Of course, I was being facetious to prove a point. But the point is—if a student did this and were completely honest about it in terms of citing the source of the ideas, a good percentage of the time the professor would chastise them for not demonstrating any original thought. Despite the fact that this student would understand the material and all of the most important aspects of the work, as well as what the various ideas swirling around it in academia, to a far greater degree than other students that plow through the entire original work without much of a clue regarding what they read.
I'm not saying people shouldn't cite their sources...I'm saying when they do what they need to do to understand the material, they should be allowed to be honest about it. Heck, they should be encouraged to do this sort of thing if it helps solidify the material.
If they had not named it Six Days in Fallujah, they could have said it was based on that specific battle but still been ok. Once the game was out they could have scaled up the marketing around the specifics of how accurate it was. This was purely a marketing fail and heads should roll in that dept...and I don't mean while still attached to bodies in a giant pile of beanbags with a bunch of scantily clad pretty girls rolling around too. That's not the kind of head rolling that should be carried out for this specific case.
I'm glad we've decided to move forward on this all at once, without really understanding the requirements, and without committing to a phased approach that takes baby steps and checkpoints each one as we go. If I remember correctly, this is the approach that generally succeeds—or, wait...do I have it backwards? Will this do the other thing...hm, no matter. ONWARD!
Sufficiently advanced cheating is called learning.
Here's the proper way to cheat—it never failed me in university philosophy courses. Let's say you're supposed to read two or three of Nietzsche's works and write on the topic of Nietzsche: Feminist or Misogynist? You could try to read his books, but you won't understand them. Even if you do understand them, you will need to research his life in order to interpret his works in the proper context. And, after all that, when you finally do all this legwork, you'll only learn that he specifically designed his writings and behavior to lead you into a black hole. No normal human has a chance.
So here's what you do. You put down the primary sources and go to the library. Read papers published by Ph.D. students that interpret Nietzsche's works and struggle to answer the question before you. Make notes on the general points of the argument and the supporting quotes across several of these papers (they're generally pretty short, and way easier to understand that the primary text). You can even read some Nietzsche if you're feeling adventurous, but I don't recommend it.
Once you've formulated your own fervently held beliefs about Nietzsche in this way (by ripping them off of original thoughts by people that actually cared), you can leave with only your general notes outlining the arguments and citing the supporting quotes. If there's a good amount of material to choose from, make sure you choose an interpretation that is controversial (but well-supported)...don't turn in just another paper that will make the TA's eye's glaze or the professor want to put a gun in his mouth—liven things up a bit for those poor saps, they're stuck studying philosophy their entire lives! Look at all of the material you've collected and turn it over in your brain...try to synthesize your own controversial conclusion drawn from the points that others have worked so hard to create. Now go party for a couple of days to let it all sink in. The more beer you drink during this time, the less likely that some random quote you read will bubble up from the depths verbatim and get you busted. Once the requisite few days have been partied away, sit down and write the sentence or two that ties together all of the supporting material that you have decided to randomly & provocatively tie together. Include the points and supporting quotes to "prove" what you're saying.
Instant A. Takes an hour, maybe two at the uni libe, and maybe another couple of hours to draft a typical 5-8 pager. This takes other students in the class weeks of devotion to achieve, leaving you plenty of time to study for your other courses, or study the local bar scene, or interact with the student body (as it were -winkwink-). The best part is, when you sit down to write after a couple of days of partying, it could be a paper, or it could be an in-class midterm or final. Whatever...either way, you're covered.
If you want to set up some successful honeypot addresses for your Bayesian spam filter, just post it in several forums (here, for example), on craigslist, on static web pages, etc. You don't even have to sign up for a lot of sweepstakes or go to a lot of effort. Just this will have that address drowning in wonderful, salty, crusty spam. Mmmm.
zOMG w t f? This is evil, harvesting active email addresses for more spam when people opt-out! Who could have thought of such an evil plan? -incredulous-
Actually, there is one part of what I said above that's true...I am incredulous. How did this get a story on/.? Ooh, I have a story too: "Are spammers bad people that would misuse your information? wut doyoo guys think lol!!!"
I would like to briefly take everyone along for a brief look into the mind of a blackmailer.
If we look at the logic, the blackmailer must make a compelling enough threat to, in his mind, cause the company to want to comply with his request for money or whatever. However, this is not enough...if that was the end of the blackmailer's plan, it makes no logical sense to carry out the threat against a target that refuses to comply. The moment the threat is carried out, there's no longer any incentive for the target to pay, so there's no possibility of upside there for the blackmailer. However, the downside increases significantly...now the blackmailer has actually done damage and can be held to account for it.
