An enormous ditch does not a supercomputer make.

I would place his whole discussion under the topic of Academic Dishonesty in general, regardless of the means by which this dishonesty occurs. I see very little difference between using notes written on the palm of your hand vice a wifi connection and some electronic device except by virtue of complication. The conclusion is that regardless of how elaborately one performs Academic Dishonesty, it doesn't lose its unacceptability - and consequently its prosecution under any accredited university's Academic Dishonesty policy. The fact that you have to ask this question means to me that your department either does not have, or has not communicated to you its Academic Dishonesty policy. For example, MIT's policy is fairly straightforward and designed to build relationships between the head of the department (i.e. your boss) and giving students the feeling that they are not being downtrodden (if they don't agree with you, they can talk to your boss.) Before you attempt to ask Slashdot, I would use this as an opportunity to have a meaningful discussion with your department head. One, to let him/her know that you exist and care about larger issues than simply "doing your job" and two, to make sure you don't end up with the short end of the stick when some student reads your school's Academic Dishonesty policy before you do, and you find out that a very wrong time that you and your department head do not agree on this subject.

One is a magnifying glass, the other is rapper.

The second photo of the screen was edited, but it appears it was modified only to reduce the brightness/contrast of the image on the screen, which exceeded the contrast ratio of the medium. Note how the hair on the individuals is darker than the rest of their bodies.

If the editing wasn't done, the screen would have been an unreadable white, which would have made for a really crappy photo.

The only "crime" here is the poor lassoing.

The "real" problem with the centrifuges that Costner invested in is that they can't possibly flow enough water to put a dent in the Gulf Oil Spill. The IEEE article's calculation of the centrifuge's capacity assumes they're basically sticking a hose right on top of the oil spill, which is hardly realistic. Even assuming that the majority of the oil spilled is in the first 3 inches of water, a 1 mile by 1 mile area would need to have 50 million gallons filtered. 3 of the centrifuges could process 600,000 gallons per day, and so would take 83 days to complete a 1 mile x 1 mile x 3 inch deep volume of water. With an oil spill covering roughly 8,000 square miles, 700,000 days would be required. So under ideal conditions (all the oil was concentrated in one spot and easy to collect), it would take over 6000 centrifuges to process the "ideal spill" in one year. I think the centrifuges could be quite useful for filtering small, localized areas (protected wetlands, beaches, coves, etc), but the open ocean is just so massive that no device could effectively take care of it. In my opinion, a solution leveraging nature itself would be ideal.

In actuality, the correct term is "exaflop." This is widely accepted vocabulary in academia - especially in Computer Science. I've never read a single paper with the kind of terminology you are ascribing to "haste". "Quintillion FLOPs" doesn't even make sense, as FLOPs are an abstract unit, not physical objects. The only flops that number in the Quintillions are those directed by Uwe Boll. Perhaps next you'd like to inform me that only the "really smart people" use the term Billihertz instead of Gigahertz? If that's the case, then us "dumb" people will let you continue on your genius-like way.

Let's think about this for a second. For the most part, it's trivial to find someone responsible for content on the internet - in any country.

The anon.penet.fi remailer was an early attempt at true email privacy, but even that experiment was terribly flawed because, among other things, it was beholden to the legal system of the Finnish government (and most famously attacked by the Church of Scientology. Weird, but true.) But why was anon.penet.fi required? It certainly wasn't because the internet was anonymous. In short - the very fact that anonymizers exist at all is basic - users are easy to identify on the internet without some fairly complex systems to allow anonymity.

Given that the internet isn't anonymous in the first place, it makes very little sense to force a lack of anonymity on the internet. It's inherently wasteful and doesn't solve any of the real problems (lack of internet access to the world's poor/rural people, running out of namespace, lack of bandwidth, last mile)

Here's an idea for you Kaspersky, go sell your worthless crap in China. They'd love it.