I heard, although I don't know how true it is, that one million credit card numbers are going for pennies.
So, you wouldn't be able to do much unless you wanted to do the dirty work yourself, for which you'd probably be quickly caught and prosecuted. It's harder to get away with credit card fraud than you might think, and easier to get credit card numbers than you might think.
Ok, I can make my way through a couple different assembly languages, but I'm missing something important.
Every program you write is run inside the operating system, right? So how does an OS switch between all those tasks if it seems like you're intimately working with the hardware? You put something in a register, well what if a new task comes along and want's to use that register also?
Is everything virtualized from the kernel, sort of as if the kernel is the machine? How do you differentiate between accessing kernel memory and accessing virtual memory?
Also, doesn't the operating system implement the RTS and other basic features? If you're programming a kernel, do you not have the RTS available?
I think that all these questions are related. Would someone please enlighten me?
I think that it probably is a free software user who wrote that virus, at least that's the most likely scenario in my mind.
The point is that it doesn't matter whether there is proof or not (except if they can catch him). What matters is that free software users aren't generally the type of people to write a virus or behave maliciously. As long as that remains true, free software will be successful.
In any community, no matter how altruistic or good-spirited, some people will always join for the wrong reasons. Assuming it was a free software developer, they did join the right group, but were lead astray from the real philosophies that built the free software world into what it is today.
The author tried to insinuate that malicious acts are ingrained in the free software philosophy, which is completely false. Can you imagine someone on a mailing list trying to convince developers to help them destroy something? They'd recieve no positive feedback, that's for sure. It's a sensational picture that the author paints, but anyone who has read the words of any person who's contributed to the free software world would immediately understand that the picture is not from this reality.
If you knew absolutely nothing about digital watches and time formats, how would you know which numbers were for hours, which for minutes, etc?
It takes exactly one minute and 7 brain cells to figure out, for yourself, exactly where the hours, minutes, and seconds are on any digital time readout.
Another thing about a dial is that it's contrast doesn't decrease with increased ambient light. I don't want to squint and cup my hands over a speedometer or a watch to read what it says.
So, until someone makes an LED with brightness similar to that of the sun, I will use an analog watch.
Although that assumes you go out during the daylight, which may or may not be true for most of the crowd here.
I don't like wamu. The logoff requires confirmation, which goes against all de facto standards and could leave you logged in when you thought you were clear.
There were a few other things that bothered me about the online experience and the bank itself.
And I DID switch banks. A bank needs to be seamless. If I want to move money, I want it NOW and without difficulty.
Wells Fargo has actually worked quite well for me for a long time. They made a big mistake though, and for that I will never forgive them (it didn't cost me anything, but it could have, and it was very time-sensitive).
Maybe you expect every local governor to understand that and act accordingly.
Yeah, that's the point. That a governor combined with the state legislature and the propositions can construct some kind of education system. If what they do works, other states will copy it. If what they do fails, they will hopefully copy another state's plan.
Of course education is important. Nobody is arguing about that. I think that a national system would be more subject to corruption and dismal performance than 50 state eduacational systems.
Whatever the U.S. is doing now as far as education is not working terribly well. I don't think that some huge national system has any hope of really working, and any benefit over state systems. States are large enough entities to run schools, so why are the feds involved? What do they do aside from corrupt the system?
We should give powers from the states to the federal government only when it serves some great benefit, like the common defense or a common currency. Otherwise, let the states compete for success.
But then again, guns are designed to kill people, so I don't really see how the gun you describe is any worse than a Colt.45.
Keep in mind that the second amendment is there to allow people to have lethal weapons. It's not there so someone can hunt a deer. The second amendment is there so that if you want to kill someone, you can, be that person a political figure who has betrayed his people, or someone threatening your life.
It's been my theory that the U.S. government is particularly destructive to the economy because the population here is much more than, say, Canada.
