News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. (2010) by tmoot on Thursday January 12, 2017 @08:27AM (#13381982)
so just Matt Might's article.

great. :|

Re:The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. (2010) by tom_mellior on Thursday January 12, 2017 @08:30AM (#13382008)
For completeness, here is the link to the original: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
Re:The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. (2010) by j-pb on Thursday January 12, 2017 @09:57AM (#13382644)
Seriously? Did the mods also fuck with that link? I don't care if the other post was a ripoff I still would like to read it.
Re:The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. (2010) by StreakyCobra on Thursday January 12, 2017 @10:18AM (#13382823)
I don't know if the link above has been changed by mods or was a mistake, but here is the link to the original article:

https://thebittheories.com/masters-versus-ph-d-2b26ef33f883

The original content is licensed under a CC license [1], and now (it probably has been updated) the reposter is respecting the terms of it:

    1. Please attribute the original work to me (Matt Might) and link back to this page in your reproduction: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ as The Illustrated Guide to a Ph.D.

    2.When you attribute, please also link my name, Matt Might, to http://matt.might.net/

    3.And, don't forget the "Keep pushing," at the bottom!
So I don't see any reason why the original link can't be shared in thread's comments, especially because people should be allowed to see by themselves the original article in order to forge their own opinion on discussions happening here.

[1] http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/#licen...

Re:The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. (2010) by tom_mellior on Thursday January 12, 2017 @10:27AM (#13382908)
> and now (it probably has been updated) the reposter is respecting the terms of it

The reposter still doesn't link back to the actual article as requested, though that's just a "please" clause. I guess naming (and even linking) the author and giving the title suffices to satisfy the attribution clause of the license.

Re:The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. (2010) by StreakyCobra on Thursday January 12, 2017 @10:35AM (#13382993)
> The reposter still doesn't link back to the actual article as requested, though that's just a "please" clause. I guess naming (and even linking) the author and giving the title suffices to satisfy the attribution clause of the license.

Indeed, I thought there was a link to the blog post, but there is not any. The situation is different than before though, as the real author is now at least credited.

Re:The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. (2010) by tom_mellior on Thursday January 12, 2017 @10:24AM (#13382884)
By "original" I meant where the content originally came from, not the "original ripoff link". So no, the mods did not change that, I did link to Matt Might's site.