Wow, that seems like a little much just to participate in the Area 51 Raid.

The question provided to the student was:

"Complete method numberOfLeapYears below. You must use isLeapYear appropriately to receive full credit."

If this were the AP Calc exam the question said:
"Calculate integral below. You must use integration by tables (see tables provided) appropriately to receive full credit." and the student use purely integration by parts or inverse trigonometric forms (without get near any of the formulas on the provided table). Student getting the correct result of course. No one would argue the student should get full credit.

The AP exam is a certification style examination. It is entirely different from a test a student normally in school or college.

In school, test are (in theory) part of a learning experience. The testis NOT about learning, it solely about evaluation.

A major function of the AP exam is to determine if the student has the knowledge and understanding they would receive from taking the corresponding college course. Reading and understanding how to answer question is part of this.

For this example the each text of the question "Complete method numberOfLeapYears below. You must use isLeapYear appropriately to receive full credit."

It should be noted that how a leap year is defined or determined is absolutely absent from this question. What a leap year is for the purpose of this question is what the isLeapYear methods returns true for.

Understanding the abstraction and how to use it specifically what the question is intended to test for. Also the test is not taken in a vacuum. It is taken after having a school-year long course designed whose curriculum is specifically designed for the test and how it should be taken.

The understanding that using a formula without touching the provided and required helper function is not the 'right answer' is part of what is being tested.

The legislation will only happen in countries where the industry (as a big players or as a group) don't have enough influence over the legislature to keep such a thing from happens.

I don't know what countries could might this goal, but it's small enough to not matter, especially when companies will just make sure they don't legally exist in those countries.

It's cynical thinking yes, but pragmatic I'm afraid.

That's ignoring the decades of legal challenges if it actually did happen, or any fallout on open source projects when companies realize the most cost effective way to mitigate this risk is to push it onto software companies.

Was this like 50+ years after the very short period of actual piracy in the Caribbean and most of the Atlantic fizzle out?

Have they be doing their pirate research with Disney movies?

I was lucky to only spend a small amount of my career dealing with the cube farm, in do computer research work.

Everyone used closed-ear headphones. In theory, people were listening to music, but many people including myself, used them regardless to both block sound and visually indicate to others "I can't hear you".
 

First, yes, It's all just theoretical discussion until there's case law. Something like this, that's pretty unlikely to happen. This is a discussion on a Internet forum, one would think discussions are just that. I don't see the need to get belligerent about it.

As I said, beyond the explicit perjury penalty, there would certainly be (in theory) penalties for falsifying information in the notification.

Personally, don't think they'd actually be criminal beyond (vi)'s explicit perjury penalty (if it applied in anyway), but was just relating the opinions of my law professors I've had the discussion with.

The main argument (ignoring any that address the grammar of the law, which very fit and miss when talking American English) is that (vi) mentions the accuracy of the information in the notification. In addition to (v) that address the good faith belief (and (v)'s mention of agency). The overlap suggests that the first clause in (vi) has to be operative in some manner for it to be included.

If you want to talk plain text (which really means little given the looseness of grammar in the law, even major SCOTUS decisions have ignored sentence clauses of the Constitution for seemingly arbitrary reasons), In (vi), neither the second or third clauses can be individually excluded with the sentence making sense. The perjury clause is subordinate to the accuracy clause, but is adjunct to the agency clause.

There's no way to parse that sentence's grammar that really makes sense, Whether you want the perjury to apply to just the agency, just the accuracy, or both. So I don't think an appeal to the 'plain text' of it clears anything up.

I doubt there's much of anything useful in terms notes on legislative intent for something that minute, but can't access that easily from off-campus anyway, and given the politeness of the discussion, I doubt it would matter.

Again, just opinion and the results of my reading and discussion with my law professors. Take it for what you want. There's no need to get rude about it.

The wording of U.S. Code 17 Â 512(c)(vi) has been interpreted that way, and to cover the entirety of the notification. Not sure what the case law is.

My professors that I've spoken with on the matter are of the opinion that either it applies to both or that if it doesn't apply to the entirety of the notification, that it be on par with statements in a federal criminal complaint (in though it's a civil matter, because of the criminal implications of copyright infringement), which if knowingly false would basically amount to perjury.

You realize how many things have to be attested to under penalty of perjury? You realize how many times people have gone to jail for the most straight-forwardly blatant fail statements in such cases? Next to none if any.

Any doubt? DMCA takedown requests have to be attested to under penalty of perjury. Ever hear of a false/improper DMCA request? How about someone going to jail for making a false one? (Keep in mind a statement made under penalty of perjury by an automated system does not make the person whose authority the system is being used under in any immune).
 

When I took AP CS in highschool, they were just switching to C++. We actually hard two years of courses and AP was the second year. I pushed to skip the first class (which was basic at the time) and after taking the final was able to.

The school didn't even normally give the exam. After some parental rage, they finely setup so I could take the exam (just me). 45 minutes of test taking earned me a 5/5. Though since all the changes in the exam at the time my college just gave credit for an elective instead of saving from taking a course.

Nothing wrong with the current page. It has severed well for a long time with minor evolutionary changes. It is familiar and comforting, and works perfectly.

I have spent much time looking at the new page, but nothing on it seemed like it gave something the old one didn't.

Unfortunately, broadband choices are very limited in most of the U.S. (elsewhere too I'm sure, but only know the states).

Where I currently live despite it being a moderate sized city, with an extreme tech community. Your only options are cable through Comcast or DSL through Centurylink. When you factor in what speed you can get where in the city. Voting with your wallet isn't much of an option.