And if the result of having someone proofread and give “suggestions” is that the prof thinks the students couldn’t possibly have written it, those suggestions were probably substantial enough that they should have at least checked beforehand. If nothing else, it won’t come as a huge surprise to the prof.
Also, if their response had been “we took it to the learning center and one of the tutors there helped proofread it and gave some suggestions on how we could improve it,” I have a feeling they wouldn’t have had nearly as much trouble, since the learning center (a) has record that they were there, so we know they really wrote the paper and (b) has tutors who know how much they’re supposed to help and how much they’re supposed to require the students to do on their own.
however, if you can actually master this methodology, and the test you are cheating on is a test in a college level statistical analysis class, perhaps you deserve the A nonetheless
If you can actually pull that off in a college-level statistical analysis class, couldn’t you have probably passed it without cheating in the first place?
When I was in university I wrote a group paper with one guy whose wife was a professional editor, she helped us out by reviewing it and making suggestions
Unless you specifically asked the prof and got permission to do that, you should generally assume that even if a paper is given as a “group” paper, it should still only involve the collaboration of people who are actually in that class, and in that group.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, and his clock is stopped on economic disaster. Wake me up when he can correctly predict upturns too, and then he might have something interesting going on.
Yes, but those weren't operated by the temple. Those were just hucksters taking advantage of people who'd come long distances
You’re incorrect. Or, at the very least, the activity was condoned by the Temple and the priests actively helped it to take place (and probably profited tidily from it too).
There was a big racket going on where people couldn’t use Roman currency to pay their Temple tax (because the priests had decided it was “unclean”, which wasn’t written anywhere in the Jewish law – though much Jewish law wasn’t written, of course, since the priests had the authority to enforce whatever they decided).
As a result, the people had to go to money-changers who exchanged their money for Temple money at extortionate margins of profit for themselves. Whether or not this was explicitly operated by the Temple, it was certainly condoned and the priests and money-changers were all in on it together.
Similarly you couldn’t offer just any-old-animal, it had to be certified and approved by the priests, who were in cahoots with the people selling “certified” sacrifice animals. So if you brought your own animal, perfectly in-line with the standards set forth in the law, most likely the priests would still manage to find something wrong with it. And who wants to bring an animal some hundred miles or so anyway? So the people selling animals had a similar racket going where they could charge exorbitant prices and get away with it, all condoned by and coordinated with the Temple itself.
An Atheist is a person who acknowledges the possibility of a god, but requires evidence before committing.
No, that’s an agnostic.
Definition of ATHEIST : one who believes that there is no deity
Definition of AGNOSTIC : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
the typical 1960s sit-in (ideally) didn't break anything. It just brought eyeballs to look at the venue in an attempt to discredit it
It took up valuable space which the company needed to make its bottom line profit. Even if they fired everyone and hired new people off the street, they’d have to get the police to come in and drag out the sit-ins one-by-one for them to have any space to work in.
my fucking inbox is full of little shitheads like you claiming I'm self-important for seeing a thread of interest and making a joke
Have you found the one about your joke being moderated up to +5 Funny yet?
P.S. Messages I get from Slashdot go to a special folder so they don’t fill up my Inbox. It wasn’t hard to set up the filter. You could try it. (And most of my/messages are set to “Web” anyway, so I don’t get an e-mail at all.)
"Value" is not just the value that others ascribe to my property, but also the value that I ascribe to my property.
But if hyper-inflation occurred tomorrow, it wouldn’t matter a bit what you think that $20 under your mattress is worth. So no, your own opinion of the value of your assets is fairly irrelevant. They only have actual value when someone else ascribes value to them.
Humoring the notion of "a marriage is property", the woman owned the marriage as much as the man... can I be charged for destruction of property for damaging some piece of property that I myself own? Can I be charged with destruction of property for something that is community property of my marriage? The answer is no.
Don’t humour the notion. It was ridiculous and meant to sound ridiculous... and the contortions and gymnastics you’re trying to do to make it sound logical just reinforce the point that it isn’t logical.
But w.r.t. destruction of jointly-owned property – actual property – there is precedent: the answer is most certainly yes, you can.
