what made you think that other solutions had to = hosting your own server? This is probably why you got marked flamebait.
there are solutions in between gmail and mobileme, some free, some not. It's a bit narrow to think those are all there is out there and/or the "Everything costs money or eyeballs" concept.
that sounds nice and all, but that's not a real world scenario or even close to.
even if you believe you can detect cheating accurately, the reality will always prove otherwise. There will always be inaccuracies. Such as : what if a topic was covered by the teacher really well and/or really horribly? What if people all ace the same part well covered and bomb the part the teacher didn't cover? Is that because it must be cheating? Cheating-detection stuff will say yes to this, and a teacher might not be willing to own up to their own mistakes either.
Also, "Severity of the crime" never, ever works. Ever. blowing it out of proportion to act as a deterrent only pisses people off and causes it's own set of problems. think that having a deterrent to something will a: deter the action and/or b: not piss people off? Answer is pretty simple there. You can replace the object and the action with anything here, and still fits. So many governmental, regulatory and other things easily fit that statement.
It's been shown that some people are just not good at tests. The (summarized) intent of a test is to see if people learned/paid attention but the reality is you're just getting people to practice being good at test-taking.
None of this excuses people from cheating, but it calls into question the same thing again: that maybe a curriculum should be examined, the class should be examined, the teacher should be examined, and the class environment should be examined. Any of those or a combination of could lead to the answer.
If you have an elective that is bullshit and ends in an online test, people will cheat it every time.
Thus quality of the class and relevance is a direct impact of how many people cheat.
why do people have to host their own mailserver? Cloud, by definition, is not a new term. Virtualized, Mainframe, Cloud, remind me again why cloud is magically different?
Are you saying that gmail is different as being "in the cloud" than being virtualized and/or essentially via a mainframe?
wha? the things you are comparing are not even remotely accurate.
are you trying to compare personally identifiable information with whistleblowing? because if so, that shows your misunderstanding.
Wikileaks doesn't release personal information, they release things that should be public already (as it's government owned) yet are declared confidential. So the real finger to point here, is at the US government, not at wikileaks.
What wikileaks is doing is journalism, exactly like the pentagon papers did - in fact, this article is the biggest twist of logic I have ever seen trying to declare that untrue by saying that it doesn't show lawbreaking. The world is very shortsighted if you it has to be something lawbreaking for it to be whistleblowing, and that even defies part of the definition of whistleblowing: "The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption" So by exposing corruption, wikileaks doesn't quality as a whistleblower? This is a twist of definitions.
By that nature, we should just carry on pushing US laws in other countries so that we can say that they must uphold the laws that we don't follow ourselves - we are essentially lobbying the world to make *our own government* legal at the behest of protectionist societies (riaa, mpaa are easy examples).
That's like me saying that government information such as government salaries should be hidden from the public, even though the public owns the government and pays them. The result of that is a loss to society and accountability.
uh, there's a $180 cisco product that can do that. Even add wirelss B/G/N, multiple SSIDs, VPN tunneling, VLAN isolation, gigabit routing (and not shared bandwidth), SNMP. that wrvs4400 or something.
Got one at home. well worth it for the reception quality alone.
I'm not saying IPv4 reclamation is going to fix the situation - nothing of the sort. Only that it would buy more time during the transition, time which we don't necessarily need but hey probably a good idea.
I'd rather see the world on IPv6 *Yesterday*, let alone today, but then again how long have we been trying to do that? How many years now? People have been so willfully ignorant of IPv6 and such things as "oh, IPv6 doesn't support NAT! What will we do! we need NAT!" that we could have been on it years ago.
Consumer IPv6 capability is fairly limited at best when you look at anything beyond their IP stack. Really how many consumer and/or cheap routers today can do IPV6 reliably? Not that many.
well, lets see, multiple cellphones and laptops for every person? different routable IP addresses for different protocols? the fact that the IP addresses rotate?
I didn't miss that it'd run out, but if you think IPv6 is going to last forever you're hilariously dillusioned. Even the IETF is already looking beyond IPV6 while still developing it, as they should.
Ignorant? the only reason there would be difficulty and/or substantial cost with companies relinquishing large unused blocks of a CLASS A is because they have a horrible subnetting system already in place. aka bad network architects. The issue, from your link, and from my comment is (copied from it):
However, it can be expensive in terms of cost and time to renumber a large network, so these organizations will likely object, with legal conflicts possible. However, even if all of these were reclaimed, it would only result in postponing the date of address exhaustion.
bolds emphasizing the greed portion I mentioned here.
in reality, if someone does anything even remotely competent, it should be a 1 day process, maximum - after all, using NAT or IPv6 internally should make it even less of an issue.
