Well, thanks for the kind words anyway. Honestly, I thought that modding up my second comment (which was mostly just meant as an error correction) was excessive. If I'd known it would've been modded up, I might've not made it as I don't want to be a karma whore. But, oh well, I guess I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Err, I just meant divide by 0 error, not overflow. The fun bit of that attack is that the reason it effectively bricks it is that the divide by zero error crashes it and it reboots, but it logs its data into flash, so as soon as it finishes rebooting, it starts reprocessing the stored data, thus it reads the 0 again and crashes and it just gets stuck in a loop like that forever. It's a fairly fun and clever paper.
The paper isn't really about attacking GPS infrastructure. It's about attacking GPS receivers. Some of these receivers may be part of other sorts of infrastructure. I was at CCS when the paper was presented. It's all about sending fake GPS satellite signals to receivers to exploit bugs in the software in the receivers. The work is interesting and includes attacks which can desynchronize the clocks on some devices and there was one device you could essentially brick by telling it at the satellite was at radius 0 (center of the earth) resulting in a divide by 0 overflow. I liked the paper and thought it was neat, and it could do serious damage to particular systems which rely on GPS if they have the right type of flaws in their software to be exploited by this attack, but it was not an attack against the GPS satellites or anything like that.
If a bird is wounded, it is to be killed humanely after. Either the bird flies away clean or it's dead at the end of the day. There is no in-between.
Umm, that's not what the videos from their YouTube channel shows. It shows that many of the wounder birds are not collected to be killed and instead escape with their wounds. It also shows that in at least some cases, wounded birds were killed inhumanely. You're theorizing about what they do based on what they ought to do rather than based on the available evidence of what they actually do.
Yes, but if you watch some of the videos they took from other events, you can see people doing things like kicking wounded pigeons and one adolescent who would pick up the wounded ones and then smash them against things (his knee, the ground, pigeon crates). That would generally be illegal animal cruelty. There's a difference between hunting animals and torturing them. I think that they're saying that their footage of this event contains similar abusive actions. The article doesn't say that every action at the event was illegal, just that they had been videotaping animal abuse. Unless you were there, I don't think that you can know that they didn't record animal abuse.
(As a side, someone should really monitor that particular adolescent. He appeared to be smashing the pigeons against things until they were dismembered and then cackling with glee. That's a pretty big warning sign of the potential for becoming a psychopath. I'm not saying that he is one or will necessarily become one, but if I were someone who knew him, I would keep a really close eye on him going forward.)
I've read the DMCA. I've followed the court cases. I don't understand how jailbreaking a phone or modding a console would violate the DMCA, and I don't understand why people keep legitimizing the idea that it would by asking for DMCA exceptions. The DMCA says "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." And it defines "(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
What work are we talking about if you mod your gaming console? Video games aren't scrambled or encrypted and they don't require the application of information or any process or treatment. You can run a video game in an emulator without doing anything to it. You just load it and run it. And you can easily copy a video game using a DVD or Blu-Ray reader and writer and an emulator will happily play the copy. The technological measures in a video game console are about preventing the console from running unauthorized software (including unauthorized copies of games), not about protecting the content on the gaming discs. As such, I don't understand how you would be violating the DMCA by modding your console. (Mind you, video game console manufacturers could change this if they started encrypting their discs, and they might next generation, but the current gen ones don't. They're signed, but they aren't encrypted.)
Likewise, I haven't seen any evidence that jailbreaking a smartphone would circumvent a technological measure meant to protect a copyrighted work. Now, once you jailbreak a phone, there might be software on that phone which you could circumvent, but that would be a separate act. Is there logic here that I'm missing or is no one else looking at what the law actually says?
Yes, that's what the summary is saying. They had a chance to make it legal (at least from a copyright perspective), and they decided not to. I read the summary. I'm clear on what it says. I don't need you to repeat it to me. I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat it with a weird, condescending tone.
If this course is very much like similar courses I've seen, they don't really teach you anything anyway. They just give you the book, tell you to follow it, and are available to help if you're really stuck.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that we have two problems right now. The first is that patents are being granted on general ideas rather than the steps to cause those ideas to happen. His analogy is that right now you can get a patent on the idea of sorting a list (which given some of the patents, I think is about right) even without any details of how you do it. When someone else finds a new, better way to sort a list, you can sue them and win. This argument, if accepted widely by the courts, would remove that.
