Plagiarism is a symptom of professors only being involved in the last step: reviewing the final product.
Require the students to submit multiple drafts. Meet with them for 15 minutes each and discuss their thought processes on the ongoing paper. You'll get better final products, teach people not to procrastinate, and smoke-out people who have no involvement in their "own work."
What, can't do that because you have 60 students in a class? Well, there's part of the problem too.
We're trying to find a technology solution to a problem with less student-teacher interaction. Typical!
Re:That 7.4 billion bought a sh*tload of useful I.
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 1
I wasn't even talking about MySQL. There's a lot more to Sun's I.P. than that. Owning Java alone is worth 7.4 billion to IBM.
I suspect that there was something other than the price that made IBM turn away; some other condition of the deal. If so, I wonder what the Sun board put at a higher value than the shareholder's return in the sale.
That 7.4 billion bought a sh*tload of useful I.P.
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This was an intellectual property firesale. IBM = idiots. Congratulations to anyone who realized Sun stock was ridiculously undervalued; you deserve the profit you made by buying low.
Yes, very stupid move on IBM's part
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Oracle suddenly has a great operating system, great server hardware, a popular database, and the de facto language of server-side business logic (other than COBOL.)
And IBM has built so much of its business on Java.
IBM should have just opened the piggy bank and it would have saved itself the world of hurt it now has in store.
Apparently we can now create server processes that count from 1 to some huge number on a port and thus we have a copyright in those numbers.
Machines don't create copyrighted works. Authors do. And they fix them in tangible form. Dynamic is not fixed in tangible form.
And for crying out loud this is FUNCTIONAL crap here. Executing code. How the hell do you separate executing code from its functional portion, as copyrighted work needs to be? It's code for crying out loud, and it is running. You want to lock up functionality in IP? That's called a PATENT.
Where's the necessary modicum of creativity in an algorithm? And for godsakes 99.99999% of what the server is doing is reacting to USERS who are, if anyone, the EXPRESSORS of any creativity that is going on in those packets going out to all the clients.
This decision is just fucked, in my humble opinion. Copyright is so far from its moorings it has smashed into every other dock in the bay and is now sailing out to sea.
Also if you look at the claims for the patent it requires CLIENT software that does considerably more client-state tracking than Telnet ever did for text muds.
People on Slashdot discussing the Law sound as informed as your average senior citizen would sound on here discussing tech. "I PUT THE ETHERNET INTO THE HARD DRIVE WHY DOESN'T MY AOL WORK?!"
There's a reason why people spend three years of their life in law school. It's not for their health.
... and you'll need to wade your way through 35 USC s102 and related case law to know whether alleged prior art defeated the novelty of this patent.
It's a crappy patent -- I hate it, it's lame, and I think it is pretty damn obvious and does not advance the art -- but as to whether there is prior art, that's another story.
[*Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I am a law student.]
Because many patent attorneys are not entirely sure WTF Bilski has actually done to software patents. And "invalidate this extremely quickly" rarely happens in patent law after a patent has been granted. There are many levels of appeals, etc.
The Bilski decision invalidated a business method patent that was so abstract it could be done in a person's head. The dicta [nonbinding precedent -- stuff unnecessary for the specific holding] of Bilski said some soothing things that made certain computer algorithms appear vulnerable.
But really, do not overestimate Bilski. And don't forget the Supreme Court hasn't yet weighed in on whether it will deny cert to Bilski... [at least I am not aware of any denial...]
Maybe it is just me, but sketpress releases like this are hardly news. Think of every breakthrough you've read about on Slashdot that was supposedly going to be a product in 5 or 10 years....
I'm no attorney, but perhaps Google figures that if they treat these products as "experimental" in some way they will have a chance at mitigating the one year timer on obtaining a patent after public use?
... then learning Java, EJB, etc.... it should be a walk in the park. You shouldn't even need a book. Just go get the specifications from the Sun site and read them.
Seriously, Java is orders of magnitude more simple than C++. (That's a pro and a con.)
If the purpose of the FDA's rule or order would not be a legitimate legislative purpose if enacted by Congress, than it is NULL and VOID. Unfortunately, the courts are putting SEPARATION of powers above CHECKS and balances, thus leaving us all to the tender mercies of politicians and bureaucrats.
The only Answer is to VOTE OUT those pieces of shit, and their bosses who hire them and drop them onto us like urinal deuces.
Slashdot Mirror
... new here. ;-)
Plagiarism is a symptom of professors only being involved in the last step: reviewing the final product.
Require the students to submit multiple drafts. Meet with them for 15 minutes each and discuss their thought processes on the ongoing paper. You'll get better final products, teach people not to procrastinate, and smoke-out people who have no involvement in their "own work."
What, can't do that because you have 60 students in a class? Well, there's part of the problem too.
We're trying to find a technology solution to a problem with less student-teacher interaction. Typical!
I wasn't even talking about MySQL. There's a lot more to Sun's I.P. than that. Owning Java alone is worth 7.4 billion to IBM.
