Think PWM hubmotors. Yeah, technically still a drivetrain, but when most people think of a drivetrain (including mechanics), they think of transmission, CV-joints (FWD) or driveshaft/differential (RWD)...
Hubmotors are a great theory, but a mediocre reality. The additional sprung weight of the wheels makes for an unpleasant ride on all but the smoothest surfaces. Unless they can get something together with pixie dust superconducting motors that magically don't weigh any more than a regular tire/wheel, they're better off doing it the normal way.
"The Running Man". It was written by Stephen King under the name Richard Bachman. Fundementally different from the movie and a much better concept. To give you a taster, there is no 'arena' like in the movie. The contestent goes out into the world, and everyone is encouraged to report sightings
Satisfactory book, but it felt a little like an expanded rehash of parts of Fahrenheit 451.
As for the latter comment: "I just don't believe in the justice system any more." Maxo, let me assure you that the justice system, in fact, does exist. Maybe I can stop believing in morons...
The phrase "believe in" also can mean "have confidence in".
Change the admission papers to force them to give permission for the school to use their work while in school for any comparative reason, takes care of that problem.
Getting rid of cheaters (expulsion with no refund) is the best thing that can happen.
Public high school attendance is mandatory under state law, you clueless dolt. Such a contract would be a) signed under duress, and b) signed by a minor.
Had they signed a contract at the start of the year stating that they agreed to getting their essays checked/stored, then they would have no argument. However, afaik, they have not signed any such document and, as such, have a legit argument in my view.
And even if they had, I'd love to see the school try to defend the legitimacy of a contract signed by a minor as a requirement for attending mandatory public school!
I don't see this as directly profiting oof their IP, but more the process to check that IP against the IP of others. I am perfectly willing to be wrong in this case, but that's just my belief. Keep in mind that this belief is heavily biased by my experience as a teacher.
It's still an infringement of copyright to copy a Microsoft Office CD even if you only use the copy to compare to CD images people submit to you to make sure they're not just copies of Microsoft Office. Copyright law is pretty simple, really. You cannot copy without permission of the rights holder.
I would guess that the school and Turnitin.com could get away with it under fair use since they are not effecting the sales of the item.
Your guess is wrong. Effect on sales has no bearing on copyright and fair use. I could print up a book of poems I wrote and not sell it, only give copies to people if I really thought they were cool. The fact that I'm not selling it doesn't give you the right to make copies because (by your reasoning) you're not affecting sales.
Besides, the school does own the works you do for them, the papers you turn in, etc. I really don't know by what means they do get it though.
If you can't substantiate the claim, then why are you making it?
In the absence of other contractual arrangements, copyright defaults to the author. Public school attendance is a matter of state law, not a contractual arrangement. Your assertion is utterly false.
The truth is, as a student you basically don't own the work you turn in for a grade.
That's not the truth at all. Basic opyright law says otherwise. In the absence of specific arrangements otherwise, you wrote it, copyright is automatically yours. I'd love to see an English teacher compile and sell an anthology of students' work and go to court claiming "they don't hold the copyright because it was work done for a grade". You really think that'd fly?
I think this is very different. In the work environment all the work you do belongs to the company you do it for. I believe school projects can be treated the same way - it is with research projects. So technically the student has zero say in what is done with their work. It belongs to the school.
What are you talking about? I've never heard of a university level researcher being able to take a grad student's work verbatim and claim it as his own. In this case, we're talking about high school anyway. I'f love to see the "work for hire" contract you think applies to them, as 1) they're under 18, and 2) they're not being paid! Students retain the copyright on their work. Can a high school put together an anthology of all the best English essays its received as homework and just publish it without the authors' permission? Not a chance. This is no different.
The problem is, the students are not employed. They recieve no compensation for their work.
Sure they do - they earn a degree.
This is high school, dingus. Attendance is mandatory. School is not employment. There is no employment contract, nor wages, nor state department of labor oversight. Your idiotic weasel arguments don't nullify state law.
The papers are written on request by the teacher/school. It's a lot like a "work for hire", which would be owned by the teacher/school,
That is not the case. By law, copyright belongs to the author unless other arrangements have been specifically made. "Work for hire" happens only in the context of an employment contract. I would love to see what sort of "contract" you think students (or their parents) signed for the school to retain copyright of students' work. If a student writes a really intriguing short story for an English class assignment, does the school get to sell it to an anthology compiler or a Hollywood script writer? Not a chance. They can't even print it in the school newspaper without the student's permission. How is giving copies to Turnitin any different?