The second problem is that patents are being issued for algorithms which simply shouldn't be issued because they're not novel or too obvious or because they're basically just math (and math isn't patentable). His analogy here is that you could still, if the argument wins, patent something like quicksort which he's saying shouldn't be patentable.
That's what I was going to suggest. They're bound as kids books so they're a little more likely to hold up to being read by a three-year-old than real comic books. They contain basically no words, so he can read them as long as he can figure out to follow the pictures in order. And if he's not quite up to reading them by himself, you can read them together.
Of course, that's assuming that takeoff and landing are 30 minutes. Sometimes I've been on a plane which had to wait out on the tarmack for as long as an hour (and there have been other cases which were quite a bit longer which I didn't personally experience). How do I deal with all that time? Well, if my seatmate doesn't feel like conversing, I usually read a book. I don't think that wanting to read a book when there's nothing else to do means that I have a sad little life, but maybe you think that makes me some sort of information freak or something. Except that books are big and bulky, so I've switched to a happy little ebook reader which is like half the size of a paperback and holds several hundred books. Except that I can't use my ebook reader because it's a gadget, even though, being an e-ink display, its emissions of any sort are really pretty minimal. People don't have to turn off their hearing aids, and those are probably about the same level of emissions. So, perhaps, if they reevaluate things, then I'll be able to read my ebook while waiting patiently and quietly for take-off. Is that really so terrible?
The stuff you'd rather not have breathed is just stale corn starch, nothing exotic. I'm sure it wasn't fun to breathe (I know I didn't enjoy it), but it isn't dangerous.
A lot of the collision sensor for airbags are just bits of mercury in a slanted tube. When there's a sudden enough deceleration, the mercury goes up the tube and makes a connection. But this can also happen if the car hits downwards fast enough. I had this happen in my 96 Camry when I was going quickly down a steep hill and there was suddenly a level train track crossing which acted like a jump ramp. I hit the brakes, but not in time and my front end was briefly airborne. It came down hard and bottomed out the suspension and hit the pavement. It wasn't a really hard hit on the pavement (no bend in the frame or even damage to the steering), but it was enough of a collision when it hit that the mercury got bounced up and Bam! airbags went off. I had my hands at about 3 and 9 or slightly lower and got the hell scrapped out of the skin on the inside of my arms and the whole thing scared the hell out of me, but otherwise, no problems.
I also initially thought that I'd killed the car because the whole thing was suddenly silent and filled with smoke. Of course, it wasn't actually smoke, just the corn starch that they use to lubricate the airbags. And the sudden silence wasn't entirely real. The engine was actually still idling quietly, I just didn't realize it. And the radio had shut off because the sudden pressure from the deploying airbags had pushed the knob in and turned it off. All I had to do was push it again to turn it back on. Really, aside from needing a new front-end alignment (done) and new airbags (which I haven't gotten because they'd cost more than a replacement car), the car was fine.
You're overstating things. Binary liquid explosives weren't even found in anyone's home. It was just an idea that they were considering and hadn't actually carried out at all.
You're going to blame the UN for the failure of Hans Blix to find all Iraqi weapons? If you've forgotten your history, the reason that Blix didn't do that was because the US got impatient and decided to start a war rather than waiting for the end result of the process. He and his team were still working until they got pulled out for their own safety once it looked like the US was going to invade.
And, in the end, after they invaded the country, none of the weapons that the US insisted that Hans Blix hadn't found ever showed up. No nuclear program. No mobile bioweapons labs. None of that stuff. The fact of the matter is that Blix and his team accounted for almost all of the biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, and there were no nuclear weapons. So how, exactly, is that a UN failure?
Please don't try and rewrite history. When the US declared war on Iraq, there had, in fact, been a UN weapons inspection team headed by Hans Blix operating in Iraq until just a few days before. They got pulled out by the UN because it looked like the US was about to declare war on Iraq, and they didn't want their weapons inspectors getting killed. The UN had said "let them in or else" and Iraq had let them in in November of 2002. The only issue which was in question was whether or not Iraq was being fully cooperative with the inspectors or not.
