This has been the case for a while where student work is turned over to a plagiarism screening service which then owns a copy of the work in perpetuity, whether or not the student consents to it.
I think those are usually salaried employees and the reason for it is that it makes it a lot less complicated when there's a dispute over ownership. So, that people don't have to constantly log when they had various ideas and what led to the idea.
But, those folks are usually paid much better than teachers are and generally have funds to do their jobs in a way that teachers don't usually get funding.
And if you find alternatives that work that's just fine. But, between those 3 companies it's awfully hard to buy any computers or cell phones.
It's not the using that's the problem, it's the giving them money that's a problem. I'm sure that they'd love to sell you a product that they don't have to support because you don't use it at all.
That's a strawman. If you're driving the speed limit and stop if it's safe to do so and you still get a ticket. You sue the city. If they've really cut the yellow that short, you'll win the case and either have to remove the cameras or get them set properly. In either case you would win.
Also, if that's truly the case, you should stop voting for incompetent politicians and agree to pay the taxes necessary to fund city projects.
The point of them is to decrease the number of t-bone collisions at the intersection. Those are the ones most likely to end in serious injury. Because of physics and the way that the cars are engineered, running into something head on is usually safer than being hit with the same force from the side.
Around here we use flashing yellows for that. It's sort of like flashing reds, but you don't have to stop. Just slow down and make sure nobody's coming from a different direction.
Not really, entrapment is when you induce somebody to do something illegal so that you can arrest them. Catching somebody doing something when they think nobody is looking isn't entrapment. The point of these cameras is so that people know not to run the light.
Now, if they're reducing the duration of the yellow light to catch more speeders, that could possibly be entrapment.
The solution is to "accidentally" dial the wrong number several times for every one time you dial the correct one. Eventually there will be enough complaints about the system and the data itself will be such complete worthless junk that they'll have to do something about it.
And by something I mean probably ban people from dialing the wrong number.
Generally fan art is derivative and not to mention a trademark violation. That hasn't changed recently nor would I expect it to any time soon. Anybody creating such works really ought to have an attorney on retainer as it's generally a matter of time before one is going to get a cease and desist letter.
Now, some of it is going to be fair use, and that's why one ought to have an attorney if one is going to engage in such things, or just plan to pull the work and hope not to get sued.
The main difference is that it's no longer just the intellectual elites that need concern themselves with it. People on slashdot do as well.
One of the very serious problems with life in the US, and I suspect the UK as well, is that one is not allowed to plead ignorance even though one would have to be a highly skilled attorney to know where the line is. Often times they don't even know until the courts rule.
It's not clearly copied. The only things about it that are in common are the general location and the subject. Everything about it is incredibly unoriginal. Selective coloring is kind of cool, but it's not really justification for granting protection. Neither is cutting away the sky. Sure, it was kind of a dickhead move creating an image that he knew might be confused for somebody elses work, but the two images shouldn't be considered the same for copyright images.
Of course this is the UK and it's somewhat different over there.
I see so you're an expert in art? I've studied photography pretty seriously for years, and I can tell you that there's a lot more that goes on than just capturing what you see. Seeing it is a talent that requires a lot of study, but most photographers, even most nature photographers and some photojournalists, stage the photos. Just because the medium requires a click at the end does not suggest that any less work went into the photo than a comparable painting.
The truly talented can end up going months between inception and creation.
Then again, you're a troll, so who gives a damn what you think.
There can be a fine line at times. In practice unless two images are so similar that even the photographers can't tell them apart there isn't an issue.
In that case there is an argument to be made for protecting photographers against slavish recreations, but that isn't something that is covered under current copyright law. And I also don't believe that it's common enough to even bother commencing a debate. Such cases are virtually always the result of formulaic creation and lacking in originality.
If you bothered to read any of my posts, there's a damn good reason why they would crack the security rather than doing a PIT maneuver. The reasons are, it's safer, more dependable, you can better control the situation and fewer witnesses.
