There is still a very huge number of companies out there that see no value in a website. Where I live, it seems like the majority of non-chain restaurants do not have a webpage, so you cannot look up their menu. I'm repeatedly wanting to check some business's webpage for more info only to find they do not have one.
This statment and a few others here kind of validates the argument of Viacom and others concerning YouTube profiting off of others' copyrighted material.
Advertising only works if the people watching are genuinely interested and will buy the advertised products.
Actually one of the goals of advertising is to spark interest that was not there in the first place.
The older you get the less susceptable you are to this (and you are more set in your ways), and that's why most of the advertising seems to be targeted at 12 year old girls.
I think they need to really focus on the 5 second ad. Nobody will bother bypassing it. On TV, it would not even be worth skipping over with Tivo. People's attention span always seems to be getting shorter anyway.
They could provide a hot-link or "add to favorites" capability for the people who want to learn more.
Advertising is everywhere, even here on slashdot, driving down the road, watching TV, reading a newspaper, etc... The 1984 reference is kind of over the top. No one is forcing to use the products advertised; they just want you to know they exist, even if it is on a subconcious level.
Advertising allows you to get a product for free or at a discount. You will probably only see it on professional videos that people otherwise would consider purchasing. In the future you will probably be given a choice - pay a dollar or watch a 30 second commercial.
Porn looks worse in HD than it looks on the internet. Porn is cheaper on the internet, porn is more easily tailored to tastes on the internet. Porn is free, at least in large part, on the internet.
You can also sit at your desk and look totally innocent while viewing porn on the internet, and you don't have to worry about leaving a porn DVD in the player when guests come over.
I think porn will be a strong factor, but I don't know if it will have quite the impact it did with VHS. Back then, it was the only way to get porn movies at home. Now, we have VHS and DVD and the internet. I would be curious to know how the internet has affected DVD porn sales.
Some have also argued that you really don't want to see porn in high-def. Playboy airbrushes for a reason.
I believe it is backwards compatible to XP. There is a checkbox or something to use this Windows format or the standard format which any platform can read. Not really that big of a deal. This Windows format lets you move files back and forth like the DVD is another harddrive. I don't know if it is supported on other platforms or not.
Back in '86 or '87 I bought an Amiga 500. It had the same CPU (68000) as the Mac but had full color and sound (which the Mac did not back then). It cost about half as much as the Mac, and about the same as the 286XT which it was miles ahead of. Many people entrenched in the PC mindset of the time labled it a "game computer" because real business people don't need color.
There was still a lot of buzz there for a period. Wordperfect ported over their software, and there was talk that Wordperfect, Dbase, and Lotus 123 were turning to the Amiga as their main development platform.
The problem is that not many people bought Wordperfect, and it just reinforced the idea that the Amiga was not a serious "business computer" because not many people were buying the standard business software, even when it was made available to them on this different platform.
I don't think it will ever replace teachers, but I could see where it would be a good attention getter and help out the mediocre teachers. Even if they can't inspire the students, maybe all the onscreen stuff will keep the students interested.
I do think this is a lot better idea than the whole "internet access in every classroom" craze. This system can actually supplement what the teacher is doing up in front of the class, whereas the internet is more of an outside of class research activity.
Most OEM licenses don't legally allow you to transfer the software to a different machine. If you bought a Dell, HP, etc..., you cannot legally transfer that copy of Windows to a different machine. Legally you would be required to purchase a retail version.
I was watching the thread develop from the beginning - the moderators were going crazy on anything remotely critical of Apple at first. I think at this moment there are still some posts unjustly labeled "Flamebait".
You don't have to transfer ownership to assign user rights. I use a lot of software, music, videos, etc... every day that I do not own the copyright for.
Someone stated in another post that the students, not the teacher, submit the papers directly to Turnitin...I don't know how it normally works. I think legally the argument is that it is "fair use" for the professor to check the paper for plagiarism and to retain the paper to check for future plagiarism attempts, even if the university does not retain the copyright (which others have claimed it does). I believe the students have the ability to opt-out of Turnitin, but it did not work correctly in the lawsuit test case.
I just thought it was interesting how Slashdot turned into the champion of narrowly defined copyright law in this particular case, but always defends Google no matter what, even thought the situations are very similar, if not exactly the same. I don't see why the students really care, and the argument is that somebody is making money is kind of a knee-jerk, anti-establishment Slashdot response.
I did not say they did not. I said that was not where most of their value was derived. They have millions of papers submitted, but only a very few of these would ever be plagiarised. They also state that they use content found on the internet, published papers, etc...
My point is that removing individual papers submitted by particular high school students has a neglible effect on their profitability, just as removing particular websites from Google search has neglible effect on their profitability. On the other hand, if every website with the word "poker" stopped allowing Google to index it and only allowed Yahoo, Google would lose value because everybody would stop searching for poker on Google and they could not sell any ads (I spent around $20K on poker ads one year.)
