The article unfortunately does not say precisely what happened to the essay. If the author only submitted it to the school (which is what it sounds like) and did not publicize any of it, then there's nothing disorderly about *his* conduct. And the teacher can't claim to be 'disturbed' by the submission since it's what they asked for.
What I find troubling is that they apparently had no process at all for dealing with the situation, and went straight to calling in the police, not for the benefit or safety of the author and other students, but because the teacher felt like a victim. (And if you're squeamish about the fact that some high school students are not always happy, then you are in the wrong profession.) It never occurred to them to *talk* to the student about his essay?
I also find myself wondering why the article is exposing the student's identity to the world for following orders but not mentioning the name of the teacher who appears to have exercised seriously poor judgment.
A selection of articles that are proof-read and vandalism-free but maybe a year out of date might be a good trade-off in some cases. Kind of like 'stable' versus 'development' versioning.
I can't see how prior art could be difficult. Paper filing systems have had "tab" technology for something like 150 years or longer. In fact, the courthouse will probably be full of examples.
In seriousness, there might be some helpful conventions or standards that could be adopted, but a top-level domain is purely cosmetic. Plus if you think of banks as 'trustworthy'....
...scientists *don't* say "that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species".
Sex *does* lead to diversity *within* a species, which can be good for keeping ahead of parasites and diseases, and all the genetic duplication can help accelerate diversification. But sexual reproduction, in the absence of other sources of genetic variation, does not lead to speciation.
There seems to be a lot of resistance to recognizing the transitions that have happened.
There used to be a small number of people working on small projects. The people in software built creative software by themselves or in very small teams.
Now, people have higher, although sometimes lower, expectations for software. They want software for every conceivable business operation, so lots of software has to be written. Modern software requires complex graphical interfaces and flexible exchange of data, often with unrealistic expectations.
So now the exceptionally gifted people are still doing interesting creative things, but the bulk of new software is done by large teams, usually not doing anything truly innovative.
1) wanted to wanted to say the words "saving energy" without, you know, doing anything about energy policy, and 2) have no concept of getting up early in the morning to do an honest day's work.
I'm not sure if the change is good or bad. It's possible they randomly stumbled on something reasonable.
And that little midge has had a free ride for far too long. The sooner Pluto learns to deal with the new reality, the better. Ultimately this move will do Pluto more harm than good.
The timid are easily frightened by whatever they cannot control.
Lawyers are upset only because they realize there is no justifiable legal work in open source licenses. Sometimes you need lawyers, but never forget they look out for themselves, not their employers.
Crushing competition by any means? Stifling new technologies to support a harmful product? Collecting taxes illegally? Transferring wealth from consumers and productive businesses to a wealthy few who contribute nothing worthwhile to civilization? Embrace, extend, extinguish?
That's one of the most brilliant ideas I've heard in years.
However, to be successful, it requires that legislators actually *care* what they are voting on. Realistically, they must have something like source control already. Voters have to send them the message that ignorance is no excuse. It's not technology that's holding them back.
Voting on a bill without reading it, if it can be proved, should result in expulsion. If you sign a contract on behalf of your employer without reading it, you would almost certainly be fired on the spot. If you work at a bank but "didn't read" the part about the amount of money, chances are you would go to jail.
I find the resistance to rational discussion of global warming truly astonishing. The parent points out the practical reality that is usually overlooked.
Human civilization is massively invested in the state of climate. If greenhouse gases aren't the cause, then they are surely exacerbating the effect, so we're no better off arguing about who to blame. You can't sue the Sun, so we'll have to come up with our own remedy no matter what the cause.
It does seem like no-one is wholly objective when it comes to Microsoft....
Of course it's possible there's an element of eurocentrism. But there's no way to tell because Microsoft arguments all fail on their technical and/or legal merits. It's not relevant whether there is a bias when the criticisms are all true.
