Apparently, there are a number of drugs that are in this same situation. They were used for years, decades, centuries? before the FDA was established, and thus were pre-approved the moment the FDA started up. I found out about this, when I saw a feature on TV about one of these: Colchicine. Recently, some company went and actually did all the testing necessary to bring it up to FDA's expectations of safeties and standards, and they found that most people were being prescribed more than they should have been. In exchange for doing all the leg work on the matter, they ended up getting an exclusive permission to market the drug for a period of time. Oddly, a form of "patent" after the fact. Of course, Colchicine can't actually be patented, just no other company can get FDA approval to make it until the companies exclusive period ends, so effectively a form of patent.
The judge might not care that it's Facebook's TOS, he should care however, that he's asking for the worse possible way to get what he wants.
Having the court order facebook to give both parties the information for both accounts is the right, "least abusable" way to go about this.
Ordering people to give over a password to someone they despise, when the only POINT of the password is that it's not known to anyone else is ludicrous.
Thinking that the only damage they can do is limited to the pranks he ordered them not to do is criminally misinformed.
The law in many countries state "ignorance of the law is no defense".
It should have a matching "no judge may be ignorant of the nature of the things he orders about.
It was up to the lawyers arguing the divorce that the other party could do damage that is more than the simple pranking. Judges cannot be held responsible for the unforseen consequences of a court order that the lawyers themselves drafted. (Don't get crazy and think that the Judge wrote up this court order himself. The parties ASKED to have this court order put in place. Most judges do not write their own orders. The lawyers draft them, and present them for signature. At best a judge might cross something out, or add a small addendum.)
Apparently, people don't understand that a Court Order absolves anyone of a breach of contract. It's a little thing called "Necessity".
For instance, it's illegal to break into someone's home and take things from them. Oh, unless you have a Court Order called a "Search Warrant".
Now, say that I rent a movie from Blockbuster. I have a contract and agreement that I will return said DVD. Now, let's say that I used the DVD as a surface to store my cocaine, when the police bust into my house to enforce that Search Warrant. They take the DVD as it is now a piece of evidence in a crime. Yay, a judge just inadvertently issued a court order that induced a breach of contract. And who cares? TOO BAD!
Let's take this one step further. The Court now issues an order saying that Facebook must provide access to the account of a known drug dealer in order to collect evidence. Facebook has to comply.
Finally, let's take the case where a corporation is under investigation about fraud and other questions about the activities of the corporation, and investigations into their finances. A court issues an injunction (court order) on said corporation saying that the corporation can no longer transfer any of its properties while it is under investigation. (Yes, highly unlikely, but it could potentially happen. I got an injunction against an individual saying that they were not allowed to make and transfers of properties.) Yet, said corporation was under contract to sell a lot or car to a particular person within 30 days. Guess what? TOO BAD, The corporation is under a legal obligation to obey the court order, and must breach the contract. If the person sues the corporation for specific performance ("hey, the contract says you have to sell, so I'm getting a court to make you sell.") Then that court will issue a ruling that it cannot issue an order for specific performance because it would require the corporation to violate a court order. The best one could possibly hope for is a finding to nullify the contract, and an order that the corporation return you to the state you were at before any partial execution of the contract, or maybe if you know know, you're willing to be patient, the court might reinterpret the contract, and give you an order for specific performance once the corporation is again able to do so, but then that could be accomplished with a new or amended contract anyways, which doesn't require the court to make a ruling at all, so why the fuck would they issue such an order?
It's crazy that all these people think they're being all smart suggesting that the judge should have given two shits about the Facebook TOS, that's not how court orders work.
He might have gotten the recount, but he would not have won the election. In early 2001, several groups went through the ballots and concluded that by counting all of the ballots that the intention of the voter could be discerned, George W. Bush won the vote in Florida. The only way for Al Gore to win was to assume that every ballot, where there was any question as to the intention of the voter, was intended to be a vote for Al Gore; even ones where the voter appeared to intend to vote for someone else, but "spoiled" their ballot in some way (such as partially marking for Al Gore and then clearly marking someone else, or marking Al Gore and then scribbling over it and marking someone else, or several other ways where an unbiased observer--or even an observer biased in favor of Al Gore, as these groups mostly were--would conclude that they intended to vote for someone other than Al Gore).