Americans are getting ripped off... 15% wage taxes go striaght to Washington, D.C., for Social Security and Medicare (and that's not even the other income taxes, yet!). They tell you that your employer pays half and you pay half, but that's just a political game and anyone who has read an Econ 101 book knows it.
What are the chances that money actually comes back to the taxpayers in any meaningful way? With politicians so far removed from the people, and eveyone looking to the Federal government rather than the state government for all legislation, there is just no accountability any more.
Different states don't really matter much any more. There's no way to hold the politicians in Washington D.C. accountable, and they are the ones with all the power. Do we really need laws about education at the national level? Labor laws at the national level? National minimum wage? Have the states all pass different laws and then see which are successful. When your state does something wrong, you just kick the old guy out and elect a movie star, no problem.
Localize government! Move power from the feds to the state and from the state to the localities.
Well, there's certainly an enforcability option for the textbook thing, but why does it even matter? Is a book for an independent scholar any less important than someone who has the money to pay for tuition and the money to take time away from their lives to gain certification from an accredited usiversity?
I just don't see the justification for taxing books for learning, and not books for school.
And, what's to stop the publishers from charging an extra 7%?
I love the idea of lowering taxes, but I hate the idea of a bigger tax code, or "special priveleges" when doing so.
What really makes a textbook different? Under that reasoning, what would be immune from sales tax, except for the most obviously luxurious items?
What you're really saying is that the government should encourage some behavior and discourage other behavior (presumably then everything else would need to be taxed more heavily, since government budgets never decrease). Assuming that's a desirable goal, it allows the state to do all kinds of strange things, none of which we notice because the laws are buried among all kinds of other exemptions. Special interests would latch onto these corrupt goverment officials and before you know it, there would be an exemption for shovels with wooden handles but not for shovels with fiberglass handles, etc., etc.
I don't want to turn over that kind of power to the government if I can avoid it.
Not only that, aren't you really just rewarding the publishers? What's to stop the publishers from increasing the price of all their books by 7%? Obviously consumers are paying it currently...
Except that I often find little need for the book except for the small sections that a professor requires, like HW problems.
I'd rather avoid hunting for the book when I need it anyway.
Seriously, what was the last textbook that had material not available from a google search?
I've tried reading through the paper in a textbook, and that doesn't come close for me. I'd much rather jump all over the place, and computers are way better for that. I look at the problems first, and then hunt down the solution by jumping through the material.
I said "assuming moderate traffic". Even in places with speed limit of 65, many people obviously drive 75 or more. But the average usually works out quite close to 60 (in my experience) when you factor driving through LA during rush hour, for instance. If you have clear sailing and don't mind driving fast, you can drive 90mph, which is still easier to calculate than some kph amount (90mph = 1.5 mi/min).
You can argue about the systems all day and not get anywhere because there's no easy way to prove it.
One thing I don't like about the push for the si system is that it seems like a way for people to conveniently ignore units in a measurement. They crunch the numbers and then put whatever units they think belong at the end. It's convenient if you know what you're doing, but dangerous if you're guessing about a measurement for some component that humans are relying upon for survival.
One somewhat interesting aspect of the english system is that in some common cases it actually does make calculation easier. When making a journey greater than 10 miles, assuming moderate traffic, you usually make about 1 mile per minute.
Granted, it's only one example. I think that the world would be better off if everyone converted to metric. However, we must acknowledge the advantages of the English system to understand why people are resistant to change. For one thing, english units are a little easier to imagine: feet can be somewhat accurately paced off, a cup is about how much water you might drink (at least closer than a liter), etc. The measurements are inherently more natural.
In the least, I find it insulting that someone who set back the computer world by at least 20 years is getting rewarded!
I think you'll need to provide more evidence of your claim.
Sure, it's nice to think about "hey, what if..." arguments, like "hey, what if Microsoft wasn't there, and everyone all shared their source code, and all the problems were solved, and everyone lived happily ever after."
