Sam Harris speaks with Barton Gellman about election integrity and the safeguarding of American democracy. They discuss the war games he's run to test our response to an authoritarian president, using federal troops against American citizens, the difference between laws and norms, state powers to resist the federal government, voter identification and election integrity, political control over election certifications, the Bush-Gore election, the Electoral Count Reform Act, the prospect of public unrest after the November election, January 6th, George Soros, the "good people on both sides" calumny against Trump, what happens to Trump and Trumpism if Harris wins in November, the presidential debate with Harris, the authoritarian potential of a second Trump term, Project 2025, and other topics.

Fingerprint is a general purpose data integrity tool that uses cryptographic hashes to detect changes in files and directory trees. The fingerprint command scans a directory tree and generates a fingerprint file containing the names and cryptographic hashes of the files in the tree. This snapshot can be later used to generate a list of files that have been created, deleted or modified. If so much as a single bit in the file data has changed, Fingerprint will detect it.

"You buy a khaki pants And all of a sudden you say a Indiana Jones An' a thief out gold and thief out the scrolls and even the buried bones" criticism on how people change their appearances so easily, acclaim status/right just because they can conform to social appearances - doesn't mean that they actually are who they say they or they really mean what they do/represent. like those televangelists with their fake/unproductive compassion and care. what change are they really doing to help humanity as a whole, when they are truly only looking out for themselves and their own comfort/security, while projecting their own existence/ideologies on others. criticism on the right/ownership of ancient artifacts, knowledge and discoveries. people who claim to own knowledge or ancient artifacts are actually theives who are stealing and exploting humanity, what belongs to everyone.

Faculty who suspect a student of plagiarism or some form of academic dishonesty must report the suspicion to the Dean of Students via The Office of Student Conduct and Conduct Resolution (OSCCR). OSCCR will investigate the allegation and determine the course of action. It is against Regents’ Rules and Regulations for faculty to make a determination independent of OSCCR. According to UTEP’s Handbook of Operating Procedures Section 4.14, “such action is a disciplinary penalty that violates the student’s right to due process and leaves the faculty member vulnerable to a student grievance petition, a civil lawsuit, and possible disciplinary action by the University.” More information is available in the HOOP.

For students and educators alike, it's important to think about academic integrity as a learned concept.

Whether in history, social studies, science, or literature, most East Asian students are discouraged from producing original work in an academic setting and instead advised to remember and repeat the ideas of the masters in those subject areas as a form of respect.

nursing students, for example, are focused on the concept of caring for others and illustrate collectivist culture, in both academic study and clinical practice. It is often natural for nursing students to project caring for patients to helping at-risk cohorts in the form of academic collusion.

Students that grow up with this perspective may not understand why citations at the end of a research paper are important; furthermore, citations might even make them feel uncomfortable, as they recognize individual authors above the community as a whole.

A collectivist culture is one that prioritizes the goals and desires of the whole over the needs of the individual. Often in East Asian countries like South Korea, Japan, and China, ideas that are beneficial to and shared by the community are not individually attributed, but rather recognized as universal knowledge.

But that practice fails to recognize that students are responsible for their own computer access and stable internet connection.  Although the District-sponsored Learning Manage System will, from time to time, have problems, students need to accept responsibility for their own actions, actions that might be conveniently blamed on an impersonal component of technology.

It is a violation of the academic honesty and intellectual integrity policies of SBVC to log in to someone else's account and pretend to be that person.

heating includes giving information, materials, or work to another person in or

State Issued Driver’s License, State Identification Card, Military Identification Card, Passport/Visa, Permanent Residence Card

Method: Instructors use check-ins and/or office hours to discuss content, previous assignments, and progress on existing assignments.   Process: Instructors ask for identification and/or confirm student identity via official UConn photo in StudentAdmin.

Instructors should check student identity by verifying IDs in a one-on-one online meeting prior to the presentation.

Federal Regulation §602.17: Application of Standards in Reaching Accreditation Decisions requires that all public universities have processes in place through which the institution establishes that a student who registers in any course offered via distance education or correspondence is the same student who academically engages in the course or program; and makes clear in writing that institutions must use processes that protect student privacy and notify students of any projected additional student charges associated with the verification of student identity at the time of registration or enrollment. Please see the Electronic Code Federal Regulations for more information.

