Sure, we don't bemoan the fact that there are so few geeks getting jobs as car mechanics. Last time I checked, though, there wasn't a huge shortage of car mechanics.
There is, however, a forthcoming shortage of CS/IT professionals. And silly stereotypes that discourage otherwise perfectly suited individuals from pursuing a career in CS/IT help no-one.
There is a common cultural stereotype about what a CS major "looks like": their skills, their interests, their demeanor, and so on. Basically, if you want to be a CS major, you're supposed to be like Bill Gates or Steve Wozniak or Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer. There are plenty of folks driven off from even considering CS as a vocation because of that stereotype. Sure, many of those driven off are women, but I've seen men driven off by the same stereotype.
Given the predicted shortage of CS/IT professionals coming in the next ten years, CS can't afford to be driving off anyone due to some sort of cultural stereotype. Offering a different version of a CS curriculum isn't offering a "pink CS degree"; it simply shows that there are different ways to be a CS major.
The Star Trek analogy is flawed. If your Star Trek script is submitted to Turnitin, you still retain the copyright to the original script. And if Paramount acquires a copy of the script from Turnitin, they'd still have to pay you for the right to use it.
As to the future... if I could predict it, would I be posting here?
Copyright doesn't grant a universal right to control a creative work. Keep in mind that the purpose of copyright is to *encourage* more creative works, not less; in doing so, copyright law will grant certain limited rights of control to the copyright owner in order to encourage more work.
The famous "fair use" test provides an exemption to copyright law, and depends upon the famous four point test. Basically, courts can consider four issues in determining whether or not use of other works without permission is allowable:
The purpose and character of the use of the work. If the use of the work creates something "new" rather than just providing a copy, the use is more likely to be allowable. Educational use is also more allowable than commercial use, but this isn't an absolute trump card.
The nature of the work being copied. You can't copyright facts or ideas, only expressions thereof.
The amount and substantiality of the work being copied. In general, the less you copy, the better; even then, though, what you copy matters. (The last minute of Citizen Kane is a little more key to understanding the movie than, say, a random minute from the middle of the movie.)
The effect of the use upon the value of the work. Does the copy provide enough of a substitute that people would be less likely to buy the original? If so, the copy is less likely to be allowable. This doesn't affect criticism, however... a negative review of a book or movie might have an impact on its sales, but that doesn't make quoting the book or movie a violation of fair use
Now, this isn't an all-or-nothing or add-up-the-points analysis. Courts take all matters into consideration.
The plagiarism detector was definitely a "new work" created from the old works, and therefore was likely to be permissable.
The nature of the work was not a factor in the decision, either way.
The amount of the work was not a factor in the decision; while whole works were used, they were only used in limited ways (i.e. to compare for plagiarism).
The use of the papers did not affect the market value of the works, therefore favoring the use.
On the whole, then, the tool was deemed to be fair use.
Not exactly. While length of material is one of the tests of the fair use exception, it's only one. Another test is the importance of the material to the overall work. If the 30 seconds you use is the best 30 seconds of the whole show, and perhaps the only reason that people watched the whole 30 minute show, then your use is much more likely to be infringing.
(For example: posting the last 30 seconds of Citizen Kane, where we find out what Rosebud really is, even though it's only 30 seconds out of two hours worth of movie, would likely be seen as infringing.)
Disclaimer: IANAL. But I really love watching JAG.
Seriously, though, there are a couple of motivations.
a) Since we've long ago given up on actually counting ballots by hand, we need some sort of mechanized process to do so. Most current mechanized processes involve a person indicating a choice on a piece of paper (punching a hole, filling an oval, pulling a lever which punches a hole, etc.). As the 2000 elections in Florida showed, there are a great many ways for the act of indicating a choice on a piece of paper to obscure the voter's intent. Some believe that the solution to this problem is removing the piece of paper from the process entirely.
b) Most of those historical physical ballot processes are not accessible to those with some disabilities; if you're blind, you have to ask someone to fill it out for you. Depending on your level of paranoia, this may or may not be a problem. At a minimum, though, it's a violation of the privacy of the voter. Since many computer systems have well-develop interfaces for those with disabilities, it's argued that such a system would improve voting for those sorts of people.
(And not only that, but a computer-based voting system could do consistency checks, like forbidding you to vote twice for the same office. It could also provide multi-lingual support.)
Having said all of that, there are better answers to both problems. My precinct just converted to a new voting system this year. Most of us able-bodied folks color in the bubbles on a form. Those with visual impairments can use a specially-equipped computer to print a paper ballot with their choices. In both cases, the printed ballot is the definitive record of the voter's choices.
Actually, you've precisely identified the relevant problems.
For a data-crazed, media-driven culture, 6 hours is too long to wait. If the polls close at
9pm, the local news wonks want to be able to announce the results on the 11pm news. It really
shouldn't matter how long it takes, but people want those results.
More people should mean more counters, but more counters means more money spent to hire, train, and feed the counters. Machines are "cheaper" than people, after all. And nobody wants to spend money on local elections... it doesn't have the sex appeal of new roads, new buildings, etc..
Now, neither of those reasons should affect anything. But we live in a wacky, money-driven, media-driven culture...
The official press release is at
http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,1607,7-192--126002-- ,00.html.