It's possible you're right, but nobody seems to even examine the alternative case. I imagine a world without Microsoft, where no platform or human interface is standardized, the average computer literacy is equal to the average literacy on a BSD system today, I can't share a file with my friend because none of our hardware matches up and the formats are all different.
Would hardware be as cheap if a manufacturer could only market each device to 15% of the market? Maybe there would be a standard, but let's face it, microsoft did turn some standards (as in some committee agreed on something), into standards (as in everyone can actually use it).
Maybe you're right. But I'd never trade in the current reality, which is something spectacular, for a parallel universe in which Bill Gates was never born.
I'd just be too worried that the computer industry would turn into an appliance, with accessories and weird quirks, like so many companies have actually tried to do. Every company out there wanted to turn a computer into some kind of appliance it seems, except MS. We may be able to connect to the internet today, but that would probably have the same fate as the telcom industry. I don't know that MS is the company that really allowed computers to become what they are today, but I believe they played an important role.
I run gnu & linux, I love open source software, and free software, and all the development behind them. I don't like MS software much myself, but I at least appreciate its significance.
Well, I try to avoid "moments of distraction" while being asked to enter my bank account information.
Sure, if you're just clicking a link you may not even notice (which is why/. tells you the domain in brackets next to the link, so you can't be mislead as easily). But when the target page is asking for my bank account information, then I take a closer look.
One of the things I like best about python is its seamless integration with C. How is ruby in that department? Also, is the standard library getting more complete? I think last time I checked python was a little better there.
But as far as the language itself, ruby is amazing.
It also seems like dynamic typing would hurt the effort as well.
Python, and I believe Ruby as well (at least according to my quick test) are not dynamically typed.
Php is dynamically typed. Python and ruby are "late-binding".
In PHP, you can do: $a = "1"; $b = "2"; $c = $b/$a;
In python and ruby, and you can't. You have to cast the string first. However, in python and ruby, you can bind any value of any type to any variable, hence "late-binding". In java, you can only bind a value to a variable of a differing type in some situations (i.e. inheritance).
I haven't noticed any other attempts to keep the workload equal. Most university professors use mostly tests and little homework. What if you come into a class already knowing the material on a test? Then it would be easy.
I don't think it has anything to do with making students work the same as other students. I think it has everything to do with making students work the same as the teacher has. The teacher is offended if someone can accomplish what they have without their expert advice and guidence, and without putting in as much time as they have.
Writing teachers often start out fairly insecure about their profession because their knowledge usually leaves them with no choice but to teach. Marketable writers are often the least respected as far as writing quality, even though they provide the most insight to the most people (columnists, etc). When a student comes in and turns in the same tired response to the same tired question and the student happened to write the paper under someone else's guidance, it forces the teacher to revisit their insecurities.
Most teachers have a policy against re-submitting work. The reason is usually that they are offended that they have taught you nothing you didn't know in High School. It's particularly offensive to these teachers when the old work is well-written and they can't tell the difference, because it really insults their entire career, and everything that they believe about the subject.
What you did was not plagarism, but it probably was against policy. It surprises me that there was no name attached to the original work. I suppose you could do something like officially copyright your work as you turn it in, so that there's no question that you wrote it.
If your H.S. teacher turned it in without your permission, it may have been a violation of copyright law. You could actually sue to get the paper removed from the database (although since you submitted it in college, and presumably agreed that it would be turned in to the service, it would probably be replaced in the database).
If kids have to go to college to finish their basic education, then HIgh School has failed.
I agree with your whole post, but I think this is in particular a good point. High school in the U.S. does fail. Anything worthwhile I learned during those years did not come in the classroom. Teachers of history prefered to spout their political agenda rather than teaching the facts (perhaps they don't know the facts?). English teachers seem to like similar tangents.
