NASA would only accept that plan if it could be assured that it'd be safe. They (and I) would rather have the Hubble come down as NASA plans than have it come down on someone's head because the people who took it over don't have the capabilities to keep it up.
"The cheat-detector company violates your copyright when they republish the copy of your work that was submitted to them. If they don't republish, they aren't violating anyone's rights."
But they *do* republish, namely when someone else's paper is detected to be plagiarized from yours. It then displays that paper for comparison.
Probably not. If turnitin were a not-for-profit entitiy, probably fair use would work as a defense. However, since it's a commercial business, that probably wouldn't stand up in court.
"Well, they ought to get used to it. That's pretty much how publishing in the academic world works. What will they do in graduate school when giving up rights is the only way they can get their degree?"
So what you're saying is "oh yes, the situation isn't desirable, so let's not complain when it becomes even more undesirable"?
"The college takes on the roll of an employer here, and has full rights to whatever works you produce."
This is often true of faculty, staff, and grad students, but it is often *not* true for undergrads. For instance, I retain copyright on my works I do for class.
"Most Linux users don't bother with BSD because of the license. At any time a corporation can come along, take the code, and use it in their closed source product. With the GPL the Microsofts of this world have a harder time stealing the code and reinforcing their monopoly."
I take much, much, MUCH issue with this statement. "Most Linux users" (myself included) don't know the first thing about making any changes to the OS code. We're not worried about whether MS can get access to the code in our system because any differences between the code we're running and what is on the distro's website is so small that MS couldn't care less about it.
Maybe this is why most of the kernel developers use Linux over BSD, but it is certainly not why most *users* do.
And yeah, as another person said, the BSD license and GPL are compatable IIRC, so you can create a quick script to place the appropriate notice at the top of each file in the BSD distro and release it with the GPL.
First, the Constitution does not provide for copyrights. It allows congress to create them, but it does not provide for them directly nor does it direct congress to use the above power.
Second, it is *perfectly* legal and acceptable for someone to contractially hand over copyrights; it's done all the time.
"I tend to think papers submitted to the university examiners should be public domain, though."
I strongly disagree. Fortunately, I go to a university where I am not required to hand over copyrights*, so if anyone started using this service I'd drop the class before submitting with it. If it was a required class I'd raise hell in the deptartment.
*As far as I can tell. I have looked through the PSU policies many times and unless I'm mistaken, you only have to hand over copyrights, inventions, etc. if you're a grad student making "substantial use of university property", which I am not.
No. The expression around here, "violate the GPL", actually means violate *either* the GPL or copyright law.
If they agreed to the GPL, they are violating the terms of the license. This is probably a contract dispute because they are not upholding their part of the bargin.
However, they can state that they did *not* agree to the GPL. In this case, they have no rights to distribute the work, but no responsibilities to uphold regarding it either. This would be a copyright dispute.
So whether they are breaking their contract or violating your copyrights is up to them.
"Soyuz also can dock (obviously:-) and it uses the same engine. It's just departing Progresses are worthless, and nobody sweats about burning 99.9% of their fuel for the station boost. Soyuzes, on the other hand, are crew return vehicles, and you never know what you may need the fuel for... so they stay fueled all the time. When your crew successfully finishes the final deorbit burn, only then you know how much spare fuel you have:-)"
Ah, I didn't know that. I kinda forgot about the deorbit burn and was thinking that the Soyuz was confined to attitude control jets. Thanks for the info!
Not to mention that scrolling thing. That's horrible. I'm running at 1600x1200, and the browser taking up ~1/2 the width. The text part is about 1/5 of *that*, and half the height. Why not just a standard HTML page?
My apologies, I forgot about the Progress. However, these take some time to build (a couple years) and I don't think there's a warehouse of them.
"An engine is an engine, regardless of what it is attached to. Only mass of your fuel and its chemical properties matter."