Of course it matters, copyrighted materials can be used in certain situations legally. This may be one of those situations, in which case the students' IP argument fails.
Wow, platitude, platitude, tautology, platitude. "If they're right...they're right". Why did you even bother to reply?
As far as this potentially being Fair Use under the "educational use" line of reasoning, I don't think so. Just because the service is being used by educators doesn't cut it. TurnItIn is charging money for the service of plagiarism detection. Sounds like they're making money off a database of unauthorized copies.
Its maybe an irony, that slashdot is promoting the use of c+d letters.
But you see, you never hear anyone on slashdot say anything against the idea of C&D letter themselves, only their use as a strong-arm tactic to enforce the current bought-and-paid-for copyright laws. It is entirely consistent, as the GPL is a means of turning the copyright system against itself. Pointing out such "ironies" makes you sound like Steve Martin in The Jerk, shouting "These cans! He hates these cans!"
Actually the only President who tried to do anything about our dependence on foreign oil was Jimmy Carter. But of course everyone hates Jimmy Carter.
What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.
Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977
Yeah, that's the solution. We'll just stop using so much oil. Growth will happen magically through the application of fairy dust and perpetual motion machines to power industry!
Carter was long on principles but short on meaningful plans. The classic example is his executive order banning breeder reactors, the reasoning offered being that breeders produce plutonium, and plutonium is used in bombs. Of course, the plutonium in breeder reactors is an inseparable mix of isotopes which cannot be made to work in a nuclear warhead. Subsequently, we are left with only two possibilities: a) Carter didn't know the difference between weapons grade and non-weapons grade plutonium, which seems unlikely as the man is a freakin' degreed nuclear engineer; or b) he knew the stated reasoning was wrong, but asserted it anyway, as it bolstered his stance against nuclear weapons proliferation. Neither answer, unfortunately, does the man's image any credit.
Maybe the post that got modded down was modded down because it was wrong. Clinton was never convicted of perjury. He was held in contempt of court, which is a civil charge, not criminal.
Incorrect. Both civil and criminal contempt are punishable by jail time and/or fines. The classification has to do with the nature of the contempt, whether it's merely disobeying the orders of the court vs. direct disruption of court proceedings. Do not confuse civil and criminal contempt with civil and criminal law.
Yes but the actual colours are supposed to have originated on Mars itself, not just pulled out of a technician's ass.
What color should it be? The color you would see if you were standing on the martian surface, or the color the camera sees? The color the martian surface would have if it were here on the earth? Normalized for some "baseline" spectrum? Thing is, pictures are nearly always adjusted for optimal contrast and such. When scientists want to analyze the "color" of something, they don't grab a photo print and their Pantone chips and start comparing. They use spectrometers.
Though why you'd want Phoenix when you've got Aegis cruisers defending the fleet remains an open question. So unless you want to shoot down enemy targets somewhere not over your fleet, Phoenix doesn't seem that neat anymore....
My father was an engineer at Hughes Aircraft Company, and spent the lion's share of his career working on the Phoenix program. The original design was for a 100% cold-war-turns-hot weapon. The AIM-54A was initially designed for shooting down big planes, like the Tu-95 Bear bomber, before they could get in range of the fleet to launch anti-ship cruise missiles. Later, as cruise missile standoff range increased, the Phoenix was improved to shoot down the missiles themselves. In modern small scale warfare where visual ID is nearly always required before pilots are allowed to fire, there's just no place for the Phoenix. Its only potential use was fleet defense when the Navy could be sure that anything flying in from "thataway" was definitely Soviet and hostile, i.e. World War Three. Amazing missile, and the stories I heard about how those engineers managed to wring every last bit of processing resources out of its tiny little 8-bit computer were astounding. I used to have hours of videotape of missile tests at China Lake where they'd shoot down F-86 drones. With the exception of one shot where the rocket motor didn't ignite*, every shot was a kill-- and they tried every evasive maneuver they could with those F-86's. Just no escape.
* second-sourced motor safety made incorrectly by the morons at Raytheon at fault there. I have almost as many stories about dumbfuck engineers from Raytheon "reinterpreting" design drawings to save money on manufacture and thereby delivering unusable missile parts. Now Raytheon has bought up all the US missile designers/manufacturers, Hughes included. One wonders how a company that's run so badly ends up owning the whole show, but I'll save rants about congressional lobbyists for another time...
Some are older than the pilots and mechanics making them fly.
That's no big deal. Well-maintained military aircraft last a long time. The newest B-52 in the US Air Force's inventory is 44 years old, and the Air Force plans to keep flying them until 2050! That's right: when they retire them, the newest one will be 88 years old.