In Iowa, the appellate court held that “the wording of [its] statute, as well as public policies of preventing domestic violence and damage to property generally, suggests that the statute should apply to marital property as well as any other.”[cite]. The court in People v. Kheyfets, [cite: N.Y.Sup.Ct.1997], stated that holding individuals liable for destruction of property they own jointly with another “would be in tune with the spirit of the recent Federal and State domestic violence legislation.”... Our conclusion, that D.C.Code SS22-303 applies to individuals who destroy jointly owned property, is certainly consistent with the intent of those legislative initiatives. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1076345.html
So, what do you expect to win from this argument? I am correct that the law you quoted was violated because he acquired property, and it is unlikely that I will ever be wrong in this argument.
Nothing, really, but eventually hopefully the law will agree that property is property, and “intellectual property” (though it has value) is not property.
I'm tired of people coming up with stupid glib answers like that. That does not help to actually solve anything at all. States are not going to stop marrying people.
What the hell makes you so sure of this? Congress can pass laws telling the states what to do.
It puts them on apparently-equal footing.... main issue with the whole idea. How fucking *dare* I expect gays to be treated equally
No, you completely missed that point. The point was that using the same exact word puts the civil and religious sides of the coin on apparently-equal footing. Since, clearly, you can’t even come up with a different word for it when the civil sense is meant, apart from the same word that the religious folks have been using for the past several centuries.
I don’t care if the law puts gay marriage on the same level as straight marriage. But some churches sure as hell never will, and as long as that’s the case (and as long as the law is still co-opting the word they’re using for it, which is immeasurably stupid) there will be no end of strife.
Tell me: What’s so fucking important about the word “marriage” that gay people need to use it to feel like they have equality? The only reason for it is to force churches to recognize legitimacy where they don’t want to and never will, and that’s completely idiotic because their opinion shouldn’t matter to anyone but themselves anyway. So why are they trying to force the issue? I thought they wanted to live and let live? Give them equal standing w.r.t. the law, but call it something else regardless of whether it’s a gay or straight union.
Marriage is a civil institution and there is a large amount of inertia behind it, so it makes no sense at all to create a new institution to do that same thing when we could much more easily do it by merely extending the existing system to gay people.
And it is also a religious institution and there is a large amount of inertia behind it.
So which is easier to change, civil institutions or religious ones? Hint: Changing a civil institution just requires a few strokes of the pen.
Furthermore, religion will never give up its claim on “marriage”, and unless you differentiate between them (by calling the civil institution something else) you’ll always have a civil institution and a religious institution that both intersect and share the same name. This is just plain dumb. It’s confusing. It puts them on apparently-equal footing.
The resources for a DDOS are typically far beyond the level of individuals' own computers, and involve a botnet or similar distributed collection of machines, many of whose owners are not condoning this use of their resources
In that case it would certainly be illegitimate. Hijacking someone else’s computer is never a legitimate action. However you can’t claim that this is always the case, or even “typically”.
The people getting prosecuted for DDoS attacks aren’t some sort of ringleaders who hijacked hundreds of thousands of machines and formed a botnet to do their dirty deeds. The people getting prosecuted are people who downloaded and ran the LOIC on their own personal computer, which is a voluntary act of protest.
Read the actual text, and stop making up gibberish claiming that Jesus wouldn't like the government providing for the poor.
I have read it. And there were plenty of places where Jesus said to give to the poor, but I can’t think of any where he said to take other people’s money (without their consent) in order to give it to the poor. In fact he had some rather scathing words for the disciple who suggested that a certain (so he thought) particularly egregious waste should have instead been donated to the poor.
And, um, if you want 'huge overhead'...please actually look at the money you donate to a church. Even the most honest and ethical church gives less to actually help people than, oh, Medicaid.
Snopes’ review lists several charities whose efficiency ratings are between 80%-90%.
You can’t throw up your hands and declare defeat and expect anything to ever change. There was a point in time at which the idea of African-Americans ever getting the right to vote sounded just as absurd as what I proposed.
If me and about a million other people did, they might listen.
Re:HOSTS files are superior to AdBlock &/or DN
on
4chan Has Been DDOSed
·
· Score: 1
Really, APK? Really?!
You can’t even use the hosts file to achieve the desired results in this particular case, because the obnoxious music is hosted on the same website as the rest of the page.
Slashdot Mirror
He said essay questions, not essays. A.K.A. “short response”. They’re meant to grade comprehension of the material, not English writing skills.
I did.
And if the result of having someone proofread and give “suggestions” is that the prof thinks the students couldn’t possibly have written it, those suggestions were probably substantial enough that they should have at least checked beforehand. If nothing else, it won’t come as a huge surprise to the prof.