The only way it makes sense to carry out such a threat is to show the target that the threat was real. The only purpose of doing that, however, is to set up a second stage: another threat, another blackmail attempt. That is the only possible upside that makes it worthwhile to carry out a threat against a non-compliant target in the first go-round.
So, I wonder what the next threat on the list is...
Don't know about Nietzsche, but Kafka would be an unending series of ambiguously located header imports and incomprehensible macros. If the user didn't follow every arbitrary, subtle rule of the application, they would be greeted with an authoritarian error message:
You vil get vat you vant if you PROPERLY FOLLOW PROPER PROTOCOLS. PROPERLY FOLLOW PROPER PROTOCOLS! [source of this quote]
I had a nightmare last night where I was working in the exact same conditions as the summary author. Well, every 20 minutes the devil would stab me in the kidneys with a pitchfork, but other than that it was exactly the same.
That method should either be defined on the politician object (no need to pass in a reference to one, then), or it should be declared static. (I would question choice of the latter, though, for what it does to your dependency graph.)
Interesting--what kind of lemonade though? I don't think Country Time tastes any good even when I'm healthy, so I hope you're not talking about that stuff...and home-made doesn't seem very scientific as recipes vary...
(BTW, IANAD, so I will actually listen. Not the way the interpipes usually works, I know...)
Anonymous consists largely of users from multiple internet sites such as...
How can any member of Anonymous be "from" a site like fark? Do they issue Anonymous press pass credentials or something?
This gets the whole idea of Anonymous wrong. Anonymous isn't "from" anywhere. The moment you start thinking you know something about Anonymous, the moment you start trying to put Anonymous into a box, you're no longer talking about Anonymous...you're talking onymous.
Well, I don't know about nowadays, but in the 80s when I was growing up 7-Up was fairly well-balanced in terms of flavor. It didn't have HFCS and the sugars it did have were in proportion to the acids and tartness, so it didn't make for an unsettling taste when you were already not feeling too well (unlike the sweeter, more syrupy drinks). Also, it was clear so your compromised system didn't have to deal with caramel color, and in general it lacked many other additives that other sodas had / have. If I remember correctly, Sprite wasn't around back then either...I mean, this was the days of Tab, just about the only clear cola out there was 7-Up.
As far as Gatorade goes, I'm not sure how it stacks up compared to water, I've heard different things on that...usually that water is better, but I honestly don't know. And I don't know if the 7-Up of today is as good for rehydration as it was 25 years ago...I'd be surprised if it was.
The right way to go is unflavored Pedialyte. Nothing beats this stuff...it's exactly what you need when you're dehydrated. Your body even says so--drink the stuff when you're doing fine and it's kind of repulsive. But after a night of hard drinking, it actually tastes good...that's your body telling you it like-y what's coming in. Seriously, it's true...I speak from personal experience. (And it is a great hangover cure...I'm currently working on developing mixed drinks that include Pedialyte to cut out the middle portion.:-) )
Is it time for strong encryption of packet payloads yet? ssh? Ostiary? However it goes, I'm good...just need to know the new standard for basic web browsing...
You know, I was not a big Bush fan, but I also never drank the kool-aid that he's the devil incarnate either. Now that we're seeing Obama adopt some of the same positions after a careful and studied review of the facts available to the Office of the President, there are two possibilities to consider. (1) Obama is Bush III. (2) zOMG just because Bush did it doesn't automatically make it wrong and evil.
It's easy to oversimply situations and reduce people to caricatures. It's easy, and it's a mistake, and many of you are guilty of doing it with Bush. Again, not a huge Bush fan...but do we really have to start judging Obama not based on what he does, but only based on what he does differently?
It's generally not great to get too much water. Your body can't use large quantities of water by itself, it has to be balanced with electrolytes and other stuff to be of any use. Drink too much water, and you start diluting down the electrolytes that keep your muscles working. You're prone to muscle cramps and other annoying things from overhydration.
Because of bottled water going big corporate in the 90s, in the US at least, many people got brainwashed by Coke, Pepsi, and other water distributors that humans need a ridiculous amount of water everyday...pair that up with the way our govt works vis-a-vis lobby groups, and you had the govt endorsing this nonsense. Drink 8 12oz glasses of water everyday! they said. Hook a garden hose supplied with Dasani up to your mouth and don't turn it off until it starts coming out the other end! Yeeeeaaa.