I say we get some standardized testing in place. If you don't know who the first president was, you are lacking important knowledge and the H.S. should not issue a degree. People complain about standardized testing, but education needs to be a science. And without some way to test your educational theory, you have no idea if it's accurate. I don't trust teachers and their theories, especially when the teachers have no way to their theories against those of other teachers. If you have a problem with a standardized test than change it, but to argue that we should abolish all measurement of progress seems rediculous.
The fact is, a college degree is part of a web of trust. It's important. Sometimes the boss doesn't know a curcuit from a hole in the ground, but he needs someone to make one for him. He can pay you for a year and hope you know what you're doing, or he can get himself some assurance by verifying that you obtained a E.E. degree from a reputable school.
It's like credit. Let's all go back to the days where you asked your neighbor for a loan and he knew you so long he could trust you. Well, that's a nice romanticized story, but it doesn't help someone who needs to buy a home. Your credit score helps someone determine whether you're likely to pay them back. Sure, if the lender really got to know you, maybe he'd see things your way, and understand that you can pay him back because you're a hard worker. But not everyone on the planet wants to spend time getting to know you, and whether you're worthy to loan money to.
And nobody wants to spend time figuring out whether you know every last detail you say you know.
I believe that they are cheating themselves, but they're cheating everyone else, also. When the boss finds out you're worthless, he'll fire you, but how much has it cost him in the meantime?
Colleges have a duty to certify an education. If you're cheating, you should be kicked out of at least the class, if not the college. My degree means nothing if you got yours by cheating, so it's unfair to me.
And what business is it of the student to be speaking of "rights" as if the college has to behave as he'd like. The teacher sets the terms, and if you don't like 'em, go somewhere else. I gave up my papers during my two writing courses at college, and you know what? I don't care. It was work just like any class, and the fact that someone else benefitted some miniscule amount doesn't slightly bother me. If I wrote something special than I'd not even turn it in to class, just like if I made a scientific breakthrough I'd patent it first.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard, although I don't know how true it is, that one million credit card numbers are going for pennies.
So, you wouldn't be able to do much unless you wanted to do the dirty work yourself, for which you'd probably be quickly caught and prosecuted. It's harder to get away with credit card fraud than you might think, and easier to get credit card numbers than you might think.
Actually, you can do anything with NAND logic gates. You don't need anything else.
Ok, I can make my way through a couple different assembly languages, but I'm missing something important.
Every program you write is run inside the operating system, right? So how does an OS switch between all those tasks if it seems like you're intimately working with the hardware? You put something in a register, well what if a new task comes along and want's to use that register also?
Is everything virtualized from the kernel, sort of as if the kernel is the machine? How do you differentiate between accessing kernel memory and accessing virtual memory?
Also, doesn't the operating system implement the RTS and other basic features? If you're programming a kernel, do you not have the RTS available?
I think that all these questions are related. Would someone please enlighten me?
I think that it probably is a free software user who wrote that virus, at least that's the most likely scenario in my mind.
The point is that it doesn't matter whether there is proof or not (except if they can catch him). What matters is that free software users aren't generally the type of people to write a virus or behave maliciously. As long as that remains true, free software will be successful.
In any community, no matter how altruistic or good-spirited, some people will always join for the wrong reasons. Assuming it was a free software developer, they did join the right group, but were lead astray from the real philosophies that built the free software world into what it is today.
The author tried to insinuate that malicious acts are ingrained in the free software philosophy, which is completely false. Can you imagine someone on a mailing list trying to convince developers to help them destroy something? They'd recieve no positive feedback, that's for sure. It's a sensational picture that the author paints, but anyone who has read the words of any person who's contributed to the free software world would immediately understand that the picture is not from this reality.
If you knew absolutely nothing about digital watches and time formats, how would you know which numbers were for hours, which for minutes, etc?
It takes exactly one minute and 7 brain cells to figure out, for yourself, exactly where the hours, minutes, and seconds are on any digital time readout.
Another thing about a dial is that it's contrast doesn't decrease with increased ambient light. I don't want to squint and cup my hands over a speedometer or a watch to read what it says.