How can you use em-dashes and still mess up comma and semicolon issue? TFTFY
this is generally true anecdotally -- even if they haven't kept the same records I have.
Exactly, it's anecdote. Your records aren't even good data.
But going around believing everyone is the same?
I NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT.
I said that it was racist and jingoistic to say that foreigners are taught a culture that says that cheating is "perfectly acceptable".
No...cultures differ and values differ and this is why its great to get out of a monoculture and live with others to see the world for what it is...you might end up agreeing with your own more...or you might go back sickened by your own...I did the latter...
People widely mistake me for being a German, even though I was raised in the USA. And not just anywhere in the USA, but New Mexico, where Hispanic and "generic white culture" converge. You're preaching to the fucking choir here about cultures having varying attitudes and opinions.
However, to blanketly say that foreigners are all cheaters and quite happy to cheat, is fucking racist and jingoistic.
Since we're being grammar nazis, the comma and period should be within the quotes: "immigrate to," and "emigrate from."
As is the case with all of the arbitrary "grammar" rules, the answer actually varies on whom you ask, and I prefer "logical punctuation" in opposition to "traditional punctuation". Where—to quote Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage—it is held that "All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense."
However the word "immigrate" means literally "migrate into" (Latin: in-migrate), and "emigrate" means literally "migrate from" (Latin: out-migrate). Therefore, the preposition which they govern is not arbitrary.
Wasn't relavent to my point and I felt it added noise. There were elipsis... and reference numbers [41] [43] to show it was a partial quote. Plus a link for anyone who wanted to read the chapter and verse.
Oh, I knew it was a partial quote, that was clear enough. You did everything that was required to indicate it is a partial quote and allow people to read the quote in question. However, the text that you removed described the motivations and causes for academic misconduct by students who do not speak English as a first language.
Plus your conclusion is incomplete.
For those who cheat on essay type material, one factor is lack of english skills and a fear when they paraphrase that the meaning will be lost.
This is not a factor for those who cheat in calculus, physics, mathematics, or other non essay material, or any form of multiple choice test.
While you're certainly correct about that, the data about how much academic misconduct occurs from foreigners at UC does not indicate what they were caught for. Plagiarism is likely the most common form of catching academic misconduct, because it is the easiest to prove, and spot. How do you catch people who are cheating on a multiple-choice test? You certainly can't do it reliably, and you cannot pick it up after the test has been performed, because the test material itself contains no apparent indications of cheating. Meanwhile, with plagiarism, you have a document that is supposed to be unique, but yet contains significant portions of text produced by the original sources without attribution.
So, let's say that non-native English speakers are more likely to plagiarize out of fear of badly paraphrasing material, and plagiarism is also the most commonly spotted form of academic misconduct. Now, let's assume that this same group of students cheats no more often than native English speakers on all other forms of academic misconduct. The way statistics works, the non-native English speakers will reliably and certainly be over-represented in cases of academic misconduct. In fact, if the detection rate of plagiarism in relation to other forms of academic misconduct is high enough the same situation could be true and account entirely for the UC numbers.
Again though, this very specific incident of plagiarism being more common in non-native English speakers does not support the opinion of the original poster who claimed that their culture teaches them that cheating is perfectly acceptable. These students were likely taught no such thing, and are simply cheating now because they don't want to ruin the meaning of the original author's words without realizing that what they are doing is considered to be plagiarism.
So, unless you have citations to prove that some cultures teach their children that cheating is perfectly acceptable (à la "Cartmenez" from that South Park episode where he teaches inner city children to cheat like the rich white people), then your whole argument is pointless, as that was not my original argument.
