Yawn First do you think they will use a secure hash?
Second I am referring to any collision, not that of a particular file.
With a sufficiently large data set, getting one hash match becomes likely. The amount of copywritten material is a VERY large data set. I am sure somewhere somehow a few of those hashes will match those of my own few thousand files.
Even if it is perfectly legal for me, as a copyright holder, Nobody should be permitted to break the law to harrass me and destroy the value of my work, when I am acting in a legal manner.
This is like shooting an abortion doctor because you think that abortion is wrong.
The link I see to MS antitrust violations and turnitin.com is that both companies have clearly acted in violation of the law to build their business, and destroy that of others. And nobody seems to care that there is no punishment.
Plagarism is wrong, but there are legal ways to work on this problem, wholesale copyright violation isn't an acceptable one.
You can kick anyone out of your place of business of course. By opening a business you are generating an implied license of entry to them. Revoke it, and they are no longer permitted to enter. Key point is you must explicity inform them of the change.
Student handbook agreements, sure they can have these, and they can kick them out. My point is unless I specifically and explicitly sign over my rights to them, I own my work.
Companies have lost ownership of employee inventions done on company time using company equipment. Companies have also (less frequently) gained rights to employee inventions done on the employees personal time.
It isn't very clear cut, I'm not a lawyer, and this is just my opinion, and my logic behind it.
The only "marketable value" being destroyed is the money that next semester's panicked students would have been willing to pay to turn it in as their own? That's not a valid objection.
It isn't? There is a demand, they are willing to pay, seems like marketable value. And a company is basing it's entire existance on driving those legal companies out of business, by violating the writers copyrights.
When you use illegal means to destroy companies, you should be punished. I bet your glad MS isn't getting any punishement for their antitrust violations too.
And from my experience, if the school tried that they should fail. I didn't sign any such contract, I was not provided with that contract. Obviously I have not agreed to it.
You can't just make a contract, and assume people are bound by it, they have to make a clear statement in some way that they understand and agree.
Not as much lazy instructors as those who don't spend time on teaching. Some are busy with other stuff, but students deserve better than being an obstacle in their instructors day.
The problem is that nobody has the balls to sue the copyright infringing plagarism detector.
They are copying the work, for the sole purpose of destroying it's marketable value. This is very illegal. I hope someone nails them a few times, at the maximum penalty they'll be gone.
Also as a student I should not have to give rights of my work to anyone.
Academic fraud is a problem, but the end doesn't justify the means.
I didn't say there wasn't a feedback loop. Cheapest and easiest lens to design. Add in that it is typically very high quality, of course they'll sell more.
A pro using a high end Digital SLR should be using a pro lens. They are expensive, but they do have the quality. Actually compared to any point and shoot camera, or entry/mid level digital cameras the consumer quality SLR lens is likely much better. I was surprised how much more detail and contrast I got from my SLR, it made other pictures appear quite poor in comparison.
That being said, you only notice the quality when you compare, I love my digital for snapshots.
This is just a rah-rah re-election ploy, with such short notice they can maybe award a few billion in contracts to friends, but no spending on the scale required to accomplish the goals. I think this will last about 13 months.
Now on my economic rant.
Government contracts don't make money, they redistribute your tax money.
They can create jobs, but these aren't real free market jobs, it's just taxpayer funded job subsidization, when the gov spending stops, so do the jobs.
The real benefit is when they can stimulate real jobs, ones that don't rely on continuous gov money to exist. Nobody has an easy answer how to accomplish this, but the trick is to make people and companies want to "do stuff" on their own. The current idea is to make an environment that stimulates this. Simple and well enforced laws, good infrastructure lead to this.
This isn't required, and it isn't groundbreaking. The 'established' industry didn't change in this way, why would this new method act as described. (Edited to make a point)
Some might not argee with me. I have believed that couldn't be considered a completely viable choice for many companies until something like this happened. Why? Because it hadn't been tested.
Take no right to inspect, review repair or modify the product. Add that to the fact that most, if not all, distributions claimed not to take legal responsibility for their products. I believe that after (Pick a software company) loses their lawsuit that companies will start providing legal immunity to their customers. (Name one closed source company that does)
The problem with LEGO is the stupid pieces. Grab a random $20 kit at a store, it's full of special pieces with no real use. What happened to actual blocks? you get only a few if any in the average kit.
I was going to buy lego for some children, until I realized I would need a moderate fortune to give them a decent assortment of basic pieces.
I disagree Voting should be so easy and so simple to do that it is hard to screw up.
A key part of a fair election is that if someone makes the effort to cast a vote, the system should record that vote. Making it unnecessarily difficult risks making it an unfair election.
Yes, but if I get mine done today, and you don't, you can't compete with me because you aren't there yet.
I get first crack at the market, by the time you catch up I could already be improving my performance by rewrite critical portions in a higher performance language. Then not only do I end up with your same performance, but I got into the market first.
Slashdot Mirror
Yawn
First do you think they will use a secure hash?
Second I am referring to any collision, not that of a particular file.
With a sufficiently large data set, getting one hash match becomes likely.
The amount of copywritten material is a VERY large data set. I am sure somewhere somehow a few of those hashes will match those of my own few thousand files.
A hash doesn't identify a unique work, an unlimited number of files could share the same hash value.
I can't imagine the amount of fun when people start harrassing companies by generating files with the same hashes.
Even if it is perfectly legal for me, as a copyright holder,
Nobody should be permitted to break the law to harrass me and destroy the value of my work, when I am acting in a legal manner.
This is like shooting an abortion doctor because you think that abortion is wrong.
