I wonder if I can confuse it by saying that my perfect girlfriend would be real and not just bits on a server far away.
Careful.. it's only a matter of time before the technology exists to make those bits into a real form,
and the request is kind of like saying
"Computer, in the Holmesian style, create a mystery to confound Data with an opponent who has the ability to defeat him."
" Computer: 'Define parameters of the program.'"
"The parameters will be whatever is necessary in order to accomplish the directive. .
Create a sherlock holmes adversary capable of defeating Data"
See Amendment 16 regarding the legality of Income Taxes.
It's unfortunate there were so many irregularities with the passing of the 16th amendment.
See, it was never actually "ratified" because different states passed substantially different versions,
and 36 states didn't approve the same amendment as required for it to become part of the constitution.
Fortunately, however, the federal government doesn't derive the authority for taxing income from the 16th amendment.
The income tax is an excise tax whose authority the federal government has to impose, deriving from the constitution.
It is only direct taxes that the federal government has restrictions laid upon them, regarding.
Since income tax is an indirect tax, the 16th amendment is not required; they have the authority to tax incomes, regardless of source, before the 16th amendment.
So even if the 16th were struck down or repealed, the income tax would still exist, absent an amendment or law specifically prohibiting it.
<Raymond> Red Hat Ceylon uncloacking, 50 kilometers off the starboard bow.
<Raymond> They are charging forward disruptors.
<Henley> Shields up, red alert
<Raymond> Capitan, they are firing forward NoSQL disruptors.
<Ellison> Evasive manueuvers, stand by InnoLasers queries, return fire.
<Ellison> Open fire.
<Raymond> Our torpedos hit them.
<Raymond> The Ceylon's forward shields are down.
<Ellison> Prepare to deploy takeover field.
<Raymond> Capitan, they have just launched 5 Java killers at us.
<Ellison> Oh crap.
<Ellison> Launch OEL torpedos and deploy the distribution cloning apparatus.
<Raymond> Torpedos away.
<Raymond> Heavy damage, captain, having trouble reassembling the shields.
<Ellison> Hit them with the secret weapon.
<Raymond> The distribution cloning apparatus?
<Ellison> No. The patent and copyright lawyers.
<Raymond> Captain, don't you think that's a bit cruel?
<Ellison> Do it now.
<Raymond> Yessir
<Raymond> Red Hat destroyed, sir.... but...
<Raymond> But?
<Raymond> Fedora Ceylon just uncloaked, they've launched millions of Mono-based Java killers
<Raymond> Evasive?
<Raymond> We are completely surrounded, cannot move an inch
":=" as the assignment operator is a case of back to the future. Pascal uses it, and for anyone who's mistakenly typed "=" rather than "==" in C/C++ it can only be a good thing.
Why don't we just move Linux kernel development to the ADA language, before it's too late?
Let us say, that Zuckerberg dealt off 100% of facebook to the Winklevossen. If what he sold was later shown to be stolen, then can title be regained?
FB the company cannot seize an owner's share of it; they can only print new shares.
That's how they settled with Winklevossen -- the company issued new shares, which reduces
the real value of ZB's existing shares.
If ZB had Facebook print enough shares to Winklevossen dilute Zuckerberg's interest down to 1%;
the court dealing with ZB vs Ceglia could still work to find an equitable outcome;
the court is perfectly capable of actually ordering Facebook to issue an amount of stock and voting
rights to Ceglia that will bring his ownership and voting rights to 50% -- it will have the side effect
of reducing ZB's 1% stake further, and Winklevossens' stake, AND it might bring ZB
in breach of his deal, but they can do it, and Winklevossens' may then be able to pursue actions again
thereafter, their settlement having been breached, if they required 99% ownership.
If instead ZB (as a person) had personally transferred shares to Winklevossen, again, the court is
perfectly capable of ordering an adjustment.
What they do, I suppose that would depend on how Zuckerberg 'lost 100%' of FB.
That doesn't seem fairly likely. If ZB had some kind of deal with Winkevossen to 'launder' the FB shares, then it would be called 'fraudulent transfer of title' and the transaction/sale unwound.
If ZB failed in his fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, such as by approving an obviously reckless deal,
(even if he happened to be the only shareholder at the time), then he would be subject to the possibility of a shareholder lawsuit.
Ceglia's dispute against ZB does not protect Ceglia against business risk.