The ethical standards outlined above apply throughout the academic community.  These guidelines apply to faculty and research assistants in their possible use of students’ and colleagues’ research and ideas, as well as to students’ use either of source materials and authorities or of other students’ ideas and work.

others result from sloppy scholarship or failure to follow proper format for crediting sources.  For example:

Plagiarism is taking credit for someone else’s ideas, work, or words.

All academic relationships ought to be governed by a sense of honor, fair play, trust, and a readiness to give appropriate credit to the intellectual endeavors of others where such credit is due. Since the academic community expects that the process of intellectual and creative endeavor is beneficial to a student, the student's original work, created in response to each assignment, is normally expected. The following rules and guidelines are intended not to replace an atmosphere of trust and cooperation in the pursuit of knowledge, but rather to assure due process and to provide guidelines for action in those instances where the proper relationships and attitudes have broken down.

If plagiarism is suspected, students might be asked to defend or verify their work as their own in one of the following ways: Present notes, drafts, or works cited Produce an on-demand work sample Present an oral defense of work in question

malpractice outlined by the IB Organization as behavior that results in, or may result in, the candidate or any other candidate gaining an unfair advantage in one or more assessment components. The following definitions are helpful in understanding our complete definition of malpractice: Plagiarism is taking credit for someone else’s words, work or ideas without giving them credit. Collusion is letting someone copy from you or letting someone turn in your work as theirs. Duplication of work is turning in the same assignment for two or more classes. Misconduct during an assessment is copying someone’s answers, letting someone copy your work, looking up answers, bringing answers into the test room, or using tools/material that the teacher has not approved. Confidentiality is not sharing assessment content, question, or answers with students who have not yet taken the assessment.

The author made an observation that it is possible to draw a link between plagiarism and the concept of "loyalty" (based on Sykes and Matza 1957) that can be exploited to explain students’ attitudes and improper academic practices. The author believes that the interviewed students commit plagiarism not because of their unethical or immoral intentions, but rather due to specific hierarchy of values that they follow.

Writing for an audience keeps me honest.

was contributed by a member of the collective in the hours before the event

If more Americans were like TV Tropes’ users—that is, if they could spot the recurring motifs in purported political plots—might they also be better at separating fact from fiction?

As part of the Election Integrity Partnership, my team at the Stanford Internet Observatory studies online rumors, and how they spread across the internet in real time.

The more community members are free to gain governance power and influence the protocol, the easier it is for attackers to use that same mechanism to make malicious changes. 

Conversely, preserving one’s own integrity is a way to protect shared trust and therefore effectiveness.

So where does this leave us? The Open Network Learning Mooc has a focus on using open platforms and Open Education Resources; except for the Adobe Connect Pro software being used for webinars. This model of openness signifies a significant move forward in making education accessible and flexible for all participants. However there is still a long way to go before the huge amounts of knowledge and information locked down in courses and databases is made more available. In Primary schools, with the majority of students under 13, an LMS seems logical because of privacy issues. However for older students, university students in particular, and all of the life-long learners out there who can’t access/afford/etc formal learning, open learning makes far more sense. A brilliant debate, carried out over a series of blog posts is a must read for anyone interested in this area. It begins with a polemic by Leigh Blackall, stating there is no need for any type of learning environment at all…and is responded to by Dave Cormier who points out some salient arguments for the PLE. Harold Jarache and Miguel Guhlin join in the debate (see the comments) with responses of their own (sadly the links to these are now dead :-(). These great minds were debating over 5 years ago a topic that is still developing today.

Data integrity is a good thing. Constraining the values allowed by your application at the database-level, rather than at the application-level, is a more robust way of ensuring your data stays sane.

The existence of polymorphic associations does not allow the database to enforce referential integrity, however, because no foreign keys can be defined.

Good point. In my example, cardinalities would be fundamentally different: an Entry could have_many :messages and have_many :comments. In the original example, a Message could have_many :entries, etc. In either case, there's no way to enforce the cardinalities at the database level (not that I'm aware of).

adolescent birth rate

2019, c. 29, s. 301

Veränderbarkeit,

they have integrity, and integrity means something right now.

“That’s why we’re rolling up our sleeves to register conservative-leaning voters who have been overlooked, to regularly engage more communities, and to strengthen election integrity across our state.”

