Why all the fuss? It's Microeconomics 101.
People buy products they like and value according to their tastes and preferences, subject to the money they've allocated to those scarce resources (re: the money they have to spend).
With all the Apple haters and "profit-monger haters" below, take a lesson in simple economics. It may sound like a syllogism, but if Apple weren't meeting the needs of consumers, they wouldn't continue to post record earnings.
Score one for the free market.
Let me tell you, they couldn't have made this move any sooner. Some of the law students were having 'independent' thoughts about how the United States legal system should be corrected and it was just causing mass chaos in the classrooms. One student kept reading things online like People Before Lawyers and began voicing concerns about the plaintiffs and defendants (you know, the actual humans involved) in certain cases. Let's just say that individual had to stay back a few years after having to repeat the class Soul Removal 101 and begin the process over. It was very ugly I think they were only eligible to be a para-legal after that incident.
The "internet" (or "anarchist-net" as we've dubbed it here) is nothing more than a distraction for students and could never ever possibly be used for learning. I suppose next citizens will want every single state and federal law posted on there so they can try to interpret it themselves! Not on my watch, we here at U of Chicago produce no fewer than 50,000 lawyers a year and we will see you in court if you try to circumvent the United State's legal system's need for them (Sprint, we're watching you!).
Not on my watch, we here at U of Chicago produce no fewer than 50,000 lawyers a year and we will see you in court if you try to circumvent the United State's legal system's need for them (Sprint, we're watching you!). Ummm...not sure if you're a real student, but U of C is an elite, smaller Law School and doesn't "pump out" 50,000 lawyers a year. Check your numbers, please.
---
This is my signature.
Right. There is a line and as a prof you must monitor what's going on.
Sharing answers to homework problems and having people turn in same/similar work is cheating. And no matter what form that cheating takes place (in the dorm room, library, texting, IM), it's cheating. That kind of cheating has been around forever.
Let's face it, folks. Students as young as 12 know when they are cheating.
A bigger problem is that kids growing up on the Web need to know how to cite sources. They need to learn in grammar school about how to put their book reports and projects together, using their own ideas and citing the ideas of others. I have seen grad students -- I'm a PhD student at an IVY school and have many times been a teaching assistant -- who come in fresh out of college and STILL don't know how to properly cite a source.
That said, so much learning comes from collaboration -- from discussing ideas with other students in a healthy manner. And that actually *is* often the way work gets done in the real world. Anything that fosters collaborative learning is a good thing. Anything that crosses that line is a bad thing. 'Nuff said.
If what you write is accurate, the headline of this post is troublingly misleading. All these folks are telling stories and weighing in on a "fact" that isn't particularly relevant for us.
I write "us" as most people are employed in small to medium-sized firms. If you work for a $50B company, with rules and regs up the wazoo, you should expect that someone is sniffing around your outbox. I know of some firms that as of 2003 refused to put browsers on company computers, and were still using proprietary email systems that essentially blocked everything coming from outside. This isn't heresay; these are my clients. Very big companies; household names.
Orignial sources would be appreciated and facts checked before sensationalistic headlines like this one. I'm glad I spent the time to move down the thread.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, as an entrepreneur, I'd be glad to fight for a market of 30 million people -- assuming I had a good product or service those people want.
Why all the fuss? It's Microeconomics 101. People buy products they like and value according to their tastes and preferences, subject to the money they've allocated to those scarce resources (re: the money they have to spend). With all the Apple haters and "profit-monger haters" below, take a lesson in simple economics. It may sound like a syllogism, but if Apple weren't meeting the needs of consumers, they wouldn't continue to post record earnings. Score one for the free market.
Right. There is a line and as a prof you must monitor what's going on.
Sharing answers to homework problems and having people turn in same/similar work is cheating. And no matter what form that cheating takes place (in the dorm room, library, texting, IM), it's cheating. That kind of cheating has been around forever.
Let's face it, folks. Students as young as 12 know when they are cheating.
A bigger problem is that kids growing up on the Web need to know how to cite sources. They need to learn in grammar school about how to put their book reports and projects together, using their own ideas and citing the ideas of others. I have seen grad students -- I'm a PhD student at an IVY school and have many times been a teaching assistant -- who come in fresh out of college and STILL don't know how to properly cite a source.
That said, so much learning comes from collaboration -- from discussing ideas with other students in a healthy manner. And that actually *is* often the way work gets done in the real world. Anything that fosters collaborative learning is a good thing. Anything that crosses that line is a bad thing. 'Nuff said.
--
"There's a fine line between clever and stupid."
If what you write is accurate, the headline of this post is troublingly misleading. All these folks are telling stories and weighing in on a "fact" that isn't particularly relevant for us. I write "us" as most people are employed in small to medium-sized firms. If you work for a $50B company, with rules and regs up the wazoo, you should expect that someone is sniffing around your outbox. I know of some firms that as of 2003 refused to put browsers on company computers, and were still using proprietary email systems that essentially blocked everything coming from outside. This isn't heresay; these are my clients. Very big companies; household names. Orignial sources would be appreciated and facts checked before sensationalistic headlines like this one. I'm glad I spent the time to move down the thread.