citizen detractors. Even less so that such a list should be kept secret. Even if it were, and we could agree on that point, is it not interesting in the slightest to see what the US thinks is critical?
For real! Finally my native state is in the news for passing a law that makes some iota of sense!
I know I'm responding to a different post here, but as for whoever mentioned the death tax... I'm hoping they weren't serious. Death tax only affects those who inherit sizable estates, and if you're in that game, surely a facebook page is the least of your worries. Besides, that's not really Oklahoma's problem, that's a federal issue.
Of course she didn't want anyone to read them! That's why she had a password set up in the first place! If she wanted her emails to her Aunt Sally regarding Tripp's bout with strep throat or whatever to have been public, then she would have broadcast them for all to see in the first place! I don't disagree with you in general, but let's be real and not crucify her for getting embarrassed and deleting her personal emails after the debacle. She might have something to hide, but her deleting them after the fact is not evidence of that. I might do the same, and I don't have any state secrets or illegal activity to hide either.
I don't know about the other states in the union, but here in California, if prop 19 passes, it is explicitly stated in the proposition that employers can't fire you for it. Being caught high while on the job is a different story of course, but the simple fact that you might smoke pot at home a couple times a week would not be a fire-able offense. At least to my understanding.
Multi-home properties being a big problem? Are you serious? Are you thinking about an apartment complex or something going over-budget on its 25 square feet cause 3 guys all independently grow in their spare bedroom? Or folks with garage apartments/backyard houses that get leased out? Do you really think that these are going to pose a serious enough issue to vote the proposition down? I suspect that if there are minor problems with the law in cases like this, it will get ironed out in the courts or an amendment to the law at a later time. I'm certainly not considering it as relevant to whether the law shoudl pass or not.
As for the joint in the home- It's still legal to smoke cigarettes and drink in your own home with kids around. I think I'd honestly prefer it if those kind of parents just lit a joint.
Perhaps not, but I bet the condition number of any said matrix is also very high. Although perhaps rare in your case, they would still be one of the toughest nuts to crack when they do show up. So this is still good news. If their method works as advertised.
I think it's just a matter of what you specialize in. To me, this story is really interesting, and the summary is perfectly understandable. But other times, I just scratch my head at stories that other people get excited about. I deal with solving sparse matrix systems every day, but I don't know the first thing about, say, the latest Mandriva release, or flash drivers. Or why I should care. Anyway, I'm off to read the paper now...
You're overthinking it. I'd be shocked if President Obama put more time thinking about this into it than the amount of time it took them to record him asking the question. I'm sure that a staffer came up with the question, and probably the whole idea. Obama went along with it, and they sat him down for 5 minutes and sent in a short video of him asking the question. What's the problem here? You don't like the question he asked? About an esoteric and interesting (and completely apolitical) legend from history? You're right. Maybe he should ask them to settle the global warming debate...
The dig at Dick Cheney aside, this isn't a troll. This is what happened. Enron wasn't the only player in that game, but there was NO power production shortage. Repeat after me. NO power production shortage. The shortage was artificially created to game the system.
This is what I have seriously been wondering about. Obama is all cool (or at least claims to be) with the medical states, but what will he do when a state outright legalizes it? I live out here and plan on voting for it, but I don't think it will quite be the panacea that some people expect. You can bet that if it passes and I go into the store to purchase it, I'm paying in cash.
Thank you for your even response, I agree with your points wholeheartedly. I would still argue that you might be throwing out the good for the perfect, but I can understand your objection. While we might disagree, I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.:)
It's the magic of absentee voting.
Ah yes, absentee voting. I'm a mail-voter myself, but I haven't gotten my ballot yet... If you got yours, I should probably look into that.
It might be legal to hire/fire someone based on the fact that they smoke, but some of us might consider that wrong to begin with, and don't see any reason to make the same mistake with weed. You like to go home and smoke a bowl to relax after a hard day's work? Don't worry, you won't be fired. Same as alcohol or smoking a cigarette in your own home should be. You smoke weed on the job or show up stoned? FIRED! Same as if you show up drunk, drink on the job, or smoke in violation of company policy. Don't real see the problem here. At best, it seems a petty thing to base your whole vote on. Also, I was wondering why in your original post you say you voted against Prop 19? Last I checked, the election is next month...
