ICUT

[Eclipse]

Sure the legal folks may say it's okay...

No, if the legal folks say it's "OK", it's "OK".  That's how this works, but regardless, making public accusations about the ethics of the leadership
is not a good idea, nor is it even "ethical", unless you know for a fact that something illegal was done.

There's also the common-sense issue of picking your battles, something sorely lost on many cadets these days.

[JeffDG]

No, if the legal folks say it's "OK", it's "OK".

Not unless that "legal folk" happens to be wearing a robe in the midst of a dispute.  Otherwise, other "legal folks" offer opinions.

[denverpilot]

No, if the legal folks say it's "OK", it's "OK".  That's how this works, but regardless, making public accusations about the ethics of the leadership
is not a good idea, nor is it even "ethical", unless you know for a fact that something illegal was done.

There's also the common-sense issue of picking your battles, something sorely lost on many cadets these days.

Not sure who you think is a Cadet, but if that was supposed to be thinly veiled intimidation, I don't play. I also hope no Cadet ever backs down on the subject of the possible theft of other's hard work either.

I'm an IT Pro and have been for coming up on 21 years. I'm as qualified as anyone to recognize and/or suspect stolen icons and digital works when I see them. My qualified professional opinion is that those icons are direct from various computer operating systems.

Some Apple, some Microsoft, some appear to be AOL/TimeWarner icons, as I recall. And none of those companies license them for other's use. (I'm not exactly sitting here with the screen open, looking at them again to confirm.)

I made no claims about leadership other than that they likely have made a mistake that needs to be corrected.  Certainly no claim about their ethics.

I have no battle. The developer did it, it's ostensibly been reviewed.  A comment on a public non-CAP discussion website where one lone guy says the equivalent of, "You know, those icons look ripped off to me," isn't a treatise on anyone's ethics.

Saying there are lawyers who'd not know that it's a problem, also isn't an attack on them. I've educated my employers' Marketing and Legal staff on similar problems in the past. ("Hey guys, you know... Just because we use Cisco hardware in our equipment racks doesn't mean we get to put their logo on our website without permission...")

Bottom line... my signature isn't on it.  And I guarantee it wouldn't get my signature on a Software Change Control Board or Committee, many of which I've sat on and had to sign the release documents in organizations with far more at stake -- than CAP has with an internal website. 

But just for the sake of explaining how simple it is... if I were really out to claim there was a true ethics violation, I'd just download them and bitmap compare them down to the 32-bit color code of each pixel and prove it. If the colors and shapes match, pixel for pixel, they're stolen.

It's about ten minutes worth of work to find out.

Note, I haven't.

If I were out to make real trouble, I'd just send a screenshot to the companies who's works were infringed. Their lawyers would fight the battle for me. They'd have a cease-and-desist on someone's desk in a half an hour.

Note, I haven't.

So your comment about "choosing battles" is lost on me.

The furthest I took it, was to post it as a comment here. You're of the opinion it's an attack of epic proportions.

I just pointed out that it looks like stolen IP. I didn't send it up any official chain of command. It's a comment on CAPTalk, for goodness sakes, not a subpoena for evidence.

If I meant an attack, the battle would already be over and done with, decisively.

I would tend to say it's more likely to be attributable to a mistake, more than willful ignorance of the law. And I'll stand by my comment that Legal may have just plain missed it, too.

[Eclipse]

Not sure who you think is a Cadet...

Extreme is a cadet, and one who has issues with knowing which battles to pick.  The reply was to your comment but directed primarily at him.

However either of you would get more redress about this by sending a message to NHQ.  An honest mistake would then be corrected, however
you can't use words like "stolen" in regards to IP, and then pretend that's not an indictment of the ethics of the person doing the "stealing".
Assumption of an honest mistake would not involve the word "stolen".

Anyway, It's not like this is important like the issue of CN vs. CD.

[JeffDG]

Anyway, It's not like this is important like the issue of CN vs. CD.

When did we start talking about railroads?

[Extremepredjudice]

Not sure who you think is a Cadet...

Extreme is a cadet, and one who has issues with knowing which battles to pick.  The reply was to your comment but directed primarily at him.

However either of you would get more redress about this by sending a message to NHQ.  An honest mistake would then be corrected, however
you can't use words like "stolen" in regards to IP, and then pretend that's not an indictment of the ethics of the person doing the "stealing".
Assumption of an honest mistake would not involve the word "stolen".

Anyway, It's not like this is important like the issue of CN vs. CD.

Property can be stolen, yes? So why isn't IP the same. Is piracy not stealing IP?

Sure, it isn't important. Until you get caught and get sued...

[Eclipse]

Anyway, It's not like this is important like the issue of CN vs. CD.

When did we start talking about railroads?

Right after the comment about people not wearing enough hats...the meeting had to move on to the next agenda item.

[Eclipse]

Anyway, It's not like this is important like the issue of CN vs. CD.
Property can be stolen, yes? So why isn't IP the same. Is piracy not stealing IP?

Congratulations on missing the point.

[Extremepredjudice]

Anyway, It's not like this is important like the issue of CN vs. CD.
Property can be stolen, yes? So why isn't IP the same. Is piracy not stealing IP?

Congratulations on missing the point.

Thank you, sir.

[a2capt]

Go take over some other threads with content a little closer to what you're sniveling about.

[Brad]

Ok, just finished writing up an outline summary of ICUT and sent it up to my Wing DC for review and Wing publication to help our members get acquainted with it. If anyone wants a copy, let me know.

