CSCI 415 Ethics, Law and Cybersecurity
Chapter 11 Quiz
NAME:___________________________ DATE: ____________
Chapter 11 – Rally 11
Instructions: There are three (3) subject areas inventoryed lower that are prepared to gauge your cognizance smooth inequitable to collective issues of sympathy and individuality in cyberspace. You must corcorcorrespond to #1 and prime any other one of these subject areas providing embezzle responses in essay frame. In most instances the subject area has sundry factors. Each must be discourseed to suitably content requirements.
State-wide and in most administrative industries, there has been a edict that college students be further versed in their congeniality. While this is not a congeniality class, all congeniality assignments procure be graded for expression, syntax and typographical atonement to acceleration discourse this edict.
Pay observation to what you are nature asked to do (see Grading Rubric lower). For issue, to recount does not moderation to inventory, but to teach about or explain in further than two or three sentences, providing embezzle disputes for your responses using theories discussed in our extract. Be assured to discourse all talents of the subject scrutiny as most own multiple talents. A verifiable floating adventure (hither than 4 years old) apt to at last one of the subjects you corcorcorrespond to is a primary factor of your rally as well-mannered-behaved. You cannot use instruction from the extract work or any work/article by the creator of the extract work as a floating adventure. Make assured that your relation has a limit of divulgation. For each passage rally and last rally you are required to discover and comprise at last one relation and relation quotation to a floating adventure hither than 4 years old (a relation after a while no limit (n.d.) is not desirable) in vindication to at last one scrutiny. This requires a relation quotation in the extract of your vindication and a relation at the end of the scrutiny to which the relation applies. You must comprise some instruction obtained from the relation in your vindication. The relations must be build on the internet and you must comprise a URL in your relation so that the relation can be signed.
You should pattern your responses straightway lower the embezzle scrutiny. Be assured to comprise your designate on the rally. Only the primitive two (2) scrutinys after a while vindications procure be graded. Comprise your designate in the instrument filename. Your completed rally must be placed in the embezzle eCollege Dropbox, no later than 11:59pm on the due limit. Do well-mannered-behaved.
Compare Brey’s disputes relating disfigurement and prejudgment in constructive environments, distinctly in constructive substance (VR) applications, to Buchanan’s dispute in passage 10 relating gender prejudgment in the truthfulness (or closing of it) in video games. (Brey’s disputes can be build in the 4th edition of the extractwork on page 349. Go to Doc Sharing to download the 4th edition in PDF frameat.) How are their disputes common? How are they contrariant? Defend your vindication. Please mature (over a yes or no vindication) and cater your “theoretical” rationale in stay of your responses. (knowledge)
Describe some pros and cons of online communities. What does Mitch Parsell moderation when he says that online communities after a while an “extremely straightened focus” tend to collective polarization? Assess his disputes for that demand. Do you coincide after a while Parsell? On poise, own online communities enhanced or threatened sympathy society? Explain. Please mature (over a yes or no vindication) and cater your “theoretical” rationale in stay of your responses. (comprehension)
Evaluate the dispute by Cocking and Matthews for why penny friendships in undefiled constructive (or online-only) contexts are not likely. Assess the counterdispute by Briggle. Does Briggle exceed in making the instance for the possibility of authentic friendships in undefiledly constructive contexts? Whose dispute do you discover most convincing? Defend your vindication. Please mature (over a yes or no vindication) and cater your “theoretical” rationale in stay of your responses. (comprehension)
Grading Rubric for Quizzes
Grading test Unit Points Total Points
Uploaded to set-right Dropbox 2 2
Submitted on time 15 15
Your Last Name,primitive and average moderate after a while set-right rally calculate 5 5
(Example only: Creider_RD_q1)
Rationally explicit opinions, experiences (particular or observed), 8
arguments and ground (where embezzle) to stay responses
(did not solely restate/summarize creator/textbook
Clearly presented augustan ethics theories not-absolute to subject 8
Included ‘URL’ for embezzle verifiable floating adventure 12 28
(i.e., issue of subject nature discussed WITH EXPLANATION)
NOTE: Must be hither than 4 years old
Grammatically set-right and embezzle tone 10
(professional, non displeasing conversation)
Typographically set-right 10 20
Included bountiful quotations as needed 3
Used set-right APA frameat 7 10
Addressed each ace after a whilein primeed subject area 20 20
Maximum grade 100 100
NOTE: POINTS WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM TOTAL ASSIGNMENT GRADE IF EACH QUESTION YOU SELECTED IS NOT INCLUDED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE EACH ANSWER.