And whether it can dock. The Progress and shuttle are, as far as I know, the only two craft that can dock to the ISS that have anywhere close to enough power to move the thing. It's possible we could adapt something else with the power, but it hasn't been done yet.
"That I could get excited about, backed by real funding now."
And there's the key. NASA had a budget of about 70 billion dollars in the 60s IIRC. Now it's about 15. Bush wants to provide another $11 billion for the moon and mars programs. That's still well under half of the *yearly* budget of NASA when we made it to the moon.
Getting a base there in 4-6 years would probably require funding back on that level. I don't think even *I* could support that when we're already have a deficit the size of Jupiter.
Soyuz are amazingly good for taking crew and supplies, but they don't even begin to compare to the shuttle's lifting power. The crew on the station is currently two instead of three. Why? The shuttle can't go up. There's (currently) no way to boost the ISS without the shuttle. There's no way to take up new components without the shuttle. It's up there, but it's being less productive than it could be.
I'll agree with that, but as I said, we're already running into some problems with the ISS sitting up there with a decaying orbit and being less productive than it would be if we could take stuff up. Unless the shuttles are or become rediculuously unsafe, I see little reason to retire them before the replacement is ready. Especially when you consider that it'll probably be a year or two late at least.
"the design and construction of a new space vehicle fleet by 2014 (called the Crew Exploration Vehicle) to replace the aging space shuttles which will be retired in 2010"
Anyone else concerned about the 4 year break from the retirement of the shuttle to the *planned* launch of the new craft? The last time we'll have stayed out of space for so long is before the shuttle launch (assuming we get back there following Columbia anywhere near NASA's schedule). There are already problems with the ISS given the shuttle's current grounding...
Slashdot Mirror
NASA would only accept that plan if it could be assured that it'd be safe. They (and I) would rather have the Hubble come down as NASA plans than have it come down on someone's head because the people who took it over don't have the capabilities to keep it up.
This may be offtopic, but it's funny enough to deserve moderation IMO.
"The cheat-detector company violates your copyright when they republish the copy of your work that was submitted to them. If they don't republish, they aren't violating anyone's rights."
But they *do* republish, namely when someone else's paper is detected to be plagiarized from yours. It then displays that paper for comparison.
Probably not. If turnitin were a not-for-profit entitiy, probably fair use would work as a defense. However, since it's a commercial business, that probably wouldn't stand up in court.
"Well, they ought to get used to it. That's pretty much how publishing in the academic world works. What will they do in graduate school when giving up rights is the only way they can get their degree?"
So what you're saying is "oh yes, the situation isn't desirable, so let's not complain when it becomes even more undesirable"?
"The college takes on the roll of an employer here, and has full rights to whatever works you produce."
This is often true of faculty, staff, and grad students, but it is often *not* true for undergrads. For instance, I retain copyright on my works I do for class.
Registering the copyright with the USPTO or whatever does it is a good idea.
"Most Linux users don't bother with BSD because of the license. At any time a corporation can come along, take the code, and use it in their closed source product. With the GPL the Microsofts of this world have a harder time stealing the code and reinforcing their monopoly."
I take much, much, MUCH issue with this statement. "Most Linux users" (myself included) don't know the first thing about making any changes to the OS code. We're not worried about whether MS can get access to the code in our system because any differences between the code we're running and what is on the distro's website is so small that MS couldn't care less about it.
Maybe this is why most of the kernel developers use Linux over BSD, but it is certainly not why most *users* do.
And yeah, as another person said, the BSD license and GPL are compatable IIRC, so you can create a quick script to place the appropriate notice at the top of each file in the BSD distro and release it with the GPL.
First, the Constitution does not provide for copyrights. It allows congress to create them, but it does not provide for them directly nor does it direct congress to use the above power.
Second, it is *perfectly* legal and acceptable for someone to contractially hand over copyrights; it's done all the time.
"I tend to think papers submitted to the university examiners should be public domain, though."