I am not well versed in medical literature, but my impression was that "adaptation" was the usual term. Some colourful terms like "learning" also appear. It's looks like medical researchers are focused on the *effects* of natural/artificial selection; possibly "evolution" is simply not the precise meaning they're interested in.
The article unfortunately does not provide a proper word frequency distribution, and relies heavily on subjective measures of similarity or dissimilarity between words. I'm not out to criticize the article - I see a lot of value in raising the question - but I'm not convinced it shows anything specific. It's kind of obvious that if you work in evolutionary biology, then you will give "evolution" a technical meaning, and you will probably use the word more than average.
I would go farther and say that if this article is really the result of 19 months of research, then the reviewer is hiding something.
Every point made is vague and subjective, and completely meaningless. If Kingsley-Hughes thinks that the 'Start Menu' is an indicator of performance, I have to wonder if he even knows what an operating system is.
I disagree as to 'good suggestions'. I was immediately reminded of a Dilbert cartoon where the engineers critiqued an expensive consultant's recommendations: "a bunch of obvious generalities with no business value".
As a general rule, contract and consumer protection laws say something to the effect of: 1) Amazon is not allowed to just put a new charge on a credit card, but 2) Amazon, for an honest mistake, can send an amended invoice and after 90 days can go through regular debt-recovery mechanisms.
And anyone who intentionally exploited the bug is a scumbag.
I would like to see politicians find a little spine on this issue, because it is so obviously about selling out the public for the benefit a wealthy few.
Hopefully the US won't "bring democracy" to Canada.....
Slashdot Mirror
The article unfortunately does not say precisely what happened to the essay. If the author only submitted it to the school (which is what it sounds like) and did not publicize any of it, then there's nothing disorderly about *his* conduct. And the teacher can't claim to be 'disturbed' by the submission since it's what they asked for.
What I find troubling is that they apparently had no process at all for dealing with the situation, and went straight to calling in the police, not for the benefit or safety of the author and other students, but because the teacher felt like a victim. (And if you're squeamish about the fact that some high school students are not always happy, then you are in the wrong profession.) It never occurred to them to *talk* to the student about his essay?
I also find myself wondering why the article is exposing the student's identity to the world for following orders but not mentioning the name of the teacher who appears to have exercised seriously poor judgment.
Maybe, maybe not.
A selection of articles that are proof-read and vandalism-free but maybe a year out of date might be a good trade-off in some cases. Kind of like 'stable' versus 'development' versioning.
And if no-one buys the CD version, no harm done.
I can't see how prior art could be difficult. Paper filing systems have had "tab" technology for something like 150 years or longer. In fact, the courthouse will probably be full of examples.
It's interesting that researchers are uncovering these facts, but it's also practically meaningless to most of us.
There are bacteria that (apparently) haven't changed for 1 000 000 000 years, and they're the *real* dominant species in our biosphere.
Finally an end to Internet scams!
In seriousness, there might be some helpful conventions or standards that could be adopted, but a top-level domain is purely cosmetic. Plus if you think of banks as 'trustworthy'....
On the one hand, Verizon with an idiot patent.
On the other, Vonage thinks customers just naturally leave at random and not because they might be unhappy with their service.
...that's a space station!
...scientists *don't* say "that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species".
Sex *does* lead to diversity *within* a species, which can be good for keeping ahead of parasites and diseases, and all the genetic duplication can help accelerate diversification. But sexual reproduction, in the absence of other sources of genetic variation, does not lead to speciation.
There seems to be a lot of resistance to recognizing the transitions that have happened.
There used to be a small number of people working on small projects. The people in software built creative software by themselves or in very small teams.
Now, people have higher, although sometimes lower, expectations for software. They want software for every conceivable business operation, so lots of software has to be written. Modern software requires complex graphical interfaces and flexible exchange of data, often with unrealistic expectations.
So now the exceptionally gifted people are still doing interesting creative things, but the bulk of new software is done by large teams, usually not doing anything truly innovative.