In reality, the individual papers have no bearing on Turnitin unless they were particular papers that were plagiarized. If the student plans to sells his paper to others, then removing that paper from Turnitin does hurt Turnitin's effectiveness. Ultimately I don't see why the student cares unless he was planning on committing plagiarism to begin with (selling your paper to others so they can copy it is academic dishonesty.) The argument that it matters because Turnitin is making money rings hollow to me because the situation is very analagous to Google, which most people around Slashdot feel compelled to drop to their knees and worship/blow. Personally I don't care if Google or Turnitin makes money, but it is interesting how in terms of copyright or IP law, Slashdot's only consistancy is "anti-establishment, unless it is Google...and excuse me while I wipe the Google from my cheek..."
From what I understood, opting out was an option, it just did not work correctly in this particular case. As others have pointed out, opting out of Google does not necessarily work all the time either.
I don't think removing indiviual high school term papers hurts their bottom line. I would assume they legitamely purchase all the papers sold by the term paper services and store those in the database. That is where Turnitin's value comes from - a database of term papers known to be for sale and for a database of published works that are routinely plagiarized.
Google makes it easy to opt-out for the website operator, but the content and design of the website is often licensed from the actual copyright holder. For example, a photographer might license a photo to somebody, but as the copyright holder he cannot control whether the license indexes his webpage with the included photo, unless he gets it writing. Google makes money, and copyright holder does not necessarily have direct control, just like in Turnitin's case.
Turnitin doesn't give "open access"; nobody will ever read the student's work on Turnitin unless plagiarism is detected. I think it is fair use by the professor to test the document to see if it contains plagiarism and to retain a copy of the document to make sure nobody else plagiarizes it. Turnitin is just providing a convenient means of retaining documents solely for the purposes of detecting plagiarism.
I personally I don't care whether Google or Slashdot makes money, and I don't know why the students REALLY care. It is funny to see which side of IP issues Slashdot favors on a case by case basis.
In comparison to the situation with Turnitin, the teacher is working as a licensee or exercising fair use. If the student doesn't want it list in the database he too can "write it into the license"; Turnitin provides the option not to have it included.
The whole point was that somebody asked why do the students even care, and somebody said something about Turnitin making money. I just pointed out that it was a similar situation to Google. Personally I don't care if Google or Turnitin makes money, and I don't know why the students care.
Slashdot Mirror
There is still a very huge number of companies out there that see no value in a website. Where I live, it seems like the majority of non-chain restaurants do not have a webpage, so you cannot look up their menu. I'm repeatedly wanting to check some business's webpage for more info only to find they do not have one.
My first thought was all the celebrities like Madonna writing children's books.
Or you just don't get it...
Physics - talk about a lack of females...Maybe 3-4% in upper level classes.
This statment and a few others here kind of validates the argument of Viacom and others concerning YouTube profiting off of others' copyrighted material.
Actually one of the goals of advertising is to spark interest that was not there in the first place.
The older you get the less susceptable you are to this (and you are more set in your ways), and that's why most of the advertising seems to be targeted at 12 year old girls.
I think they need to really focus on the 5 second ad. Nobody will bother bypassing it. On TV, it would not even be worth skipping over with Tivo. People's attention span always seems to be getting shorter anyway.
They could provide a hot-link or "add to favorites" capability for the people who want to learn more.
Advertising is everywhere, even here on slashdot, driving down the road, watching TV, reading a newspaper, etc... The 1984 reference is kind of over the top. No one is forcing to use the products advertised; they just want you to know they exist, even if it is on a subconcious level.
Advertising allows you to get a product for free or at a discount. You will probably only see it on professional videos that people otherwise would consider purchasing. In the future you will probably be given a choice - pay a dollar or watch a 30 second commercial.
You can also sit at your desk and look totally innocent while viewing porn on the internet, and you don't have to worry about leaving a porn DVD in the player when guests come over.
I think porn will be a strong factor, but I don't know if it will have quite the impact it did with VHS. Back then, it was the only way to get porn movies at home. Now, we have VHS and DVD and the internet. I would be curious to know how the internet has affected DVD porn sales.
Some have also argued that you really don't want to see porn in high-def. Playboy airbrushes for a reason.
I believe it is backwards compatible to XP. There is a checkbox or something to use this Windows format or the standard format which any platform can read. Not really that big of a deal. This Windows format lets you move files back and forth like the DVD is another harddrive. I don't know if it is supported on other platforms or not.
As many have said, I like the extra daylight. It would be nice if it saves energy, but the extra daylight is more important to me.
Installed mindset.
Back in '86 or '87 I bought an Amiga 500. It had the same CPU (68000) as the Mac but had full color and sound (which the Mac did not back then). It cost about half as much as the Mac, and about the same as the 286XT which it was miles ahead of. Many people entrenched in the PC mindset of the time labled it a "game computer" because real business people don't need color.
