Just like the US army has their own hospitals, prisons, research organisations, etc. You just normally don't hear about them as it's for military personnel only, and maybe then even only for work related cases.
The difference is that in communist countries the army has preferential treatment. As a result, military hospitals get the best equipment, can hire the best doctors, etc. This is of course an incentive for people to join the army and to remain loyal. Often also close family members can use the military facilities.
Nowadays these hospitals are opening up to the public (i.e. those that can afford it), apparently even operating commercially and openly advertising their services.
Sure the Chinese government is doing a poor job in this, but they are not the only ones to blame. They are not the ones that put the melamine in the milk powder in the first place: that were manufacturers, trying to "improve" the test results (for nitrogen/protein content) so they could pass the tests.
Many US manufacturers are very careful with their products, and not just because of the FDA. They care about their business and they care about the health of the people that eat or drink their product. Often for personal reason (especially small businesses), but also from a commercial standpoint, as a good and trustworthy name is important. Many callbacks of products are nowadays manufacturer initiated rather than FDA mandated.
This is a mindset issue. US companies have learned to care about their long term profitability, and the long term survival of their company (at least the current quarter and hopefully the next), while Chinese companies care about today's and maybe tomorrow's profits. Many don't have brand names to protect, there are many no-name companies that produce hundreds of no-name brands, so if one brand has an issue they just stop printing that name on the label and continue with the rest. Most Chinese company managers also don't care too much about the quality of the product, or safety, on a personal level - as long as profits are guaranteed.
Of course they refer to sex, that always gets the attention. It is just one of many activities people may engage in as passenger of their own car, after all, the moment a car is truly self-driving there is no such thing as a "driver" any more. Everyone in the car is a passenger, and can not be counted upon to pay attention to the road - not even to have a driving license and the ability to do anything useful.
A self-driving car should NEVER try to hand back control to a human driver, without the human initiating the transfer. In case for example highway driving would become automated first, the self driving car may try to alert a human driver to take over when leaving the motorway, but without the human somehow accepting the takeover the car should simply come to a stop next to the road.
A car is self-driving, or it is not. This should be really clear to the people inside of it. Do you have to constantly pay attention - like now as driver - or can you dream off, go to sleep, play computer games, whatever, while the car is getting you to your destination? Whenever a self-driving car suddenly says, "help, human, take over this instant and get me out of this hairy situation that I can't handle", an accident will follow. Humans are way too slow in reacting to the request, then figuring out what's going on, and what they could possible do about it.
I would expect they get a non-exclusive, eternal license to use the work in all of their own publications - with maybe a complete redistribution license as well (so it can be used in third-party publications like magazines - but that'll cost a lot more).
You've confused art with profit. They are not the same thing.
People all over the world make music, paintings, sculpture and every other form of art imaginable. Most of them don't make money and aren't doing it for profit. If copyright was completely abolished, they would continue.
A lot would continue - the same crap you can already find on Facebook and YouTube for free.
However many other art forms would stop. Many novel writers would stop writing, as they can't afford to do so any more (those many hours writing they also have to eat, pay the rent, etc). Many great bands may start off as good cover acts, but to grow big they need to invest all their time in the band. They must have some way to pay for that time - again they have to eat, they have to invest in musical instruments (quality ones are really expensive), etc. The chance of selling large numbers of albums gives a reason for such an investment (possible an advance by some music label, who pays them for their time, then gets to sell the result).
There is no reason to confuse art with profit, but people have to live. Even if you do what they love, you have to make a living. To make art a full time endeavour, you need a way to get paid your fair share. Write a book, and people that want a copy have to buy from you, not from others. Record a song, and people that want to listen to it, have to do so through a channel you control and that gives you a share of it.
Copyright is a necessary evil (with modern day terms, especially in the US, it's too much of an evil though - but that doesn't make the concept wrong). Without it, the artistic world would dry up seriously. Of course it wouldn't disappear but a lot of quality will be gone.
I agree to using the actual (proven - as much as possible) losses as basis for a judgement, but there should be a multiplication factor or it becomes too profitable for would-be infringers. With that I'm thinking of factors of maybe 5-100 times the actual losses - for cases ranging from a single copy given to a friend to full on commercial production & redistribution.
The case as described here - not just continuing the photo on the web site, but also redistributing it while even falsely claiming to own the copyright of the photo - should be on the high end of this factor.
Largely because PCs come with Windows pre-installed. Using it on this laptop as well. Works good enough for what I do with it most of the time (surfing, reading mail), but it still sucks - first time in a very long time that I had a driver issue was on this Windows system! Pretty hard to trouble shoot and fix as it was the WiFi driver knocking me completely off-line... It just doesn't suck bad enough to reinstall.
Microsoft may feel compelled to push harder on Windows 10 adoption and paid services to prove it can survive without a viable smartphone.
Which makes me wonder: why did MS think it needs a viable smartphone (smartphone OS?) just to survive, and why do other people think this as well forcing MS to prove the opposite?
Maybe they should have a good look at OS-X, Mint and Ubuntu, get some good ideas on how to design a proper modern OS (ssh out of the box would be awesome, both command prompt and a way to easily connect to sftp servers which only Windows fails at nowadays), and make Windows desirable again. They for sure have the money and manpower available to pull that off. No need for their own smart phone. It may even work well on tablets. Just make sure it can connect again with the rest of the world!
There is indeed no correlation between increasing penalties and lowering crime rates. The obvious conclusion should be that longer/harsher penalties are not a solution to crime, and that solutions have to be sought in different ways. Somehow Norway seems to be doing quite well, overall.