It's not like DNS updates itself or something.
Meanwhile, I hope you realize that even IPv6 isn't a permanent solution nor is it intended to be, right? It's a substantially larger block of addresses, but that doesn't mean the use of those addresses is going to last as long as IPv4.
the root problem comes down to jackasses like ATT, xerox, government, etc who have a class A network and aren't willing to give up some hosts even though NAT is widespread.
giving up a small amount of addresses could have given up enough IPv4 addresses to last us another 10-15 years. have they done so? no. Will they? no.
Blame greed, and naivety from when IPv4 originated.
the reality is that lots of people can have legitimate and good uses for supercomputers. to try to add anything about "This takes away from research" when this is research by definition, is idiotic.
where do you come up with this shit? on android you have an.apk that can run whether or not google removes it from the app store or entirely for that matter.
Not only that, but these.apk's aren't hidden, they're on your phone, and even without root access you can back them up easily with plenty of solutions. Plenty of people install android apps without ever hitting the android market or ever having a wifi connection. in fact, there's an entire forum dedicated to it, essentially . Did I mention that things are fairly well documented?
on iphone you can have it forcefully removed remotely, even by using the old version.
really, you had to throw the fragmentation argument again? is that the best you can do?
android is nothing like windows. it's everything like linux, because it is linux. Linux doesn't have fragmentation issues either, unless you're goin for the fud route.
Slashdot Mirror
what made you think that other solutions had to = hosting your own server? This is probably why you got marked flamebait.
there are solutions in between gmail and mobileme, some free, some not. It's a bit narrow to think those are all there is out there and/or the "Everything costs money or eyeballs" concept.
that sounds nice and all, but that's not a real world scenario or even close to.
even if you believe you can detect cheating accurately, the reality will always prove otherwise. There will always be inaccuracies. Such as : what if a topic was covered by the teacher really well and/or really horribly? What if people all ace the same part well covered and bomb the part the teacher didn't cover? Is that because it must be cheating? Cheating-detection stuff will say yes to this, and a teacher might not be willing to own up to their own mistakes either.
Also, "Severity of the crime" never, ever works. Ever. blowing it out of proportion to act as a deterrent only pisses people off and causes it's own set of problems. think that having a deterrent to something will a: deter the action and/or b: not piss people off? Answer is pretty simple there. You can replace the object and the action with anything here, and still fits. So many governmental, regulatory and other things easily fit that statement.
It's been shown that some people are just not good at tests. The (summarized) intent of a test is to see if people learned/paid attention but the reality is you're just getting people to practice being good at test-taking.
None of this excuses people from cheating, but it calls into question the same thing again: that maybe a curriculum should be examined, the class should be examined, the teacher should be examined, and the class environment should be examined. Any of those or a combination of could lead to the answer.
If you have an elective that is bullshit and ends in an online test, people will cheat it every time.
Thus quality of the class and relevance is a direct impact of how many people cheat.
its a question of who is more effective and how.
if people need to cheat to beat a test the question is, what is causing this? Is it the students, the teacher?
to simply go after cheaters is putting a band-aid over the real problem.
why do people have to host their own mailserver? Cloud, by definition, is not a new term. Virtualized, Mainframe, Cloud, remind me again why cloud is magically different?
Are you saying that gmail is different as being "in the cloud" than being virtualized and/or essentially via a mainframe?
wha? the things you are comparing are not even remotely accurate.
are you trying to compare personally identifiable information with whistleblowing? because if so, that shows your misunderstanding.
Wikileaks doesn't release personal information, they release things that should be public already (as it's government owned) yet are declared confidential. So the real finger to point here, is at the US government, not at wikileaks.
What wikileaks is doing is journalism, exactly like the pentagon papers did - in fact, this article is the biggest twist of logic I have ever seen trying to declare that untrue by saying that it doesn't show lawbreaking. The world is very shortsighted if you it has to be something lawbreaking for it to be whistleblowing, and that even defies part of the definition of whistleblowing: "The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption" So by exposing corruption, wikileaks doesn't quality as a whistleblower? This is a twist of definitions.
By that nature, we should just carry on pushing US laws in other countries so that we can say that they must uphold the laws that we don't follow ourselves - we are essentially lobbying the world to make *our own government* legal at the behest of protectionist societies (riaa, mpaa are easy examples).