But if you've ever had a bout of continuous vomiting or diarrhea and tried to stay hydrated with just water, you have firsthand experience that that approach only works for a short while. Many people smart enough to try to stay hydrated after getting food poisoning or some other condition with these symptoms show up in ERs saying, But I don't understand—I was drinking tons of water to stay hydrated!, after they're diagnosed with dehydration. And what is the remedy? An IV of saline, not water. What would have kept them out of the ER? Pedialyte or some other oral rehydration solution...even flat 7-Up is better than water.
Oh no. Things were so much easier when we could move forward based on the simple algorithm Bush = bad. Now that we have to actually think about stuff, what ever will we do?
Oh, gee, I drink 8 cups of strong coffee per day and 2 huge servings of soft drinks. Unbelievably, after several years of doing this, I have problems!
Uhh, yea, dumb-dumb. At what point in your life did you think it was a good idea to drink that fourth cup of coffee in the same day, much less four more? I think this condition is known as: epic brainpower fail.
I don't understand...we're upset that book, which were previously completely unavailable, are now available only one way? Since when is 1
Besides, let's wait to hear what Google has to say about it. I have a feeling they will release a statement saying how they'll handle this appropriately—much as people like to hate on GOOG around here lately, maybe they'll surprise you (and by "surprise you" I mean: "do exactly what I expect").
The defn of fair use has nothing to do with how the content is conveyed. It has to do with what content is conveyed and the context in which it is used.
If you think Colbert does anything out of pure vanity, why don't you give a listen to the interview on the Peabody website that he gave after winning this year...one of the most gracious guys around.
Call me when they figure out how to install a giant energy burner that does nothing but burn energy...talk about a great weight loss solution. Also, I wouldn't mind filtering the alcohol directly out of my blood when they do solve the waste problem...that way I can keep drinking all night and adjust my level of drunkenness appropriate to the task at hand. Time to party? Dial back the filter. Time to drive home? Turn it up to "11".
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, I was being facetious to prove a point. But the point is—if a student did this and were completely honest about it in terms of citing the source of the ideas, a good percentage of the time the professor would chastise them for not demonstrating any original thought. Despite the fact that this student would understand the material and all of the most important aspects of the work, as well as what the various ideas swirling around it in academia, to a far greater degree than other students that plow through the entire original work without much of a clue regarding what they read.
I'm not saying people shouldn't cite their sources...I'm saying when they do what they need to do to understand the material, they should be allowed to be honest about it. Heck, they should be encouraged to do this sort of thing if it helps solidify the material.
If they had not named it Six Days in Fallujah, they could have said it was based on that specific battle but still been ok. Once the game was out they could have scaled up the marketing around the specifics of how accurate it was. This was purely a marketing fail and heads should roll in that dept...and I don't mean while still attached to bodies in a giant pile of beanbags with a bunch of scantily clad pretty girls rolling around too. That's not the kind of head rolling that should be carried out for this specific case.
I'm glad we've decided to move forward on this all at once, without really understanding the requirements, and without committing to a phased approach that takes baby steps and checkpoints each one as we go. If I remember correctly, this is the approach that generally succeeds—or, wait...do I have it backwards? Will this do the other thing...hm, no matter. ONWARD!
Sufficiently advanced cheating is called learning.
Here's the proper way to cheat—it never failed me in university philosophy courses. Let's say you're supposed to read two or three of Nietzsche's works and write on the topic of Nietzsche: Feminist or Misogynist? You could try to read his books, but you won't understand them. Even if you do understand them, you will need to research his life in order to interpret his works in the proper context. And, after all that, when you finally do all this legwork, you'll only learn that he specifically designed his writings and behavior to lead you into a black hole. No normal human has a chance.
So here's what you do. You put down the primary sources and go to the library. Read papers published by Ph.D. students that interpret Nietzsche's works and struggle to answer the question before you. Make notes on the general points of the argument and the supporting quotes across several of these papers (they're generally pretty short, and way easier to understand that the primary text). You can even read some Nietzsche if you're feeling adventurous, but I don't recommend it.
