"People need the best selling conflict in the information age"
"The suitable specialist offers steps for secure source"
I don't think numbers are being counted as words, thus Detachment 2702 is one word, and possibly War II is one word. I agree that the hyphens are a pain. I did a global replace of ' ' with '^n' in vi, then replaced double hyphens by hand. I still haven't decided wheter to cosider single hyphens one or two words...
I'll fiddle with it somemore and see if I can get the first three phrases to make more sense...
The program is designed to test the knowledge of the subject matter, someone who wrote this essay would obviously have to have a fairly good knowledge of the heart in order to write such an essay, so... while a single statement is obviously quite wrong (well - Homer's circulation systems purpose might be to transport doughnuts ), the knowledge of the subject matter is very well demonstrated...
As to a human grader not giving it above a zero- bullshit:) I'd likely just ask what the point of the joke was, and either ask them to rewrite it, mark it down slightly or request clarification, and request that future essays not include such creative elements.
Elsewhere, someone asked "Could these same ideas be used to realize the dream of Christopher Reeves to walk again someday?"
As to helping Christopher Reeds the answer is most likely no. The reason being is that with a break in the spinal cord that high, death from pneumonia (sp?) is of such high probability, that many neurologists expect Mr. Reeves to succumb to it well before any of the developing methodologies for spinal regeneration, etc. come to fruition.
As to the potential for this research being applied to help parapalegics etc- I suspect that forced tissue growth, using protein inhibitors that allow neural tissue regeneration, gene therapy, etc. are far better canidates for the acheiving the desired result. Although this line of research may make contributions, the bulk of progress will come from elsewhere...
"... if an email came from "techsupport@microsoft.com" with a heading "Security update for " and an attachment (the BOserver), how many clueless windows users would download and run it without thinking? " This sentence makes an excellent case for having public crypto installed on every OS by default.
Then attachments like these would be far more trust worthy and naieve users wouldn't be nearly as likely to get burned.
If you read through the statements made by the various companies, you'll see that the three pro-patenting of software ideas are all presented by lawyers, while the anti-patenting are all presented by innovators and creators...
Now, tell me again who it that benifits from patent protection of software..
I agree with almost everything you say but one minor point - ". Easy disposal of waste in the Sun makes it more attractive yet. " While this may sound reasonable and desirable now, this is a horid (sp?) idea. Nuclear waste while not useful now - is likely to be a valuable resource in the not to distant future. Us launching it into the sun is the equivalent of the oil barons burning off the high octane part because it wasn't useful for oil, but is now used for making jet fuel.
A related idea is self moderation based on karma. Those who post tend to have a good idea of the relative merit of their comments, whether they are informative, funny, etc. Thus when posting, an option should be able to select what category your post falls under. Bad karma, or overrating ones posts would eliminate this ability. Additionally, high karma would allow one to post anonymous content that is self rated. This methodology could reduce the amount of posts that are overlooked missed due to lack of moderation (ie the early posts get moderated, but late posts tend to accumulate as 1's... as noted by another poster...). Tom M.
I believe you are speaking to two different issues here, one is legality, the other is morality. The first author was arguing that his use of proprietary software was not immoral because it led to eventual benefits garnered by the software producer (the students future employer would purchase the software based on the students recommendation), the future employer (the students knowledge base would save time and money in correct software evaluation/selection) as well as the student himself (via future employment because of his superior knowledge base).
Other statements were also made by the student that his piracy was also costless to the software producer, because in fact the student had neither the money nor inclination to purchase the software.
You then claimed that while any or all of the above statements were true, the actions are illegal, and hence irrelevant.
No one is arguing that software piracy is legal. In the US, it most definitely is not. The argument you attempted to refute, unsuccessfully, is wheter software piracy is immoral.
Unless Immoral == Illegal, then your arguments content is useless. For there are many practices that are immoral, yet legal, or illegal yet moral.
Two spurious examples follow - In the State of Alaska, it is illegal for a woman to drink coffee after 11 pm. Illegal = true, Immoral = false.
Makers of consumer products, such as toothpaste, are allowed to continue to incorporate known poisons/toxins in there products via grandfather clauses. (If you doubt this, read the warning labels on your toothpaste canister). Illegal = false, Immoral = true.
In the current case Illegal = true, Immoral = ??.
LetterRip
FYI - I don't, nor have i in the past used pirated software. I feel that it is at least somewhat immoral, but don't have a sufficient argument to demonstrate it...
Here are three links that i are worthwhile to look at, the first is Coldfusion, is oriented towards a nontechnical readership, and makes an argument for at least some funding of CF reasearch. The second Fusionaries also from wired, directs readers to some of the companies, institutes, and researchers involved in doing CF and related research. The third Review of the Cold Fusion Effect is from the Journal of Scientific Exploration. It's a review and summary of the state of CF research and is directed at a more technical audience, such as Dr. Ettrich. (Although I think most of the readership shouldn't have a great deal of difficulty with it...)