Did Tannenbaum (sp?) really try to make it proprietary? I thought he just wasn't all that interested in being involved in a large community-style project, it was more of just a pet-project/teaching tool for his college classes. Someone here will undoubtedly correct my Linux history if I'm wrong...
And I would also counter that that "short" emotional trauma may very well be quite severe! I think the government has capped claims at $500,000 for now, as there simply isn't enough money to go around. Supposing you had your entire $5 million dollar retirement account with him, you are still screwed! Also as far as I understand it, they are only returning whatever money you originally invested. So if you invested 1 million dollars with him over 20 years, you may have well thought you had 20 million, as reported on your monthly statement. Now suppose you are already retired, and had even been taking dispersements for the last 5 years totaling $1 million. This means, in the government's eyes, you have already been reimbursed, and you are entitled to nothing more. This Madoff case is truly epic in scale, and problems are more complex than just giving everyone their money back ad then some for the trouble. The money that people lost never existed in the first place!
We might have to agree to disagree on this. But I think the distinction comes from the intent of the business that failed. Losing your life savings in a legitimate but failing typewriter company would be terrible. Somebody could theoretically kill themselves over it. But the typewriter company, failing as it was, was acting it good faith. It wasn't trying to go out of business and lose all of the investor's money. And presumably it was upfront with investors as to its balance sheet and any inherent risks.
I draw a distinction for an Enron or Madoff type of scandal where the fraudster willingly and knowingly deceives the investors. They are absolutely liable for all financial and emotional trauma that they cause.
These people were victims of a crime. Sure, they could have perhaps seen it coming, and some people even did see it coming. But they were being actively deceived by a fraudster, and they had no reason to expect such a massive crime was being perpetrated. They were victims. Stop blaming the victims. That's part of what makes us a civilized society... You know, laws and rules and punishments for victimizing people and not this laissez-faire bullshit: "Oh, you were duped fair and square!"
Quite honestly, I hadn't really heard much about it. I didn't use PayPal much, so stories about it were never really on my radar. Since I had my bank account linked, I probably should have had it on my radar, but oh well. Lesson learned.
I swore them off a couple years ago. I had left my paypal account dormant for some time, but it was linked with my bank account so any charges would come straight out of my bank account. Sure enough, some funny business ensued, and my bank said there was nothing they could do. Everything was authorized by PayPal. So, I called up PayPal who promptly accused me of giving out my password, because of course that's the *only* way that someone could have unauthorized access to my account.
After much hemming and hawing and going through a more than murky "dispute" procedure, I finally did get my money back. And I closed my account the next day. Mistakes happen, and fraud happens, but I drew the line at them blaming me for the problem.
According to Carl Sagan in Cosmos, some astronomers think that Jupiter may have a small solid core at it's center made up of precisely all the asteroids and bits of rock from comets it's eaten up over the last few eons. But I don't think there's really any consensus on the issue.
I am not an astronomer, but I did watch Cosmos the other night...
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Two points. One: Academia by itself has very different goals than business, and thus is not trying to be super-in-touch with the business world. It cares whether you have a new explanation of how cancer cells mutate, or whether you have a new interpretation of "Canterbury Tales". That stuff may or may not be marketable, but it's extremely hard to fake. And if you use someone else's results to arrive at your conclusion without giving them due credit, the whole community is going to be pissed at you. If you want to have a career in academics, you need to learn quickly that faking it won't get you very far. So what do you really expect from a class taught by an academic?
In business, it may be suitable to get to a solution however possible, while barely staying in the lines of legality. This may include copying a competitor's business model or product idea, say. I have no problem with this, this is how business works. However, I would argue that these are skills that don't need to be taught at any university as the idea of how to copy is pretty obvious. What universities try to teach is how to create something of your own. While you can stay in business creating nothing of your own, you are also relying on somebody, somewhere to create something you can copy. A creator is more valuable to a business than a good copier.
In short, I fail to see why universities should not emphasize original work, and I do not believe their sole purpose is to support industry anyways.
I wanted to come here and post this exact question after reading the article. I'm not really sure how Engineering students can "e-cheat" in most of their classes.
