Just because others do similar, does that make it OK?
What 'others'? This is the Europeans complaining that the USA has copied their tactics. If you invite me over to play your game, and I see you trying to cheat, don't expect me to give your complaints much weight when I do the same.
A defense based on, 'well, I'm doing it the way you taught me' seems good enough to me. (I'm not saying some other 3rd party country or company wouldn't have grounds for complaint. I'm just saying it's hard to take the Europeans seriously when they complain about the USA using the same tactics they use.)
Please get off your soap box for a moment. Not that I support everything the USA government does on behalf of corporate interest, but let's not pretend the US is the sole practitioner of such tactics. The imperialists of Europe have been using their military might to enrich monetary interests since way before there even was a USA.
If the 'rest of the world' has any issues with the tactics taken in cases such as these, perhaps it is only that the USA is too successful at the game they invented.
<artie lange>Waaaaa. My school didn't have programming classes.<artie lange/> Guess what, the folks that invented computers? Growing up, their schools didn't have computers.
However for those of us that understood the work, if our homework grade was less than our test grade, the test grade would replace it (if it were 90% or higher). I would call out my daily score of 0. Test day would come. I'd review the material in the book. I would make an A or B.
Another great example of our fine public education system. Rather than do a little extra work to take advantage of the opportunity to explore a deeper understanding of the subject with a student who quickly mastered the basics, the teacher decided to avoid grading by making homework optional and inflate your ego rather than present a real intellectual challenge.
If that was the best teacher you had in high school, Oklahoma is even more backward than I had feared.
Remember the old saying, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
There may be no such thing as bad publicity, but there certainly is useless publicity.
Ever hear of a movie called 'Snakes on a Plane'? Thought so. Perhaps you've even familiar with some of the dialog from the movie, something about farking snakes on a farking plane. Hmmm.
Now, did you actually go out to the theatre and pay to see this movie? Right. Useless publicity.
I know all about the PS3. Seen all the threads here on/. Chance I will go out and buy one? Zero. Interest in owning one, even as a gift? Zero. Useless publicity.
And, actually, I do think there is bad publicity. Example, I'm a NJ Devils fan living in Bruins territory. One time I used tickermaster to purchase tickets to a Devils/Bruins game. Now, despite my requests to the contrary, I regularly receive ticketmaster spam. I also receive plenty of email offers to purchase tickets to the next Bruins game. I have less than zero interest in seeing the Bruins unless they are playing the Devils. I have turned down free tickets to see the Bruins play other teams, why does ticketmaster think I would pay?
Each spam from ticketmaster just reinforces my decision to never use their service again. Likewise, each story on the PS3 just reinforces my impression it will likely be an over-powered, over-priced piece of crap.
Seriously, we're talking about ethical breaches here, not how worker-friendly it is. There's nothing wrong with a company letting employees use email, phones, etc. for personal purposes, and if a company doesn't allow that, they are less able to compete for good workers.
I was thinking of people spending hours on personal calls or long distance calls back to the old country, not the little stuff that falls under the heading of an employee-friendly workspace. 5 minutes on the phone to see if you should hit the market on your way home is OK; 45 minutes on the phone talking your girlfriend through a term paper is not.
And I did see quite a bit of software copying. After all, what's the boss gonna say? "I copied that software fair and square. You can't copy from me?"
The teachers who handed out old tests are also augmenting their lectures with additional info on how you will be tested.
It's not an entirely academic issue, and one even more relevant as the standardized test industry grows.
One thing repeated often is, we don't want teachers teaching to the test. High school english should be about expanding vocabulary and learning to use the language to communicate, not 3 years of SAT test prep and a senior year devoted to college app essays.
However, if the test is a good one, then 'teaching to the test' should match up well with 'teaching the subject.' Reviewing previous exam questions may not be cheating, but it certainly fits the bill as 'teaching to the test.'
At very least by studying the old questions first, before studying the entire section being tested.
I'm with Darth Taco. Unless profs took deliberate steps to prevent access to previous exams (only giving out grades, not returning graded exams to students, etc.) and the old questions used are obtained through cheaty means (breaking into profs computer, stabbing yourself in the eye and sneaking a copy of the exam out on the stretcher when the EMTs come, etc.), not only is that not cheating, it should be recommended.
I learned this from AP classes in high school. All year was regular course work, but about a month before the exams my calc, physics, and chem teachers all did the same thing. They handed out copies of 5 or 6 years worth of previous exams. We did nothing but work those old problems for the next month. Given these standardized tests have a limited pool of questions types, when test day came I could have easily aced each one without reading the questions. The only work left to be done was fill the specific numbers for the problems on the test.