I suspect that there was something other than the price that made IBM turn away; some other condition of the deal. If so, I wonder what the Sun board put at a higher value than the shareholder's return in the sale.
This was an intellectual property firesale. IBM = idiots. Congratulations to anyone who realized Sun stock was ridiculously undervalued; you deserve the profit you made by buying low.
Oracle suddenly has a great operating system, great server hardware, a popular database, and the de facto language of server-side business logic (other than COBOL.)
And IBM has built so much of its business on Java.
IBM should have just opened the piggy bank and it would have saved itself the world of hurt it now has in store.
... is a reliable indicator of who sent the email... ;-)
Maybe the average consumer isn't a poweruser like you and me?
Apparently we can now create server processes that count from 1 to some huge number on a port and thus we have a copyright in those numbers.
Machines don't create copyrighted works. Authors do. And they fix them in tangible form. Dynamic is not fixed in tangible form.
And for crying out loud this is FUNCTIONAL crap here. Executing code. How the hell do you separate executing code from its functional portion, as copyrighted work needs to be? It's code for crying out loud, and it is running. You want to lock up functionality in IP? That's called a PATENT.
Where's the necessary modicum of creativity in an algorithm? And for godsakes 99.99999% of what the server is doing is reacting to USERS who are, if anyone, the EXPRESSORS of any creativity that is going on in those packets going out to all the clients.
This decision is just fucked, in my humble opinion. Copyright is so far from its moorings it has smashed into every other dock in the bay and is now sailing out to sea.
Or do these NEOs have some kind of exotic resource that I am unaware of?
Matrixium -- it used to be worth quite a bit, but it has been overmined.
(f) CowboyNeal
Hopefully Raph had fun leaning from all the failings of Star Wars Galaxies. Me, not so much fun playing those failings.
Seriously though, sad loss. Enjoyed his acting.
Witnesses saw suspect screaming "developers, developers, developers!"
From the patent itself: Related U.S. Application Data
(63) Continuation of application No. 08/747,420, filed on Nov. 12, 1996, now Pat. No. 6,219,045.
Now educate yourself on continuing patents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application
Now look at the dates for release of Ultima Online and Everquest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everquest
Also if you look at the claims for the patent it requires CLIENT software that does considerably more client-state tracking than Telnet ever did for text muds.
From the patent itself: Related U.S. Application Data
(63) Continuation of application No. 08/747,420, filed on Nov. 12, 1996, now Pat. No. 6,219,045.
Now educate yourself on continuing patents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application
Now look at the dates for release of Ultima Online and Everquest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everquest
People on Slashdot discussing the Law sound as informed as your average senior citizen would sound on here discussing tech. "I PUT THE ETHERNET INTO THE HARD DRIVE WHY DOESN'T MY AOL WORK?!"
There's a reason why people spend three years of their life in law school. It's not for their health.
... and you'll need to wade your way through 35 USC s102 and related case law to know whether alleged prior art defeated the novelty of this patent.
It's a crappy patent -- I hate it, it's lame, and I think it is pretty damn obvious and does not advance the art -- but as to whether there is prior art, that's another story.
[*Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I am a law student.]
Because many patent attorneys are not entirely sure WTF Bilski has actually done to software patents. And "invalidate this extremely quickly" rarely happens in patent law after a patent has been granted. There are many levels of appeals, etc.
The Bilski decision invalidated a business method patent that was so abstract it could be done in a person's head. The dicta [nonbinding precedent -- stuff unnecessary for the specific holding] of Bilski said some soothing things that made certain computer algorithms appear vulnerable.
But really, do not overestimate Bilski. And don't forget the Supreme Court hasn't yet weighed in on whether it will deny cert to Bilski ... [at least I am not aware of any denial...]
Only one spider could read.
... or these crooks get away scott-free in the long run.
[Insert facepalm ascii art here.]
Maybe it is just me, but sketpress releases like this are hardly news. Think of every breakthrough you've read about on Slashdot that was supposedly going to be a product in 5 or 10 years. ...
I'm no attorney, but perhaps Google figures that if they treat these products as "experimental" in some way they will have a chance at mitigating the one year timer on obtaining a patent after public use?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_use
If you can vote, please vote for Congresscritters and a President who explicitly endorse an end to this bullsh*t.
... then learning Java, EJB, etc. ... it should be a walk in the park. You shouldn't even need a book. Just go get the specifications from the Sun site and read them.
Seriously, Java is orders of magnitude more simple than C++. (That's a pro and a con.)
If the purpose of the FDA's rule or order would not be a legitimate legislative purpose if enacted by Congress, than it is NULL and VOID. Unfortunately, the courts are putting SEPARATION of powers above CHECKS and balances, thus leaving us all to the tender mercies of politicians and bureaucrats.
The only Answer is to VOTE OUT those pieces of shit, and their bosses who hire them and drop them onto us like urinal deuces.
Ramen.