(I do hope this person was in your Stats 100 class and not the graduate course...)
My apologies for misunderstanding; I never even though about the possibility the student would tell instead of ask... I assumed "tell" was a figure of speech. I guess that says more about me then I intended, hmmm? Thanks for the clarification.
John Marden says regarding my comments yesterday "That's not exactly my point. The student should ask if he can have a make-up, not tell me he has to have one. It's just courtesy, and I'm certainly willing to listen in that case. When they demand, I get pissed off, which doesn't help their case. Actually, I'll give them a bye if they really need one."
There is nothing that UCITA can possibly grant the consumer to make it worth losing reverse engineering, inability of a company to shut your software down remotely on a whim with no liability whatsoever, and everything else that goes into UCITA. "The extensive and powerful rights granted to software companies are adequately made up for by the token protections granted to the consumers." - paraphrased quote above.
Uh... right. Reminds me of taxation reform. "I know the IRS forms have gotten immensely more complication, but thanks to groundbreaking reform by Congress, you can now easily appeal your tax problems. Just show up in person in our main office on Mars and we will speedily handle your concerns."
"The nature of a polemic is that it ignores the other side of the issue. That is true in many of the statements against UCITA. In fact, UCITA creates a number of new rights for licensees that are not present in current law. It is useful for an opponent to ignore these, but it is important not to do so if you are trying to find reality in this debate," writes Ray Nimmer.
The bill's backers also have rallied. The reporter of the UCITA drafting committee has set up his own Web site that he hopes will debunk popular myths surrounding the law.
Seattle Times: Anti-spam e-mail suit tossed out: 'The victory came when King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson dismissed a case in which the state charged Jason Heckel with violating Washington's anti-spam law. Robinson said the law, generally regarded as the nation's toughest, violates the interstate-commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.'
Heh heh... think of it from our point of view. A: There's nothing to lose! B: Maybe the Curmudgeon sticks to his syllabus, but most prof's consider it a guideline at best. It probably has worked before, or will work someday for that student.
Spring Break!: "I hate it when a student e-mails me announcing that I have to give him a make-up exam, especially when it clearly says on the syllabus that there are no make-up exams. (Sorry for venting, but I can't vent at the students. They are so sensitive.)"