Integrity is distributed among nodes, not vested in a single member.

undermine the integrity of the Version of Record, which is the foundation of the scientific record, and its associated codified mechanisms for corrections, retractions and data disclosure. 

I haven't met anyone who makes this argument who then says that a one stop convenient, reliable, private and secure online learning environment can’t be achieved using common every day online systems

This all comes as part of a wider global shift towards more open research practices, and the geochemistry community needs to make sure it is engaging widely with these, as well as connected issues like research integrity and reproducibility, if it is to maintain its relevance in the modern research age.

research integrity and reproducibility, if it is to maintain its relevance in the modern research age

your integrity lies in how you manage your data and the data of those with whom you work and live

Save time and cost

HONESTY, DEDICATION & PASSION

ADVISORS & TRUE PARTNERS

EXPERTS IN RISK MANAGEMENT

EXCELENT CUSTOMER SUPPORT

ALWAYS AVAILABLE & RESPONSIVE

STREAMLINED PROCESS

WHY CHOOSE INTEGRITY

“We are a people-focused staffing organization and integrity is our business.”At Integrity Staffing we provide reliable and strategic workforce solutions to a variety of industries. We believe that a great company dynamic can transform the world, but first you must hire with integrity and honesty.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam at porttitor sem. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec placerat nisl magna, et faucibus arcu condimentum sed. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam at porttitor sem. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec placerat nisl magna, et faucibus arcu condimentum sed.

Get matched with the right company

Choose from a variety of job types in diffreent industries

Stop getting ignored, get in front of a decision maker quicker

Benefit from established relationships with businesses looking to hire

Explains what problems you solve for job seekers. Aliquam at porttitor sem. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec placerat nisl magna, et faucibus arcu condimentum sed. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam at porttitor sem. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec placerat nisl magna, et faucibus arcu condimentum sed.

Alleviate Huaman Resourses

Expedite the hiring process

Explains what problem you sold for businesses looking to hire. Aliquam at porttitor sem. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec placerat nisl magna, et faucibus arcu condimentum sed. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam at porttitor sem. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec placerat nisl magna, et faucibus arcu condimentum sed.

But there’s, I think there is a question of how you interpret the data, even ... ifthe experiments are very well designed. And, in terms of advice—not that I’mgoing to say that it’s shocking—but one of my mentors, whom I very muchrespect as a scientist—I think he’s extraordinarily good—advised me to alwaysput the most positive spin you can on your data. And if you try to present, like,present your data objectively, like in a job seminar, you’re guaranteed tonotgetthe job

You are. And you know what the problems are in doing the experiments. And ifyou, in your mind, think that there should be one more control—because youknow this stuff better than anybody else because you’re doing it, you know—you decided not to do that, not to bring up what the potential difficulties are, youhave a better chance of getting that paper published. But it’s—I don’t think it’sthe right thing to do.

dishonesty occursmore with the postdoc. Because they want to get the data—whereas if they don’tpublish, they don’t move on. And they, I think, are more likely to sort of fudge alittle bit here and there if they need to get the data done. Unless, like you say, youwatch them.

One mid-career scientist told a story of how he and others in his lab counteractedan abuse of power by his mentor, a senior scientist, while he was in training. Hismentor received a manuscript to review that was authored by a ‘‘quasi-competitor.’’It presented results of experiments similar to those that were going on in thementor’s lab. The scientist continued, ‘‘That paper ... basically would have beat usto the punch. They would have published these results before us, and they wouldhave gotten credit, and not us. And my mentor, God bless him, sat on the paper.’’The mentor not only delayed writing the review but asked someone working in thelab to write it (a move of questionable ethicality in itself). That lab person and ourrespondent decided, in response, to stall their own work, so that their lab would nothave an unfair advantage over the group who submitted the paper for review. In theend, the original group got credit for the findings, while the respondent’s lab wasalso able to publish their slightly different findings. He ended his story with,‘‘Sometimes you’re in an awkward position, and you try to do the best thing you canunder the circumstances, within your own internal ethical clock or whatever. Andsometimes it’s ugly and it’s imperfect, but it’s the only thing you can do. If we hadgone to the mentor and voiced this objection, our careers would have been over. Ifwe had approached the journal—God forbid, forget it.’’ The speaker qualified thisstory by saying that it made him sound much more ethical than he actually is.