So, until someone makes an LED with brightness similar to that of the sun, I will use an analog watch.
Although that assumes you go out during the daylight, which may or may not be true for most of the crowd here.
I don't like wamu. The logoff requires confirmation, which goes against all de facto standards and could leave you logged in when you thought you were clear.
There were a few other things that bothered me about the online experience and the bank itself.
And I DID switch banks. A bank needs to be seamless. If I want to move money, I want it NOW and without difficulty.
Wells Fargo has actually worked quite well for me for a long time. They made a big mistake though, and for that I will never forgive them (it didn't cost me anything, but it could have, and it was very time-sensitive).
Maybe you expect every local governor to understand that and act accordingly.
Yeah, that's the point. That a governor combined with the state legislature and the propositions can construct some kind of education system. If what they do works, other states will copy it. If what they do fails, they will hopefully copy another state's plan.
Of course education is important. Nobody is arguing about that. I think that a national system would be more subject to corruption and dismal performance than 50 state eduacational systems.
Whatever the U.S. is doing now as far as education is not working terribly well. I don't think that some huge national system has any hope of really working, and any benefit over state systems. States are large enough entities to run schools, so why are the feds involved? What do they do aside from corrupt the system?
We should give powers from the states to the federal government only when it serves some great benefit, like the common defense or a common currency. Otherwise, let the states compete for success.
But then again, guns are designed to kill people, so I don't really see how the gun you describe is any worse than a Colt .45.
Keep in mind that the second amendment is there to allow people to have lethal weapons. It's not there so someone can hunt a deer. The second amendment is there so that if you want to kill someone, you can, be that person a political figure who has betrayed his people, or someone threatening your life.
It's been my theory that the U.S. government is particularly destructive to the economy because the population here is much more than, say, Canada.
Americans are getting ripped off... 15% wage taxes go striaght to Washington, D.C., for Social Security and Medicare (and that's not even the other income taxes, yet!). They tell you that your employer pays half and you pay half, but that's just a political game and anyone who has read an Econ 101 book knows it.
What are the chances that money actually comes back to the taxpayers in any meaningful way? With politicians so far removed from the people, and eveyone looking to the Federal government rather than the state government for all legislation, there is just no accountability any more.
Different states don't really matter much any more. There's no way to hold the politicians in Washington D.C. accountable, and they are the ones with all the power. Do we really need laws about education at the national level? Labor laws at the national level? National minimum wage? Have the states all pass different laws and then see which are successful. When your state does something wrong, you just kick the old guy out and elect a movie star, no problem.
Localize government! Move power from the feds to the state and from the state to the localities.
Well, there's certainly an enforcability option for the textbook thing, but why does it even matter? Is a book for an independent scholar any less important than someone who has the money to pay for tuition and the money to take time away from their lives to gain certification from an accredited usiversity?
I just don't see the justification for taxing books for learning, and not books for school.
And, what's to stop the publishers from charging an extra 7%?
I love the idea of lowering taxes, but I hate the idea of a bigger tax code, or "special priveleges" when doing so.
What really makes a textbook different? Under that reasoning, what would be immune from sales tax, except for the most obviously luxurious items?
What you're really saying is that the government should encourage some behavior and discourage other behavior (presumably then everything else would need to be taxed more heavily, since government budgets never decrease). Assuming that's a desirable goal, it allows the state to do all kinds of strange things, none of which we notice because the laws are buried among all kinds of other exemptions. Special interests would latch onto these corrupt goverment officials and before you know it, there would be an exemption for shovels with wooden handles but not for shovels with fiberglass handles, etc., etc.
I don't want to turn over that kind of power to the government if I can avoid it.
Not only that, aren't you really just rewarding the publishers? What's to stop the publishers from increasing the price of all their books by 7%? Obviously consumers are paying it currently...