There are any number of ways in which you could screw with map data to trick a car into going somewhere it isn't supposed to go. Those sensors, they only have a range as far as they can detect which is typically not as far as you seem to think. Pretty much as soon as you can't see in front of you the sensor isn't going to do much better. If you program the map to not recognize the highway that's outside of that radius, the sensors aren't going to save you. If you tell the sensors that the road is one way or that it's a one way street a couple blocks down, the sensor isn't going to pick that up.
The point is that there's plenty of precedence for these kind of sneaky attacks against computer systems, I see absolutely no reason to believe that the computer systems in an autonomous car are going to be special in that regards.
Sure it is, if you want to package something that's not Firefox, but just uses 99.9% of the code you typically just fork it. Or you do like Linux Mint and change the name and add a patchset over the top.
I seriously wonder if the Debian guys would be cool if I took their source modified it in a few subtle ways and then released it as "Debian." I could be wrong, but I doubt very much that they would be cool with it, because what I'd be distributing wouldn't be Debian and they'd have to deal with the consequences if things went wrong.
Sure they did. For one thing they could have chosen a more respectful name. And for a second thing plenty of free software projects are perfectly fine with those terms. It's just that the Debian developers were being self centered assholes.
Additionally, a trademark is not something that the GPL grants you. If they chose to use the trademark, then they had to agree to provide the same Firefox as everybody else. This is normal. When there is a fork there is normally a change of name. Patches are normally sent upstream to the developer.
Where Linux got into a lot of trouble over the years was with subtly incompatible kernel revisions because they weren't all using the same source.
Quite frankly, it's more than a little hypocritical of the Debian guys to use GPL and then bitch about somebody else forcing them to do something. The GPL is based around the notion that people using their code have to be forced to release it.
Ice Weasel is the result of some sour grapes from some Debian developers over having to either comply with Mozilla's branding requirements or not use Mozilla's trademarks. It was a pretty immature and petty thing to do, but well within their rights.
Like I said in my other post, where precisely do these cars get their maps from? If they deal with congestion and road closures, that data has to come from somewhere. I remember seeing an episode of Monk where somebody screwed with the GPS navigation system to take the car off course.
It's fantasy stuff to believe that an autonomous car is going to be operating without maps any time soon and as long as the cars are dependent upon maps to know how to get where they're going, they're going to be susceptible to this sort of misdirection.
Honestly, I don't know where you guys get the idea that these cars aren't going to be susceptible to the same GIGO that affects everything else.
No, I'm not misunderstanding the concept. Where exactly do you think those maps come from? That the car just magically has all of them for the entire world, magically updated? Or perhaps congestion data?
The point is that if you think we're anywhere near the point where these things aren't going to have to connect to the net to get information you're sorely mistaken. Autonomous only implies one thing, no driver necessary. It does not imply that it's never going to touch the internet, in fact, it implies the opposite, unless of course you're going to make the driver plug a card in every time, and there you're just switching the attack vector.
They're automomous, at some point they're likely to be operating on their own.
But, either way, I'm sure at some point one of these things is going to arrive somewhere driving half way with a dead body because the driver died and there were no sensors to tell the car about the death.
I'm guessing that when cars get to the point where they can basically go on autopilot for portions of the trip that they'll also have some sort of software to tell them to pull over when law enforcement says to.
As for that driver, they weren't trying to execute a PIT, they were trying to blow the tires out with nail strips and from the sounds of it she wasn't doing 30 for periods, she was weaving all over the place and accelerating and slowing.
I take it you've never heard of "Onstar." Once you get into the car there's going to be the possibility of feeding it new directions unless the systems are completely separated.
The difference here is that it's a lot easier for them to avoid being seen ahead of time and a lot less risk for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been the case for a while where student work is turned over to a plagiarism screening service which then owns a copy of the work in perpetuity, whether or not the student consents to it.