Really? With the train station in Kyoto? Seriously? I've been there, both in the train station and in the surrounding area. It's big, but it's not exactly skyline wrecking unless you happen to live in an apartment which directly faces it. There are plenty of other buildings nearby which are close to the same height and once you get about two blocks away, you can't even see it from the street. If you don't believe me, here's a picture from above which shows the surrounding area. Plenty of other 8+ story buildings in the area. Here's a view from the top of the hotel in the train station. What skyline is it that they're destroying exactly?
Kyoto is a lovely city. It has myriad beautiful temples and gardens and the nearby country-side is lovely. People flock to it to see the cherry trees when they are in bloom. But none of these things are very tall. Most of the famous temples aren't even visible when you're half a block away from them, nevermind part of the skyline. It does not now have an impressive skyline and if it ever did, it must have been centuries ago, and although the train station big enough to be clearly visible for a couple of blocks around, it's not exactly a sky-scraper. Honestly, its width and shininess stand out as much as its height. So, if the person writing the article thinks that the Kyoto train station (which has far more non-shinkansen platforms than shinkansen platforms) is too big or too shiny, then fine, but saying that it wrecks the skyline is just dumb.
For professors, post-docs, and most assistant positions, the standard university contract in the US tends to say that you own the copyright of everything you do and the university owns the patents. This is likely not the case if you're working as an in-house programmer or copywriter or other similar positions, but for academics, they usually own their own copyright.
The thing about this is that the law, as written agrees with you exactly. There's no stipulation in the law that if you own a legal copy of a piece of software that a license is required to use it any more than a license is required to read a book or listen to a CD. Some companies have argued that you need a license since you're copying it onto your hard drive or into RAM, but the actual copyright law says that you have the right to do this if you own a legal copy of the software per 17 USC 117.
So these licenses aren't granting you any rights which you don't already have. They're completely one-sided contracts and should be unenforceable, and yet this isn't how the courts have been finding, mostly because the side with more money to spend on lawyers often wins regardless of what the law says, which is unfortunate.
That's not really an analogy. It's just a hypothetical example of the problem. And I'm not assuming that all the claims are fraudulent. It's certainly true that the copyright status of all of fedflix's videos is not completely certain, but there are some where the specific details are known. Duck and Cover is one of these. It is definitely in the public domain. The claim against it is definitely fraudulent. So it's definitely the case that some of the claims are fraudulent. And regardless, the point wasn't about whether or not specific claims are fraudulent. The point is that YouTube has no system or mechanism available to dispute fraudulent claims of ownership and, as such, their system is vulnerable to fraudulent claims. So when you say that the real problem is not knowing the status, that's only a part of the problem. The other problem is that their system doesn't allow people to contest fraudulent claims of copyright ownership on the grounds that the material is actually public domain.
There is nothing stopping anyone who wants to from claiming the public domain footage he used for his Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse video and having his video yanked from YouTube. And if they do, he has no means to contest this. Certainly YouTube is not obligated to make his video or Duck and Cover or anything else available worldwide. They could shut down tomorrow if they'd like or switch to only videos of cats. That's their legal right. But that doesn't mean that we can't be critical of their systems or discuss their shortcomings especially when their model is being held up by some entertainment industry lobbyists as the "right way" for web sites to handle copyright violations (and held up by others as being insufficiently friendly to the big studios).
And, yes, I know that the videos blocked on YouTube are still available on archive.org. We all know that blocking something on YouTube isn't the same as erasing it from the world. But it's still troubling the YouTube is allowing fraudulent copyright claims to determine whether or not something is broadcast via YouTube.
I'm glad you've had good experiences and it's interesting to know what's happened to you, but none of that changes the fact that YouTube's content ownership framework doesn't allow people to dispute claims of ownership on public domain material. How would you feel if someone claimed ownership on your Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse footage you assembled and chose to block it worldwide?
Well, that's what's happened with the famous Duck and Cover educational video. It's public domain, but Image Entertainment (whoever that is) has claimed copyright of it and are blocking it from being seen in all countries except the United States. This is described in the report which Cory mentions.
The issue isn't really whether or not YouTube are good guys or bad guys. The issue is that the system they have in place doesn't effectively allow for disputing whether or not something is in the public domain. This allows people to claim content which they don't own and to profit from it. People like yourself who want to use that public domain content can have their accounts suspended or blocked for using video and audio content including content in the public domain. Now, in your case, someone made a legitimate claim to some of the content you used for your video and YouTube handled that appropriately. That's good. But when people make claims to things they don't own, they're handling that in exactly the same way, which isn't appropriate. So, if you worked hard and created an interesting video using public domain content, a random company can siphon off some of your revenue from it simply by falsely claiming that they own the copyright on something which is actually in the public domain.
