Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 194 posts

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#181

Post by alisonkisk »

Teknoman117 wrote: post #142
8ytecoder wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is education like this in the US? Is it the teachers who willingly allow students to spend so much unnecessarily? Is it the admins? Do they get paid to do this stuff?

I think a lot of this hides behind the notion of "accredited" universities and courses. Some education board (with heavy influence from various companies) decides that you need to select from a set of curriculum to be accredited. Other universities (and some employers) won't honor credits or degrees unless they're from accredited courses.

This is absolutely false. There is zero requirement to use anything like Person for accreditation.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#182

Post by alisonkisk »

bronson wrote: post #77
truth_ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an unethical practice employed by some companies. Although in many cases it can be circumvented by buying old textbooks anyway. I am glad that many CS authors nowadays make textbooks available for free. And companies like O'Reilly, Packt, and Manning provide DRM free copies.

When I tried using a previous edition, the page numbers and most of the exercises didn't line up. "Thursday's test will be on pp 144-172 inclusive, and get to know exercise 5.17." It put me at a surprisingly big disadvantage. Pretty sure the publishers anticipated this.

What school was this? I would never send myself or a child to a school that exploited us like that.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#183

Post by alisonkisk »

temp8964 wrote: post #100
truth_ wrote: post #12

Not totally unrelated: Pearson is a piece of trash company. They sell very overpriced textbooks and always use DRM in online copies. They lobby for standardized tests in states and get them mandated. Students are put through them. And guess who provides the certificate required by teachers to evaluate those exam copies? Yes, Pearson. And they make a ton of money. Please watch this talk for more context (even if you d…

> They lobby for standardized tests in states and get them mandated. Students are put through them. This is totally false. State standardized test is the natural consequence of state public education accountability system. There must be a comparable measure across all the public schools in the state as the foundation for accountability measurements. And all (>95%) the students must be tested for equity reasons. No ma…

It's far less work to type two words into a search engine than to write an I'll informed comment. Why trouble yourself with the long embarrassing comment?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/03/...

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#184

Post by alisonkisk »

mabbo wrote: post #148
yccs27 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like the perfect way to enable frivolous takedowns, because the accused might not be able to pay the deposit to dispute the claim. Additionally, small artists might similarly become unable to enforce their rights. (And if the deposit isn't too big, do you think a few dollars will deter billion-dollar companies?)

Is it worse than the existing system where there is no cost, and no way to fight back? I'm not arguing that it's a perfect system, but with a few adjustments I feel it's a much better one than exists today.

A counterclaim letter is the way to fight back.

The law is fine. The enforcement is iffy.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#186

Post by dragonwriter »

kelnos wrote: post #156
dragonwriter wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The claiming and counterclaiming process is independent of the merit of copyright under DMCA. The DMCA process isn’t a mandatory process, it is a process to receive safe harbor from whatever liability would otherwise exist. If there would be no liability independent of the DMCA safe harbor, there is no mandate to follow the safe harbor process. (If you disagree with this, here’s what you need to do, identify—with c…

> If there would be no liability independent of the DMCA safe harbor, there is no mandate to follow the safe harbor process. The problem is that GitHub doesn't get to decide that. If they give up their option for safe harbor by not following the DMCA takedown process, the company claiming copyright can sue them. Even if they don't win, defending these things costs time and money. I don't blame GitHub for just not wan…

> The problem is that GitHub doesn't get to decide that. If they give up their option for safe harbor by not following the DMCA takedown process, the company claiming copyright can sue them.

The company can sue them in either case. The DMCA safe harbor is a particular easy basis for a motion to dismiss, but other easy bases may exist in specific cases. Blindly following the DMCA safe harbor process is a sensible risk mitigation strategy, and exactly what the law is structured to promote, but it is very explicitly not a mandate.

> I don't blame GitHub for just not wanting to deal with all that. You seem to disagree

You are a mistaking a fact statement about what the law does and doesn’t require with a normative statement about what Github should do.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#187

Post by trasz »

yissp wrote: post #163
trasz wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we perhaps invent a standard convention for keeping issues and PR history along with the usual source code in the repo itself?

https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki from the sqlite guy.

But this is a whole another SCM instead of Git, isn’t it? What I’ve meant was just a convention within Git, same way we have a convention for README.md and “doc/“.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#188

Post by valkum »

gravypod wrote: post #178
airstrike wrote: post #23

If you're just looking for the algorithms, there's always this C# port (from 7 years ago): https://github.com/angellaa/algs4 Interestingly, the README includes an e-mail exchange with Kevin, who noted the code is GPL

It looks like the original code is located here: https://algs4.cs.princeton.edu/code/ Found this in the link you provided. As you can see from the code there is a GPL license footer on each file.

This site even links to the now taken down Git repo.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#189

Post by BenFeldman1930 »

rzzzt wrote: post #41
st_goliath wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Internet Investigator Haha... that's a brilliant euphemism for "profession Google user". Or maybe we could call it "serial scrapist"? Of all the silly titles I tried to come up with, this sure hadn't crossed my mind yet. And it has a catchy ring to it too. "Internet Investigator" got to be somewhere up there between "Adult Software Engineer" (middle ground between "Junior" and "Senior") and "Server Captain/Commodor…

I'm a bit of Web Browsing Enthusiast myself.

Check out our recent job offers at 221B Baker Street, London.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#190

Post by brentonator »

salawat wrote: post #171
hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the legal system does make it simple to apply that penalty I assume you're missing a word there?

They probably meant "doesn't". If it is in error, I am curious how much work it would take to get that perjury result though.

Should be automatic like the DMCA filings they send out.
Post reply on HN