一点点研究论文

WHEN TERRORISM hit home on Sept. 11, there was nothing "cyberterrorist" about it. Yet, the House is now considering a bill that would reclassify computer hacking as a terrorist offense if it is done to influence government action by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct. The proposal, the PATRIOT (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act of 2001, increases the statute of limitations for hacking from five to 15 years. Those convicted could be sentenced to life in prison, and the federal system does not have parole. Another amendment would make those who give "expert advice" into terrorists themselves if they advised knowing that it may be used in the preparation or commission of computer hacking. The spirit of national unity and the aching fear of terrorism foretell that some form of this bill or the Senate version will pass into law. The House is expected to vote on its version tomorrow. With that vote, I could become a terrorist, depending on how judges interpret the prohibition against giving "expert advice" to hackers. I am a criminal defense lawyer who represents people charged with computer-hacking offenses. I also teach at Stanford Law School, examining how laws affect computer security, freedom of speech, privacy and scientific progress. Legally speaking, hacking offenses are defined like trespass or burglary, an instance where the perpetrator illegally enters someone else's computer and intentionally causes damage. Technologically, there may be no walls, no passwords, no definitions, no clear boundaries. Disgruntled ex-employees have been found guilty of computer trespass for sending unwanted e-mails complaining about the boss to their former co-workers, and companies have been held liable for using a software program to scan a public Web site for online auction prices. Before these rulings, many people would not have thought these things were crimes. The proposed anti-terrorism law adds another layer of uncertainty to the already vague definition of criminal hacking. The bill singles out hacking "calculated to influence the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct." I agree that coercing government action through fear is a terrible crime that subverts the very essence of democracy. But there have been hackers who have defaced Web pages to protest Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, or altered the New York Times Web site to protest a government decision to prosecute Kevin Mitnick. The public Web sites of the Department of Justice, the FBI and the CIA have all been hacked and vandalized in the name of online protest, in varying degrees of eloquence. No important government functions were threatened, but the new terrorism law and its penalties would apply, since these acts were in retaliation to government policy. Whether you view "hacktivism" as criminal behavior or political protest, these offenders are, at most, digital vandals. By focusing solely on the motivation of the hacker, and not on the capability of the hack to threaten health, safety or welfare and thereby to create fear, the proposed law fails to strike at the heart of terrorism, which is to cause terror. And once hacking is terrorism, one who harbors or provides expert advice or material assistance to these people is also a terrorist. Since most computer- security tools can be used to both safeguard and crack a system, vendors should beware -- as should lawyers. Hard as it is to believe that a lawyer could be investigated for providing advice to hackers, I believe it is possible. Before one presentation I gave a few years ago at a hacker conference in Las Vegas, the San Francisco FBI called me to warn me not to advise the attendees how to escape capture or to encourage them to break the law. And that was then. . . I've been very critical of the current law against computer hacking because it doesn't distinguish between digital vandalism and something more serious, like breaking into the 911 system or taking over nuclear power plant computers. The new law compounds the problem. Americans, myself included, fear future terrorist attacks. But if we make terrorists out of Web vandals, "hacktivists" or security-tool vendors, we will not be safer. In fact, security will suffer, and we will find the lesser criminals among us treated with an unearned harshness. There is no bargain here. We all would lose. Jennifer S. Granick is the director of the Stanford Law School's Law and Technology Clinic.

怎么样才能够写好论文？

论文写作注意:

1、论文里面不可以出现“我”这个词，用笔者、或者本研究都可以。

2、论文不要有感叹号。

应该以陈述句为主，问句主要在写文章的结构和结论的时候使用，其他的地方能少就少。

3、论文杜绝排比句，排比句很没有学术逻辑。

4、直接引用不超过文章全文的百分之十五到二十，间接引用不超过百分之三十。避免直接引用，一个小技巧就是把直接引用放在注解里面。

5、一定要有页脚

6、全文的结构，题目，摘要，前言，第一节，第二节，第三节，结论。

7、对别人的结论表示否定的时候，一定要文明。你心里觉得别人观点不通，也要文明地表示，某某的观点或许有错误。

8、标点符号要规范，逗号，句号，分号，冒号，引号，书名号。

9、论文要重复，不断重复你最中心的思想。

一、题目

题目中要有限定语，不然写到头晕也也不完，保命策略。

标题不要超过两行。

题目中的名词小于四个，同时要体现关键词。

要有一个偏动词的词语。

举例，《明清时期眼镜诗歌和文人文化研究》名词:明清时期，限定词;名词，眼睛诗歌，文人文化动词，研究。

名词很关键，因为要在之后进行名词解释。

二、摘要，摘要一般写3句半

第一句，点出研究对象，研究的方法轻微地点一下，之后再展开。

第二句，研究的背景

第三句，你的研究成果(写得模糊一点点，不然没有人看，但是也不要太模糊。

最后半句，轻微地点一下文章的意义，高度概括即可。

关键词，不要超过五个

三、前言

1、定义，这个问题主要是为了要扣题针对文章题目中德每一个名词，一个名词定义一下。

拿前面的题目作例子，《唐朝时期xx诗歌和文人文化研究》解释，什么是xx诗歌，什么是文人文化等这个部分主要是为了限定，限定!!定义好了，之后才好写，也比较不会被人挑刺。

2、前人的研究成果，两个部分

一个是，先摆放前人的研究成果，这部分就是为了显示你读了书。之后的参考文献的罗列也要根据这个部分来，不可以看了什么就写什么。

展示自己的研究角度，想要表达的是，之前说得很对，但是都忽略了一个重要的问题。他们都是从一个角度看问题，我是从另一个角度看问题。然后是解释你的研究方法，借鉴了谁的方法，融合了谁的方法，总之瞬间提高了论文质量。

完毕！