Also, if their response had been “we took it to the learning center and one of the tutors there helped proofread it and gave some suggestions on how we could improve it,” I have a feeling they wouldn’t have had nearly as much trouble, since the learning center (a) has record that they were there, so we know they really wrote the paper and (b) has tutors who know how much they’re supposed to help and how much they’re supposed to require the students to do on their own.
P.S.
I didn’t miss the joke, though – just thought it was more thought-provoking than it was funny, so that was the tack I took in reply.
Well, I didn’t think it was terribly funny, but I’d grant you that it was slightly thought-provoking.
however, if you can actually master this methodology, and the test you are cheating on is a test in a college level statistical analysis class, perhaps you deserve the A nonetheless
If you can actually pull that off in a college-level statistical analysis class, couldn’t you have probably passed it without cheating in the first place?
When I was in university I wrote a group paper with one guy whose wife was a professional editor, she helped us out by reviewing it and making suggestions
Unless you specifically asked the prof and got permission to do that, you should generally assume that even if a paper is given as a “group” paper, it should still only involve the collaboration of people who are actually in that class, and in that group.
What if someone doesn’t have a cellphone?
What if someone has two?
Personally, I’d be thrilled if they could just accurately predict next week’s weather.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, and his clock is stopped on economic disaster. Wake me up when he can correctly predict upturns too, and then he might have something interesting going on.
Yes, but those weren't operated by the temple. Those were just hucksters taking advantage of people who'd come long distances
You’re incorrect. Or, at the very least, the activity was condoned by the Temple and the priests actively helped it to take place (and probably profited tidily from it too).
There was a big racket going on where people couldn’t use Roman currency to pay their Temple tax (because the priests had decided it was “unclean”, which wasn’t written anywhere in the Jewish law – though much Jewish law wasn’t written, of course, since the priests had the authority to enforce whatever they decided).
As a result, the people had to go to money-changers who exchanged their money for Temple money at extortionate margins of profit for themselves. Whether or not this was explicitly operated by the Temple, it was certainly condoned and the priests and money-changers were all in on it together.
Similarly you couldn’t offer just any-old-animal, it had to be certified and approved by the priests, who were in cahoots with the people selling “certified” sacrifice animals. So if you brought your own animal, perfectly in-line with the standards set forth in the law, most likely the priests would still manage to find something wrong with it. And who wants to bring an animal some hundred miles or so anyway? So the people selling animals had a similar racket going where they could charge exorbitant prices and get away with it, all condoned by and coordinated with the Temple itself.
An Atheist is a person who acknowledges the possibility of a god, but requires evidence before committing.
No, that’s an agnostic.
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity
Definition of AGNOSTIC
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
the typical 1960s sit-in (ideally) didn't break anything. It just brought eyeballs to look at the venue in an attempt to discredit it
It took up valuable space which the company needed to make its bottom line profit. Even if they fired everyone and hired new people off the street, they’d have to get the police to come in and drag out the sit-ins one-by-one for them to have any space to work in.
It seems to me that a forced-air system could pretty easily compensate for zero-gravity.
my fucking inbox is full of little shitheads like you claiming I'm self-important for seeing a thread of interest and making a joke
Have you found the one about your joke being moderated up to +5 Funny yet?
P.S. Messages I get from Slashdot go to a special folder so they don’t fill up my Inbox. It wasn’t hard to set up the filter. You could try it. (And most of my/messages are set to “Web” anyway, so I don’t get an e-mail at all.)
"Value" is not just the value that others ascribe to my property, but also the value that I ascribe to my property.
But if hyper-inflation occurred tomorrow, it wouldn’t matter a bit what you think that $20 under your mattress is worth. So no, your own opinion of the value of your assets is fairly irrelevant. They only have actual value when someone else ascribes value to them.
Humoring the notion of "a marriage is property", the woman owned the marriage as much as the man... can I be charged for destruction of property for damaging some piece of property that I myself own? Can I be charged with destruction of property for something that is community property of my marriage? The answer is no.
Don’t humour the notion. It was ridiculous and meant to sound ridiculous... and the contortions and gymnastics you’re trying to do to make it sound logical just reinforce the point that it isn’t logical.
But w.r.t. destruction of jointly-owned property – actual property – there is precedent: the answer is most certainly yes, you can.
