Saturday, July 30, 2005

do they deserve this?

Salary & Govt. Concessions for a Member of Parliament (MP)[INDIA]

Monthly Salary : 12,000
Expense for Constitution per month : 10,000
Office expenditure per month : 14,000

Traveling concession (Rs. 8 per km) : 48,000 (For a visit to Delhi & return: 6000 km)

Daily BETA during parliament meets : 500

Charge for 1 class (A/C) in train : Free (For any number of times)
(All over India)

Charge for Business Class in flights : Free for 40 trips / year (With wife or P.A.)

Rent for MP hostel at Delhi : Free

Electricity costs at home : Free up to 50,000 units

Local phone call charge : Free up to 1,70,000 calls.

TOTAL expense for a MP per year : 32,00,000

TOTAL expense for 5 years : 1,60,00,000

For 534 MPs, the expense for 5 years : 8,54,40,00,000 (nearly 855 cores)
And they are elected by THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, by the largest democratic process
in the world, not intruded into the parliament on their own or by any qualification.
This is how all our tax money is been swallowed and price hike on our regular commodities.......
Think of the great democracy we have.............

six-sigma

The six-sigma business philosophy uses the steps of: define the problem, measure the variable (possiĀ­ble changes and difference), analyze, control, improve

REALITY CHECK

A worldwide survey was conducted by the UN.

The only question asked was: "Would you please give your honest opinion
about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?" The
survey
was a huge failure...

In Africa they didn't know what 'food' meant.
In India they didn't know what 'honest' meant.
In Europe they didn't know what 'shortage' meant.
In China they didn't know what 'opinion' meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what 'solution' meant.
In South America they didn't know what 'please' meant.
And in the USA they didn't know what 'the rest of the world' meant.

Interregnum

The Interregnum is the period of time when there isn't a Pope until a new one is elected. This Latin term means between the reign (of one Pope and another). The day of death is counted as the first day of vacancy.

How much does Google know about you?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Google is at once a powerful search engine and a growing e-mail provider. It runs a blogging service, makes software to speed Web traffic and has ambitions to become a digital library. And it is developing a payments service.

Although many Internet users eagerly await each new technology from Google Inc., its rapid expansion is also prompting concerns that the company may know too much: what you read, where you surf and travel, whom you write.

"This is a lot of personal information in a single basket," said Chris Hoofnagle, senior counsel with the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Google is becoming one of the largest privacy risks on the Internet."

Not that Hoofnagle is suggesting that Google has strayed from its mantra of making money "without doing evil."

Rather, some privacy advocates worry about the potential: The data's very existence -- conveniently all under a single digital roof -- makes Google a prime target for abuse by overzealous law enforcers and criminals alike.

Through hacking or with the assistance of rogue employees, they say, criminals could steal data for blackmail or identity theft. Recent high-profile privacy breaches elsewhere underscore the vulnerability of even those systems where thoughtful security measures are taken.

Law enforcement, meanwhile, could obtain information that later becomes public, in court filings or otherwise, about people who are not even targets of a particular investigation.

Though Google's privacy protection is generally comparable to _ even better than -- those at Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and a host of other Internet giants, "I don't think any of the others have the scope of personal information that Google does," Hoofnagle said.

Plus, Google's practices may influence rivals given its dominance in search and the fierce competition.

"Google is perhaps the most noteworthy right now by the simple fact that they are the 800-pound gorilla," said Lauren Weinstein, a veteran computer scientist and privacy advocate. "What they do tends to set a pattern and precedent."

The concerns reflect Google's growing heft. As startups get bigger and more powerful, scrutiny often follows.

Google says it takes privacy seriously.

"In general, as a company, we look at privacy from design all the way (through) launch," said Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel at Google.

That means product managers, engineers and executives -- not just lawyers -- consider the privacy implications as new technologies are developed and new services offered, Wong said.

She also said that Google regularly seeks feedback from civil liberties groups such as the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, both of which credit Google for listening even if it doesn't always agree.

Google's privacy statements specify that only some of its employees have access to personal data -- on a need-to-know basis _ and such access is logged to deter abuse.

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt says a tradeoff exists between privacy and functionality, and the company believes in making fully optional -- and seeking permission beforehand -- any services that require personally identifiable information.

"There are always options to not use that set of technology and remain anonymous," Schmidt told reporters in May.

But what is meant by personally identifiable information is subject to debate.