The test he took is the FCAT. It has some multiple choice questions, but most questions allow you to input any number which fits in up to five characters (including fractions and decimals). So, answers like "12345" or "123.4" or "1.234" or "1/234" or "123/4" or shorter answers. Ignoring the use of leading zeros, there are 100000 non-decimal answers. There are 10000 answers with the decimal in the second place (answers with the decimal in the first place are not allowed), but 10 of those are integers, so 9990 new answers. There are 10000 answers with the decimal in the third place, but 1000 of those are zero-adjusted duplicates of answers with the decimal in the second place (1.230 is the same as 01.23) and 90 of those are integers which aren't zero-adjusted duplicates of the last group so 8910 new answers. There are 10000 answers with the decimal in the fourth place, but 1000 of those are zero-adjusted duplicates of the last group and 900 of those are integers which aren't zero-adjusted duplicates of the last group. so 8100 new numbers. So there are 10000+9990+8910+8100 = 37000 possible decimal and integer answers. And there are also 3000 possible fractional answers, some of which simplify to the same thing or are equal to decimal numbers. So, each question has 40000 possible distinct answers.
However, the odds of correctness when guessing randomly is not 1/40000 because many questions have more than 1 correct answer both because they'll accept fractions or decimals for some and because for others, they have a small range around the correct decimal answer which is still considered correct due to being close enough. But, realistically, I think that on average, you'd probably have about a 1/5000 chance of guessing correctly by guessing randomly on those.
So when he says he guessed and got things correct, he probably means that he didn't know the answer, but guessed how to solve the problem. There are also a few four-answer multiple choice questions involved, but not nearly so many as 40. More like 10 or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, thanks for the kind words anyway. Honestly, I thought that modding up my second comment (which was mostly just meant as an error correction) was excessive. If I'd known it would've been modded up, I might've not made it as I don't want to be a karma whore. But, oh well, I guess I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Err, I just meant divide by 0 error, not overflow. The fun bit of that attack is that the reason it effectively bricks it is that the divide by zero error crashes it and it reboots, but it logs its data into flash, so as soon as it finishes rebooting, it starts reprocessing the stored data, thus it reads the 0 again and crashes and it just gets stuck in a loop like that forever. It's a fairly fun and clever paper.
The paper isn't really about attacking GPS infrastructure. It's about attacking GPS receivers. Some of these receivers may be part of other sorts of infrastructure. I was at CCS when the paper was presented. It's all about sending fake GPS satellite signals to receivers to exploit bugs in the software in the receivers. The work is interesting and includes attacks which can desynchronize the clocks on some devices and there was one device you could essentially brick by telling it at the satellite was at radius 0 (center of the earth) resulting in a divide by 0 overflow. I liked the paper and thought it was neat, and it could do serious damage to particular systems which rely on GPS if they have the right type of flaws in their software to be exploited by this attack, but it was not an attack against the GPS satellites or anything like that.
If a bird is wounded, it is to be killed humanely after. Either the bird flies away clean or it's dead at the end of the day. There is no in-between.
Umm, that's not what the videos from their YouTube channel shows. It shows that many of the wounder birds are not collected to be killed and instead escape with their wounds. It also shows that in at least some cases, wounded birds were killed inhumanely. You're theorizing about what they do based on what they ought to do rather than based on the available evidence of what they actually do.
Yes, but if you watch some of the videos they took from other events, you can see people doing things like kicking wounded pigeons and one adolescent who would pick up the wounded ones and then smash them against things (his knee, the ground, pigeon crates). That would generally be illegal animal cruelty. There's a difference between hunting animals and torturing them. I think that they're saying that their footage of this event contains similar abusive actions. The article doesn't say that every action at the event was illegal, just that they had been videotaping animal abuse. Unless you were there, I don't think that you can know that they didn't record animal abuse.
(As a side, someone should really monitor that particular adolescent. He appeared to be smashing the pigeons against things until they were dismembered and then cackling with glee. That's a pretty big warning sign of the potential for becoming a psychopath. I'm not saying that he is one or will necessarily become one, but if I were someone who knew him, I would keep a really close eye on him going forward.)