(Of course, if those old exams we used were obtained by my teachers through cheaty means, then that would have been cheating. My understanding is these exams were several years old. Using last years exam==cheating; using 5 year old exam==okily dokily.)
Here's a situation for ya. Tell me if this is cheating. I'm a grad student at prestigious university. Over the summer I took a distance learning course with lecture vidoes streaming from the class web site.
The streaming video just did not cut it for me. It barely worked if I left it alone, and if I missed a point and tried to rewind the video, it usually froze, and I would end up having to start the lecture from the beginging.
So I found a utility that would save the streaming video to a local file. This solved the rewind issues, and also allowed me to burn the videos to disc and watch them at times when I did not have access to the web site. I posted a question regarding saving the streaming video to a local file in the discussion area of the class web site and received no reply from the instructor or the TA. So to my knowledge, the act of changing the video from streaming to a local file was legal.
Here the questionable bit: the utility I used saved parts the video not available through streaming. The videos had been recorded during a previous semester. The web site-embedded media player used defined start and end times in the video. There were cases where parts of the video were outside of the parameters for the media player, however the entire video source was saved by my software. I saw parts of the video not shown if only viewed via the stream through the course web site.
One homework problem was an example worked out by the instructor in the video I had saved. This was part of the video not available through streaming. I'm working my way through the homework and instantly recognize the problem as similar to one in the lecture notes. When I go back to my notes, I realize it's not just similar, it's the same problem.
One course of action would be to leave that homework question unanswered since there is no way I could unknown the solution presented in the lecture. What I did was to work out the solution on my own, certainly with the aid of having seen it worked out in lecture, but not a rote copy of my lecture notes.
I don't think this is cheating. One, there was no indication anything I did was out of bounds. My intention on saving the video was to avoid issues I had with streaming, not get at 'secret bits.' I had no previous knowledge I would get different information from lectures than other students. Two, I had no special access over other students. I used commercial, off-the-shelf software to convert streaming video into local files. Any student with access to the course web site could do the same. Third, this instructors has had other homework that did amount to rote cop
I've worked for several companies, ranging from small dot-com startups to Fortune 500 giants. The best ethical behaviour I've seen in my career was working for a billion-dollar financial investment firm. The worst ethics came from a start-up founded by former professors (humanities and engineering).
My career spans similar extremes, and my experience mirrors yours. My hunch? Oversight works.
At a small start up with no outside investors, no one really cares if a shop getting 30 emails a day over DSL is using a warez copy of Exchange. If the owner decides to go that route, it filters down to employees who will feel free to use email, phones, etc. for personal purposes.
At the big firm, folks at the top are prone to be more aware of the oversight, especially in a financial firm. If I know my boss's boss's boss is concerned about the contents of communications coming into and out of the company, and the implications of records of those communications being subpoenaed, then I need to be concerned about my use of those resources.
(....typed while at a computer in said billion-dollar financial investment firm)
The circulation of water gets faster with more energy in the system; and iceberg formation is a part of that circulation, so it will intensify as well.
There's actually a chance the exact opposite will happen--more energy will result in a drastic reduction in the circulation of water.
Our current climate is the result of warm water flowing up from the topics in the gulf stream. The stream is driven by water sinking as it cools in the artic. The double whammy of less cooling due to global warming and less sinking due to fresh water from melting ice being lighter than the salt water could result in less circulation of water.
Less circulation of the gulf stream means less heat conveyed from the tropics means ice age. Where are your polar trade routes now?
Re:Wii-doubting articles - the biggest thing...
on
Will the Wii Work?
·
· Score: 1
I hate to say it and I don't own any XBOX but Microsoft has some real advantages over Sony right now.
Will the extra year of development favor the PS3 over the 360? (I'm thinking of the way the XBox and PS2 obliterated the Dreamcast depsite its first-to-market advantage.)
So there would be no reason to reference something else you wrote, you'd reference whatever is applicable from the references of the other paper on this one - otherwise you're just making people run around more for no good reason.
Unless your work is the original source material. There's no reason you shouldn't reference something else you wrote. Reference as close to the primary source as you can, and if it happens to be your own work, so be it.
Boxer's office said if she does not receive adequate answers to her questions, she will push for an investigation by the FCC inspector general.
Isn't she precious. Gonna push for an investigation. How cute.
