TMA01 T200Question 1: the plagiarism questionStudent A would be considered to have plagiarised moderately. There are a few reasons for this:??? The structure is similar even though the order has been reshuffled in some parts to hide this. Also bits from different sections have been taken and combined. Student A has taken parts from first and second paragraph and combined them. An example is to compare ???Instead of merely using it to access email and webpages, users now want to access video and music content and even control their central heating system??¦ (Student A). ???Simply to access webpages and e-mail, activities that don??™t require much bandwidth. Today, however, users want more from their wireless technologies, such as the ability to smoothly stream video, download music or large data ?les, videoconference, participate in multiplayer games and remotely or automatically control thermostats??? (Garber).
??? There are similar phrases, even though different wording has been used. The section on ???control thermostats??? (Garber) has been changed to ???central heating systems??? (Student A), which clearly demonstrates this. Another evidence of this is evident on phrases ???standardization until the second half of next year??¦??? (Garber) ???Standards probably won??™t be ?nalised until the second half of 2013??? (Student A).??? Student A has not presented their own viewpoint but just reshuffled, extracted and rephrased the information from this article. Student B would be considered to have heavily plagiarised. There are many reasons for this:??? There are many phrases which are identical, right from the start of the piece. Compare ???Until recently, most users??? (Garber) to ???Until quite recently, most people??? (Student B) it is identical with a few minor tweaks to make it seem different. There are many other identical phrases which are copied directly from the article.
The first few sentences are almost identical with wording. Even the part on the theoretical speed is copied word for word ???1Gbit per second??? whereas the other students chose to present it as ???1Gbit/s?????? The structure of the work produced by Student B is identical to the article written by Garber. It starts the same with similar phrases and all sections that mention the technology have the same order. Example of this is evident even with the ending of the piece.
It ends with the similar sentence and similar/identical wording. ???Vendors thus have started releasing new products??? (Garber) in comparison to ???, but already vendors are releasing new products based on them??? (Student B). ??? Student B has heavily plagiarised, there were many phases and wording copied exactly from the original article. The student did not express a viewpoint or think of the concepts through at all and copied the ideas, structure and order of the article. Student C would not be considered to have plagiarised.
There are many reasons for this:??? The structure of the work produced and the article are different. The ideas are also ordered very differently to Garber??™s article. Starts off with a good introduction as per the brief, rather than copy the similar start by the article. ??? There are bits not mentioned or even omitted from the written piece. An example of this is the last few sentences on products being released based on the new Wi-Fi standards, whereas the other two students mentioned this towards the end of their written piece. ??? There were a few matches of phases, but these are technical terms (for example ???Wi-Fi??™, ???webpages, video, audio and gaming applications??™ etc. These concepts are difficult to explain in other words.
Question 2: the writing questionTCP and UDPWhat they are and what they doThe internet is a vast collection of interconnected networks all communicating with each other. The communication between these networks are governed by set of rules and regulations, these are called communication protocols. TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) is a common protocol used on the internet. TCP is based on one on one connections, a connection based protocol.
TCP ensures data communication by initiating the connection first and then confirming the delivery of the transaction, it does this by using flow control to guarantee the delivery of data. This method queries the source/destination on whether the data has been sent/received or does it need to be resent. Each end sends acknowledgement to confirm this. TCP is used by many popular applications and services on the internet, such as email, web browsing and file transfer.
These popular services/applications all would require some sort of guarantee of data being transferred or received due to their nature, this is why TCP is the ideal choice for these.UDP (User Datagram Protocol) is also a common protocol used on the internet. UDP is a connectionless protocol. It does not establish a connection to send data, therefore is a much simple protocol and does not guarantee the delivery of the communication. What UDP lacks in reliability, it makes up for in speed. As this protocol doesn??™t do any form of delivery acknowledgements it is considered lightweight and fast. There are popular services/applications on the internet that benefit from UDP being simple and quick. These applications/services include, video streaming and internet telephony (VoIP).
As both the mentioned applications/services, do not require any form of delivery acknowledgements, they can handle some data loss as long as the data is being delivered fast. Hence why UDP is the ideal choice for these.TCP UDP Why both are neededBoth of these protocols are very common and used every day on the internet. The reason why we have both is down to the different method these protocols control the communication.
By comparing the two we can understand why they are so different in what they do. TCP guarantees the delivery of the data for the required service or application. UDP is faster due to its low overheads of not checking for errors in delivery. Services and applications which require error checking use TCP, services and applications which require speed and efficiency choose UDP. TCP would be similar to sending a parcel via Royal Mail special delivery, which is guaranteed and tracking information is available. Whereas UDP would be like sending International Airmail which is fast but cannot be tracked, therefore you never know if it has arrived or not.Finally, without these protocols the internet would be congested and very slow.
Comparable to a main motorway, that has lanes congested with traffic.References:Cisco Systems, Inc. (2009) CCNA Networking Fundamentals Chapter 4 [online]. Available from: http://students.
open.ac.uk/mct/cisco/t216/CISCO_CCNA/Exploration1_English/index.html (accessed 23 February 2013)Rodriguez, E. (2002) TCP vs UDP [online]. Available from: http://www.skullbox.net/tcpudp.
php (accessed 23 February 2013) Diagram pictures from Microsoft Clipart novelty free.Question 3: the discussion question(a) Shamal and Louise, after reading your views and the research you have conducted, I am still in two minds about the implications of WiFi emissions to human health. Maybe this is because I am a heavy user of Wi-Fi on both mobile and home automation devices or maybe because I am a technology geek that enjoys this field. But some of the articles I have read on this subject is alarming and has made me think about the exposure of wireless emissions. A scientific Journal on the field of Pathophysiology has an article on ???public health implications of wireless technologies??? outlines this very well.According to this article there are many instances in our daily lives that we come in contact with Wi-Fi networks.