I've read the DMCA. I've followed the court cases. I don't understand how jailbreaking a phone or modding a console would violate the DMCA, and I don't understand why people keep legitimizing the idea that it would by asking for DMCA exceptions. The DMCA says "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." And it defines "(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
What work are we talking about if you mod your gaming console? Video games aren't scrambled or encrypted and they don't require the application of information or any process or treatment. You can run a video game in an emulator without doing anything to it. You just load it and run it. And you can easily copy a video game using a DVD or Blu-Ray reader and writer and an emulator will happily play the copy. The technological measures in a video game console are about preventing the console from running unauthorized software (including unauthorized copies of games), not about protecting the content on the gaming discs. As such, I don't understand how you would be violating the DMCA by modding your console. (Mind you, video game console manufacturers could change this if they started encrypting their discs, and they might next generation, but the current gen ones don't. They're signed, but they aren't encrypted.)
Likewise, I haven't seen any evidence that jailbreaking a smartphone would circumvent a technological measure meant to protect a copyrighted work. Now, once you jailbreak a phone, there might be software on that phone which you could circumvent, but that would be a separate act. Is there logic here that I'm missing or is no one else looking at what the law actually says?
Yes, that's what the summary is saying. They had a chance to make it legal (at least from a copyright perspective), and they decided not to. I read the summary. I'm clear on what it says. I don't need you to repeat it to me. I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat it with a weird, condescending tone.
If this course is very much like similar courses I've seen, they don't really teach you anything anyway. They just give you the book, tell you to follow it, and are available to help if you're really stuck.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that we have two problems right now. The first is that patents are being granted on general ideas rather than the steps to cause those ideas to happen. His analogy is that right now you can get a patent on the idea of sorting a list (which given some of the patents, I think is about right) even without any details of how you do it. When someone else finds a new, better way to sort a list, you can sue them and win. This argument, if accepted widely by the courts, would remove that.
The second problem is that patents are being issued for algorithms which simply shouldn't be issued because they're not novel or too obvious or because they're basically just math (and math isn't patentable). His analogy here is that you could still, if the argument wins, patent something like quicksort which he's saying shouldn't be patentable.
Once they run out of the name of real cats, the correct solution is clear: Thundercats. Personally, I'm looking forward to OS X 10.17 Snarf.
That's what I was going to suggest. They're bound as kids books so they're a little more likely to hold up to being read by a three-year-old than real comic books. They contain basically no words, so he can read them as long as he can figure out to follow the pictures in order. And if he's not quite up to reading them by himself, you can read them together.
Of course, that's assuming that takeoff and landing are 30 minutes. Sometimes I've been on a plane which had to wait out on the tarmack for as long as an hour (and there have been other cases which were quite a bit longer which I didn't personally experience). How do I deal with all that time? Well, if my seatmate doesn't feel like conversing, I usually read a book. I don't think that wanting to read a book when there's nothing else to do means that I have a sad little life, but maybe you think that makes me some sort of information freak or something. Except that books are big and bulky, so I've switched to a happy little ebook reader which is like half the size of a paperback and holds several hundred books. Except that I can't use my ebook reader because it's a gadget, even though, being an e-ink display, its emissions of any sort are really pretty minimal. People don't have to turn off their hearing aids, and those are probably about the same level of emissions. So, perhaps, if they reevaluate things, then I'll be able to read my ebook while waiting patiently and quietly for take-off. Is that really so terrible?
The stuff you'd rather not have breathed is just stale corn starch, nothing exotic. I'm sure it wasn't fun to breathe (I know I didn't enjoy it), but it isn't dangerous.
A lot of the collision sensor for airbags are just bits of mercury in a slanted tube. When there's a sudden enough deceleration, the mercury goes up the tube and makes a connection. But this can also happen if the car hits downwards fast enough. I had this happen in my 96 Camry when I was going quickly down a steep hill and there was suddenly a level train track crossing which acted like a jump ramp. I hit the brakes, but not in time and my front end was briefly airborne. It came down hard and bottomed out the suspension and hit the pavement. It wasn't a really hard hit on the pavement (no bend in the frame or even damage to the steering), but it was enough of a collision when it hit that the mercury got bounced up and Bam! airbags went off. I had my hands at about 3 and 9 or slightly lower and got the hell scrapped out of the skin on the inside of my arms and the whole thing scared the hell out of me, but otherwise, no problems.