Controversial studies are done all the time(nature vs. nurture, indicators of success, and intelligence with respect to race) but they're kept hidden or put on the media's back-burner because they're too dangerous for a touchy-feely culture. The fact that stereotypes are often offensive does not mean that they are the exception rather than the rule.
Right, but I wasn't asking for media articles that show that foreigners cheat more than Americans. I was asking for scientific papers.
In fact, if you cared, you could feel free to actually present papers to support offensive stereotypes. And I'll grant you that some of them do hold true. However, intelligence with respect to race most certainly isn't one of them. An average IQ gap exists with respect to race, but IQ != intelligence, and as well, IQ is pretty poor at accounting for social factors. People with lower income also score lower on IQ tests on average. Black people are disproportionately lower income, and Asians are disproportionately high income. Surprise! IQ gap shows up. This is of course but one theory, but it's possible, and it's not racist. And the professional institutions widely accept that there is no evidence to support the notion that there is an intelligence difference between the different races.
Entirely different line. Everything you said could be true, and the GP that I was responding to could still be false and racist.
Namely, he states that their culture is teaching them that "cheating is perfectly acceptable". Even in an authoritarian government, you understand that cheating is not ok. You just justify the cheating. Like speeding. We all know that speeding is wrong, but we all do it anyways, despite it being wrong, and us knowing that it is wrong.
One of the strongest demographic correlations with academic misconduct in the United States is with language. Students who speak English as a second language have been shown to commit academic dishonesty more and are more likely to be caught than native speakers, since they will often not want to rewrite sources in their own words, fearing that the meaning of the sentence will be lost through poor paraphrasing skills.[42] In the University of California system, international students make up 10% of the student body but comprise 47% of academic dishonesty cases.[43]
Please quote all the material rather than quote mining it. The cause for increased academic dishonesty is apparently due to less-than-optimal English skills. Which makes more sense than "their cultures tell them that cheating is ok". And certainly not the case that their culture is teaching them that "cheating is absolutely ok".
This is all anecdote. While what you're saying makes sense and is internally consistent and philosophically valid, that does not mean it is true. The same holds for things being hot because they contain massive particles of caloric.
"It's not sexist to say that women are bad drivers. Look at the roads, all crashes are caused by women drivers. I'm just speaking the truth, so it isn't sexist."
"It's not racist to say that black people aren't achieving success because they're lazy. They have a culture that frowns upon academic performance, and doing well at a job. I'm just speaking the truth, so it isn't sexist."
The problem with these statements is that they are dubious and not the "self-evident truth" that the commenter would have one believe. Thus, the "citation needed". Because he's making a generalized claim on a stereotype that foreigners are raised to be dishonest cheaters. This claim is also dubious, and it deserves to be challenged as racist, and jingoistic.
Now, sorry, it could be that a person highly respected in population studies, and with academic or at least scientific credibility did a study, and found that this was actually a true statement, and published a peer-reviewed paper about it to rave criticism. And so he just popped onto this here Slashdot, and anonymously posted something that without proper citation and backing would be clearly racist.
Of course, that requires inventing a pretty crazy outlandish entity with odd and unusual methods. I may as well believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or any of the number of gods that have graced human mythology.
Bribes aren't cheating on a test. In fact, it's typically done to dodge a "test". I will grant you though, that there are some cultures where bribes are expected. There are also cultures where the government is overthrown in a violent revolution every 50 or so years, and the rebels under the banner of "We're fighting corruption!" soon become just as corrupt and vengeful as the people they were replacing.
Some cheaters are good at what they do, and so they get an A. Some of them are good, just not great, and they get a B. Some of them are alright, but not really much better than average and they end up getting a C. Some of them just didn't try hard enough, and they get a D. Then there are the cheaters who get caught, and they get an F.
It's not surprising that cheating crosses all GPA levels. Only if we could catch them all, would they all be failed.
Out of curiosity, what was "college level" algebra?
Honestly? I have no clue. I was always ahead of the curve for the public school system here. So, I just skipped straight in to Calculus I. (I had already taken Calculus I, and II in High School, but since I didn't take any AP exams, I instead just got to sit through a lazy repeat of Calculus.)