I strongly disagree. Fortunately, I go to a university where I am not required to hand over copyrights*, so if anyone started using this service I'd drop the class before submitting with it. If it was a required class I'd raise hell in the deptartment.
*As far as I can tell. I have looked through the PSU policies many times and unless I'm mistaken, you only have to hand over copyrights, inventions, etc. if you're a grad student making "substantial use of university property", which I am not.
My university has no such policy for undergraduates.
No. The expression around here, "violate the GPL", actually means violate *either* the GPL or copyright law.
If they agreed to the GPL, they are violating the terms of the license. This is probably a contract dispute because they are not upholding their part of the bargin.
However, they can state that they did *not* agree to the GPL. In this case, they have no rights to distribute the work, but no responsibilities to uphold regarding it either. This would be a copyright dispute.
So whether they are breaking their contract or violating your copyrights is up to them.
"Soyuz also can dock (obviously :-) and it uses the same engine. It's just departing Progresses are worthless, and nobody sweats about burning 99.9% of their fuel for the station boost. Soyuzes, on the other hand, are crew return vehicles, and you never know what you may need the fuel for... so they stay fueled all the time. When your crew successfully finishes the final deorbit burn, only then you know how much spare fuel you have :-)"
Ah, I didn't know that. I kinda forgot about the deorbit burn and was thinking that the Soyuz was confined to attitude control jets. Thanks for the info!
Not to mention that scrolling thing. That's horrible. I'm running at 1600x1200, and the browser taking up ~1/2 the width. The text part is about 1/5 of *that*, and half the height. Why not just a standard HTML page?
My apologies, I forgot about the Progress. However, these take some time to build (a couple years) and I don't think there's a warehouse of them.
"An engine is an engine, regardless of what it is attached to. Only mass of your fuel and its chemical properties matter."
And whether it can dock. The Progress and shuttle are, as far as I know, the only two craft that can dock to the ISS that have anywhere close to enough power to move the thing. It's possible we could adapt something else with the power, but it hasn't been done yet.
"That I could get excited about, backed by real funding now."
And there's the key. NASA had a budget of about 70 billion dollars in the 60s IIRC. Now it's about 15. Bush wants to provide another $11 billion for the moon and mars programs. That's still well under half of the *yearly* budget of NASA when we made it to the moon.
Getting a base there in 4-6 years would probably require funding back on that level. I don't think even *I* could support that when we're already have a deficit the size of Jupiter.
Soyuz are amazingly good for taking crew and supplies, but they don't even begin to compare to the shuttle's lifting power. The crew on the station is currently two instead of three. Why? The shuttle can't go up. There's (currently) no way to boost the ISS without the shuttle. There's no way to take up new components without the shuttle. It's up there, but it's being less productive than it could be.
I'll agree with that, but as I said, we're already running into some problems with the ISS sitting up there with a decaying orbit and being less productive than it would be if we could take stuff up. Unless the shuttles are or become rediculuously unsafe, I see little reason to retire them before the replacement is ready. Especially when you consider that it'll probably be a year or two late at least.
"the design and construction of a new space vehicle fleet by 2014 (called the Crew Exploration Vehicle) to replace the aging space shuttles which will be retired in 2010"
Anyone else concerned about the 4 year break from the retirement of the shuttle to the *planned* launch of the new craft? The last time we'll have stayed out of space for so long is before the shuttle launch (assuming we get back there following Columbia anywhere near NASA's schedule). There are already problems with the ISS given the shuttle's current grounding...
It may not be possible, even theoretically. Regluar languages are pretty limited in terms of what they can encompass.
My point is there is probably a significant amount more leeway for error when dropping one of those skipping bombs as opposed to just dead targeting.
It'd probably be hard to get an accurate hit.
For some reason I'm reminded of this...
Blackmail or extortion to regain stolen property is usually not held in violation of extortion laws. My guess would be this would be the same.
When did it become Adobe's job to enforce the law at the expense of flexibility? (Albeit a small one)