I also initially thought that I'd killed the car because the whole thing was suddenly silent and filled with smoke. Of course, it wasn't actually smoke, just the corn starch that they use to lubricate the airbags. And the sudden silence wasn't entirely real. The engine was actually still idling quietly, I just didn't realize it. And the radio had shut off because the sudden pressure from the deploying airbags had pushed the knob in and turned it off. All I had to do was push it again to turn it back on. Really, aside from needing a new front-end alignment (done) and new airbags (which I haven't gotten because they'd cost more than a replacement car), the car was fine.
You're overstating things. Binary liquid explosives weren't even found in anyone's home. It was just an idea that they were considering and hadn't actually carried out at all.
You're going to blame the UN for the failure of Hans Blix to find all Iraqi weapons? If you've forgotten your history, the reason that Blix didn't do that was because the US got impatient and decided to start a war rather than waiting for the end result of the process. He and his team were still working until they got pulled out for their own safety once it looked like the US was going to invade.
And, in the end, after they invaded the country, none of the weapons that the US insisted that Hans Blix hadn't found ever showed up. No nuclear program. No mobile bioweapons labs. None of that stuff. The fact of the matter is that Blix and his team accounted for almost all of the biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, and there were no nuclear weapons. So how, exactly, is that a UN failure?
Please don't try and rewrite history. When the US declared war on Iraq, there had, in fact, been a UN weapons inspection team headed by Hans Blix operating in Iraq until just a few days before. They got pulled out by the UN because it looked like the US was about to declare war on Iraq, and they didn't want their weapons inspectors getting killed. The UN had said "let them in or else" and Iraq had let them in in November of 2002. The only issue which was in question was whether or not Iraq was being fully cooperative with the inspectors or not.
Really? With the train station in Kyoto? Seriously? I've been there, both in the train station and in the surrounding area. It's big, but it's not exactly skyline wrecking unless you happen to live in an apartment which directly faces it. There are plenty of other buildings nearby which are close to the same height and once you get about two blocks away, you can't even see it from the street. If you don't believe me, here's a picture from above which shows the surrounding area. Plenty of other 8+ story buildings in the area. Here's a view from the top of the hotel in the train station. What skyline is it that they're destroying exactly?
Kyoto is a lovely city. It has myriad beautiful temples and gardens and the nearby country-side is lovely. People flock to it to see the cherry trees when they are in bloom. But none of these things are very tall. Most of the famous temples aren't even visible when you're half a block away from them, nevermind part of the skyline. It does not now have an impressive skyline and if it ever did, it must have been centuries ago, and although the train station big enough to be clearly visible for a couple of blocks around, it's not exactly a sky-scraper. Honestly, its width and shininess stand out as much as its height. So, if the person writing the article thinks that the Kyoto train station (which has far more non-shinkansen platforms than shinkansen platforms) is too big or too shiny, then fine, but saying that it wrecks the skyline is just dumb.
For professors, post-docs, and most assistant positions, the standard university contract in the US tends to say that you own the copyright of everything you do and the university owns the patents. This is likely not the case if you're working as an in-house programmer or copywriter or other similar positions, but for academics, they usually own their own copyright.
The thing about this is that the law, as written agrees with you exactly. There's no stipulation in the law that if you own a legal copy of a piece of software that a license is required to use it any more than a license is required to read a book or listen to a CD. Some companies have argued that you need a license since you're copying it onto your hard drive or into RAM, but the actual copyright law says that you have the right to do this if you own a legal copy of the software per 17 USC 117.
So these licenses aren't granting you any rights which you don't already have. They're completely one-sided contracts and should be unenforceable, and yet this isn't how the courts have been finding, mostly because the side with more money to spend on lawyers often wins regardless of what the law says, which is unfortunate.