I think those are usually salaried employees and the reason for it is that it makes it a lot less complicated when there's a dispute over ownership. So, that people don't have to constantly log when they had various ideas and what led to the idea.
But, those folks are usually paid much better than teachers are and generally have funds to do their jobs in a way that teachers don't usually get funding.
And if you find alternatives that work that's just fine. But, between those 3 companies it's awfully hard to buy any computers or cell phones.
It's not the using that's the problem, it's the giving them money that's a problem. I'm sure that they'd love to sell you a product that they don't have to support because you don't use it at all.
That's a strawman. If you're driving the speed limit and stop if it's safe to do so and you still get a ticket. You sue the city. If they've really cut the yellow that short, you'll win the case and either have to remove the cameras or get them set properly. In either case you would win.
Also, if that's truly the case, you should stop voting for incompetent politicians and agree to pay the taxes necessary to fund city projects.
The point of them is to decrease the number of t-bone collisions at the intersection. Those are the ones most likely to end in serious injury. Because of physics and the way that the cars are engineered, running into something head on is usually safer than being hit with the same force from the side.
Around here we use flashing yellows for that. It's sort of like flashing reds, but you don't have to stop. Just slow down and make sure nobody's coming from a different direction.
Not really, entrapment is when you induce somebody to do something illegal so that you can arrest them. Catching somebody doing something when they think nobody is looking isn't entrapment. The point of these cameras is so that people know not to run the light.
Now, if they're reducing the duration of the yellow light to catch more speeders, that could possibly be entrapment.
The solution is to "accidentally" dial the wrong number several times for every one time you dial the correct one. Eventually there will be enough complaints about the system and the data itself will be such complete worthless junk that they'll have to do something about it.
And by something I mean probably ban people from dialing the wrong number.
Not quite, Xerox would have won, and Apple and MS would probably be relegated to some minor role the way that Boreland was.
I thought common practice was to arrest them on terrorism charges and hold them until they're no longer interesting.
Generally fan art is derivative and not to mention a trademark violation. That hasn't changed recently nor would I expect it to any time soon. Anybody creating such works really ought to have an attorney on retainer as it's generally a matter of time before one is going to get a cease and desist letter.
Now, some of it is going to be fair use, and that's why one ought to have an attorney if one is going to engage in such things, or just plan to pull the work and hope not to get sued.
The main difference is that it's no longer just the intellectual elites that need concern themselves with it. People on slashdot do as well.
One of the very serious problems with life in the US, and I suspect the UK as well, is that one is not allowed to plead ignorance even though one would have to be a highly skilled attorney to know where the line is. Often times they don't even know until the courts rule.
It's not clearly copied. The only things about it that are in common are the general location and the subject. Everything about it is incredibly unoriginal. Selective coloring is kind of cool, but it's not really justification for granting protection. Neither is cutting away the sky. Sure, it was kind of a dickhead move creating an image that he knew might be confused for somebody elses work, but the two images shouldn't be considered the same for copyright images.
Of course this is the UK and it's somewhat different over there.
I see so you're an expert in art? I've studied photography pretty seriously for years, and I can tell you that there's a lot more that goes on than just capturing what you see. Seeing it is a talent that requires a lot of study, but most photographers, even most nature photographers and some photojournalists, stage the photos. Just because the medium requires a click at the end does not suggest that any less work went into the photo than a comparable painting.
The truly talented can end up going months between inception and creation.
Then again, you're a troll, so who gives a damn what you think.
There can be a fine line at times. In practice unless two images are so similar that even the photographers can't tell them apart there isn't an issue.
In that case there is an argument to be made for protecting photographers against slavish recreations, but that isn't something that is covered under current copyright law. And I also don't believe that it's common enough to even bother commencing a debate. Such cases are virtually always the result of formulaic creation and lacking in originality.
If you bothered to read any of my posts, there's a damn good reason why they would crack the security rather than doing a PIT maneuver. The reasons are, it's safer, more dependable, you can better control the situation and fewer witnesses.