I suppose it could be that the engineering students are more likely to cheat in the humanities courses that they are forced to take. This makes sense as these classes are outside their major and many of the engineering students don't really want to be in these types of classes anyways. They might want to just pass the class and get out with as little fuss as possible.
This might be elaborated on in the journal article itself, but I do not have a subscription. Anyone at a college campus want to read the journal article and expound?
Okay... But seven minutes might make a difference if you don't really know what is going on. And would it be too much to ask for him to stand up and say, "Excuse me kids, I have to go do President stuff now," and then go actually get briefed on all the details available? Nobodies asking him to jump up and scream "Nuke IRAN!!" at a whim, just go start the process ASAP in an emergency. That's what an emergency is
Exactly this. For every movie of his I've watched, there has come at least two or three points in the film where I've thought to myself, "Okay, I see your point, but your methods and reasoning are just plain BAD. Furthermore, you've just given everybody who doesn't want to listen the perfect excuse to criticize you and ignore you. WHY?"
I disagree that it is the government's job to make a list of private citizen detractors. Even less so that such a list should be kept secret. Even if it were, and we could agree on that point, is it not interesting in the slightest to see what the US thinks is critical?
For real! Finally my native state is in the news for passing a law that makes some iota of sense!
I know I'm responding to a different post here, but as for whoever mentioned the death tax... I'm hoping they weren't serious. Death tax only affects those who inherit sizable estates, and if you're in that game, surely a facebook page is the least of your worries. Besides, that's not really Oklahoma's problem, that's a federal issue.
Of course she didn't want anyone to read them! That's why she had a password set up in the first place! If she wanted her emails to her Aunt Sally regarding Tripp's bout with strep throat or whatever to have been public, then she would have broadcast them for all to see in the first place! I don't disagree with you in general, but let's be real and not crucify her for getting embarrassed and deleting her personal emails after the debacle. She might have something to hide, but her deleting them after the fact is not evidence of that. I might do the same, and I don't have any state secrets or illegal activity to hide either.
I don't know about the other states in the union, but here in California, if prop 19 passes, it is explicitly stated in the proposition that employers can't fire you for it. Being caught high while on the job is a different story of course, but the simple fact that you might smoke pot at home a couple times a week would not be a fire-able offense. At least to my understanding.
Multi-home properties being a big problem? Are you serious? Are you thinking about an apartment complex or something going over-budget on its 25 square feet cause 3 guys all independently grow in their spare bedroom? Or folks with garage apartments/backyard houses that get leased out? Do you really think that these are going to pose a serious enough issue to vote the proposition down? I suspect that if there are minor problems with the law in cases like this, it will get ironed out in the courts or an amendment to the law at a later time. I'm certainly not considering it as relevant to whether the law shoudl pass or not.
As for the joint in the home- It's still legal to smoke cigarettes and drink in your own home with kids around. I think I'd honestly prefer it if those kind of parents just lit a joint.
Oh, if only I had mod points...
Perhaps not, but I bet the condition number of any said matrix is also very high. Although perhaps rare in your case, they would still be one of the toughest nuts to crack when they do show up. So this is still good news. If their method works as advertised.
I think it's just a matter of what you specialize in. To me, this story is really interesting, and the summary is perfectly understandable. But other times, I just scratch my head at stories that other people get excited about. I deal with solving sparse matrix systems every day, but I don't know the first thing about, say, the latest Mandriva release, or flash drivers. Or why I should care. Anyway, I'm off to read the paper now...
You're overthinking it. I'd be shocked if President Obama put more time thinking about this into it than the amount of time it took them to record him asking the question. I'm sure that a staffer came up with the question, and probably the whole idea. Obama went along with it, and they sat him down for 5 minutes and sent in a short video of him asking the question. What's the problem here? You don't like the question he asked? About an esoteric and interesting (and completely apolitical) legend from history? You're right. Maybe he should ask them to settle the global warming debate...
The dig at Dick Cheney aside, this isn't a troll. This is what happened. Enron wasn't the only player in that game, but there was NO power production shortage. Repeat after me. NO power production shortage. The shortage was artificially created to game the system.
This is what I have seriously been wondering about. Obama is all cool (or at least claims to be) with the medical states, but what will he do when a state outright legalizes it? I live out here and plan on voting for it, but I don't think it will quite be the panacea that some people expect. You can bet that if it passes and I go into the store to purchase it, I'm paying in cash.