That's not really an analogy. It's just a hypothetical example of the problem. And I'm not assuming that all the claims are fraudulent. It's certainly true that the copyright status of all of fedflix's videos is not completely certain, but there are some where the specific details are known. Duck and Cover is one of these. It is definitely in the public domain. The claim against it is definitely fraudulent. So it's definitely the case that some of the claims are fraudulent. And regardless, the point wasn't about whether or not specific claims are fraudulent. The point is that YouTube has no system or mechanism available to dispute fraudulent claims of ownership and, as such, their system is vulnerable to fraudulent claims. So when you say that the real problem is not knowing the status, that's only a part of the problem. The other problem is that their system doesn't allow people to contest fraudulent claims of copyright ownership on the grounds that the material is actually public domain.
There is nothing stopping anyone who wants to from claiming the public domain footage he used for his Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse video and having his video yanked from YouTube. And if they do, he has no means to contest this. Certainly YouTube is not obligated to make his video or Duck and Cover or anything else available worldwide. They could shut down tomorrow if they'd like or switch to only videos of cats. That's their legal right. But that doesn't mean that we can't be critical of their systems or discuss their shortcomings especially when their model is being held up by some entertainment industry lobbyists as the "right way" for web sites to handle copyright violations (and held up by others as being insufficiently friendly to the big studios).
And, yes, I know that the videos blocked on YouTube are still available on archive.org. We all know that blocking something on YouTube isn't the same as erasing it from the world. But it's still troubling the YouTube is allowing fraudulent copyright claims to determine whether or not something is broadcast via YouTube.
Actually, it's much easier than this. We just wait for them to hit something and bounce back. Then we just have to record them.
I'm glad you've had good experiences and it's interesting to know what's happened to you, but none of that changes the fact that YouTube's content ownership framework doesn't allow people to dispute claims of ownership on public domain material. How would you feel if someone claimed ownership on your Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse footage you assembled and chose to block it worldwide?
Well, that's what's happened with the famous Duck and Cover educational video. It's public domain, but Image Entertainment (whoever that is) has claimed copyright of it and are blocking it from being seen in all countries except the United States. This is described in the report which Cory mentions.
The issue isn't really whether or not YouTube are good guys or bad guys. The issue is that the system they have in place doesn't effectively allow for disputing whether or not something is in the public domain. This allows people to claim content which they don't own and to profit from it. People like yourself who want to use that public domain content can have their accounts suspended or blocked for using video and audio content including content in the public domain. Now, in your case, someone made a legitimate claim to some of the content you used for your video and YouTube handled that appropriately. That's good. But when people make claims to things they don't own, they're handling that in exactly the same way, which isn't appropriate. So, if you worked hard and created an interesting video using public domain content, a random company can siphon off some of your revenue from it simply by falsely claiming that they own the copyright on something which is actually in the public domain.
The test he took is the FCAT. It has some multiple choice questions, but most questions allow you to input any number which fits in up to five characters (including fractions and decimals). So, answers like "12345" or "123.4" or "1.234" or "1/234" or "123/4" or shorter answers. Ignoring the use of leading zeros, there are 100000 non-decimal answers. There are 10000 answers with the decimal in the second place (answers with the decimal in the first place are not allowed), but 10 of those are integers, so 9990 new answers. There are 10000 answers with the decimal in the third place, but 1000 of those are zero-adjusted duplicates of answers with the decimal in the second place (1.230 is the same as 01.23) and 90 of those are integers which aren't zero-adjusted duplicates of the last group so 8910 new answers. There are 10000 answers with the decimal in the fourth place, but 1000 of those are zero-adjusted duplicates of the last group and 900 of those are integers which aren't zero-adjusted duplicates of the last group. so 8100 new numbers. So there are 10000+9990+8910+8100 = 37000 possible decimal and integer answers. And there are also 3000 possible fractional answers, some of which simplify to the same thing or are equal to decimal numbers. So, each question has 40000 possible distinct answers.
However, the odds of correctness when guessing randomly is not 1/40000 because many questions have more than 1 correct answer both because they'll accept fractions or decimals for some and because for others, they have a small range around the correct decimal answer which is still considered correct due to being close enough. But, realistically, I think that on average, you'd probably have about a 1/5000 chance of guessing correctly by guessing randomly on those.
So when he says he guessed and got things correct, he probably means that he didn't know the answer, but guessed how to solve the problem. There are also a few four-answer multiple choice questions involved, but not nearly so many as 40. More like 10 or so.
In the real world, none of that has been shown to reduce cheating. Sorry. I know that's depressing, but I'm afraid it's true.