The focus-group discussions showed, however, that scientists see peer review asaffording a unique, even protected opportunity for competitors to take advantage ofthem. In this sense, competition infects the peer review process, not only throughscientists’ competition with other applicants, but also through scientists’ distrust ofthe reviewers themselves, as competitors. The following exchange among mid-career discussants shows their sense of vulnerability

Richard B. Freeman and colleagues [28] havecharacterized the problem as follows: ‘‘Research in the biosciences fits a tournamenteconomic structure. A tournament offers participants the chance of winning a bigprize—an independent research career, tenure, a named chair, scientific renown,awards—through competition.... It fosters intense competition by amplifying smalldifferences in productivity into large differences in recognition and reward. Well-structured tournaments stimulate competition. Because the differences in rewardsexceed the differences in output, there is a disproportionate incentive to ‘win’’’(p.2293). Research environments in which only small numbers of scientists have theopportunity to gain significant attention increase the competitive stakes: playing thegame may be a gamble, but the payoff for winning is significant [28,36]

Another perspective sees competition as a function not just of funding, but of thebalance between supply and demand of resources, particularly human resources. Inthe current competitive system, young scientists are pitted against one another forattractive career opportunities that are becoming increasingly scarce [28].Researchers, feeling the pressure to be first to present findings in their fields,employ armies of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows and strive to maketheir laboratory groups the smartest and the fastest. The result is a ‘‘postdocbottleneck’’ [29] where the supply for highly educated and trained researchers farexceeds the demand [30–33]. In concrete terms, Donald Kennedy and colleagues[34] have described the structural problem as a source of excess supply of humancapital: ‘‘We’ve arranged to produce more knowledge workers than we can employ,creating a labor-excess economy that keeps labor costs down and productivity high’’(p. 1105). The system produces, they claim, a ‘‘legion of the discontented’’ [34].They argue that institutional and policy decisions about training scientists should becoupled to placement histories of recent graduates, numbers of intellectual offspringof faculty, and job markets for scientists. Roger L. Geiger [35] has suggested thatthe imbalance between supply and demand is due in part to deficiencies in graduate

Analysts differ as to the reasons why competition has intensified. Some see thesituation in terms of money. Tempering the effects of competition is not a primeimpetus behind calls by the National Science Board [26] and by a recent coalition of140 college presidents and other leaders [27] for more federal funding for scientificresearch; however, some scientists see such advocacy movements in terms of easingcertain aspects of competition that are worsened by tight dollars. More money, morepositions, and overall expansion of the research enterprise would improve thesituation

here are indications, however, that the natureof competition has changed in recent years. Goodstein [25] argues that this shift islinked to negative outcomes:Throughout most of its history, science was constrained only by the limits ofits participants’ imagination and creativity. In the past few decades, however,that state of affairs has changed dramatically. Science is now held back mainlyby the number of research posts and the amount of research funds available.What had been a purely intellectual competition has become an intensestruggle for scarce resources. In the long run, this change, which is permanentand irreversible, will probably have an undesirable effect on ethical behavioramong scientists. Instances of scientific fraud will almost surely become morecommon, as will other forms of scientific misconduct (p. 31)

It is negatively correlated with subscription tonormative systems (either traditional or alternative) and sense of community

Melissa S.Anderson [20] furthermore found that a competitive departmental environment inscience is positively correlated with exposure to misconduct, fears of retaliation forwhistle-blowing, and conflic

Empirical findings show a strong, positive relationship between the level ofperceived competition in an academic department and the likelihood that depart-mental members will observe misconduct among their colleagues [19]

Because science is a cumulative, interconnected, andcompetitive enterprise, with tensions among the various societies in which researchis conducted, now more than ever researchers must balance collaboration andcollegiality with competition and secrecy

Work/Life Integrity

How do you eat dinner from your Center? How do you play Pictionary from your Center? How do you hug someone from your Center? How do you observe the scenery from your Center? I am not going to answer that. I am going to say, explore doing it! And explore doing it on purpose, just as much as you engage in Workshops and private conversations from your Center on purpose. And remember, because this is the key point for you at this time, that in doing it, you will experience the integrity, the congruence, the Peace of your Being which is fulfilling, and will constitute an experience of Self—minus fear, minus the sense of incompetence, minus all the characteristics of the sidekick.