It's not just that. A lot of people get into CS programs or pre-Med because software engineers and doctors make lots of money. There are a large number of people for whom their major is "which degree will make me the most money". Naturally, most of these people think that it's an easy-track career or something like that, and once reality sinks in they jump ship.
The CS dropout/transfer-away-from rate was so bad at my alma mater that they instituted a "pre-CS" program, which you were in until you passed college-level algebra. As I understood it, it was precisely for the reason I noted above. Everyone wanted in on the money, but weren't prepared for what it actually meant to be in a CS program, especially a CS program that evolved from a Math department, and not an engineering department. (Yes, engineering usually requires hefty amounts of math, but our program was all but pure theoretics. The last algorithms class I took didn't even have a single coding project.)
Something's wrong or lost in communication here. The entropy pool in a/dev/random implementation is designed so that even if an attacker can add a known source of numbers to it, it still doesn't decrease the real entropy in the pool. As long as my entropy estimates are correct, I could let you pick half the bits (or 99% of the bits) going into/dev/random's entropy pool and that still wouldn't help you guess the output.
Yes, but in a server most often there is no keyboard or mouse involved. So, the machines get the vast majority of their entropy from the network.
And we're talking about Theo de Radt here... it doesn't have to be a RATIONAL threat, it just has to be a theoretical one.
The OpenBSD kernel uses the mouse interrupt timing, network data interrupt latency, inter-keypress timing and disk IO information to fill an entropy pool.
So, they do use "network data interrupt latency", but not the time between sequential packets, or packet data, or anything that a remote attacker could control.
What's disappointing is that you're starting to sound more and more like CT, and I eventually had to stop reading his posts.
Eh... try not to feel too bad. I've pretty much kind of given up on reading you as well. We're just drastically different people, and you keep labeling me as "evil". By your own beliefs, you SHOULDN'T be talking to me. I mean, why place yourself into the lion's den of temptation by evil?
But then, you have done a really good job of not listening to me even when you do read my posts, so maybe you're more like the prophet Daniel, than all the other believers that have been fed to lions throughout the ages, where their god didn't choose to save them... or it could just be a really rock solid tolerance for cognitive dissonance...
cases, so it's a shame she waited. However maybe she didn't want him to go to jail and waited out the statute of limitations on purpose. She is a judge's daughter after all, she probably knew the law.
No, it seems likely that she was caught in an abusive situation. His reaction statement talked about himself in the third person, and talked about how he was providing wonderful stuff to her, like a Mercedes. This is not an uncommon tactic by abusers to create a codependency so that their abused do not feel like it would be in their interests to confront them, leave them, or anything worse (for the abuser), like report them to police, etc.
The victim noted on Anderson Cooper that she was hoping that this would force her dad to confront that he did in fact abuse her, and that he needed to apologize and get better. She seems to have failed to realize just how deep abusers are in cognitive dissonance, and that they will always minimize their actions, and convince you that it was never as bad as tapes and records of the incident would have you believe. It's kind of the horrible thing about memory, that it is so malleable, and subject to distortion.
/dev/random on most OS'ed these days uses an entropy pool generated from a bunch of different sources - timing of keystrokes, mouse movements, disk seeking - and yes, network information. Then it uses cryptographic hashes on those.
Your implementation basically uses one of those entropy sources, and then doesn't even hash it...
As I remember, OpenBSD used network details to produce entropy, but later stopped, because it allowed a remote attacker the ability to potentially poison the entropy source by carefully sending just the right packets at the right time. Cryptographically secure randomness for Theo de Radt was only satisfactory when it required physical access to the machine to manipulate.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently, there are a number of drugs that are in this same situation. They were used for years, decades, centuries? before the FDA was established, and thus were pre-approved the moment the FDA started up. I found out about this, when I saw a feature on TV about one of these: Colchicine. Recently, some company went and actually did all the testing necessary to bring it up to FDA's expectations of safeties and standards, and they found that most people were being prescribed more than they should have been. In exchange for doing all the leg work on the matter, they ended up getting an exclusive permission to market the drug for a period of time. Oddly, a form of "patent" after the fact. Of course, Colchicine can't actually be patented, just no other company can get FDA approval to make it until the companies exclusive period ends, so effectively a form of patent.