Except that I often find little need for the book except for the small sections that a professor requires, like HW problems.
I'd rather avoid hunting for the book when I need it anyway.
Seriously, what was the last textbook that had material not available from a google search?
I've tried reading through the paper in a textbook, and that doesn't come close for me. I'd much rather jump all over the place, and computers are way better for that. I look at the problems first, and then hunt down the solution by jumping through the material.
That works if the speed limit is 60mph.
I said "assuming moderate traffic". Even in places with speed limit of 65, many people obviously drive 75 or more. But the average usually works out quite close to 60 (in my experience) when you factor driving through LA during rush hour, for instance. If you have clear sailing and don't mind driving fast, you can drive 90mph, which is still easier to calculate than some kph amount (90mph = 1.5 mi/min).
You can argue about the systems all day and not get anywhere because there's no easy way to prove it.
One thing I don't like about the push for the si system is that it seems like a way for people to conveniently ignore units in a measurement. They crunch the numbers and then put whatever units they think belong at the end. It's convenient if you know what you're doing, but dangerous if you're guessing about a measurement for some component that humans are relying upon for survival.
One somewhat interesting aspect of the english system is that in some common cases it actually does make calculation easier. When making a journey greater than 10 miles, assuming moderate traffic, you usually make about 1 mile per minute.
Granted, it's only one example. I think that the world would be better off if everyone converted to metric. However, we must acknowledge the advantages of the English system to understand why people are resistant to change. For one thing, english units are a little easier to imagine: feet can be somewhat accurately paced off, a cup is about how much water you might drink (at least closer than a liter), etc. The measurements are inherently more natural.
How much time do you spend in a car? How often do you enter your bank account information on a website that you've never been to before?
I think there's more room for distraction in the former than the latter.
In the least, I find it insulting that someone who set back the computer world by at least 20 years is getting rewarded!
I think you'll need to provide more evidence of your claim.
Sure, it's nice to think about "hey, what if..." arguments, like "hey, what if Microsoft wasn't there, and everyone all shared their source code, and all the problems were solved, and everyone lived happily ever after."
It's possible you're right, but nobody seems to even examine the alternative case. I imagine a world without Microsoft, where no platform or human interface is standardized, the average computer literacy is equal to the average literacy on a BSD system today, I can't share a file with my friend because none of our hardware matches up and the formats are all different.
Would hardware be as cheap if a manufacturer could only market each device to 15% of the market? Maybe there would be a standard, but let's face it, microsoft did turn some standards (as in some committee agreed on something), into standards (as in everyone can actually use it).
Maybe you're right. But I'd never trade in the current reality, which is something spectacular, for a parallel universe in which Bill Gates was never born.
I'd just be too worried that the computer industry would turn into an appliance, with accessories and weird quirks, like so many companies have actually tried to do. Every company out there wanted to turn a computer into some kind of appliance it seems, except MS. We may be able to connect to the internet today, but that would probably have the same fate as the telcom industry. I don't know that MS is the company that really allowed computers to become what they are today, but I believe they played an important role.
I run gnu & linux, I love open source software, and free software, and all the development behind them. I don't like MS software much myself, but I at least appreciate its significance.
Well, I try to avoid "moments of distraction" while being asked to enter my bank account information.
/. tells you the domain in brackets next to the link, so you can't be mislead as easily). But when the target page is asking for my bank account information, then I take a closer look.
Sure, if you're just clicking a link you may not even notice (which is why
One of the things I like best about python is its seamless integration with C. How is ruby in that department? Also, is the standard library getting more complete? I think last time I checked python was a little better there.
But as far as the language itself, ruby is amazing.
It also seems like dynamic typing would hurt the effort as well.
Python, and I believe Ruby as well (at least according to my quick test) are not dynamically typed.
Php is dynamically typed. Python and ruby are "late-binding".