This was a measure dreamed up by people who:
1) wanted to wanted to say the words "saving energy" without, you know, doing anything about energy policy, and
2) have no concept of getting up early in the morning to do an honest day's work.
I'm not sure if the change is good or bad. It's possible they randomly stumbled on something reasonable.
Pluto is a Kuiper belt object.
And that little midge has had a free ride for far too long. The sooner Pluto learns to deal with the new reality, the better. Ultimately this move will do Pluto more harm than good.
Stop the celestial pandering now!
The timid are easily frightened by whatever they cannot control.
Lawyers are upset only because they realize there is no justifiable legal work in open source licenses. Sometimes you need lawyers, but never forget they look out for themselves, not their employers.
Crushing competition by any means? Stifling new technologies to support a harmful product? Collecting taxes illegally? Transferring wealth from consumers and productive businesses to a wealthy few who contribute nothing worthwhile to civilization? Embrace, extend, extinguish?
Gates is the neo-con artist par excellence.
That's one of the most brilliant ideas I've heard in years.
However, to be successful, it requires that legislators actually *care* what they are voting on. Realistically, they must have something like source control already. Voters have to send them the message that ignorance is no excuse. It's not technology that's holding them back.
Voting on a bill without reading it, if it can be proved, should result in expulsion. If you sign a contract on behalf of your employer without reading it, you would almost certainly be fired on the spot. If you work at a bank but "didn't read" the part about the amount of money, chances are you would go to jail.
I find the resistance to rational discussion of global warming truly astonishing. The parent points out the practical reality that is usually overlooked.
Human civilization is massively invested in the state of climate. If greenhouse gases aren't the cause, then they are surely exacerbating the effect, so we're no better off arguing about who to blame. You can't sue the Sun, so we'll have to come up with our own remedy no matter what the cause.
It does seem like no-one is wholly objective when it comes to Microsoft....
Of course it's possible there's an element of eurocentrism. But there's no way to tell because Microsoft arguments all fail on their technical and/or legal merits. It's not relevant whether there is a bias when the criticisms are all true.
I am not well versed in medical literature, but my impression was that "adaptation" was the usual term. Some colourful terms like "learning" also appear. It's looks like medical researchers are focused on the *effects* of natural/artificial selection; possibly "evolution" is simply not the precise meaning they're interested in.
The article unfortunately does not provide a proper word frequency distribution, and relies heavily on subjective measures of similarity or dissimilarity between words. I'm not out to criticize the article - I see a lot of value in raising the question - but I'm not convinced it shows anything specific. It's kind of obvious that if you work in evolutionary biology, then you will give "evolution" a technical meaning, and you will probably use the word more than average.
'Developer' "Reza Hussain" should be boycotted, and perhaps charged with vandalism, or even with writing a destructive virus.
I would go farther and say that if this article is really the result of 19 months of research, then the reviewer is hiding something.
Every point made is vague and subjective, and completely meaningless. If Kingsley-Hughes thinks that the 'Start Menu' is an indicator of performance, I have to wonder if he even knows what an operating system is.
Windows Vista: It's still not a Mac.
If the bloated corporations abusing intellectual property law started suing each other into bankrupcy, the downside would be... what, exactly?
I disagree as to 'good suggestions'. I was immediately reminded of a Dilbert cartoon where the engineers critiqued an expensive consultant's recommendations: "a bunch of obvious generalities with no business value".
"George Bush thinking he's the leader of the free world"
Because of George Bush, the US isn't even IN the free world anymore.
I am not a lawyer but....
As a general rule, contract and consumer protection laws say something to the effect of:
1) Amazon is not allowed to just put a new charge on a credit card, but
2) Amazon, for an honest mistake, can send an amended invoice and after 90 days can go through regular debt-recovery mechanisms.
And anyone who intentionally exploited the bug is a scumbag.
I would like to see politicians find a little spine on this issue, because it is so obviously about selling out the public for the benefit a wealthy few.
Hopefully the US won't "bring democracy" to Canada.....
oops. ...they are unlikely...