The judge might not care that it's Facebook's TOS, he should care however, that he's asking for the worse possible way to get what he wants.
Having the court order facebook to give both parties the information for both accounts is the right, "least abusable" way to go about this.
Ordering people to give over a password to someone they despise, when the only POINT of the password is that it's not known to anyone else is ludicrous.
Thinking that the only damage they can do is limited to the pranks he ordered them not to do is criminally misinformed.
The law in many countries state "ignorance of the law is no defense".
It should have a matching "no judge may be ignorant of the nature of the things he orders about.
It was up to the lawyers arguing the divorce that the other party could do damage that is more than the simple pranking. Judges cannot be held responsible for the unforseen consequences of a court order that the lawyers themselves drafted. (Don't get crazy and think that the Judge wrote up this court order himself. The parties ASKED to have this court order put in place. Most judges do not write their own orders. The lawyers draft them, and present them for signature. At best a judge might cross something out, or add a small addendum.)
This deserves to be +5 Insightful.
Apparently, people don't understand that a Court Order absolves anyone of a breach of contract. It's a little thing called "Necessity".
For instance, it's illegal to break into someone's home and take things from them. Oh, unless you have a Court Order called a "Search Warrant".
Now, say that I rent a movie from Blockbuster. I have a contract and agreement that I will return said DVD. Now, let's say that I used the DVD as a surface to store my cocaine, when the police bust into my house to enforce that Search Warrant. They take the DVD as it is now a piece of evidence in a crime. Yay, a judge just inadvertently issued a court order that induced a breach of contract. And who cares? TOO BAD!
Let's take this one step further. The Court now issues an order saying that Facebook must provide access to the account of a known drug dealer in order to collect evidence. Facebook has to comply.
Finally, let's take the case where a corporation is under investigation about fraud and other questions about the activities of the corporation, and investigations into their finances. A court issues an injunction (court order) on said corporation saying that the corporation can no longer transfer any of its properties while it is under investigation. (Yes, highly unlikely, but it could potentially happen. I got an injunction against an individual saying that they were not allowed to make and transfers of properties.) Yet, said corporation was under contract to sell a lot or car to a particular person within 30 days. Guess what? TOO BAD, The corporation is under a legal obligation to obey the court order, and must breach the contract. If the person sues the corporation for specific performance ("hey, the contract says you have to sell, so I'm getting a court to make you sell.") Then that court will issue a ruling that it cannot issue an order for specific performance because it would require the corporation to violate a court order. The best one could possibly hope for is a finding to nullify the contract, and an order that the corporation return you to the state you were at before any partial execution of the contract, or maybe if you know know, you're willing to be patient, the court might reinterpret the contract, and give you an order for specific performance once the corporation is again able to do so, but then that could be accomplished with a new or amended contract anyways, which doesn't require the court to make a ruling at all, so why the fuck would they issue such an order?
It's crazy that all these people think they're being all smart suggesting that the judge should have given two shits about the Facebook TOS, that's not how court orders work.
He might have gotten the recount, but he would not have won the election. In early 2001, several groups went through the ballots and concluded that by counting all of the ballots that the intention of the voter could be discerned, George W. Bush won the vote in Florida. The only way for Al Gore to win was to assume that every ballot, where there was any question as to the intention of the voter, was intended to be a vote for Al Gore; even ones where the voter appeared to intend to vote for someone else, but "spoiled" their ballot in some way (such as partially marking for Al Gore and then clearly marking someone else, or marking Al Gore and then scribbling over it and marking someone else, or several other ways where an unbiased observer--or even an observer biased in favor of Al Gore, as these groups mostly were--would conclude that they intended to vote for someone other than Al Gore).