Listen, hon, the horse left that barn behind a long time ago. Congress has made itself pretty much irrelevant. President breaks the law? They just pass a new law making whatever it was legal. They threaten to actually do their jobs and enforce some oversight? President claims he can do whatever he wants anyway. (When there was some talk about the USA PATRIOT act not getting renewed, Bush just came right out and said he could do whatever he wanted anyway as C and C. Rather than challenge that assertion, they just passed the law.)
And they gave away the store long ago with these agencies. Agencies like the FCC enact and enforce regulations without all that pesky oversight and due process they have to deal with down in congress. Better yet, agency heads don't have to worry about elections. Regulations are so much easier than laws.
What are they gonna do about it now? What did they do when all those energy executives lied to them? What did they do when all those baseball players lied to them? Mrs. Boxer and her colleagues are gonna do whatever they think they need to do to get reelected. Nothing more. They're certainly not going to do anything to anyone at the FCC.
By tucking the electronic guts of the Mac right behind the LCD display, Ive's team essentially made the PC disappear. Can someone explain why this won't be the future of PC design for anyone other than gamers--or why the rest of the industry hasn't followed suit yet?
I had the pleasure of remotely supporting a half dozen of these fine machines. The only thing that held me together was my dream of the day they would be retired, and I could take one out and go 'Office Space' on its ass.
So fie on your 'fringe' technology PCs were 'fringe' when I was soldering together and wire-wrapping motherboards in the pre-IBM and pre-Kaypro days. What we did, goofy as it sounds, is the reason you can post on/. to begin with.
[you're] defending slashdot like they knew it was already posted:)
Apparently submitters and story-approvers decline to RTFA. As a non-subscriber, that means there are 3 groups (submitters, approvers, subscribers) who get to not read the article before I do.
Does the/. affect apply when there are already too many people not clicking the link to the article?
You want abhorrent? The US is attacked by terrorists from Saudi Arabia, with support from with in Saudi Arabia, inspired to action, in part, by an oppresive Saudi government. The response is a US invasion of...Iraq.
Can you seriously say money had no effect on the US response to 9/11?
Do you REALLY mean to say that if Osama Bin Laden had donated money to George Bush's campaign, the US wouldn't have bothered responding to 9/11?
As crazy as it sounds, isn't that exactly what has happened? I mean, I know it sounds really, really crazy, but let's look at the facts.
Terrorists from Saudi Arabia, with money from people from Saudi Arabia, inspired by the abuses of the Saudi government, attack the US, kill thousands of people.
The US responds by invading...Iraq?? While the president frolics and holds hands (literally) with the oppressive leaders of Saudi Arabia?
Saddam is on trial, Osama is a free man. I think anyone who says the US government took part in the 9/11 attacks, or at least allowed them to happen, to get public support for expanded executive powers is crazy.
But you're equally nuts if you think money had no effect on the US response to 9/11.
Slashdot Mirror
What 'others'? This is the Europeans complaining that the USA has copied their tactics. If you invite me over to play your game, and I see you trying to cheat, don't expect me to give your complaints much weight when I do the same.
A defense based on, 'well, I'm doing it the way you taught me' seems good enough to me. (I'm not saying some other 3rd party country or company wouldn't have grounds for complaint. I'm just saying it's hard to take the Europeans seriously when they complain about the USA using the same tactics they use.)
Please get off your soap box for a moment. Not that I support everything the USA government does on behalf of corporate interest, but let's not pretend the US is the sole practitioner of such tactics. The imperialists of Europe have been using their military might to enrich monetary interests since way before there even was a USA.
If the 'rest of the world' has any issues with the tactics taken in cases such as these, perhaps it is only that the USA is too successful at the game they invented.
Don't hate the player; hate the game.
<artie lange>Waaaaa. My school didn't have programming classes.<artie lange/> Guess what, the folks that invented computers? Growing up, their schools didn't have computers.
Another great example of our fine public education system. Rather than do a little extra work to take advantage of the opportunity to explore a deeper understanding of the subject with a student who quickly mastered the basics, the teacher decided to avoid grading by making homework optional and inflate your ego rather than present a real intellectual challenge.
If that was the best teacher you had in high school, Oklahoma is even more backward than I had feared.
There may be no such thing as bad publicity, but there certainly is useless publicity.
Ever hear of a movie called 'Snakes on a Plane'? Thought so. Perhaps you've even familiar with some of the dialog from the movie, something about farking snakes on a farking plane. Hmmm.
Now, did you actually go out to the theatre and pay to see this movie? Right. Useless publicity.