There is still nothing as capable for our needs in a single plane as the F111
No mention of the F-11 is complete without my favorite F-111 story:
As a money saving "common aircraft" plan shared between the Air Force and Navy (like the F-4 before it) the F-111 was originally intended to also fill the role of fleet defense fighter for the Navy (a role later filled by the F-14 instead). There was exactly one carrier landing in an F-111, by a test pilot early on. Due to poor low speed handling, heavy weight, and large size it was nigh impossible to land safely. The pilot was asked afterwards "if you had the choice between the F-111 and any other airplane for making a carrier landing, which would you choose?" His answer was, famously, "Any other airplane".
I don't know that the F-14 did any bombing in Vietnam
I can guarantee no F-14 ever droped a bomb over Vietnam. First, the F-14 was not even fielded until 1974, and second, it was purely an air-to-air fleet-defense fighter until they introduced the refitted F-14D for ground attack in 1990.
They weren't designed with air-to-ground in mind, but it was modified to perform in a limited strike role later on. They did pretty well over Libya, and I believe they dropped some bombs in Iraq and maybe Afghanistan as well
The modified Tomcat capable of ground attack (F-14D) was first delivered in 1990. They did indeed see service in southwest asia, but definitely not in Libya. You're conflating the numerous air-to-air faceoffs between Libyan forces (including shooting down a Libyan Su-22 in 1981) and US Navy F-14A's, and the US Air Force bombing Libya with F-111's in 1986. No bomb off an F-14 has ever fallen on Libya.
Walk right out your door and start hitch-hiking, or something man, you just made me want to shoot myself. Please do something dangerous.
What if he already did something dangerous? I love my life of "quiet desperation". I've had a year of dull, unchanging stability, and I think it's great. I could go on like this for decades. Probably has something to do with spending a non-trivial portion of the four years prior to that ducking RPGs and bullets in Paktia...
"and if you configure it properly, it can be more accurate than the AK"
Which means it operates at tighter tolerances, which means it's more susceptible to dirt.
That's not what that means at all. Tolerances that matter in the field are in the moving parts of the autoloading system. Accuracy has to do with the design and placement of the sights and their relationship to the bore.
Nice idea but at some point those demons called responsibilities kick in. When you've got a spouse and kids or other family that you have to take care of...
Those responsibilities don't just automatically "kick in", all by themselves. Those are all each a yoke you voluntarily place on your own shoulders. One can lead a long life of meaningless irresponsibility with plenty of money and no ill effects if one is careful to avoid things like wives, children, mortgages, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
In the absence of other contractual arrangements, copyright defaults to the author. Public school attendance is a matter of state law, not a contractual arrangement. Your assertion is utterly false.
As far as this potentially being Fair Use under the "educational use" line of reasoning, I don't think so. Just because the service is being used by educators doesn't cut it. TurnItIn is charging money for the service of plagiarism detection. Sounds like they're making money off a database of unauthorized copies.
Carter was long on principles but short on meaningful plans. The classic example is his executive order banning breeder reactors, the reasoning offered being that breeders produce plutonium, and plutonium is used in bombs. Of course, the plutonium in breeder reactors is an inseparable mix of isotopes which cannot be made to work in a nuclear warhead. Subsequently, we are left with only two possibilities: a) Carter didn't know the difference between weapons grade and non-weapons grade plutonium, which seems unlikely as the man is a freakin' degreed nuclear engineer; or b) he knew the stated reasoning was wrong, but asserted it anyway, as it bolstered his stance against nuclear weapons proliferation. Neither answer, unfortunately, does the man's image any credit.
* second-sourced motor safety made incorrectly by the morons at Raytheon at fault there. I have almost as many stories about dumbfuck engineers from Raytheon "reinterpreting" design drawings to save money on manufacture and thereby delivering unusable missile parts. Now Raytheon has bought up all the US missile designers/manufacturers, Hughes included. One wonders how a company that's run so badly ends up owning the whole show, but I'll save rants about congressional lobbyists for another time...
As a money saving "common aircraft" plan shared between the Air Force and Navy (like the F-4 before it) the F-111 was originally intended to also fill the role of fleet defense fighter for the Navy (a role later filled by the F-14 instead). There was exactly one carrier landing in an F-111, by a test pilot early on. Due to poor low speed handling, heavy weight, and large size it was nigh impossible to land safely. The pilot was asked afterwards "if you had the choice between the F-111 and any other airplane for making a carrier landing, which would you choose?" His answer was, famously, "Any other airplane".