How can you use em-dashes and still mess up comma and semicolon issue? TFTFY
this is generally true anecdotally -- even if they haven't kept the same records I have.
Exactly, it's anecdote. Your records aren't even good data.
But going around believing everyone is the same?
I NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT.
I said that it was racist and jingoistic to say that foreigners are taught a culture that says that cheating is "perfectly acceptable".
No...cultures differ and values differ and this is why its great to get out of a monoculture and live with others to see the world for what it is...you might end up agreeing with your own more...or you might go back sickened by your own...I did the latter...
People widely mistake me for being a German, even though I was raised in the USA. And not just anywhere in the USA, but New Mexico, where Hispanic and "generic white culture" converge. You're preaching to the fucking choir here about cultures having varying attitudes and opinions.
However, to blanketly say that foreigners are all cheaters and quite happy to cheat, is fucking racist and jingoistic.
"immigrate to", and "emigrate from".
Since we're being grammar nazis, the comma and period should be within the quotes: "immigrate to," and "emigrate from."
As is the case with all of the arbitrary "grammar" rules, the answer actually varies on whom you ask, and I prefer "logical punctuation" in opposition to "traditional punctuation". Where—to quote Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage—it is held that "All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense."
However the word "immigrate" means literally "migrate into" (Latin: in-migrate), and "emigrate" means literally "migrate from" (Latin: out-migrate). Therefore, the preposition which they govern is not arbitrary.
(/pedantry)
Yes, butt i am shore my English is better then you're British. ... that should be fun for you! ;)
*head explodes*
Wasn't relavent to my point and I felt it added noise. ... and reference numbers [41] [43] to show it was a partial quote. Plus a link for anyone who wanted to read the chapter and verse.
There were elipsis
Oh, I knew it was a partial quote, that was clear enough. You did everything that was required to indicate it is a partial quote and allow people to read the quote in question. However, the text that you removed described the motivations and causes for academic misconduct by students who do not speak English as a first language.
Plus your conclusion is incomplete.
For those who cheat on essay type material, one factor is lack of english skills and a fear when they paraphrase that the meaning will be lost.
This is not a factor for those who cheat in calculus, physics, mathematics, or other non essay material, or any form of multiple choice test.
While you're certainly correct about that, the data about how much academic misconduct occurs from foreigners at UC does not indicate what they were caught for. Plagiarism is likely the most common form of catching academic misconduct, because it is the easiest to prove, and spot. How do you catch people who are cheating on a multiple-choice test? You certainly can't do it reliably, and you cannot pick it up after the test has been performed, because the test material itself contains no apparent indications of cheating. Meanwhile, with plagiarism, you have a document that is supposed to be unique, but yet contains significant portions of text produced by the original sources without attribution.
So, let's say that non-native English speakers are more likely to plagiarize out of fear of badly paraphrasing material, and plagiarism is also the most commonly spotted form of academic misconduct. Now, let's assume that this same group of students cheats no more often than native English speakers on all other forms of academic misconduct. The way statistics works, the non-native English speakers will reliably and certainly be over-represented in cases of academic misconduct. In fact, if the detection rate of plagiarism in relation to other forms of academic misconduct is high enough the same situation could be true and account entirely for the UC numbers.
Again though, this very specific incident of plagiarism being more common in non-native English speakers does not support the opinion of the original poster who claimed that their culture teaches them that cheating is perfectly acceptable. These students were likely taught no such thing, and are simply cheating now because they don't want to ruin the meaning of the original author's words without realizing that what they are doing is considered to be plagiarism.
So, unless you have citations to prove that some cultures teach their children that cheating is perfectly acceptable (à la "Cartmenez" from that South Park episode where he teaches inner city children to cheat like the rich white people), then your whole argument is pointless, as that was not my original argument.
The grammar nazi in me requires me to point this out: "immigrate to", and "emigrate from".
Controversial studies are done all the time(nature vs. nurture, indicators of success, and intelligence with respect to race) but they're kept hidden or put on the media's back-burner because they're too dangerous for a touchy-feely culture. The fact that stereotypes are often offensive does not mean that they are the exception rather than the rule.