Ceglia is only entitled to compensation for ZB's breach, not for FB's failure,
if such severe legal action occurs against them, that the entire value of their company is lost.
An early step is to get MZ deposed: make him admit the messages are in essence true, or false, or the classic "don't recall."
They should have deposed MZ before letting information about the e-mails get published.
Then they could have 'surprised' him by the content of the messages, and gotten him to make
a statement about the messages without hours or days in private with his (no doubt) $10 million+ legal
team to research and review the messages and rehearse with his lawyers his 'response' to each message.
Now if they depose him, he will have had plenty of time working with his team to decide exactly which
lies he might want to tell (if any of them are an uncomfortable truth he wants to lie about);
to ensure the least risk and make Ceglia's claims look as shoddy as possible.
The other thing is... Zuckerberg was in Massachusetts of the time, and Ceglia is not a financial institution.
Let's just say for the sake of argument, ZB committed Fraud for the sake of argument...
The statute of limitations for Fraud in Massachusetts is 3 years.
If he were to be charged federally, the statute of limitations is 5 years.
All this happened in 2003. It is now 2011.
So, the last date he could have been charged with a crime would have been some time in 2008.
Hence, the lack of things other than the Civil option (which have longer allowed time limits).
For example is lying a crime when it abets depriving Ceglia of his rightful share?
Except for some narrowly tailored situations, lying is not a 'crime'.
Lie and steal $10, you will 10+ years in prison. Steal $500 million... you will get off scott free.
Now it could in theory be a crime if... it can be proven Zuckerberg made a materially false representation of a fact;
if it can be proven Zuckerberg knew it was false at the time he sent it/said it;
if it can be proven Zuckerberg intended for the lie to deprive the other party of something Zuckerberg knew them to be entitled to;
if it can be proven the lie was believable, Ceglie believed the lie was true, and suffered damage as a result, then
you could have fraud...
However, the authorities would have to decide to prosecute ZB.
They might not even be inclined to do so; especially after such a generous donation from FB, err.....
Would the ISPs even have kept the logs from seven years ago? That seems like a long time.
It is a long time, but many organizations will have backups, and basically 10 years of log files.
A number of universities even retain archives of e-mail for 10 years.
In some cases, there are laws requiring them to maintain at least 7-10 years of archives,
which (if archived) could be sufficient in length to include ZB/Ceglia's message exchange, if it passed through a system with such a retention period.
Zuckerbergs settlement with the Winklevosses and other share distributions came from Zuckerberg's shares and not Ceglia
Those are share distributions by the company. The company FB writing shares to settle the lawsuit dilutes the ownership of all the owners.
And Ceglia's holdings would also be diluted, by the settlements, if he had 50/50 in the beginning.
The dispute over ownership of the projects' ideas arises no matter how ZB/Ceglia distribute their original share of the company.
Just because Ceglia's day in court comes later does not mean the court protects his interest from dilution resulting from actions against the business.
Zuckerberg has all the earmarks of a crook, and if he is indeed crooked in this, deserves a lengthy prison term in a fully integrated federal facility.
Last I checked, breach of contract is entirely a civil matter. Zuckerberg's penalty for failing to deliver as agreed, would be a financial one (order to redo all of Facebook's accounting work for the past 7 years, with Ceglia having a 50% share at the very beginning, any profits/rewards received from those shares over the years moved from ZB to Ceglia, plus, probably some punitive damages, and Ceglia's legal expenses).
And if they are proven legitimate, then what? The guy just gets 50% of Facebook?
No... even if they are legitimate; what happens still has to be hashed out in court.
There may be some arguments that the guy doesn't get 50% of Facebook, even if they are bonafide.
One thing is clear... Zuckerburg didn't sign every e-mail; if he didn't uphold his end, then there wasn't a 50/50 split.
It is an open question about how the court would go attempting to cure the breach.
The court might award Ceglia $2,000 plus some additional monetary consideration;
if say they determined that what Zuckerburg did with Facebook was way beyond what was covered by the contract,
the result might not be 50/50.
It's also possible the court could determine the e-mails weren't part of the contract -- the 1% a day penalty still applies,
and the launch date was so delayed that Ceglia is due 300% of Zuckerberg's interest in Facebook;
ZB would then be going bankrupt....
Still, we know how to fake an email header, right? What's going to prove these are genuine?
Producing the messages with full headers would go to great lengths to prove them genuine, if Ceglia would do that;
especially if the e-mail providers have subpoena-able records from their mail server (log entries), including the size of the message.