Once you've formulated your own fervently held beliefs about Nietzsche in this way (by ripping them off of original thoughts by people that actually cared), you can leave with only your general notes outlining the arguments and citing the supporting quotes. If there's a good amount of material to choose from, make sure you choose an interpretation that is controversial (but well-supported)...don't turn in just another paper that will make the TA's eye's glaze or the professor want to put a gun in his mouth—liven things up a bit for those poor saps, they're stuck studying philosophy their entire lives! Look at all of the material you've collected and turn it over in your brain...try to synthesize your own controversial conclusion drawn from the points that others have worked so hard to create. Now go party for a couple of days to let it all sink in. The more beer you drink during this time, the less likely that some random quote you read will bubble up from the depths verbatim and get you busted. Once the requisite few days have been partied away, sit down and write the sentence or two that ties together all of the supporting material that you have decided to randomly & provocatively tie together. Include the points and supporting quotes to "prove" what you're saying.
Instant A. Takes an hour, maybe two at the uni libe, and maybe another couple of hours to draft a typical 5-8 pager. This takes other students in the class weeks of devotion to achieve, leaving you plenty of time to study for your other courses, or study the local bar scene, or interact with the student body (as it were -winkwink-). The best part is, when you sit down to write after a couple of days of partying, it could be a paper, or it could be an in-class midterm or final. Whatever...either way, you're covered.
If you want to set up some successful honeypot addresses for your Bayesian spam filter, just post it in several forums (here, for example), on craigslist, on static web pages, etc. You don't even have to sign up for a lot of sweepstakes or go to a lot of effort. Just this will have that address drowning in wonderful, salty, crusty spam. Mmmm.
zOMG w t f? This is evil, harvesting active email addresses for more spam when people opt-out! Who could have thought of such an evil plan? -incredulous-
Actually, there is one part of what I said above that's true...I am incredulous. How did this get a story on /.? Ooh, I have a story too: "Are spammers bad people that would misuse your information? wut doyoo guys think lol!!!"
"Obsolescent?" Is that like "scrumtrilescent"? (Invented by Will Farrell's James Lipton character on the spot to describe an actor's work.)
I would like to briefly take everyone along for a brief look into the mind of a blackmailer.
If we look at the logic, the blackmailer must make a compelling enough threat to, in his mind, cause the company to want to comply with his request for money or whatever. However, this is not enough...if that was the end of the blackmailer's plan, it makes no logical sense to carry out the threat against a target that refuses to comply. The moment the threat is carried out, there's no longer any incentive for the target to pay, so there's no possibility of upside there for the blackmailer. However, the downside increases significantly...now the blackmailer has actually done damage and can be held to account for it.
The only way it makes sense to carry out such a threat is to show the target that the threat was real. The only purpose of doing that, however, is to set up a second stage: another threat, another blackmail attempt. That is the only possible upside that makes it worthwhile to carry out a threat against a non-compliant target in the first go-round.
So, I wonder what the next threat on the list is...
Don't know about Nietzsche, but Kafka would be an unending series of ambiguously located header imports and incomprehensible macros. If the user didn't follow every arbitrary, subtle rule of the application, they would be greeted with an authoritarian error message:
You vil get vat you vant if you PROPERLY FOLLOW PROPER PROTOCOLS. PROPERLY FOLLOW PROPER PROTOCOLS!
[source of this quote]
I had a nightmare last night where I was working in the exact same conditions as the summary author. Well, every 20 minutes the devil would stab me in the kidneys with a pitchfork, but other than that it was exactly the same.
What company does this? Sign me up...
That method should either be defined on the politician object (no need to pass in a reference to one, then), or it should be declared static. (I would question choice of the latter, though, for what it does to your dependency graph.)
Interesting--what kind of lemonade though? I don't think Country Time tastes any good even when I'm healthy, so I hope you're not talking about that stuff...and home-made doesn't seem very scientific as recipes vary...
(BTW, IANAD, so I will actually listen. Not the way the interpipes usually works, I know...)
How can any member of Anonymous be "from" a site like fark? Do they issue Anonymous press pass credentials or something?
This gets the whole idea of Anonymous wrong. Anonymous isn't "from" anywhere. The moment you start thinking you know something about Anonymous, the moment you start trying to put Anonymous into a box, you're no longer talking about Anonymous...you're talking onymous.
Well, I don't know about nowadays, but in the 80s when I was growing up 7-Up was fairly well-balanced in terms of flavor. It didn't have HFCS and the sugars it did have were in proportion to the acids and tartness, so it didn't make for an unsettling taste when you were already not feeling too well (unlike the sweeter, more syrupy drinks). Also, it was clear so your compromised system didn't have to deal with caramel color, and in general it lacked many other additives that other sodas had / have. If I remember correctly, Sprite wasn't around back then either...I mean, this was the days of Tab, just about the only clear cola out there was 7-Up.
