While it may be irksome to see him get away with this for homework, you can rely on karma catching up with him come exam time, when Google is not available.
We did have projects in our Math class that were so-called "graded course-work", larger problems which were for evaluation as muich as education, but still solved at home. Yet there was no restriction on group work - only the requirement that we had to show all steps. This pretty much made it impossible to copy down an answer without either understanding it (as intended) or having it obviously identical, to the comma, to that of another student.
(At least in the schools I've been in, and at the risk of the "True Scotsman" fallacy, any school with common sense:)
An exam tests your ability to solve problems under controlled conditions, without outside assistance. Homework is an exercise, and even if your grade depends on the homework, what is graded is essentially effort and diligence (like grading attendance). If you are assigned homework that requires you not to research or ask for assistance, why the hell did the teacher not make this a test, so the terminology remains clear? Isn't that like prohibiting people from sharing lecture notes, since getting information from a lecture you didn't attend would be "cheating"?
Seriously, does anyone not research online for homework, even if they do recall the subject matter, simply to verify that they understood it? And compare their homework with other students to check for errors? Obviously, copying homework is stupid as you fail to learn anything, but discussing and explaining homework problems is not copying; it is education. That other little thing schools are supposed to do, besides their main purpose of evaluating performance.
And I thought we had it bad here in Germany! At least our government only wants to spy on the computers of its own citizens, not the rest of the world...
Basically, after the loan shark and their lawyers are done, they are going to be so far in debt that Novell will never see a dime. That might in fact be their strategy.
Looks like so far, Clinton is ahead by six and is the projected winner, although there is a lot of room until the other 202 delegates are awarded. (I'd prefer Obama, myself...)
It probably makes it difficult for them to vote, however. So... last time it was "felon", perhaps the disenfranchisement of the year will be "alleged death"?
It will soon be confirmed: Voting the way Diebold wants you to extends your life expectancy by as much as 10-20 years, statistically!:P
In the past, the RIAA has shown that the grapes are too sour when it comes to attacking colleges whose law students and faculty stand ready to defend them. Now these same colleges are taking the fight to the RIAA? This cannot end well for the latter, I think.
Expansion of the above: I agree and am convinced by that point. Meddling with DNS records is dangerous business, but I forgot that the domain in question is international (org), and should therefore be treated with more respect by national jurisdictions.
Now the problem I see is that Bank Julius Baer has the financial clout to do the same in whichever other country they want to sue in - even though not all legal systems are as screwed up as the one in the US, so they may have more difficulty shutting it down elsewhere.
If we can't trust the underlying hosting providers to point a domain where the owner of the domain wishes to be pointed then we already have a bigger problem
... and as we know, the judge does not actually listen to any of these testimonials, but rolls a die to determine the outcome. That's why nothing that happens in a court case is interesting except the verdict.
Note regarding 2: Of course, such a hijacking would affect only the people using the DNS server in question for look-up. If some university dorm messed with the domain for its local users, that has relatively little impact. The problem results when a DNS server does this that is further upstream and is relied on by other servers.
Re:Can't these places take more assertive action?
on
EFF, ACLU Back WikiLeaks
·
· Score: 3, Informative
1.) No site was shut down. The IP address that is quoted so often is the same server as the one wikileaks.org pointed to.
2.) If any DNS provider wanted to point wikileaks.org at its actual IP address rather than behaving like a good DNS and pointing it where its registrar says it should point, they could (I'm a bit shaky on the technical aspects, but this is after all how pharming works, so it's possible).
3.) I am principally opposed to hijacking domain names like this, and so should everyone who cares about a reliable internet. If we can't trust DNS servers to return the proper zone records, we are in very deep crap, technologically. This is just short of what Pakistan did with Youtube, and of cutting deep-sea cables - Don't Mess With The Internet. I know the centrally regulated names and numbers thing has its drawbacks at times, but it beats all-out anarchy.
Pick one. Freedom of information is dangerous to every single national government, even if not all of them are as ironically honest as the US, China, Pakistan, etc. in admitting this.
Slashdot Mirror
While it may be irksome to see him get away with this for homework, you can rely on karma catching up with him come exam time, when Google is not available.
We did have projects in our Math class that were so-called "graded course-work", larger problems which were for evaluation as muich as education, but still solved at home. Yet there was no restriction on group work - only the requirement that we had to show all steps. This pretty much made it impossible to copy down an answer without either understanding it (as intended) or having it obviously identical, to the comma, to that of another student.
This is not the ominous-looking black surveillance van you are looking for.