If you will pay attention, and if you will accept the fact that the experience of fulfillment you are having is an experience of congruence with your Self, you will realize that the integrity of it hasn’t been derived from me and not from you. And because it constitutes a real experience of You, there is even less reason for you to release it at the end of the last conversation [of the day] as though now all there is left is you—meaning the sidekick.

It is only the experience of Integrity, which you have when you are Knowing, that will promote the willing release of any desire to shift back to ignorance, to shift back to fear. You see, just because something is familiar does not mean it is actually desirable. It may feel comfortable, but it does not feel fulfilling, because it does not embrace fulfillment. It is not an experience of congruence or unity. That which is familiar does not provide peace—the Peace of your Being. And when you are feeling the Peace of your Being, as you are right now, it is obvious to you that the familiar does not include this experience.

Now, it is important for you and I to speak regularly, as we are doing, because just as meditating reminds you of the experience of centeredness, our conversing reminds you of the nature of the experience of Knowing, which provides you with the clear perspective of the pleasure of It, the Integrity of It, the naturalness of It, and the fact that in the experience of It there is no loss of any experience of Self, including, as I said, identity and identification—what might be called mind and body. The experience of It does not convey or substantiate the sidekick, the sidekick’s judgments, or the sidekick’s sense of separation. You must be reminded of this because it helps to substantiate to you the desirability of not being fragmented, the desirability of not experiencing fear, the desirability of not being “bumbling,” the desirability of not experiencing incompetence, the desirability of releasing the sidekick.

You see, you are still listening to me, aren’t you? You are still conceptualizing what is happening as though you are listening to me, and you are eager. This is wonderful, because it simply means that full permission is being given. But, I will remind you that it is your Self which you are listening to, and it is an experience of Integrity. It is an experience of You, and truly not something separate from you, because I am not a person. I am the Voice for Truth. And there are not many voices for Truth, there is just the Voice for Truth. And you are the Voice for Truth—the utterly same Voice for Truth. When you listen to me, you listen to You. And when you listen to You, you listen to me. But what you must come to embrace and embody as your conscious awareness is the fact that it is You; that every word which is being experienced at this moment is You in the act of being Who You truly Are. Where is the imaginary sidekick, Bumbling Paul, at this moment? Nowhere! Never was anywhere. So, conceptually speaking, you could say that you will either be talking with me/Yourself or opening your mouth and saying what me/Yourself is being the Knowing of. You are at a point where you truly can release the idea that an experience or sense of authorship will accompany true Being, and just be the experience, the presence of It happening!

Again I am going to reiterate: Avoid thinking! If you want to have the stimulation of insight, don’t think. Listen! And listen to me. Then the amplifications which you expect to arrive at through thinking, but will not, will be present in the nature of the dialogue, the connection. Then the specifics that you would hope to arrive at through thinking will come as Knowing, and further substantiate the shift of weight of emphasis of attention to you, and thus disengage you further from the distorted self-perception that you have thought was really you. Again: If you want to understand, don’t think. Listen. Dialogue. Actively speak with me. Actively be with me. This is another way of saying, actively let me in, because to the degree that you let me in, you let yourself into your right Mind, and your full Sanity, and your full embrace of what is Really going on—Reality, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Movement of Creation, the experience of unity, integrity.

RAJ: I know you feel like you need help, but no one can help you at this point. There is no other One but You, and you had better be sure that you have no other “ones” before You, You Self, God. Your entire Being, in all Its infinitude, is harmonizing with You, loving You, and supporting You because of the Integrity of your Being. No one but You can relinquish consciously your hold on the false sense of self—the misidentification which feels it can’t do it. At this point I want to terminate the conversation. I will be instantly available if you need to talk, but I want you to be consciously and quietly alone with your own Being and the Reality of things. This is your baby!

There is only one infinite Life/Principle, one infinite Identity, infinitely expressed and seen as all that exists. It is what constitutes the center and circumference of Being—Your Self as you experience It, Susan’s Self as she experiences It, and my Self as I experience It. Its omnipotence or strength is constituted of Its absolute omnipresent Integrity, which is Its Intelligent Nature. it is not thrilling or exciting when contemplated from an egotistical standpoint. But It is satisfying in ways that are so meaningful that they cannot compare to the “thrills” of the ego. It also has this benefit: The satisfaction is eternal and unchanging.