That's like me saying that government information such as government salaries should be hidden from the public, even though the public owns the government and pays them. The result of that is a loss to society and accountability.
or you stay the hell away from anything cloud and just wait for it to change buzzwords again, and save yourself ~$500 (at $99/year)
there are lot of other solutions, people are just too lazy or not tech savvy enough to do them.
what's wrong with taking your medication?
uh, you always need a router, where do you even come up with that shit?
a: obvious and glaring security reasons
b: connecting more than 1 device/pc/connection
uh, there's a $180 cisco product that can do that. Even add wirelss B/G/N, multiple SSIDs, VPN tunneling, VLAN isolation, gigabit routing (and not shared bandwidth), SNMP. that wrvs4400 or something.
Got one at home. well worth it for the reception quality alone.
I'm not saying IPv4 reclamation is going to fix the situation - nothing of the sort. Only that it would buy more time during the transition, time which we don't necessarily need but hey probably a good idea.
I'd rather see the world on IPv6 *Yesterday*, let alone today, but then again how long have we been trying to do that? How many years now? People have been so willfully ignorant of IPv6 and such things as "oh, IPv6 doesn't support NAT! What will we do! we need NAT!" that we could have been on it years ago.
Consumer IPv6 capability is fairly limited at best when you look at anything beyond their IP stack. Really how many consumer and/or cheap routers today can do IPV6 reliably? Not that many.
well, lets see, multiple cellphones and laptops for every person? different routable IP addresses for different protocols? the fact that the IP addresses rotate?
I didn't miss that it'd run out, but if you think IPv6 is going to last forever you're hilariously dillusioned. Even the IETF is already looking beyond IPV6 while still developing it, as they should.
Ignorant? the only reason there would be difficulty and/or substantial cost with companies relinquishing large unused blocks of a CLASS A is because they have a horrible subnetting system already in place. aka bad network architects. The issue, from your link, and from my comment is (copied from it):
bolds emphasizing the greed portion I mentioned here.
in reality, if someone does anything even remotely competent, it should be a 1 day process, maximum - after all, using NAT or IPv6 internally should make it even less of an issue.
It's not like DNS updates itself or something.
Meanwhile, I hope you realize that even IPv6 isn't a permanent solution nor is it intended to be, right? It's a substantially larger block of addresses, but that doesn't mean the use of those addresses is going to last as long as IPv4.
hahahaha quite. why do people still buy a cheap $40 product when they could buy a small business solution for 4x as much that will last them forever?
I guess people don't know why cisco makes products.
oh, right, ignorance.
wha?
the root problem comes down to jackasses like ATT, xerox, government, etc who have a class A network and aren't willing to give up some hosts even though NAT is widespread.
giving up a small amount of addresses could have given up enough IPv4 addresses to last us another 10-15 years. have they done so? no. Will they? no.
Blame greed, and naivety from when IPv4 originated.
it's an imaginary race this time.
the reality is that lots of people can have legitimate and good uses for supercomputers. to try to add anything about "This takes away from research" when this is research by definition, is idiotic.
getting rid of bots fails to answer as to what has gone on to encourage bots in the first place.
if you think getting rid of bots is good, you are missing both the destination and the journey.
the underlying question should be: how has this game become so repetitive that people can automate it in the first place?
oh right, blizzard, grind, etc.
do you even have a remote clue what you're talking about?
they're saying that wowglider broke encryption via running a scripting bot that has nothing to do with it.
This is blizzard's "we're protecting our business model via lawsuit" argument.
so it's a bad precedent, which a lot of people lose on from this.
what about in comparison to slashdotter accuracy on first post?
basically, how accurate is this thing supposed to be for it's "fast sequencing"?
I made the specific argument I did because of that exact distinction - he mentioned commercial but not enterprise.
bingo. whoosh to pspahn.
really?
ever heard of red hat? That's not commercial? ever heard of android? that's not commercial?
How many servers run linux versus windows? Do I need to pull up that cite again?
thanks for pointing out you have no idea what you're talking about.
where do you come up with this shit? on android you have an .apk that can run whether or not google removes it from the app store or entirely for that matter.
Not only that, but these .apk's aren't hidden, they're on your phone, and even without root access you can back them up easily with plenty of solutions. Plenty of people install android apps without ever hitting the android market or ever having a wifi connection. in fact, there's an entire forum dedicated to it, essentially . Did I mention that things are fairly well documented?
on iphone you can have it forcefully removed remotely, even by using the old version.
really, you had to throw the fragmentation argument again? is that the best you can do?
android is nothing like windows. it's everything like linux, because it is linux. Linux doesn't have fragmentation issues either, unless you're goin for the fud route.
way to troll there.
In this case, that's called "voluntary censorship". So yeah, that's what freedom of speech is kind of at ends with in any modern society.
okay, this goes both ways then. where's the evidence of anything assange has done? What crime has been committed?
evidence, not conjecture, watercooler, or speculation.