Right, but I wasn't asking for media articles that show that foreigners cheat more than Americans. I was asking for scientific papers.
In fact, if you cared, you could feel free to actually present papers to support offensive stereotypes. And I'll grant you that some of them do hold true. However, intelligence with respect to race most certainly isn't one of them. An average IQ gap exists with respect to race, but IQ != intelligence, and as well, IQ is pretty poor at accounting for social factors. People with lower income also score lower on IQ tests on average. Black people are disproportionately lower income, and Asians are disproportionately high income. Surprise! IQ gap shows up. This is of course but one theory, but it's possible, and it's not racist. And the professional institutions widely accept that there is no evidence to support the notion that there is an intelligence difference between the different races.
Entirely different line. Everything you said could be true, and the GP that I was responding to could still be false and racist.
Namely, he states that their culture is teaching them that "cheating is perfectly acceptable". Even in an authoritarian government, you understand that cheating is not ok. You just justify the cheating. Like speeding. We all know that speeding is wrong, but we all do it anyways, despite it being wrong, and us knowing that it is wrong.
One of the strongest demographic correlations with academic misconduct in the United States is with language. Students who speak English as a second language have been shown to commit academic dishonesty more and are more likely to be caught than native speakers, since they will often not want to rewrite sources in their own words, fearing that the meaning of the sentence will be lost through poor paraphrasing skills.[42] In the University of California system, international students make up 10% of the student body but comprise 47% of academic dishonesty cases.[43]
Please quote all the material rather than quote mining it. The cause for increased academic dishonesty is apparently due to less-than-optimal English skills. Which makes more sense than "their cultures tell them that cheating is ok". And certainly not the case that their culture is teaching them that "cheating is absolutely ok".
This is all anecdote. While what you're saying makes sense and is internally consistent and philosophically valid, that does not mean it is true. The same holds for things being hot because they contain massive particles of caloric.
"It's not sexist to say that women are bad drivers. Look at the roads, all crashes are caused by women drivers. I'm just speaking the truth, so it isn't sexist."
"It's not racist to say that black people aren't achieving success because they're lazy. They have a culture that frowns upon academic performance, and doing well at a job. I'm just speaking the truth, so it isn't sexist."
The problem with these statements is that they are dubious and not the "self-evident truth" that the commenter would have one believe. Thus, the "citation needed". Because he's making a generalized claim on a stereotype that foreigners are raised to be dishonest cheaters. This claim is also dubious, and it deserves to be challenged as racist, and jingoistic.
Now, sorry, it could be that a person highly respected in population studies, and with academic or at least scientific credibility did a study, and found that this was actually a true statement, and published a peer-reviewed paper about it to rave criticism. And so he just popped onto this here Slashdot, and anonymously posted something that without proper citation and backing would be clearly racist.
Of course, that requires inventing a pretty crazy outlandish entity with odd and unusual methods. I may as well believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or any of the number of gods that have graced human mythology.
Bribes aren't cheating on a test. In fact, it's typically done to dodge a "test". I will grant you though, that there are some cultures where bribes are expected. There are also cultures where the government is overthrown in a violent revolution every 50 or so years, and the rebels under the banner of "We're fighting corruption!" soon become just as corrupt and vengeful as the people they were replacing.
But then none of this is academic dishonesty.
Some pretty jingoistic racist shit, about foreigners seeing nothing wrong with cheating.
Citation needed.
Some cheaters are good at what they do, and so they get an A. Some of them are good, just not great, and they get a B. Some of them are alright, but not really much better than average and they end up getting a C. Some of them just didn't try hard enough, and they get a D. Then there are the cheaters who get caught, and they get an F.
It's not surprising that cheating crosses all GPA levels. Only if we could catch them all, would they all be failed.
Out of curiosity, what was "college level" algebra?
Honestly? I have no clue. I was always ahead of the curve for the public school system here. So, I just skipped straight in to Calculus I. (I had already taken Calculus I, and II in High School, but since I didn't take any AP exams, I instead just got to sit through a lazy repeat of Calculus.)