Slashdot Mirror
I get the same solutions for the last two
"People need the best selling conflict in the information age"
"The suitable specialist offers steps for secure source"
I don't think numbers are being counted as words, thus Detachment 2702 is one word, and possibly War II is one word. I agree that the hyphens are a pain. I did a global replace of ' ' with '^n' in vi, then replaced double hyphens by hand. I still haven't decided wheter to cosider single hyphens one or two words...
I'll fiddle with it somemore and see if I can get the first three phrases to make more sense...
LetterRup
The program is designed to test the knowledge of the subject matter, someone who wrote this essay would obviously have to have a fairly good knowledge of the heart in order to write such an essay, so... while a single statement is obviously quite wrong (well - Homer's circulation systems purpose might be to transport doughnuts ), the knowledge of the subject matter is very well demonstrated...
:) I'd likely just ask what the point of the joke was, and either ask them to rewrite it, mark it down slightly or request clarification, and request that future essays not include such creative elements.
As to a human grader not giving it above a zero- bullshit
Thanks,
LetterRip
Elsewhere, someone asked "Could these same ideas be used to realize the dream of Christopher Reeves to walk again someday?"
As to helping Christopher Reeds the answer is most likely no. The reason being is that with a break in the spinal cord that high, death from pneumonia (sp?) is of such high probability, that many neurologists expect Mr. Reeves to succumb to it well before any of the developing methodologies for spinal regeneration, etc. come to fruition.
As to the potential for this research being applied to help parapalegics etc- I suspect that forced tissue growth, using protein inhibitors that allow neural tissue regeneration, gene therapy, etc. are far better canidates for the acheiving the desired result. Although this line of research may make contributions, the bulk of progress will come from elsewhere...
LetterRip
"... if an email came from "techsupport@microsoft.com" with a heading "Security update for " and an attachment (the BOserver), how many clueless windows users would download and run it without thinking? " This sentence makes an excellent case for having public crypto installed on every OS by default.
Then attachments like these would be far more trust worthy and naieve users wouldn't be nearly as likely to get burned.
just a thought...
LetterRip
If you read through the statements made by the various companies, you'll see that the three pro-patenting of software ideas are all presented by lawyers, while the anti-patenting are all presented by innovators and creators...
Now, tell me again who it that benifits from patent protection of software..
LetterRip
I agree with almost everything you say but one minor point - ". Easy disposal of waste in the Sun makes it more attractive yet. " While this may sound reasonable and desirable now, this is a horid (sp?) idea. Nuclear waste while not useful now - is likely to be a valuable resource in the not to distant future. Us launching it into the sun is the equivalent of the oil barons burning off the high octane part because it wasn't useful for oil, but is now used for making jet fuel.
LetterRip
A related idea is self moderation based on karma. Those who post tend to have a good idea of the relative merit of their comments, whether they are informative, funny, etc. Thus when posting, an option should be able to select what category your post falls under. Bad karma, or overrating ones posts would eliminate this ability. Additionally, high karma would allow one to post anonymous content that is self rated. This methodology could reduce the amount of posts that are overlooked missed due to lack of moderation (ie the early posts get moderated, but late posts tend to accumulate as 1's ... as noted by another poster...). Tom M.
I believe you are speaking to two different issues here, one is legality, the other is morality. The first author was arguing that his use of proprietary software was not immoral because it led to eventual benefits garnered by the software producer (the students future employer would purchase the software based on the students recommendation), the future employer (the students knowledge base would save time and money in correct software evaluation/selection) as well as the student himself (via future employment because of his superior knowledge base).
Other statements were also made by the student that his piracy was also costless to the software producer, because in fact the student had neither the money nor inclination to purchase the software.
You then claimed that while any or all of the above statements were true, the actions are illegal, and hence irrelevant.
No one is arguing that software piracy is legal. In the US, it most definitely is not. The argument you attempted to refute, unsuccessfully, is wheter software piracy is immoral.
Unless Immoral == Illegal, then your arguments content is useless. For there are many practices that are immoral, yet legal, or illegal yet moral.
Two spurious examples follow - In the State of Alaska, it is illegal for a woman to drink coffee after 11 pm. Illegal = true, Immoral = false.
Makers of consumer products, such as toothpaste, are allowed to continue to incorporate known poisons/toxins in there products via grandfather clauses. (If you doubt this, read the warning labels on your toothpaste canister). Illegal = false, Immoral = true.
In the current case Illegal = true, Immoral = ??.
LetterRip
FYI - I don't, nor have i in the past used pirated software. I feel that it is at least somewhat immoral, but don't have a sufficient argument to demonstrate it...
Here are three links that i are worthwhile to look at, the first is Coldfusion, is oriented towards a nontechnical readership, and makes an argument for at least some funding of CF reasearch. The second Fusionaries also from wired, directs readers to some of the companies, institutes, and researchers involved in doing CF and related research. The third Review of the Cold Fusion Effect is from the Journal of Scientific Exploration. It's a review and summary of the state of CF research and is directed at a more technical audience, such as Dr. Ettrich. (Although I think most of the readership shouldn't have a great deal of difficulty with it...)
Cheers,
LetterRip