In PHP, you can do:
$a = "1";
$b = "2";
$c = $b/$a;
In python and ruby, and you can't. You have to cast the string first. However, in python and ruby, you can bind any value of any type to any variable, hence "late-binding". In java, you can only bind a value to a variable of a differing type in some situations (i.e. inheritance).
I haven't noticed any other attempts to keep the workload equal. Most university professors use mostly tests and little homework. What if you come into a class already knowing the material on a test? Then it would be easy.
I don't think it has anything to do with making students work the same as other students. I think it has everything to do with making students work the same as the teacher has. The teacher is offended if someone can accomplish what they have without their expert advice and guidence, and without putting in as much time as they have.
Writing teachers often start out fairly insecure about their profession because their knowledge usually leaves them with no choice but to teach. Marketable writers are often the least respected as far as writing quality, even though they provide the most insight to the most people (columnists, etc). When a student comes in and turns in the same tired response to the same tired question and the student happened to write the paper under someone else's guidance, it forces the teacher to revisit their insecurities.
Most teachers have a policy against re-submitting work. The reason is usually that they are offended that they have taught you nothing you didn't know in High School. It's particularly offensive to these teachers when the old work is well-written and they can't tell the difference, because it really insults their entire career, and everything that they believe about the subject.
What you did was not plagarism, but it probably was against policy. It surprises me that there was no name attached to the original work. I suppose you could do something like officially copyright your work as you turn it in, so that there's no question that you wrote it.
If your H.S. teacher turned it in without your permission, it may have been a violation of copyright law. You could actually sue to get the paper removed from the database (although since you submitted it in college, and presumably agreed that it would be turned in to the service, it would probably be replaced in the database).
If kids have to go to college to finish their basic education, then HIgh School has failed.
I agree with your whole post, but I think this is in particular a good point. High school in the U.S. does fail. Anything worthwhile I learned during those years did not come in the classroom. Teachers of history prefered to spout their political agenda rather than teaching the facts (perhaps they don't know the facts?). English teachers seem to like similar tangents.
I say we get some standardized testing in place. If you don't know who the first president was, you are lacking important knowledge and the H.S. should not issue a degree. People complain about standardized testing, but education needs to be a science. And without some way to test your educational theory, you have no idea if it's accurate. I don't trust teachers and their theories, especially when the teachers have no way to their theories against those of other teachers. If you have a problem with a standardized test than change it, but to argue that we should abolish all measurement of progress seems rediculous.
The fact is, a college degree is part of a web of trust. It's important. Sometimes the boss doesn't know a curcuit from a hole in the ground, but he needs someone to make one for him. He can pay you for a year and hope you know what you're doing, or he can get himself some assurance by verifying that you obtained a E.E. degree from a reputable school.
It's like credit. Let's all go back to the days where you asked your neighbor for a loan and he knew you so long he could trust you. Well, that's a nice romanticized story, but it doesn't help someone who needs to buy a home. Your credit score helps someone determine whether you're likely to pay them back. Sure, if the lender really got to know you, maybe he'd see things your way, and understand that you can pay him back because you're a hard worker. But not everyone on the planet wants to spend time getting to know you, and whether you're worthy to loan money to.
And nobody wants to spend time figuring out whether you know every last detail you say you know.
I believe that they are cheating themselves, but they're cheating everyone else, also. When the boss finds out you're worthless, he'll fire you, but how much has it cost him in the meantime?
Colleges have a duty to certify an education. If you're cheating, you should be kicked out of at least the class, if not the college. My degree means nothing if you got yours by cheating, so it's unfair to me.
And what business is it of the student to be speaking of "rights" as if the college has to behave as he'd like. The teacher sets the terms, and if you don't like 'em, go somewhere else. I gave up my papers during my two writing courses at college, and you know what? I don't care. It was work just like any class, and the fact that someone else benefitted some miniscule amount doesn't slightly bother me. If I wrote something special than I'd not even turn it in to class, just like if I made a scientific breakthrough I'd patent it first.