In Iowa, the appellate court held that “the wording of [its] statute, as well as public policies of preventing domestic violence and damage to property generally, suggests that the statute should apply to marital property as well as any other.”[cite]. The court in People v. Kheyfets, [cite: N.Y.Sup.Ct.1997], stated that holding individuals liable for destruction of property they own jointly with another “would be in tune with the spirit of the recent Federal and State domestic violence legislation.” ... Our conclusion, that D.C.Code SS22-303 applies to individuals who destroy jointly owned property, is certainly consistent with the intent of those legislative initiatives.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1076345.html
So, what do you expect to win from this argument? I am correct that the law you quoted was violated because he acquired property, and it is unlikely that I will ever be wrong in this argument.
Nothing, really, but eventually hopefully the law will agree that property is property, and “intellectual property” (though it has value) is not property.
I'm tired of people coming up with stupid glib answers like that. That does not help to actually solve anything at all. States are not going to stop marrying people.
What the hell makes you so sure of this? Congress can pass laws telling the states what to do.
It puts them on apparently-equal footing. ... main issue with the whole idea. How fucking *dare* I expect gays to be treated equally
No, you completely missed that point. The point was that using the same exact word puts the civil and religious sides of the coin on apparently-equal footing. Since, clearly, you can’t even come up with a different word for it when the civil sense is meant, apart from the same word that the religious folks have been using for the past several centuries.
I don’t care if the law puts gay marriage on the same level as straight marriage. But some churches sure as hell never will, and as long as that’s the case (and as long as the law is still co-opting the word they’re using for it, which is immeasurably stupid) there will be no end of strife.
Tell me: What’s so fucking important about the word “marriage” that gay people need to use it to feel like they have equality? The only reason for it is to force churches to recognize legitimacy where they don’t want to and never will, and that’s completely idiotic because their opinion shouldn’t matter to anyone but themselves anyway. So why are they trying to force the issue? I thought they wanted to live and let live? Give them equal standing w.r.t. the law, but call it something else regardless of whether it’s a gay or straight union.
Publishing evidence is what got Wikileaks in trouble in the first place. I doubt Wired will reveal anything without a subpoena.
Marriage is a civil institution and there is a large amount of inertia behind it, so it makes no sense at all to create a new institution to do that same thing when we could much more easily do it by merely extending the existing system to gay people.
And it is also a religious institution and there is a large amount of inertia behind it.
So which is easier to change, civil institutions or religious ones? Hint: Changing a civil institution just requires a few strokes of the pen.
Furthermore, religion will never give up its claim on “marriage”, and unless you differentiate between them (by calling the civil institution something else) you’ll always have a civil institution and a religious institution that both intersect and share the same name. This is just plain dumb. It’s confusing. It puts them on apparently-equal footing.
I have this checkbox labeled “Ads Disabled – Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!”
The resources for a DDOS are typically far beyond the level of individuals' own computers, and involve a botnet or similar distributed collection of machines, many of whose owners are not condoning this use of their resources
In that case it would certainly be illegitimate. Hijacking someone else’s computer is never a legitimate action. However you can’t claim that this is always the case, or even “typically”.
The people getting prosecuted for DDoS attacks aren’t some sort of ringleaders who hijacked hundreds of thousands of machines and formed a botnet to do their dirty deeds. The people getting prosecuted are people who downloaded and ran the LOIC on their own personal computer, which is a voluntary act of protest.
Read the actual text, and stop making up gibberish claiming that Jesus wouldn't like the government providing for the poor.
I have read it. And there were plenty of places where Jesus said to give to the poor, but I can’t think of any where he said to take other people’s money (without their consent) in order to give it to the poor. In fact he had some rather scathing words for the disciple who suggested that a certain (so he thought) particularly egregious waste should have instead been donated to the poor.
And, um, if you want 'huge overhead'...please actually look at the money you donate to a church. Even the most honest and ethical church gives less to actually help people than, oh, Medicaid.
Snopes’ review lists several charities whose efficiency ratings are between 80%-90%.
You can’t throw up your hands and declare defeat and expect anything to ever change. There was a point in time at which the idea of African-Americans ever getting the right to vote sounded just as absurd as what I proposed.
If me and about a million other people did, they might listen.
Really, APK? Really?!
You can’t even use the hosts file to achieve the desired results in this particular case, because the obnoxious music is hosted on the same website as the rest of the page.