Then the message with full headers could be analyzed, first to check if the size matched, and if all the relevant portions of the headers matched the system logs from 7 years ago.
In some cases there might be checksums or other entries that could validate the e-mail message.
If they want uptake of the Ad-Supported kindle; they should instead charge 3G WhisperNet users a $25 monthly fee,
and offer to waive it if they will convert to an Ad-Supported kindle.
I suspect they will do that, eventually.
Maybe offer a "Kindle price" and an "Kindle Special Offers" price for every book...
display a little dialog "Convert to a Kindle with Special offers, and receive a $25 rebate, $5 off this book, and 10% off future kindle editions."
I beg to differ about the graphing calculators being no more useful than a $10 calc.
Though as a CS person... if I needed a machine to do something beyond the basic 4 functions... i'd use a computer running Matlab, or else, CAS such as Maple or Mathematica.
Math software, though quite expensive, seems to have a much longer lifetime and much greater versatility than a $100 calculator.
Graphing calculators are getting pretty advanced, there are Note applications for them...
The Ti-Nspire CX calculator, TI's new line of graphing calculators coming out have a WiFi unit available for it to connect to a remote Ti navigator unit.
Gone are the days where calculators had no networking capabilities or required hardware hacking to add them.
That's legal speak for lying. You're the one twisting words.
the footnotes go on to say....
According to the GSA, Googles Google Apps Premier received FISMA certification on July 21, 2010. However, Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product and, Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government.
In other words.... the less limited version of their product 'had FISMA' certification from an agency?
HMM(!)
Google really begins to look nasty here.... the government is trying to do something that is the right thing by sane security standards (there is no such thing as 'secure multitenancy'.... that is an Oxymoron.)... and Google's insisting they sacrifice security requirements they have specified, just so that Google can provide service to them using a non-dedicated cloud?
I understand Google fearing they pick M$ due to hegemony... but if Google verifiably hasn't provided a product yet that will meet their stated security requirements, then Google should stop with this nonsense, interfering with government, and instead take it as a lesson about what they need to revise in regards to their product.
PAGE 38
DOI is fully entitled to constrain the cloud model it will accept even if FISMA does not dictate a particular model. FISMA establishes a bare minimum level of security for information systems..... The law permits and encourages agencies to impose additional requirements to account for their own unique security needs.
...
Yet DOI has also determined that its security requirements exceed the bare minimum mandated by FISMA; thus it also requires that the cloud be dedicated to either DOI or Federal agencies on a physically and logically server that in at least two data centers located within the continental United States. See AR168. Contrary to Googles contention, the FISMA certification process is not meant to override an individual agencys
security needs. AR784-785. DOI was wholly justified in insisting that Google offer a DOI-only or Federal-only cloud.
Moreover, DOI had good reason to require additional safeguards beyond those commanded by FISMA.
What's the point in "teaching" wood shop, if you let a power drill do 90% of the work when drilling holes?
Students should have to do it using hand screws, lest they become dependant on the newfangled lctricity!!
Crippled technology? Hell, why do we even allow calculators to be used in ANY exam? What's the point in "teaching" math if you let the calculator do 90% of the work?
Because calculators are a tool used by practitioners of mathematics, and students benefit from learning to use the tool to facilitate their work?
Because arithmetic is simple, and it would be wasteful to just be constantly re-testing all that particular type of "work" on every test?
Don't take testing of students' ability to use a calculator for granted.... many students fail, even with advanced calculators fully allowed.
To be successful in life, you have to learn how to use a calculator, and if math classes don't teach this and test you on it, many students won't get the required skill.
It turns out that in real math classes you actually have to have some idea what you are doing to be successful even with a calculator.
This couldn't be more true than with word problems that sometimes involve many steps and pages of work, and require advanced problem
solving --- the more work the calculator can do, the more time the student has to do work on the real math (problem solving), AND, therefore
the more complex the problem can be, and the larger the amount of material that can be tested (the more advanced the thought that can be required of the student).
In other words use of a calculator is not harmful, and actually beneficial, if the examination method is effective, and accounts for the students' access to a calculator. Strategy for using the calculator in an appropriate way is also a problem solving consideration -- if the student uses their calculator inefficiently, or doesn't take a good problem solving approach, they will run out of time before they finish the exam.
The introduction of this strategy element allows the exam to be made more challenging, and therefore....
taking the exam more rewarding / more educational an experience.