The link I see to MS antitrust violations and turnitin.com is that both companies have clearly acted in violation of the law to build their business, and destroy that of others.
And nobody seems to care that there is no punishment.
Plagarism is wrong, but there are legal ways to work on this problem, wholesale copyright violation isn't an acceptable one.
You can kick anyone out of your place of business of course.
By opening a business you are generating an implied license of entry to them. Revoke it, and they are no longer permitted to enter.
Key point is you must explicity inform them of the change.
Student handbook agreements, sure they can have these, and they can kick them out. My point is unless I specifically and explicitly sign over my rights to them, I own my work.
Companies have lost ownership of employee inventions done on company time using company equipment. Companies have also (less frequently) gained rights to employee inventions done on the employees personal time.
It isn't very clear cut, I'm not a lawyer, and this is just my opinion, and my logic behind it.
The only "marketable value" being destroyed is the money that next semester's panicked students would have been willing to pay to turn it in as their own? That's not a valid objection.
It isn't?
There is a demand, they are willing to pay, seems like marketable value.
And a company is basing it's entire existance on driving those legal companies out of business, by violating the writers copyrights.
When you use illegal means to destroy companies, you should be punished. I bet your glad MS isn't getting any punishement for their antitrust violations too.
Sure, nothing wrong with that is there?
Contract
And from my experience, if the school tried that they should fail.
I didn't sign any such contract, I was not provided with that contract. Obviously I have not agreed to it.
You can't just make a contract, and assume people are bound by it, they have to make a clear statement in some way that they understand and agree.
Your way is a lot more work.
Not as much lazy instructors as those who don't spend time on teaching.
Some are busy with other stuff, but students deserve better than being an obstacle in their instructors day.
Remember CD keys?
Did he forget the generations of copy protection before this?
The C64 copy protection battles, with the crazy disk access.
The code wheels and papers, and manuals
Companies keep trying, get some success, then it starts to fail, then they improve. This is just the copy protection arms race.
Good, give me my money from turnitin.com.
Sorry, if the teachers could come up with halfway decent ideas, and marked, this problem wouldn't exist.
When you assignment is "analyse this book" of course you're going to get the same crap again and again.
But if the assignment is "how does this book relate to a recent local news event" you might get something else.
The problem is that nobody has the balls to sue the copyright infringing plagarism detector.
They are copying the work, for the sole purpose of destroying it's marketable value. This is very illegal. I hope someone nails them a few times, at the maximum penalty they'll be gone.
Also as a student I should not have to give rights of my work to anyone.
Academic fraud is a problem, but the end doesn't justify the means.
Space Cowboys is an excellent movie.
Funny, well developed characters, technically well done.
Of course the USPS should sponsor a company to do this.
Much better then just working with the existing projects.
Does the name really matter? Or does the quality of the product matter?
Plus if you reuse someones name, people get upset, much easier to just choose a stupid name you're sure nobody has.
I don't think a hostname is a URL.
I didn't say there wasn't a feedback loop.
Cheapest and easiest lens to design.
Add in that it is typically very high quality, of course they'll sell more.
Now if only I could get a cheap wide lens
Most 50/1.8 are pro quality for two reasons.
It is easy to make a 50mm lens.
It's the standard, volume makes them cheap enough to do well.
A pro using a high end Digital SLR should be using a pro lens.
They are expensive, but they do have the quality.
Actually compared to any point and shoot camera, or entry/mid level digital cameras the consumer quality SLR lens is likely much better.
I was surprised how much more detail and contrast I got from my SLR, it made other pictures appear quite poor in comparison.
That being said, you only notice the quality when you compare, I love my digital for snapshots.
This is just a rah-rah re-election ploy, with such short notice they can maybe award a few billion in contracts to friends, but no spending on the scale required to accomplish the goals.
I think this will last about 13 months.
Now on my economic rant.
Government contracts don't make money, they redistribute your tax money.
They can create jobs, but these aren't real free market jobs, it's just taxpayer funded job subsidization, when the gov spending stops, so do the jobs.
The real benefit is when they can stimulate real jobs, ones that don't rely on continuous gov money to exist. Nobody has an easy answer how to accomplish this, but the trick is to make people and companies want to "do stuff" on their own.
The current idea is to make an environment that stimulates this. Simple and well enforced laws, good infrastructure lead to this.
This isn't required, and it isn't groundbreaking.
The 'established' industry didn't change in this way, why would this new method act as described.
(Edited to make a point)
Some might not argee with me.
I have believed that couldn't be considered a completely viable choice for many companies until something like this happened. Why? Because it hadn't been tested.
Take no right to inspect, review repair or modify the product. Add that to the fact that most, if not all, distributions claimed not to take legal responsibility for their products. I believe that after (Pick a software company) loses their lawsuit that companies will start providing legal immunity to their customers. (Name one closed source company that does)
Please show what DLL's they distribute without a licence.
The problem with LEGO is the stupid pieces.
Grab a random $20 kit at a store, it's full of special pieces with no real use.
What happened to actual blocks? you get only a few if any in the average kit.
I was going to buy lego for some children, until I realized I would need a moderate fortune to give them a decent assortment of basic pieces.
I disagree
Voting should be so easy and so simple to do that it is hard to screw up.
A key part of a fair election is that if someone makes the effort to cast a vote, the system should record that vote.
Making it unnecessarily difficult risks making it an unfair election.
Yes, but if I get mine done today, and you don't, you can't compete with me because you aren't there yet.
I get first crack at the market, by the time you catch up I could already be improving my performance by rewrite critical portions in a higher performance language.
Then not only do I end up with your same performance, but I got into the market first.