The release (which doesn't have a lot of detail) says that minors are prohibited from renting or buying video games which are rated "NC-17" or "M for Mature".
No, I haven't read the actual bills...
Dunno about anyone else... but at the couple of Panera's that I visit, there's plenty of power outlets available. In fact, a couple of them specifically have cute little signs above them indicating their availability for laptop users.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no shortage of CS/IT personnel.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics would disagree with you.
https://docs.google.com/docume...
Sure, we don't bemoan the fact that there are so few geeks getting jobs as car mechanics. Last time I checked, though, there wasn't a huge shortage of car mechanics.
There is, however, a forthcoming shortage of CS/IT professionals. And silly stereotypes that discourage otherwise perfectly suited individuals from pursuing a career in CS/IT help no-one.
This isn't about offering a "pink CS degree".
There is a common cultural stereotype about what a CS major "looks like": their skills, their interests, their demeanor, and so on. Basically, if you want to be a CS major, you're supposed to be like Bill Gates or Steve Wozniak or Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer. There are plenty of folks driven off from even considering CS as a vocation because of that stereotype. Sure, many of those driven off are women, but I've seen men driven off by the same stereotype.
Given the predicted shortage of CS/IT professionals coming in the next ten years, CS can't afford to be driving off anyone due to some sort of cultural stereotype. Offering a different version of a CS curriculum isn't offering a "pink CS degree"; it simply shows that there are different ways to be a CS major.
And ... you know, some boys like pink, too. :)
The Star Trek analogy is flawed. If your Star Trek script is submitted to Turnitin, you still retain the copyright to the original script. And if Paramount acquires a copy of the script from Turnitin, they'd still have to pay you for the right to use it. As to the future ... if I could predict it, would I be posting here?
Copyright doesn't grant a universal right to control a creative work. Keep in mind that the purpose of copyright is to *encourage* more creative works, not less; in doing so, copyright law will grant certain limited rights of control to the copyright owner in order to encourage more work.
The famous "fair use" test provides an exemption to copyright law, and depends upon the famous four point test. Basically, courts can consider four issues in determining whether or not use of other works without permission is allowable:
Now, this isn't an all-or-nothing or add-up-the-points analysis. Courts take all matters into consideration.
In the actual decision, the court ruled:
On the whole, then, the tool was deemed to be fair use.
Not exactly. While length of material is one of the tests of the fair use exception, it's only one. Another test is the importance of the material to the overall work. If the 30 seconds you use is the best 30 seconds of the whole show, and perhaps the only reason that people watched the whole 30 minute show, then your use is much more likely to be infringing. (For example: posting the last 30 seconds of Citizen Kane, where we find out what Rosebud really is, even though it's only 30 seconds out of two hours worth of movie, would likely be seen as infringing.) Disclaimer: IANAL. But I really love watching JAG.
Can you say "hanging chad"?
Seriously, though, there are a couple of motivations.
a) Since we've long ago given up on actually counting ballots by hand, we need some sort of mechanized process to do so. Most current mechanized processes involve a person indicating a choice on a piece of paper (punching a hole, filling an oval, pulling a lever which punches a hole, etc.). As the 2000 elections in Florida showed, there are a great many ways for the act of indicating a choice on a piece of paper to obscure the voter's intent. Some believe that the solution to this problem is removing the piece of paper from the process entirely.
b) Most of those historical physical ballot processes are not accessible to those with some disabilities; if you're blind, you have to ask someone to fill it out for you. Depending on your level of paranoia, this may or may not be a problem. At a minimum, though, it's a violation of the privacy of the voter. Since many computer systems have well-develop interfaces for those with disabilities, it's argued that such a system would improve voting for those sorts of people.
(And not only that, but a computer-based voting system could do consistency checks, like forbidding you to vote twice for the same office. It could also provide multi-lingual support.)
Having said all of that, there are better answers to both problems. My precinct just converted to a new voting system this year. Most of us able-bodied folks color in the bubbles on a form. Those with visual impairments can use a specially-equipped computer to print a paper ballot with their choices. In both cases, the printed ballot is the definitive record of the voter's choices.
- For a data-crazed, media-driven culture, 6 hours is too long to wait. If the polls close at
9pm, the local news wonks want to be able to announce the results on the 11pm news. It really
shouldn't matter how long it takes, but people want those results.
- More people should mean more counters, but more counters means more money spent to hire, train, and feed the counters. Machines are "cheaper" than people, after all. And nobody wants to spend money on local elections
... it doesn't have the sex appeal of new roads, new buildings, etc..
Now, neither of those reasons should affect anything. But we live in a wacky, money-driven, media-driven cultureThe official press release is at http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,1607,7-192--126002-- ,00.html.
The release (which doesn't have a lot of detail) says that minors are prohibited from renting or buying video games which are rated "NC-17" or "M for Mature".
No, I haven't read the actual bills ...
Dunno about anyone else ... but at the couple of Panera's that I visit, there's plenty of power outlets available. In fact, a couple of them specifically have cute little signs above them indicating their availability for laptop users.
Get a copy of Computer Science Unplugged:
http://unplugged.canterbury.ac.nz/
It's a great book which takes modern CS concepts and translates them into activities for young people.