There was still a lot of buzz there for a period. Wordperfect ported over their software, and there was talk that Wordperfect, Dbase, and Lotus 123 were turning to the Amiga as their main development platform.
The problem is that not many people bought Wordperfect, and it just reinforced the idea that the Amiga was not a serious "business computer" because not many people were buying the standard business software, even when it was made available to them on this different platform.
I don't think it will ever replace teachers, but I could see where it would be a good attention getter and help out the mediocre teachers. Even if they can't inspire the students, maybe all the onscreen stuff will keep the students interested.
I do think this is a lot better idea than the whole "internet access in every classroom" craze. This system can actually supplement what the teacher is doing up in front of the class, whereas the internet is more of an outside of class research activity.
Most OEM licenses don't legally allow you to transfer the software to a different machine. If you bought a Dell, HP, etc..., you cannot legally transfer that copy of Windows to a different machine. Legally you would be required to purchase a retail version.
I was watching the thread develop from the beginning - the moderators were going crazy on anything remotely critical of Apple at first. I think at this moment there are still some posts unjustly labeled "Flamebait".
Hey, I'm sold...let me order a copy of OSX and triple-boot it with Vista and Linux on my existing computer...Oh I can't...Nevermind.
You don't have to transfer ownership to assign user rights. I use a lot of software, music, videos, etc... every day that I do not own the copyright for.
Someone stated in another post that the students, not the teacher, submit the papers directly to Turnitin...I don't know how it normally works. I think legally the argument is that it is "fair use" for the professor to check the paper for plagiarism and to retain the paper to check for future plagiarism attempts, even if the university does not retain the copyright (which others have claimed it does). I believe the students have the ability to opt-out of Turnitin, but it did not work correctly in the lawsuit test case.
I just thought it was interesting how Slashdot turned into the champion of narrowly defined copyright law in this particular case, but always defends Google no matter what, even thought the situations are very similar, if not exactly the same. I don't see why the students really care, and the argument is that somebody is making money is kind of a knee-jerk, anti-establishment Slashdot response.
I did not say they did not. I said that was not where most of their value was derived. They have millions of papers submitted, but only a very few of these would ever be plagiarised. They also state that they use content found on the internet, published papers, etc...
My point is that removing individual papers submitted by particular high school students has a neglible effect on their profitability, just as removing particular websites from Google search has neglible effect on their profitability. On the other hand, if every website with the word "poker" stopped allowing Google to index it and only allowed Yahoo, Google would lose value because everybody would stop searching for poker on Google and they could not sell any ads (I spent around $20K on poker ads one year.)
In reality, the individual papers have no bearing on Turnitin unless they were particular papers that were plagiarized. If the student plans to sells his paper to others, then removing that paper from Turnitin does hurt Turnitin's effectiveness. Ultimately I don't see why the student cares unless he was planning on committing plagiarism to begin with (selling your paper to others so they can copy it is academic dishonesty.) The argument that it matters because Turnitin is making money rings hollow to me because the situation is very analagous to Google, which most people around Slashdot feel compelled to drop to their knees and worship/blow. Personally I don't care if Google or Turnitin makes money, but it is interesting how in terms of copyright or IP law, Slashdot's only consistancy is "anti-establishment, unless it is Google...and excuse me while I wipe the Google from my cheek..."
From what I understood, opting out was an option, it just did not work correctly in this particular case. As others have pointed out, opting out of Google does not necessarily work all the time either.
I don't think removing indiviual high school term papers hurts their bottom line. I would assume they legitamely purchase all the papers sold by the term paper services and store those in the database. That is where Turnitin's value comes from - a database of term papers known to be for sale and for a database of published works that are routinely plagiarized.
Google makes it easy to opt-out for the website operator, but the content and design of the website is often licensed from the actual copyright holder. For example, a photographer might license a photo to somebody, but as the copyright holder he cannot control whether the license indexes his webpage with the included photo, unless he gets it writing. Google makes money, and copyright holder does not necessarily have direct control, just like in Turnitin's case. Turnitin doesn't give "open access"; nobody will ever read the student's work on Turnitin unless plagiarism is detected. I think it is fair use by the professor to test the document to see if it contains plagiarism and to retain a copy of the document to make sure nobody else plagiarizes it. Turnitin is just providing a convenient means of retaining documents solely for the purposes of detecting plagiarism. I personally I don't care whether Google or Slashdot makes money, and I don't know why the students REALLY care. It is funny to see which side of IP issues Slashdot favors on a case by case basis.
In comparison to the situation with Turnitin, the teacher is working as a licensee or exercising fair use. If the student doesn't want it list in the database he too can "write it into the license"; Turnitin provides the option not to have it included. The whole point was that somebody asked why do the students even care, and somebody said something about Turnitin making money. I just pointed out that it was a similar situation to Google. Personally I don't care if Google or Turnitin makes money, and I don't know why the students care.
I believe in the US it is the exact opposite, or it was the last time I checked.