No, it's not and you're being incredibly obtuse.
There are any number of ways in which you could screw with map data to trick a car into going somewhere it isn't supposed to go. Those sensors, they only have a range as far as they can detect which is typically not as far as you seem to think. Pretty much as soon as you can't see in front of you the sensor isn't going to do much better. If you program the map to not recognize the highway that's outside of that radius, the sensors aren't going to save you. If you tell the sensors that the road is one way or that it's a one way street a couple blocks down, the sensor isn't going to pick that up.
The point is that there's plenty of precedence for these kind of sneaky attacks against computer systems, I see absolutely no reason to believe that the computer systems in an autonomous car are going to be special in that regards.
Sure it is, if you want to package something that's not Firefox, but just uses 99.9% of the code you typically just fork it. Or you do like Linux Mint and change the name and add a patchset over the top.
I seriously wonder if the Debian guys would be cool if I took their source modified it in a few subtle ways and then released it as "Debian." I could be wrong, but I doubt very much that they would be cool with it, because what I'd be distributing wouldn't be Debian and they'd have to deal with the consequences if things went wrong.
Sure they did. For one thing they could have chosen a more respectful name. And for a second thing plenty of free software projects are perfectly fine with those terms. It's just that the Debian developers were being self centered assholes.
Additionally, a trademark is not something that the GPL grants you. If they chose to use the trademark, then they had to agree to provide the same Firefox as everybody else. This is normal. When there is a fork there is normally a change of name. Patches are normally sent upstream to the developer.
Where Linux got into a lot of trouble over the years was with subtly incompatible kernel revisions because they weren't all using the same source.
Quite frankly, it's more than a little hypocritical of the Debian guys to use GPL and then bitch about somebody else forcing them to do something. The GPL is based around the notion that people using their code have to be forced to release it.
Ice Weasel is the result of some sour grapes from some Debian developers over having to either comply with Mozilla's branding requirements or not use Mozilla's trademarks. It was a pretty immature and petty thing to do, but well within their rights.
Like I said in my other post, where precisely do these cars get their maps from? If they deal with congestion and road closures, that data has to come from somewhere. I remember seeing an episode of Monk where somebody screwed with the GPS navigation system to take the car off course.
It's fantasy stuff to believe that an autonomous car is going to be operating without maps any time soon and as long as the cars are dependent upon maps to know how to get where they're going, they're going to be susceptible to this sort of misdirection.
Honestly, I don't know where you guys get the idea that these cars aren't going to be susceptible to the same GIGO that affects everything else.
No, I'm not misunderstanding the concept. Where exactly do you think those maps come from? That the car just magically has all of them for the entire world, magically updated? Or perhaps congestion data?
The point is that if you think we're anywhere near the point where these things aren't going to have to connect to the net to get information you're sorely mistaken. Autonomous only implies one thing, no driver necessary. It does not imply that it's never going to touch the internet, in fact, it implies the opposite, unless of course you're going to make the driver plug a card in every time, and there you're just switching the attack vector.
They're automomous, at some point they're likely to be operating on their own.
But, either way, I'm sure at some point one of these things is going to arrive somewhere driving half way with a dead body because the driver died and there were no sensors to tell the car about the death.
I'm guessing that when cars get to the point where they can basically go on autopilot for portions of the trip that they'll also have some sort of software to tell them to pull over when law enforcement says to.
As for that driver, they weren't trying to execute a PIT, they were trying to blow the tires out with nail strips and from the sounds of it she wasn't doing 30 for periods, she was weaving all over the place and accelerating and slowing.
I take it you've never heard of "Onstar." Once you get into the car there's going to be the possibility of feeding it new directions unless the systems are completely separated.
The difference here is that it's a lot easier for them to avoid being seen ahead of time and a lot less risk for themselves.
God I hope you're never on a rape jury.