(At least in the schools I've been in, and at the risk of the "True Scotsman" fallacy, any school with common sense:)
An exam tests your ability to solve problems under controlled conditions, without outside assistance. Homework is an exercise, and even if your grade depends on the homework, what is graded is essentially effort and diligence (like grading attendance). If you are assigned homework that requires you not to research or ask for assistance, why the hell did the teacher not make this a test, so the terminology remains clear? Isn't that like prohibiting people from sharing lecture notes, since getting information from a lecture you didn't attend would be "cheating"?
Seriously, does anyone not research online for homework, even if they do recall the subject matter, simply to verify that they understood it? And compare their homework with other students to check for errors? Obviously, copying homework is stupid as you fail to learn anything, but discussing and explaining homework problems is not copying; it is education. That other little thing schools are supposed to do, besides their main purpose of evaluating performance.
And I thought we had it bad here in Germany! At least our government only wants to spy on the computers of its own citizens, not the rest of the world...
Mh... so does he need to be alive?
At least a corpse wouldn't complain about the one-way trip!
(Hasn't got the same symbolic value, admittedly.)
Basically, after the loan shark and their lawyers are done, they are going to be so far in debt that Novell will never see a dime. That might in fact be their strategy.
It's the only way to be sure!
(Wait, technically, that *would* be effective in this case. Reprehensible, but effective.)
That was sarcasm. I'm pretty sure.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX
Looks like so far, Clinton is ahead by six and is the projected winner, although there is a lot of room until the other 202 delegates are awarded. (I'd prefer Obama, myself...)
Yes, but heaven help you if you criticize their president or ask them to change their politics.
Then you're just a meddling foreigner who doesn't have the right to criticize the US without coming to live there first.
(Of course, those who do live in the US are also not entitled to criticize - like it or leave it!)
Hypocrisy FTW!
You'd think that'd be a prime candidate for censorship.
Especially seeing as he's directly competing with them by offering cheap trips to Guantanamo!
We're sending up all those probes to build a network and prepare for the first manned exploration and (eventually) colonization.
Has anyone realized that if Mars were inhabited, this would essentially be War of the Worlds in reverse?
Little green people, prepare to be invaded!
Anyway, zombies don't eat bureaucrat brains. Same with lawyers. Professional courtesy.
It probably makes it difficult for them to vote, however. So... last time it was "felon", perhaps the disenfranchisement of the year will be "alleged death"?
:P
It will soon be confirmed: Voting the way Diebold wants you to extends your life expectancy by as much as 10-20 years, statistically!
It's certainly more economic than executing them outright. Memory holes and unpersons, here we come!
In the past, the RIAA has shown that the grapes are too sour when it comes to attacking colleges whose law students and faculty stand ready to defend them. Now these same colleges are taking the fight to the RIAA? This cannot end well for the latter, I think.
I think you should worry.
Expansion of the above: I agree and am convinced by that point. Meddling with DNS records is dangerous business, but I forgot that the domain in question is international (org), and should therefore be treated with more respect by national jurisdictions.
Now the problem I see is that Bank Julius Baer has the financial clout to do the same in whichever other country they want to sue in - even though not all legal systems are as screwed up as the one in the US, so they may have more difficulty shutting it down elsewhere.
... and as we know, the judge does not actually listen to any of these testimonials, but rolls a die to determine the outcome. That's why nothing that happens in a court case is interesting except the verdict.
Save it for when Microsoft pays up, or complies with whatever caused this fine originally.
Note regarding 2: Of course, such a hijacking would affect only the people using the DNS server in question for look-up. If some university dorm messed with the domain for its local users, that has relatively little impact. The problem results when a DNS server does this that is further upstream and is relied on by other servers.
1.) No site was shut down. The IP address that is quoted so often is the same server as the one wikileaks.org pointed to.
2.) If any DNS provider wanted to point wikileaks.org at its actual IP address rather than behaving like a good DNS and pointing it where its registrar says it should point, they could (I'm a bit shaky on the technical aspects, but this is after all how pharming works, so it's possible).
3.) I am principally opposed to hijacking domain names like this, and so should everyone who cares about a reliable internet. If we can't trust DNS servers to return the proper zone records, we are in very deep crap, technologically. This is just short of what Pakistan did with Youtube, and of cutting deep-sea cables - Don't Mess With The Internet. I know the centrally regulated names and numbers thing has its drawbacks at times, but it beats all-out anarchy.
That's what they want you to think!
(No, actually I think we might stand a chance now.)
Pick one. Freedom of information is dangerous to every single national government, even if not all of them are as ironically honest as the US, China, Pakistan, etc. in admitting this.