If you can't use a calculator, you won't go very far in modern maths. If you can use a calculator, 98% of the students will have their needs met;
the 2% who go into advanced maths for maths sake are such geeks they will not be harmed by learning to use a calculator.
Are you saying they should let me use a computer that may or may not have an aircard (i.e. internet)?
I am saying, yes, they should allow you to use a computer, under strict rules.
No access to the internet.
No access to notes or data you stored in advance, except if you got those notes/data approved in advance.
Any other ground rules the instructor sees fit to put into place.
The proctors reserve the right to wander about the room and look at your screen at any time.
If you are seen on the internet, or reviewing a note, you will be immediately ejected from the exam room, your test paper will be spoiled/estroyed, and you get charged with academic dishonesty.
But the fact a few people might cheat should not dissuade educators from using technology.
It should also be noted 'cheating by logging onto the internet' is easier to detect than cheating by shoulder surfing other students.
They ISPs like would have simply turned this funding into profits while continuing to throttle individual connection speeds.
Ever hear of attaching 'strings' to funding?
"Technologically feasible efforts must be undertaken to ensure the highest individual connection speed possible."
Conditions are in place 15 years from the date of funding; in case of breach, all funding is to be returned with a 200% penalty.
At the end of 15 years, provider has the option of repaying the funding, and ending the agreement.
"No end user metering based on a count of total bytes transferred."
"No throttling of end user connection speeds below throttling minimum."
"No terminating a user based on amount of usage, if bytes in a month transferred are less than twice the throttling minimum times the number of seconds in the month."
"No terminating a user based on amount of usage, except at the end of a billing period, where the entire month is utilized to calculate the usage."
No usage based billing or metering except if half the throttling limit is exceeded for at least 10% of the service billing hours in the month, and then, only based on the 90th percentile of rate of network traffic.
"Any usage based billing fees must be cancelled or credited if there is any outage of network service during the month.
And monthly service rates must be prorated and refunded or credited based on the number of outage hours in the month
divided by total number hours in the month times the monthly rate; rounding up to the nearest full hour -- so a 60 second
outage is 1 outage hour."
"Throttling minimum starts at 20 megabits per second and increases by 50% every year."
I'd say that's a problem caused by the ISPs not by this initiative.
Rather than take on an initiative to improve the internet, they've built a walled garden where only elitists are allowed to connect.
They have all the bandwidth in the world, but no connectivity to speak of.
Seriously... where would we be if the internet was done like this?
Since the ***AA's campaign was so effective...
How about CUAA... Computer Users Associatlion of America
The deal is, every computer joins this association, and grants the organization the right to sue on their behalf, to collect damages resulting from malware, in exchange for a percentage of the damages awarded.
Once enough computer users join this association, the association goes after anyone making or distributing malware.
(Including infected websites)
Using **AA-style tactics, sending threatening letters to the ISPs of servers propagating malware, etc..
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if I can confuse it by saying that my perfect girlfriend would be real and not just bits on a server far away.
Careful.. it's only a matter of time before the technology exists to make those bits into a real form, and the request is kind of like saying "Computer, in the Holmesian style, create a mystery to confound Data with an opponent who has the ability to defeat him."
" Computer: 'Define parameters of the program.'"
"The parameters will be whatever is necessary in order to accomplish the directive. . Create a sherlock holmes adversary capable of defeating Data"
See Amendment 16 regarding the legality of Income Taxes.
It's unfortunate there were so many irregularities with the passing of the 16th amendment. See, it was never actually "ratified" because different states passed substantially different versions, and 36 states didn't approve the same amendment as required for it to become part of the constitution.
Fortunately, however, the federal government doesn't derive the authority for taxing income from the 16th amendment.
The income tax is an excise tax whose authority the federal government has to impose, deriving from the constitution.
It is only direct taxes that the federal government has restrictions laid upon them, regarding. Since income tax is an indirect tax, the 16th amendment is not required; they have the authority to tax incomes, regardless of source, before the 16th amendment.
So even if the 16th were struck down or repealed, the income tax would still exist, absent an amendment or law specifically prohibiting it.
Fuck that. I want an OS written in PHP3. Why have the odd security hole, make an OS that's nothing but security holes!
That's like trying to build the hull of a sea freighter out of cheesecloth.
":=" as the assignment operator is a case of back to the future. Pascal uses it, and for anyone who's mistakenly typed "=" rather than "==" in C/C++ it can only be a good thing.