It's not just that. A lot of people get into CS programs or pre-Med because software engineers and doctors make lots of money. There are a large number of people for whom their major is "which degree will make me the most money". Naturally, most of these people think that it's an easy-track career or something like that, and once reality sinks in they jump ship.
The CS dropout/transfer-away-from rate was so bad at my alma mater that they instituted a "pre-CS" program, which you were in until you passed college-level algebra. As I understood it, it was precisely for the reason I noted above. Everyone wanted in on the money, but weren't prepared for what it actually meant to be in a CS program, especially a CS program that evolved from a Math department, and not an engineering department. (Yes, engineering usually requires hefty amounts of math, but our program was all but pure theoretics. The last algorithms class I took didn't even have a single coding project.)
Something's wrong or lost in communication here. The entropy pool in a /dev/random implementation is designed so that even if an attacker can add a known source of numbers to it, it still doesn't decrease the real entropy in the pool. As long as my entropy estimates are correct, I could let you pick half the bits (or 99% of the bits) going into /dev/random's entropy pool and that still wouldn't help you guess the output.
Yes, but in a server most often there is no keyboard or mouse involved. So, the machines get the vast majority of their entropy from the network.
And we're talking about Theo de Radt here... it doesn't have to be a RATIONAL threat, it just has to be a theoretical one.
Going to the source:
The OpenBSD kernel uses the mouse interrupt timing, network data interrupt latency, inter-keypress timing and disk IO information to fill an entropy pool.
So, they do use "network data interrupt latency", but not the time between sequential packets, or packet data, or anything that a remote attacker could control.
Reading through the summary... I have to say, I don't think I could possibly come up with a more cogent response than this one here.
Nonsense in, nonsense out.
By my own beliefs, I'm commanded to love you and not see you as evil, even if I think what you support is evil.
*cough*COGNITIVE DISSONANCE*cough*
What's disappointing is that you're starting to sound more and more like CT, and I eventually had to stop reading his posts.
Eh... try not to feel too bad. I've pretty much kind of given up on reading you as well. We're just drastically different people, and you keep labeling me as "evil". By your own beliefs, you SHOULDN'T be talking to me. I mean, why place yourself into the lion's den of temptation by evil?
But then, you have done a really good job of not listening to me even when you do read my posts, so maybe you're more like the prophet Daniel, than all the other believers that have been fed to lions throughout the ages, where their god didn't choose to save them... or it could just be a really rock solid tolerance for cognitive dissonance...
cases, so it's a shame she waited. However maybe she didn't want him to go to jail and waited out the statute of limitations on purpose. She is a judge's daughter after all, she probably knew the law.
No, it seems likely that she was caught in an abusive situation. His reaction statement talked about himself in the third person, and talked about how he was providing wonderful stuff to her, like a Mercedes. This is not an uncommon tactic by abusers to create a codependency so that their abused do not feel like it would be in their interests to confront them, leave them, or anything worse (for the abuser), like report them to police, etc.
The victim noted on Anderson Cooper that she was hoping that this would force her dad to confront that he did in fact abuse her, and that he needed to apologize and get better. She seems to have failed to realize just how deep abusers are in cognitive dissonance, and that they will always minimize their actions, and convince you that it was never as bad as tapes and records of the incident would have you believe. It's kind of the horrible thing about memory, that it is so malleable, and subject to distortion.
/dev/random on most OS'ed these days uses an entropy pool generated from a bunch of different sources - timing of keystrokes, mouse movements, disk seeking - and yes, network information. Then it uses cryptographic hashes on those.
Your implementation basically uses one of those entropy sources, and then doesn't even hash it...
As I remember, OpenBSD used network details to produce entropy, but later stopped, because it allowed a remote attacker the ability to potentially poison the entropy source by carefully sending just the right packets at the right time. Cryptographically secure randomness for Theo de Radt was only satisfactory when it required physical access to the machine to manipulate.