It's the magic of absentee voting.
Ah yes, absentee voting. I'm a mail-voter myself, but I haven't gotten my ballot yet... If you got yours, I should probably look into that.
It might be legal to hire/fire someone based on the fact that they smoke, but some of us might consider that wrong to begin with, and don't see any reason to make the same mistake with weed. You like to go home and smoke a bowl to relax after a hard day's work? Don't worry, you won't be fired. Same as alcohol or smoking a cigarette in your own home should be. You smoke weed on the job or show up stoned? FIRED! Same as if you show up drunk, drink on the job, or smoke in violation of company policy. Don't real see the problem here. At best, it seems a petty thing to base your whole vote on. Also, I was wondering why in your original post you say you voted against Prop 19? Last I checked, the election is next month...
Did Tannenbaum (sp?) really try to make it proprietary? I thought he just wasn't all that interested in being involved in a large community-style project, it was more of just a pet-project/teaching tool for his college classes. Someone here will undoubtedly correct my Linux history if I'm wrong...
You are mistaken, though. Most American Madoff victims will never get their full investment back.
link: http://www.theconglomerate.org/2010/02/securities-investor-protection-corporation-battleground-for-reform-part-ii-net-winner-and-direct-cus.html
link: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/judge-sticks-with-cash-in-cash-out-reimbursement-306980.html
And I would also counter that that "short" emotional trauma may very well be quite severe! I think the government has capped claims at $500,000 for now, as there simply isn't enough money to go around. Supposing you had your entire $5 million dollar retirement account with him, you are still screwed! Also as far as I understand it, they are only returning whatever money you originally invested. So if you invested 1 million dollars with him over 20 years, you may have well thought you had 20 million, as reported on your monthly statement. Now suppose you are already retired, and had even been taking dispersements for the last 5 years totaling $1 million. This means, in the government's eyes, you have already been reimbursed, and you are entitled to nothing more. This Madoff case is truly epic in scale, and problems are more complex than just giving everyone their money back ad then some for the trouble. The money that people lost never existed in the first place!
We might have to agree to disagree on this. But I think the distinction comes from the intent of the business that failed. Losing your life savings in a legitimate but failing typewriter company would be terrible. Somebody could theoretically kill themselves over it. But the typewriter company, failing as it was, was acting it good faith. It wasn't trying to go out of business and lose all of the investor's money. And presumably it was upfront with investors as to its balance sheet and any inherent risks.
I draw a distinction for an Enron or Madoff type of scandal where the fraudster willingly and knowingly deceives the investors. They are absolutely liable for all financial and emotional trauma that they cause.
These people were victims of a crime. Sure, they could have perhaps seen it coming, and some people even did see it coming. But they were being actively deceived by a fraudster, and they had no reason to expect such a massive crime was being perpetrated. They were victims. Stop blaming the victims. That's part of what makes us a civilized society... You know, laws and rules and punishments for victimizing people and not this laissez-faire bullshit: "Oh, you were duped fair and square!"
Quite honestly, I hadn't really heard much about it. I didn't use PayPal much, so stories about it were never really on my radar. Since I had my bank account linked, I probably should have had it on my radar, but oh well. Lesson learned.
I swore them off a couple years ago. I had left my paypal account dormant for some time, but it was linked with my bank account so any charges would come straight out of my bank account. Sure enough, some funny business ensued, and my bank said there was nothing they could do. Everything was authorized by PayPal. So, I called up PayPal who promptly accused me of giving out my password, because of course that's the *only* way that someone could have unauthorized access to my account.
After much hemming and hawing and going through a more than murky "dispute" procedure, I finally did get my money back. And I closed my account the next day. Mistakes happen, and fraud happens, but I drew the line at them blaming me for the problem.
So maybe I'll get a whoosh here.... But according to the OED, "cromulent" is not a word. Did I miss something?
According to Carl Sagan in Cosmos, some astronomers think that Jupiter may have a small solid core at it's center made up of precisely all the asteroids and bits of rock from comets it's eaten up over the last few eons. But I don't think there's really any consensus on the issue.
I am not an astronomer, but I did watch Cosmos the other night...