Why don't we just move Linux kernel development to the ADA language, before it's too late?
Let us say, that Zuckerberg dealt off 100% of facebook to the Winklevossen. If what he sold was later shown to be stolen, then can title be regained?
FB the company cannot seize an owner's share of it; they can only print new shares. That's how they settled with Winklevossen -- the company issued new shares, which reduces the real value of ZB's existing shares.
If ZB had Facebook print enough shares to Winklevossen dilute Zuckerberg's interest down to 1%; the court dealing with ZB vs Ceglia could still work to find an equitable outcome; the court is perfectly capable of actually ordering Facebook to issue an amount of stock and voting rights to Ceglia that will bring his ownership and voting rights to 50% -- it will have the side effect of reducing ZB's 1% stake further, and Winklevossens' stake, AND it might bring ZB in breach of his deal, but they can do it, and Winklevossens' may then be able to pursue actions again thereafter, their settlement having been breached, if they required 99% ownership.
If instead ZB (as a person) had personally transferred shares to Winklevossen, again, the court is perfectly capable of ordering an adjustment.
What they do, I suppose that would depend on how Zuckerberg 'lost 100%' of FB. That doesn't seem fairly likely. If ZB had some kind of deal with Winkevossen to 'launder' the FB shares, then it would be called 'fraudulent transfer of title' and the transaction/sale unwound.
If ZB failed in his fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, such as by approving an obviously reckless deal, (even if he happened to be the only shareholder at the time), then he would be subject to the possibility of a shareholder lawsuit.
Ceglia's dispute against ZB does not protect Ceglia against business risk. Ceglia is only entitled to compensation for ZB's breach, not for FB's failure, if such severe legal action occurs against them, that the entire value of their company is lost.
An early step is to get MZ deposed: make him admit the messages are in essence true, or false, or the classic "don't recall."
They should have deposed MZ before letting information about the e-mails get published. Then they could have 'surprised' him by the content of the messages, and gotten him to make a statement about the messages without hours or days in private with his (no doubt) $10 million+ legal team to research and review the messages and rehearse with his lawyers his 'response' to each message.
Now if they depose him, he will have had plenty of time working with his team to decide exactly which lies he might want to tell (if any of them are an uncomfortable truth he wants to lie about); to ensure the least risk and make Ceglia's claims look as shoddy as possible.
The other thing is... Zuckerberg was in Massachusetts of the time, and Ceglia is not a financial institution. Let's just say for the sake of argument, ZB committed Fraud for the sake of argument...
The statute of limitations for Fraud in Massachusetts is 3 years.
If he were to be charged federally, the statute of limitations is 5 years.
All this happened in 2003. It is now 2011. So, the last date he could have been charged with a crime would have been some time in 2008.
Hence, the lack of things other than the Civil option (which have longer allowed time limits).
For example is lying a crime when it abets depriving Ceglia of his rightful share?
Except for some narrowly tailored situations, lying is not a 'crime'.
Lie and steal $10, you will 10+ years in prison. Steal $500 million... you will get off scott free.
Now it could in theory be a crime if... it can be proven Zuckerberg made a materially false representation of a fact; if it can be proven Zuckerberg knew it was false at the time he sent it/said it; if it can be proven Zuckerberg intended for the lie to deprive the other party of something Zuckerberg knew them to be entitled to; if it can be proven the lie was believable, Ceglie believed the lie was true, and suffered damage as a result, then you could have fraud...
However, the authorities would have to decide to prosecute ZB. They might not even be inclined to do so; especially after such a generous donation from FB, err.....
Would the ISPs even have kept the logs from seven years ago? That seems like a long time.
It is a long time, but many organizations will have backups, and basically 10 years of log files.
A number of universities even retain archives of e-mail for 10 years. In some cases, there are laws requiring them to maintain at least 7-10 years of archives, which (if archived) could be sufficient in length to include ZB/Ceglia's message exchange, if it passed through a system with such a retention period.
Zuckerbergs settlement with the Winklevosses and other share distributions came from Zuckerberg's shares and not Ceglia
Those are share distributions by the company. The company FB writing shares to settle the lawsuit dilutes the ownership of all the owners. And Ceglia's holdings would also be diluted, by the settlements, if he had 50/50 in the beginning. The dispute over ownership of the projects' ideas arises no matter how ZB/Ceglia distribute their original share of the company.