I know all about the PS3. Seen all the threads here on /. Chance I will go out and buy one? Zero. Interest in owning one, even as a gift? Zero. Useless publicity.
And, actually, I do think there is bad publicity. Example, I'm a NJ Devils fan living in Bruins territory. One time I used tickermaster to purchase tickets to a Devils/Bruins game. Now, despite my requests to the contrary, I regularly receive ticketmaster spam. I also receive plenty of email offers to purchase tickets to the next Bruins game. I have less than zero interest in seeing the Bruins unless they are playing the Devils. I have turned down free tickets to see the Bruins play other teams, why does ticketmaster think I would pay?
Each spam from ticketmaster just reinforces my decision to never use their service again. Likewise, each story on the PS3 just reinforces my impression it will likely be an over-powered, over-priced piece of crap.
Still say there's no such thing as bad publicity?
"Mission Accomplished"
Bush->English->Bush
"Victory in Iraq will be difficult, and it will require more sacrifice."
I was thinking of people spending hours on personal calls or long distance calls back to the old country, not the little stuff that falls under the heading of an employee-friendly workspace. 5 minutes on the phone to see if you should hit the market on your way home is OK; 45 minutes on the phone talking your girlfriend through a term paper is not.
And I did see quite a bit of software copying. After all, what's the boss gonna say? "I copied that software fair and square. You can't copy from me?"
If Mel Brooks is going to make a Spaceballs cartoon, why stick it where it will be never seen, with the 100-mpg engine and the ark of the covenant?
It's not an entirely academic issue, and one even more relevant as the standardized test industry grows.
One thing repeated often is, we don't want teachers teaching to the test. High school english should be about expanding vocabulary and learning to use the language to communicate, not 3 years of SAT test prep and a senior year devoted to college app essays.
However, if the test is a good one, then 'teaching to the test' should match up well with 'teaching the subject.' Reviewing previous exam questions may not be cheating, but it certainly fits the bill as 'teaching to the test.'
I'm with Darth Taco. Unless profs took deliberate steps to prevent access to previous exams (only giving out grades, not returning graded exams to students, etc.) and the old questions used are obtained through cheaty means (breaking into profs computer, stabbing yourself in the eye and sneaking a copy of the exam out on the stretcher when the EMTs come, etc.), not only is that not cheating, it should be recommended.
I learned this from AP classes in high school. All year was regular course work, but about a month before the exams my calc, physics, and chem teachers all did the same thing. They handed out copies of 5 or 6 years worth of previous exams. We did nothing but work those old problems for the next month. Given these standardized tests have a limited pool of questions types, when test day came I could have easily aced each one without reading the questions. The only work left to be done was fill the specific numbers for the problems on the test.
(Of course, if those old exams we used were obtained by my teachers through cheaty means, then that would have been cheating. My understanding is these exams were several years old. Using last years exam==cheating; using 5 year old exam==okily dokily.)
Here's a situation for ya. Tell me if this is cheating. I'm a grad student at prestigious university. Over the summer I took a distance learning course with lecture vidoes streaming from the class web site.
The streaming video just did not cut it for me. It barely worked if I left it alone, and if I missed a point and tried to rewind the video, it usually froze, and I would end up having to start the lecture from the beginging.
So I found a utility that would save the streaming video to a local file. This solved the rewind issues, and also allowed me to burn the videos to disc and watch them at times when I did not have access to the web site. I posted a question regarding saving the streaming video to a local file in the discussion area of the class web site and received no reply from the instructor or the TA. So to my knowledge, the act of changing the video from streaming to a local file was legal.
Here the questionable bit: the utility I used saved parts the video not available through streaming. The videos had been recorded during a previous semester. The web site-embedded media player used defined start and end times in the video. There were cases where parts of the video were outside of the parameters for the media player, however the entire video source was saved by my software. I saw parts of the video not shown if only viewed via the stream through the course web site.
One homework problem was an example worked out by the instructor in the video I had saved. This was part of the video not available through streaming. I'm working my way through the homework and instantly recognize the problem as similar to one in the lecture notes. When I go back to my notes, I realize it's not just similar, it's the same problem.
One course of action would be to leave that homework question unanswered since there is no way I could unknown the solution presented in the lecture. What I did was to work out the solution on my own, certainly with the aid of having seen it worked out in lecture, but not a rote copy of my lecture notes.