Google automatically keeps records of what search terms people use and when, attaching the information to a user's numeric Internet address and a unique ID number stored in a Web browser "cookie" file that Google uploads to computers unless users reconfigure their browsers to reject them.

Like most Internet companies, Google says it doesn't consider the data personally identifiable. But Internet addresses can often be traced to a specific user.

Here's just some of the ways Google can collect data on its users:


One of Gmail's selling points is its ability to retain e-mail messages "forever."


Google's program for scanning library books sometimes requires usernames to protect copyrights.


The company is testing software for making Web pages load more quickly; the application routes all Web requests through its servers.


Google also provides driving directions, photo sharing and instant messaging, and it is developing a payments service that critics say could add billing information to user profiles.

Because storage is cheap, data from these services can be retained practically forever, and Google won't specify how long it keeps such information.

Without elaborating, Google says it "may share" data across such services as e-mail and search. It also provides information to outside parties serving as Google's agents -- though they must first agree to uphold Google's privacy policies.

Much of the concern, though, stems from a fear of the unknown.

"Everybody gets worried about what they (Google) could do but what they have done to date has not seemed to violate any privacy that anyone has documented," said Danny Sullivan, editor of the online newsletter Search Engine Watch.

Eric Goldman, a cyberlaw professor at Marquette University, believes the focus ought to be on the underlying problem: access by hackers and law enforcement.

"We still need to have good technology to inhibit the hackers. We still need laws that make hacking criminal. We still need restraints on government surveillance," Goldman said. "Google's database doesn't change any of that."

Anne Rubin, 20, a New York University junior who uses Google's search, Gmail and Blogger services, says quality overrides any privacy concerns, and she doesn't mind that profiles are built on her in order to make the ads she sees more relevant.

"I see it as a tradeoff. They give services for free," she said. "I have a vague assumption that things I do (online) aren't entirely private. It doesn't faze me."

Larry Ponemon, a privacy adviser, says research by his Ponemon Institute found Google consistently getting high marks for trust.

By contrast, Microsoft, whose software sometimes crashes and regularly gets violated by hackers, didn't fare as well despite what Ponemon and others acknowledge are improvements in its approach to privacy.

"People confuse customer service with obligations to maintain privacy," Ponemon said. "Google has a product that seems to work. It gets almost like a free ride on privacy."

That's changing.

Google, a perennially secretive company, may share some of the blame. It goes out of its way to strip its privacy statements of legalese so they are easier to read. But the statements remain vague on how long the company keeps data.

In an interview, Wong said Google had no set time limits on data retention; such determinations are left to individual product teams. She said the information helps Google know how well it is doing -- for instance, are users getting the results they want in the first five, 10 or 100 hits?

"We keep data that's collected from our services for as long as we think it's useful," she said.

Google says it releases data when required by law, but its privacy statements offer few details. Wong said Google doesn't surrender data without a subpoena, court order or warrant. But she would not offer any details on how many requests it gets, or how often, and federal law bars Google from disclosing requests related to national security.

For civil lawsuits, Wong said, Google warns users before it complies so they can file objections with a court -- a fact the company doesn't publicize.

Mark Rasch, who was a Justice Department prosecutor in the 1980s and has since advised companies on getting data from Internet companies, says electronic records will only become more relevant for investigators searching for evidence of intent and knowledge.

"As Google becomes more involved in parts of your lives including chats and blog, then it's going to get lots more subpoenas," he said. "It's a lot more than just a search tool."

source: cnn.com

grading your student essay -- a computer

Now grading your student essay -- a computer

University of Missouri professor Ed Brent encourages his students to use the SAGrader to give them a better shot of earning a better grade.

RELATED
SAGrader software

National Science Foundation (NSF)

University of Missouri-Columbia

Higher Education


COLUMBIA, Missouri (AP) -- Student essays always seem to be riddled with the same sorts of flaws. So sociology professor Ed Brent decided to hand the work over to a computer.

Students in Brent's Introduction to Sociology course at the University of Missouri-Columbia now submit drafts through the SAGrader software he designed. It counts the number of points he wanted his students to include and analyzes how well concepts are explained.

And within seconds, students have a score.

It used to be the students who looked for shortcuts, shopping for papers online or pilfering parts of an assignment with a simple Google search. Now, teachers and professors are realizing that they, too, can tap technology for a facet of academia long reserved for a teacher alone with a red pen.

Software now scores everything from routine assignments in high school English classes to an essay on the GMAT, the standardized test for business school admission. (The essay section just added to the Scholastic Aptitude Test or SAT for the college-bound is graded by humans).

