The reason students that don't cheat get pissed off about what they consider to be rampant cheating is due to perceived costs. While both students did pay the same for their tuition, the cheating student payed a lot less in effort than their non-cheating peers. If both cheating and honest students end up with the same grades, the honest students feel like they paid more for the same results.

I suppose this has to do with a flawed mindset about what they're paying for: they feel like they are paying for their grades and you're saying that they should be paying for their education instead. Unfortunately, like qntm said, the cheaters are competition for jobs and on paper, they look just as good as the honest students, despite paying far less for their grades. Of course, I guess that this is what rigorous interviews are for.

Indeed, the argument about pirating's ease being its biggest pro ignores one of its largest demographics—teens and college students with no or little money but a huge appetite for media.

(If you want to get pedantic about it, I suppose you could say that this is just an extension of the definition of ease-of-use; members of this demographic would have to go find and work a job in order to obtain media legally. In that sense, pirating is easier.)

My mother's a public school teacher in Indiana and only some of these benefits are familiar sounding to me. Perhaps I just haven't been paying attention. Do you have any sources for these claims?

To start:

For the rule of 90: http://www.mnpera.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={079559...

For salary increased this year and over last ten: http://teacherportal.com/salary/Minnesota-teacher-salary

And that right there is half the problem. Of course, with the low salaries for teachers, all the best talent would rather work hard at something that pays well, so both the degree and the salaries would have to be changed in concert.

These guys are advertising at my university. Anyone ever heard of them?

If you're willing to become a member, you might as well take the extra step and contact your congressmen (https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml) and senator (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c...) as well.

They're downvoting you because you're not only missing the point of the article with your first comment, but because allowing this to happen would make DNS even less likely to be replaced any time soon. Once the government is involved in attempting to control the flow of traffic to different websites, any backbone essential to their method of control will stagnate and remain in place almost indefinitely. These people still use IE6 out of misplaced fears for security and a general laziness when it comes to updating, remember?

That point which I am making.

You are not getting it.

If we had followed up on proposals in the 90's for distributed DNS this article would never have needed to be written.

Is this so hard to grok?^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

Edit:

<singin'> Good night sweetheart... time to go... </singin'>

DNS is not the only place where an ISP can block a website. They could block the IP, or sniff your unencrypted requests. Look at China, they even do keyword filtering! I can see this "feature" being marketed as parental control or whatnot...