I don't think this is cheating. One, there was no indication anything I did was out of bounds. My intention on saving the video was to avoid issues I had with streaming, not get at 'secret bits.' I had no previous knowledge I would get different information from lectures than other students. Two, I had no special access over other students. I used commercial, off-the-shelf software to convert streaming video into local files. Any student with access to the course web site could do the same. Third, this instructors has had other homework that did amount to rote cop
My career spans similar extremes, and my experience mirrors yours. My hunch? Oversight works.
At a small start up with no outside investors, no one really cares if a shop getting 30 emails a day over DSL is using a warez copy of Exchange. If the owner decides to go that route, it filters down to employees who will feel free to use email, phones, etc. for personal purposes.
At the big firm, folks at the top are prone to be more aware of the oversight, especially in a financial firm. If I know my boss's boss's boss is concerned about the contents of communications coming into and out of the company, and the implications of records of those communications being subpoenaed, then I need to be concerned about my use of those resources.
(....typed while at a computer in said billion-dollar financial investment firm)
Not only that, where will Clint land Firefox when it's over run by Russian-thinking snakes in the sequel?
There's actually a chance the exact opposite will happen--more energy will result in a drastic reduction in the circulation of water.
Our current climate is the result of warm water flowing up from the topics in the gulf stream. The stream is driven by water sinking as it cools in the artic. The double whammy of less cooling due to global warming and less sinking due to fresh water from melting ice being lighter than the salt water could result in less circulation of water.
Less circulation of the gulf stream means less heat conveyed from the tropics means ice age. Where are your polar trade routes now?
Will the extra year of development favor the PS3 over the 360? (I'm thinking of the way the XBox and PS2 obliterated the Dreamcast depsite its first-to-market advantage.)
Unless your work is the original source material. There's no reason you shouldn't reference something else you wrote. Reference as close to the primary source as you can, and if it happens to be your own work, so be it.
D'oh! I should have caught that.
Isn't she precious. Gonna push for an investigation. How cute.
Listen, hon, the horse left that barn behind a long time ago. Congress has made itself pretty much irrelevant. President breaks the law? They just pass a new law making whatever it was legal. They threaten to actually do their jobs and enforce some oversight? President claims he can do whatever he wants anyway. (When there was some talk about the USA PATRIOT act not getting renewed, Bush just came right out and said he could do whatever he wanted anyway as C and C. Rather than challenge that assertion, they just passed the law.)
And they gave away the store long ago with these agencies. Agencies like the FCC enact and enforce regulations without all that pesky oversight and due process they have to deal with down in congress. Better yet, agency heads don't have to worry about elections. Regulations are so much easier than laws.
What are they gonna do about it now? What did they do when all those energy executives lied to them? What did they do when all those baseball players lied to them? Mrs. Boxer and her colleagues are gonna do whatever they think they need to do to get reelected. Nothing more. They're certainly not going to do anything to anyone at the FCC.
dupe of url, url, url
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/29/123021 3
By tucking the electronic guts of the Mac right behind the LCD display, Ive's team essentially made the PC disappear. Can someone explain why this won't be the future of PC design for anyone other than gamers--or why the rest of the industry hasn't followed suit yet?
Perhaps not the rest of the industry didn't follow, but don't overlook these triumphs of industrial design.
I had the pleasure of remotely supporting a half dozen of these fine machines. The only thing that held me together was my dream of the day they would be retired, and I could take one out and go 'Office Space' on its ass.
Can I get off your lawn now?
k thanx
Apparently submitters and story-approvers decline to RTFA. As a non-subscriber, that means there are 3 groups (submitters, approvers, subscribers) who get to not read the article before I do.
Does the /. affect apply when there are already too many people not clicking the link to the article?
You want abhorrent? The US is attacked by terrorists from Saudi Arabia, with support from with in Saudi Arabia, inspired to action, in part, by an oppresive Saudi government. The response is a US invasion of...Iraq.
Can you seriously say money had no effect on the US response to 9/11?
As crazy as it sounds, isn't that exactly what has happened? I mean, I know it sounds really, really crazy, but let's look at the facts.
Terrorists from Saudi Arabia, with money from people from Saudi Arabia, inspired by the abuses of the Saudi government, attack the US, kill thousands of people.
The US responds by invading...Iraq?? While the president frolics and holds hands (literally) with the oppressive leaders of Saudi Arabia?
Saddam is on trial, Osama is a free man. I think anyone who says the US government took part in the 9/11 attacks, or at least allowed them to happen, to get public support for expanded executive powers is crazy.
But you're equally nuts if you think money had no effect on the US response to 9/11.
Isn't the top part supposed to be shiny metal?
I believe the only requirement is the, um, posterior be shiny metal.