Anyway, I saw a couple of posts asking who is qualified to teach ICUT, and what does the practical portion consist of?

Check 100-1 for the definition of qualified instructors. In short, if you have completed ICUT, are SET qualified, and are on Communications staff at any level, i.e. unit and up, you can serve as an instructor. For the first 6 months, i.e. until Feb 20, 2013, if there are no available instructors under this definition available, if you have a Senior rating in Communications and are ICUT and SET qualified then you can also serve as an instructor. I guess this is to cover the squadrons with the lazy comm staff but the active comms specialty track member who is not otherwise on comms staff to serve as an instructor.

Classroom curriculum is not defined at this point, however when it is, instructors will be ICUT and SET current members who are on staff at any level, same as the evaluators for the online version. Is it feasible now to still proceed with classroom instruction? Until the classroom instructor guide comes down from National, about the only way I could think of it is to have the videos shown on a powerpoint, then have each student take turns logging onto eServices and taking the quizzes. Awkward, but doable.

As far as what does the hands-on training consist of, aka, "Help I'm an instructor, what do I go over?!", look under the publications on the NTC website, you'll find the information there on what to test the students on.

[AngelWings]

So, do we know both Beta wings?

[Brad]

So, do we know both Beta wings?

The eservices release notice stated MAWG and TXWG

[cap235629]

Ok, just finished writing up an outline summary of ICUT and sent it up to my Wing DC for review and Wing publication to help our members get acquainted with it. If anyone wants a copy, let me know.

Anyway, I saw a couple of posts asking who is qualified to teach ICUT, and what does the practical portion consist of?

Check 100-1 for the definition of qualified instructors. In short, if you have completed ICUT, are SET qualified, and are on Communications staff at any level, i.e. unit and up, you can serve as an instructor. For the first 6 months, i.e. until Feb 20, 2013, if there are no available instructors under this definition available, if you have a Senior rating in Communications and are ICUT and SET qualified then you can also serve as an instructor. I guess this is to cover the squadrons with the lazy comm staff but the active comms specialty track member who is not otherwise on comms staff to serve as an instructor.

Classroom curriculum is not defined at this point, however when it is, instructors will be ICUT and SET current members who are on staff at any level, same as the evaluators for the online version. Is it feasible now to still proceed with classroom instruction? Until the classroom instructor guide comes down from National, about the only way I could think of it is to have the videos shown on a powerpoint, then have each student take turns logging onto eServices and taking the quizzes. Awkward, but doable.

As far as what does the hands-on training consist of, aka, "Help I'm an instructor, what do I go over?!", look under the publications on the NTC website, you'll find the information there on what to test the students on.

There is not an "instructor".  The term is skills evaluator.  The reason I want to make this distinction is that all too many times people make things harder than they need to be.  The whole reason they went to the online model was to standardize the material and bring the certification to the lowest level possible.  By creating an "instructor" we will once again fall into the trap of the king and his kingdom.

The skills evaluator is a mentor and the final evaluator.  He/She can answer questions and help but the instruction is the ICUT module.

[Eclipse]

+1.

I can't really see why anyone would want or need to do this in-face beyond the required evaluations, that misses the point of doing it online.

Unlike SLC, etc, which are designed to be peer-sharing experiences, this is exactly the opposite. You want everyone getting the information in the same way without embellishment.

[cap235629]

or adding ridiculous hoops like having ICUT or BCUT or ACUT expire in 2 years     

[BillB]

TX and MA Wings were the Beta testers of ICUT.

[JeffDG]

Not sure who you think is a Cadet...

Extreme is a cadet, and one who has issues with knowing which battles to pick.  The reply was to your comment but directed primarily at him.

However either of you would get more redress about this by sending a message to NHQ.  An honest mistake would then be corrected, however
you can't use words like "stolen" in regards to IP, and then pretend that's not an indictment of the ethics of the person doing the "stealing".
Assumption of an honest mistake would not involve the word "stolen".

Anyway, It's not like this is important like the issue of CN vs. CD.

Property can be stolen, yes? So why isn't IP the same. Is piracy not stealing IP?

Sure, it isn't important. Until you get caught and get sued...

Sorry, I deal with IP every day, copyright in particular.

Theft, legally speaking, is the criminalization of the tort of "conversion".  Conversion is when you take the property of another for your use without lawful authority.  There are two things required for conversion:  1)  You must take the property for your use, and 2) The lawful owner must be deprived use of the property.

The second element does not occur in copyright violation cases.  Yes, you are appropriating property to your own use without lawful authority, but such appropriation does not prevent the lawful owner of the property from continuing to use same.

All of that said, for those interested, the laws on copyright infringement are rather severe.  For civil infringement, the copyright holder can sue you for infringement, and claim statutory damages (without any need to prove actual damages) of up to $150,000 per infringement.  Not only that, copyright infringement occurs when the copyright material is copied, for example, when an image is copied from a server to your local computer.  So, from a hyper-technical reading of the law, every time someone hits the infringing image is a separate and distinct infringement of the copyright, subject to a separate and distinct award of statutory damages.

Alternatively, if there is intent or malice involved, the matter can be pursued criminally.  In which case, I know there is potential jail time involved, but the damages jump for $250k per infringement.

[a2capt]

The penalty for thread piracy should be having your keyboard broken in half.

[starshippe]

   are tait radios being phased out, or already prohibited? i saw no instruction presented in the icut class on this radio.

bill