As far as Gatorade goes, I'm not sure how it stacks up compared to water, I've heard different things on that...usually that water is better, but I honestly don't know. And I don't know if the 7-Up of today is as good for rehydration as it was 25 years ago...I'd be surprised if it was.
The right way to go is unflavored Pedialyte. Nothing beats this stuff...it's exactly what you need when you're dehydrated. Your body even says so--drink the stuff when you're doing fine and it's kind of repulsive. But after a night of hard drinking, it actually tastes good...that's your body telling you it like-y what's coming in. Seriously, it's true...I speak from personal experience. (And it is a great hangover cure...I'm currently working on developing mixed drinks that include Pedialyte to cut out the middle portion. :-) )
Is it time for strong encryption of packet payloads yet? ssh? Ostiary? However it goes, I'm good...just need to know the new standard for basic web browsing...
I can't say anything about how the ride feels, but whoever shot that video was certainly a fan of motion sickness.
You know, I was not a big Bush fan, but I also never drank the kool-aid that he's the devil incarnate either. Now that we're seeing Obama adopt some of the same positions after a careful and studied review of the facts available to the Office of the President, there are two possibilities to consider. (1) Obama is Bush III. (2) zOMG just because Bush did it doesn't automatically make it wrong and evil.
It's easy to oversimply situations and reduce people to caricatures. It's easy, and it's a mistake, and many of you are guilty of doing it with Bush. Again, not a huge Bush fan...but do we really have to start judging Obama not based on what he does, but only based on what he does differently?
It's generally not great to get too much water. Your body can't use large quantities of water by itself, it has to be balanced with electrolytes and other stuff to be of any use. Drink too much water, and you start diluting down the electrolytes that keep your muscles working. You're prone to muscle cramps and other annoying things from overhydration.
Because of bottled water going big corporate in the 90s, in the US at least, many people got brainwashed by Coke, Pepsi, and other water distributors that humans need a ridiculous amount of water everyday...pair that up with the way our govt works vis-a-vis lobby groups, and you had the govt endorsing this nonsense. Drink 8 12oz glasses of water everyday! they said. Hook a garden hose supplied with Dasani up to your mouth and don't turn it off until it starts coming out the other end! Yeeeeaaa.
But if you've ever had a bout of continuous vomiting or diarrhea and tried to stay hydrated with just water, you have firsthand experience that that approach only works for a short while. Many people smart enough to try to stay hydrated after getting food poisoning or some other condition with these symptoms show up in ERs saying, But I don't understand—I was drinking tons of water to stay hydrated!, after they're diagnosed with dehydration. And what is the remedy? An IV of saline, not water. What would have kept them out of the ER? Pedialyte or some other oral rehydration solution...even flat 7-Up is better than water.
Oh no. Things were so much easier when we could move forward based on the simple algorithm Bush = bad. Now that we have to actually think about stuff, what ever will we do?
Oh, gee, I drink 8 cups of strong coffee per day and 2 huge servings of soft drinks. Unbelievably, after several years of doing this, I have problems!
Uhh, yea, dumb-dumb. At what point in your life did you think it was a good idea to drink that fourth cup of coffee in the same day, much less four more? I think this condition is known as: epic brainpower fail.
I don't understand...we're upset that book, which were previously completely unavailable, are now available only one way? Since when is 1
Besides, let's wait to hear what Google has to say about it. I have a feeling they will release a statement saying how they'll handle this appropriately—much as people like to hate on GOOG around here lately, maybe they'll surprise you (and by "surprise you" I mean: "do exactly what I expect").
The defn of fair use has nothing to do with how the content is conveyed. It has to do with what content is conveyed and the context in which it is used.
If you think Colbert does anything out of pure vanity, why don't you give a listen to the interview on the Peabody website that he gave after winning this year...one of the most gracious guys around.
Call me when they figure out how to install a giant energy burner that does nothing but burn energy...talk about a great weight loss solution. Also, I wouldn't mind filtering the alcohol directly out of my blood when they do solve the waste problem...that way I can keep drinking all night and adjust my level of drunkenness appropriate to the task at hand. Time to party? Dial back the filter. Time to drive home? Turn it up to "11".