Just because Ceglia's day in court comes later does not mean the court protects his interest from dilution resulting from actions against the business.
Zuckerberg has all the earmarks of a crook, and if he is indeed crooked in this, deserves a lengthy prison term in a fully integrated federal facility.
Last I checked, breach of contract is entirely a civil matter. Zuckerberg's penalty for failing to deliver as agreed, would be a financial one (order to redo all of Facebook's accounting work for the past 7 years, with Ceglia having a 50% share at the very beginning, any profits/rewards received from those shares over the years moved from ZB to Ceglia, plus, probably some punitive damages, and Ceglia's legal expenses).
And if they are proven legitimate, then what? The guy just gets 50% of Facebook?
No... even if they are legitimate; what happens still has to be hashed out in court. There may be some arguments that the guy doesn't get 50% of Facebook, even if they are bonafide.
One thing is clear... Zuckerburg didn't sign every e-mail; if he didn't uphold his end, then there wasn't a 50/50 split. It is an open question about how the court would go attempting to cure the breach.
The court might award Ceglia $2,000 plus some additional monetary consideration; if say they determined that what Zuckerburg did with Facebook was way beyond what was covered by the contract, the result might not be 50/50.
It's also possible the court could determine the e-mails weren't part of the contract -- the 1% a day penalty still applies, and the launch date was so delayed that Ceglia is due 300% of Zuckerberg's interest in Facebook; ZB would then be going bankrupt....
Still, we know how to fake an email header, right? What's going to prove these are genuine?
Producing the messages with full headers would go to great lengths to prove them genuine, if Ceglia would do that; especially if the e-mail providers have subpoena-able records from their mail server (log entries), including the size of the message.
Then the message with full headers could be analyzed, first to check if the size matched, and if all the relevant portions of the headers matched the system logs from 7 years ago. In some cases there might be checksums or other entries that could validate the e-mail message.
If they want uptake of the Ad-Supported kindle; they should instead charge 3G WhisperNet users a $25 monthly fee, and offer to waive it if they will convert to an Ad-Supported kindle.
I suspect they will do that, eventually.
Maybe offer a "Kindle price" and an "Kindle Special Offers" price for every book... display a little dialog "Convert to a Kindle with Special offers, and receive a $25 rebate, $5 off this book, and 10% off future kindle editions."
I beg to differ about the graphing calculators being no more useful than a $10 calc. Though as a CS person... if I needed a machine to do something beyond the basic 4 functions... i'd use a computer running Matlab, or else, CAS such as Maple or Mathematica.
Math software, though quite expensive, seems to have a much longer lifetime and much greater versatility than a $100 calculator.
Graphing calculators are getting pretty advanced, there are Note applications for them...
The Ti-Nspire CX calculator, TI's new line of graphing calculators coming out have a WiFi unit available for it to connect to a remote Ti navigator unit. Gone are the days where calculators had no networking capabilities or required hardware hacking to add them.
Plenty of people covering it in enough detail that industry apologists won't win.
See fairewinds.com.... Closing Ranks: The NRC, the Nuclear Industry, and TEPCO are Limiting the Flow of Information.... interesting.
That's legal speak for lying. You're the one twisting words.
the footnotes go on to say.... According to the GSA, Googles Google Apps Premier received FISMA certification on July 21, 2010. However, Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product and, Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government.
In other words.... the less limited version of their product 'had FISMA' certification from an agency? HMM(!)
Google really begins to look nasty here.... the government is trying to do something that is the right thing by sane security standards (there is no such thing as 'secure multitenancy'.... that is an Oxymoron.)... and Google's insisting they sacrifice security requirements they have specified, just so that Google can provide service to them using a non-dedicated cloud?
I understand Google fearing they pick M$ due to hegemony... but if Google verifiably hasn't provided a product yet that will meet their stated security requirements, then Google should stop with this nonsense, interfering with government, and instead take it as a lesson about what they need to revise in regards to their product.
PAGE 38
What's the point in "teaching" wood shop, if you let a power drill do 90% of the work when drilling holes?
Students should have to do it using hand screws, lest they become dependant on the newfangled lctricity!!
Crippled technology? Hell, why do we even allow calculators to be used in ANY exam? What's the point in "teaching" math if you let the calculator do 90% of the work?
Because calculators are a tool used by practitioners of mathematics, and students benefit from learning to use the tool to facilitate their work? Because arithmetic is simple, and it would be wasteful to just be constantly re-testing all that particular type of "work" on every test?
