Actually, if you substitute "shoot a video" for "read a book", I think you're on the right track. As long as you can construe payment for the pr0n-making and not the sex, you should be in good shape.
The terms of the group are one big issue; the other big issue is "... Neale admits the professor stipulated the online homework questions were to be done independently..." If a professor stipulates you need to work independently, even holding a study group of four students to work the solutions is academically dishonest. That is of course less detectable, but the prof needs to say something if the entire class is working together.
And the "post your solutions" business would have gotten me in trouble even in classes where I was specifically encouraged to collaborate -- the professor had an specific expectation that we would help each other through but not just duplicate answers.
Continue to keep your eyes open: science continues to make unnatural chimeras at a blinding speed. Check out that story a few down about growing teeth, for example. The bioengineering we're up to these days is heavy stuff.
I hate to point this out to the Einsteins who are making this but all you would need to do is run two of these boxes on two different accounts and diff the resulting output of the two fixed length videos, eliminating any element that are not common to both.... This one is not even clever. You mean to tell me you expect to rip from two sources and the only difference will be the watermark? You are dreaming more than the company hawking the technology.
If their watermark is something persistent in every frame, seems like it would be trivial to remove, but I wonder how clever they actually are. My guess is that it won't be visible to the eye, and it'll be dynamic -- the bits they're adding might be in different locations throughout the feed (so that you can't just add a bit of your own noise of a similar sort to muck it up).
This is actually similar to the "invisible spots" made by your inkjet printers.
Anyway, I'm sure some of the geeks employed to implement this stuff are smart enough to deserve a bit of credit.
This seems scarily like insurance companies denying claims when a lock was bumped.
Granted, I want people to pay for their own mistakes, but what if that new intern in payroll made a photocopy of my direct deposit auth form for a rainy day?
I should have known better than to click through past the second page, but once I did I had to work my way out of the muddle that was this story. It's like when someone leaves the newspaper open to the sudoku on the subway.
page 1: "Since I have yet to find a non-biased reference to the issue, I will simply use Google's explanation." And I'll tell you the flip side too, which is that if the ISPs could charge for higher tiers to build fatter pipes. Oh, and "Once again, this is just one opinion and definitely not one that I support myself."
page 2: WebOSes aren't awesome yet, but if you don't have net neutrality, then, uh, those ISPs could block things like would-be awesome webOSes.
page 3: The idea of a webOS will be in a tech museum as some kind of pipe dream [my pun] by 2009, of which "Google was supposed to be the father"... But the author "already explained how Google is already very much offering an online OS from [his] previous article".
page 4: We get rural penetration but the poor rural people cannot afford to pay for the google/myspace tier, so the companies will offer them a discount so long as they use the Broadband-OS, which "guarantees that they control how you do your day-to-day activities"
page 5: ISPs are rich and smart. They'll actually get Google -- "Yes, Google. The server masters of the universe." -- to build your Broadband-OS. And the cable companies want in, too.
I'm not sure how exactly googleOS was museum-grade obsolete and also making the proprietary Big Brother OS, but that's the story as best I could understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you substitute "shoot a video" for "read a book", I think you're on the right track. As long as you can construe payment for the pr0n-making and not the sex, you should be in good shape.
The terms of the group are one big issue; the other big issue is "... Neale admits the professor stipulated the online homework questions were to be done independently..." If a professor stipulates you need to work independently, even holding a study group of four students to work the solutions is academically dishonest. That is of course less detectable, but the prof needs to say something if the entire class is working together. And the "post your solutions" business would have gotten me in trouble even in classes where I was specifically encouraged to collaborate -- the professor had an specific expectation that we would help each other through but not just duplicate answers.
Continue to keep your eyes open: science continues to make unnatural chimeras at a blinding speed. Check out that story a few down about growing teeth, for example. The bioengineering we're up to these days is heavy stuff.
This one is not even clever. You mean to tell me you expect to rip from two sources and the only difference will be the watermark? You are dreaming more than the company hawking the technology.
If their watermark is something persistent in every frame, seems like it would be trivial to remove, but I wonder how clever they actually are. My guess is that it won't be visible to the eye, and it'll be dynamic -- the bits they're adding might be in different locations throughout the feed (so that you can't just add a bit of your own noise of a similar sort to muck it up).
This is actually similar to the "invisible spots" made by your inkjet printers.
Anyway, I'm sure some of the geeks employed to implement this stuff are smart enough to deserve a bit of credit.
This seems scarily like insurance companies denying claims when a lock was bumped.
Granted, I want people to pay for their own mistakes, but what if that new intern in payroll made a photocopy of my direct deposit auth form for a rainy day?
I should have known better than to click through past the second page, but once I did I had to work my way out of the muddle that was this story. It's like when someone leaves the newspaper open to the sudoku on the subway.
page 1: "Since I have yet to find a non-biased reference to the issue, I will simply use Google's explanation." And I'll tell you the flip side too, which is that if the ISPs could charge for higher tiers to build fatter pipes. Oh, and "Once again, this is just one opinion and definitely not one that I support myself."
page 2: WebOSes aren't awesome yet, but if you don't have net neutrality, then, uh, those ISPs could block things like would-be awesome webOSes.
page 3: The idea of a webOS will be in a tech museum as some kind of pipe dream [my pun] by 2009, of which "Google was supposed to be the father"... But the author "already explained how Google is already very much offering an online OS from [his] previous article".
page 4: We get rural penetration but the poor rural people cannot afford to pay for the google/myspace tier, so the companies will offer them a discount so long as they use the Broadband-OS, which "guarantees that they control how you do your day-to-day activities"
page 5: ISPs are rich and smart. They'll actually get Google -- "Yes, Google. The server masters of the universe." -- to build your Broadband-OS. And the cable companies want in, too.
I'm not sure how exactly googleOS was museum-grade obsolete and also making the proprietary Big Brother OS, but that's the story as best I could understand it.
s/([Pp])eople/$1people/g ?
I do think our man here is related to the former Iraqi information minister.