Though Brent and his two teaching assistants still handle final papers -- and grades -- students are encouraged to use SAGrader for a better shot at an "A."

"I don't think we want to replace humans," Brent said. "But we want to do the fun stuff, the challenging stuff. And the computer can do the tedious but necessary stuff."

Developed with National Science Foundation funding, SAGrader is so far used only in Brent's classroom. Like other essay-grading software, it analyzes sentences and paragraphs, looking for keywords as well as the relationship between terms.

Other programs compare a student's paper with a database of already-scored papers, seeking to assign it a score based on what other similar-quality assignments have received.

Educational Testing Service sells Criterion, which includes the "e-Rater" used to score GMAT essays. Vantage Learning has IntelliMetric, Maplesoft sells Maple T.A., and numerous other programs are used on a smaller scale.

Most companies are private and offer no sales figures, but educators say use of such technology is growing.

Consider the reach of e-Rater: 400,000 GMAT test-takers annually, a half-million U.S. K-12 students and 46 international schools and districts. ETS says an additional 2,000 teachers begin using its technology each month.

But it's tough to tout a product that tinkers with something many educators believe only a human can do.

"That's the biggest obstacle for this technology," said Frank Catalano, a senior vice president for Pearson Assessments and Testing, whose Intelligent Essay Assessor is used in middle schools and the military alike. "It's not its accuracy. It's not its suitability. It's the believability that it can do the things it already can do."

South Dakota is one of several states that has tested essay-grading software. Officials there decided against using it widely, saying feedback was negative.

Not all districts had the same experience. Watertown, South Dakota, students are among those who now have their writing-assessment tests scored by computer.

Lesli Hanson, an assistant superintendent in Watertown, said students like taking the test by computer and teachers are relieved to end an annual ritual that kept two dozen people holed up for three days to score 1,500 tests.

"It almost got to be torture," she said.

Some 80 percent of Indiana's 60,000 11th-graders have their English assessment scored by computer, and another 10,000 ninth-graders are taking part in a trial in which computers assess some routine written assignments.

Stan Jones, Indiana's commissioner of higher education, said the technology isn't as good as a teacher but cuts turnaround time, trims costs and allows overworked teachers to give written assignments without fearing the workload.

"This (allows) them to require more essays, more writing, and have it graded very painlessly," Jones said.

Software can also remove a degree of subjectivity.

"It's fairly consistent. Different teachers grade different papers differently." -- Keith Kelly, 21, of Cleveland, one of Brent's sociology students.

The software is not flawless, even its most ardent supporters admit.

When the University of California at Davis tried out such technology a couple years back, lecturer Andy Jones decided to try to trick e-Rater.

Prompted to write on workplace injuries, Jones instead input a letter of recommendation, substituting "risk of personal injury" for the student's name.

"My thinking was, 'This is ridiculous, I'm sure it will get a zero,"' he said.

He got a five out of six.

A second time around, Jones scattered "chimpanzee" throughout the essay, guessing unusual words would yield him a higher score.

He got a six.

In Brent's class, sophomore Brady Didion submitted drafts of his papers numerous times to ensure his final version included everything the computer wanted.

"What you're learning, really, is how to cheat the program," he said.

Work to automate analysis of the written word dates back to the 1950s, when such technology was used largely to adjust the grade level of textbooks, said Henry Lieberman, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Before long, researchers aimed to use such applications to evaluate student writing.

SAGrader, like other programs, needs significant prep work by teachers. For each of the four papers Brent assigns during his semester-long course, he must essentially enter all the components he wants an assignment to include and take into account the hundreds of ways a student might say them.

Part of one assignment for Brent's class was for students to pick a crime and explain how it fit into sociologists' categories. Brent had to key in dozens of words in order to ensure all types of transgressions would be identified.

What a writer gets back is quite detailed.

A criminology paper resulted in a nuance evaluation offering feedback such as this: "This paper does not do a good job of relating white-collar crime to various concepts in labeling theory of deviance."

Brent -- who earned a postdoctoral degree in artificial intelligence and is also an adjunct professor in the computer science department -- said the software may have limitations, but allows teachers to do things they weren't able to do before.

Before Brent wrote SAGrader, a part of his broader data-analysis program Qualrus, he only gave students multiple-choice tests.

"Now we can focus more," he said. "Are they making a good argument? Do they seem to understand? Are they being creative?"


source: cnn.com