Don't take testing of students' ability to use a calculator for granted.... many students fail, even with advanced calculators fully allowed. To be successful in life, you have to learn how to use a calculator, and if math classes don't teach this and test you on it, many students won't get the required skill.
It turns out that in real math classes you actually have to have some idea what you are doing to be successful even with a calculator. This couldn't be more true than with word problems that sometimes involve many steps and pages of work, and require advanced problem solving --- the more work the calculator can do, the more time the student has to do work on the real math (problem solving), AND, therefore the more complex the problem can be, and the larger the amount of material that can be tested (the more advanced the thought that can be required of the student).
In other words use of a calculator is not harmful, and actually beneficial, if the examination method is effective, and accounts for the students' access to a calculator. Strategy for using the calculator in an appropriate way is also a problem solving consideration -- if the student uses their calculator inefficiently, or doesn't take a good problem solving approach, they will run out of time before they finish the exam. The introduction of this strategy element allows the exam to be made more challenging, and therefore.... taking the exam more rewarding / more educational an experience.
If you can't use a calculator, you won't go very far in modern maths. If you can use a calculator, 98% of the students will have their needs met; the 2% who go into advanced maths for maths sake are such geeks they will not be harmed by learning to use a calculator.
Are you saying they should let me use a computer that may or may not have an aircard (i.e. internet)?
I am saying, yes, they should allow you to use a computer, under strict rules.
No access to the internet.
No access to notes or data you stored in advance, except if you got those notes/data approved in advance. Any other ground rules the instructor sees fit to put into place.
The proctors reserve the right to wander about the room and look at your screen at any time. If you are seen on the internet, or reviewing a note, you will be immediately ejected from the exam room, your test paper will be spoiled/estroyed, and you get charged with academic dishonesty.
But the fact a few people might cheat should not dissuade educators from using technology.
It should also be noted 'cheating by logging onto the internet' is easier to detect than cheating by shoulder surfing other students.
while it's not impossible to cheat; it is a lot harder to slip in hidden notes in a calculator.
Have you seen a TI92 lately?
Recording notes is in theory, no problem.
They ISPs like would have simply turned this funding into profits while continuing to throttle individual connection speeds.
Ever hear of attaching 'strings' to funding?
"Technologically feasible efforts must be undertaken to ensure the highest individual connection speed possible."
Conditions are in place 15 years from the date of funding; in case of breach, all funding is to be returned with a 200% penalty.
At the end of 15 years, provider has the option of repaying the funding, and ending the agreement.
"No end user metering based on a count of total bytes transferred."
"No throttling of end user connection speeds below throttling minimum."
"No terminating a user based on amount of usage, if bytes in a month transferred are less than twice the throttling minimum times the number of seconds in the month."
"No terminating a user based on amount of usage, except at the end of a billing period, where the entire month is utilized to calculate the usage."
No usage based billing or metering except if half the throttling limit is exceeded for at least 10% of the service billing hours in the month, and then, only based on the 90th percentile of rate of network traffic.
"Any usage based billing fees must be cancelled or credited if there is any outage of network service during the month. And monthly service rates must be prorated and refunded or credited based on the number of outage hours in the month divided by total number hours in the month times the monthly rate; rounding up to the nearest full hour -- so a 60 second outage is 1 outage hour."
"Throttling minimum starts at 20 megabits per second and increases by 50% every year."
I'd say that's a problem caused by the ISPs not by this initiative.
Rather than take on an initiative to improve the internet, they've built a walled garden where only elitists are allowed to connect. They have all the bandwidth in the world, but no connectivity to speak of.
Seriously... where would we be if the internet was done like this?
There would be no Slashdot or Facebook, for sure.
We don't want Adobe to go bankrupt that fast, do we?
I wasn't aware Adobe was distributing malware?
I think MS has more to worry about, for releasing an OS that contributes to the spread of malware, against the user's wishes.
Since the ***AA's campaign was so effective... How about CUAA... Computer Users Associatlion of America
The deal is, every computer joins this association, and grants the organization the right to sue on their behalf, to collect damages resulting from malware, in exchange for a percentage of the damages awarded.
Once enough computer users join this association, the association goes after anyone making or distributing malware. (Including infected websites)
Using **AA-style tactics, sending threatening letters to the ISPs of servers propagating malware, etc..