There are now city wide wireless installations that span for miles, so users are able to get Wi-Fi from anywhere on the streets. New and more powerful technologies are introduced to get faster and reliable wireless services that covers larger areas. The emissions from these large installations are causing worries for both scientists and activists. The continuous exposure to these radio frequency or electromagnetic emissions are being observed by health organizations. Previous study of children living near to AM radio transmitters have shown that there are elevated risks of leukaemia.
If low frequency emissions show signs of this, then higher emission of electromagnetic emissions needs further research and study. The article outlines that there could be an epidemic of diseases based on this in the future if we are constantly in a zone of elevated emissions. (Pathophysiology 2009)Although this article mainly concentrates on cellular communications, the section on WIFI and WIMAX (Wireless over a larger coverage area) is very informative and outlines my concerns. Secondly an article from Princeton University on potential hazards is an interesting read.
It seems most studies do agree that there are biological effects to human cell??™s and tissue from exposure to high radio frequency waves but on the other hand scientists still cannot evidently prove adverse effects to our health from exposure to these waves. (Princeton University 2007)I do agree on Shamal??™s point on the financial implications that could be why the media is being quiet about any health risks. There are allot of revenue being generated by large sectors, organizations and even governments as they allow for auctions of bandwidth and airwaves etc. But the research has to be more conclusive and link certain diseases or deaths to the emissions so that there are conclusive evidence to support this.My question is whilst scientists try and figure out if there are risks associated to this, new technologies are being developed which could be causing more damage and increasing our risks, if there is danger from these emissions. Do we still carry on using these technologies to satisfy our never ending need for communication and dataReferences:Princeton University (2007), Non-ionizing Radiation [online]. Available from:http://web.
princeton.edu/sites/ehs/radiation/nirad.htm (accessed 27 February 2013)Sage, C. and Carpenter O, D. (2009) Public health implications of wireless technologies.
Pathophysiology. 16 (2-3), 233??“246.(b) This is the post I responded to, written by Shamal GalletiHello Louise,in your post on alleged health issues from exposures to Wi-Fi- equipment you have opened quite a few questions and you have said, that you are ???inclined to believe that its not a big risk.
???My thoughts are that, historically, as with all new technologies, people are concerned and afraid of what risks they may cause. There are numerous forums and newspaper articles full of people who state that they have suffered health consequences, which they found were caused by exposure to Wi-Fi equipment. Some of these are quite well evidenced. Others, however, clearly state that they believe this is ???paranoia??? and absolutely not based on any scientific evidence.
This is reminiscent of when the first steam engines started to run the rails and people were terrified of them. I am aware that fears can sometimes be unjustified. (see here for one forum from yahoo), (another forum)However I also think that there might be some real reason for concern, which might not actually be published since wireless networks are such an integral part in our lives nowadays.
It could have quite strong financial implication for certain sectors of industry if there were to be found significant health risks from exposure.So, there seems to be almost two schools of thought: 1. People who are perhaps overly worried and voicing their concern and 2. Those who say (industry, in the main) that there is no evidence of a health risk.
However, saying there is no evidence does not necessarily preclude all risks. These may have already been discovered and hidden, or there may be some vested interest in not actually conducting such investigations.Thus I have done some further research on the internet and found a few very interesting points I would like to share here:I have found quite a lot of material on the subject during my search, most of it concluding that there is no real evidence of risk to the human body from the levels of exposure.There is the big question of how much any possible health risk might feed peoples fear and imagination ???[??¦]But a major announcement this week illustrated, once again, that scare stories do scare people and people do believe these things. Worse, they can have serious repercussions for all of us…
. When skeptics aren??™t skeptical, scientists aren??™t scientific, journalism professionals aren??™t professional, and we don??™t keep our thinking caps on, people get hurt.??? (Junkfood science 2007).
I did, however, come across a very interesting webpage from `Biolnitiative 2012`, which lists evidence of risk through exposure to Wi-Fi equipment. This confirmed my thoughts that it may be in the interests of certain parties that we should not have clear and concise research into the question of risk:???[??¦] The stakes are very high. Human beings are bioelectrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal bioelectrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body???. (Biolnitiative 2012)I also found an assessment from Powerwatch, mentioning certain necessary precautions.
It also raised the question of whether we really do need most of our equipment to be wireless or if it would not be a good idea to use wires in the vicinity of humans – especially in schools.???[??¦] In essence then, there is sufficient evidence to warrant some degree of precaution regarding Wi-Fi until research has been done very specifically into its effects. With dLAN systems and ordinary CAT5/6 wired networks offering better stability, bandwidth and security, there is simply no need for most homes, organisations and schools to switch to wireless networks, apart from the savings of the slight inconvenience in cables.
??? (Powerwatch, 2013)In conclusion, I still feel that there might be more to this subject than we are aware of at this stage, but, personally, I will continue to use wireless devices and am not greatly concerned that it will affect my health. This might be quite naive of me, but I believe I live in an age of technology and there are so many other possible risks to my health. Worrying about these could take up all my time and would probably be of more risk to my health than getting on with what I like doing – enjoying the modern amenities which this century brings with it. I would be very interested what others students here think.(c) To move the discussions made on the tutor group forum, I acknowledged points made by fellow student Shamal Galleti and agreed with some of the points raised as per my quote ???I do agree on Shamal??™s point on the financial implications that could be why the media is being quiet about any health risks???.
I added a further dimension by asking a question on the health risks that could be increased by further developing these technologies ???My question is whilst scientists try and figure out if there are risks associated to this, new technologies are being developed which could be causing more damage and increasing our risks, if there is danger from these emissions. Do we still carry on using these technologies to satisfy our never ending need for communication and data???.