No matter how good a sales, if there is no demand (for lack technical need, for lack of economic need, for lack of money with customers, whatever) there are no sales. That could also be an issue. The market moving to mobile devices - smaller and fewer chips than a desktop or even laptop) may be yet another reason slowing sales.
Putting in a general notice such as "limits may exist in your part of the world, look them up before flying this thing", and maybe even spending a few hours online to get links to rule making bodies in their major export markets, shouldn't be too much to ask.
The bilingual (Chinese/Chinglish) manual makes me understand how to operate the thing, but not a single word about safety. Just adding legal limits (e.g. minimum distance from airports, maximum height, distance from buildings - or even links to national web sites where such rules are explained) of where to fly them would be a great improvement.
I'm with you. Watched the first for the 3D thing, which was cool. That's all I remember it for, not its story. I can't even remember anything of that part, no characters that stood out, no remarkable philosophy. And then four sequels planned in one go?!
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure it's sodium (the highly reactive metal), not sodium chloride (the much more inert kitchen salt)?
Just like the US army has their own hospitals, prisons, research organisations, etc. You just normally don't hear about them as it's for military personnel only, and maybe then even only for work related cases.
The difference is that in communist countries the army has preferential treatment. As a result, military hospitals get the best equipment, can hire the best doctors, etc. This is of course an incentive for people to join the army and to remain loyal. Often also close family members can use the military facilities.
Nowadays these hospitals are opening up to the public (i.e. those that can afford it), apparently even operating commercially and openly advertising their services.
Sure the Chinese government is doing a poor job in this, but they are not the only ones to blame. They are not the ones that put the melamine in the milk powder in the first place: that were manufacturers, trying to "improve" the test results (for nitrogen/protein content) so they could pass the tests.
Many US manufacturers are very careful with their products, and not just because of the FDA. They care about their business and they care about the health of the people that eat or drink their product. Often for personal reason (especially small businesses), but also from a commercial standpoint, as a good and trustworthy name is important. Many callbacks of products are nowadays manufacturer initiated rather than FDA mandated.
This is a mindset issue. US companies have learned to care about their long term profitability, and the long term survival of their company (at least the current quarter and hopefully the next), while Chinese companies care about today's and maybe tomorrow's profits. Many don't have brand names to protect, there are many no-name companies that produce hundreds of no-name brands, so if one brand has an issue they just stop printing that name on the label and continue with the rest. Most Chinese company managers also don't care too much about the quality of the product, or safety, on a personal level - as long as profits are guaranteed.
Of course they refer to sex, that always gets the attention. It is just one of many activities people may engage in as passenger of their own car, after all, the moment a car is truly self-driving there is no such thing as a "driver" any more. Everyone in the car is a passenger, and can not be counted upon to pay attention to the road - not even to have a driving license and the ability to do anything useful.
A self-driving car should NEVER try to hand back control to a human driver, without the human initiating the transfer. In case for example highway driving would become automated first, the self driving car may try to alert a human driver to take over when leaving the motorway, but without the human somehow accepting the takeover the car should simply come to a stop next to the road.
A car is self-driving, or it is not. This should be really clear to the people inside of it. Do you have to constantly pay attention - like now as driver - or can you dream off, go to sleep, play computer games, whatever, while the car is getting you to your destination? Whenever a self-driving car suddenly says, "help, human, take over this instant and get me out of this hairy situation that I can't handle", an accident will follow. Humans are way too slow in reacting to the request, then figuring out what's going on, and what they could possible do about it.
Considering the moderation you're not alone in that...
I would expect they get a non-exclusive, eternal license to use the work in all of their own publications - with maybe a complete redistribution license as well (so it can be used in third-party publications like magazines - but that'll cost a lot more).
Can you quote any case under Austrian law where someone was sued for such amounts?
I know US cases are a dime a dozen, but this is not a US based case.
You've confused art with profit. They are not the same thing.
People all over the world make music, paintings, sculpture and every other form of art imaginable. Most of them don't make money and aren't doing it for profit. If copyright was completely abolished, they would continue.
A lot would continue - the same crap you can already find on Facebook and YouTube for free.
However many other art forms would stop. Many novel writers would stop writing, as they can't afford to do so any more (those many hours writing they also have to eat, pay the rent, etc). Many great bands may start off as good cover acts, but to grow big they need to invest all their time in the band. They must have some way to pay for that time - again they have to eat, they have to invest in musical instruments (quality ones are really expensive), etc. The chance of selling large numbers of albums gives a reason for such an investment (possible an advance by some music label, who pays them for their time, then gets to sell the result).
There is no reason to confuse art with profit, but people have to live. Even if you do what they love, you have to make a living. To make art a full time endeavour, you need a way to get paid your fair share. Write a book, and people that want a copy have to buy from you, not from others. Record a song, and people that want to listen to it, have to do so through a channel you control and that gives you a share of it.
Copyright is a necessary evil (with modern day terms, especially in the US, it's too much of an evil though - but that doesn't make the concept wrong). Without it, the artistic world would dry up seriously. Of course it wouldn't disappear but a lot of quality will be gone.
I agree to using the actual (proven - as much as possible) losses as basis for a judgement, but there should be a multiplication factor or it becomes too profitable for would-be infringers. With that I'm thinking of factors of maybe 5-100 times the actual losses - for cases ranging from a single copy given to a friend to full on commercial production & redistribution.
The case as described here - not just continuing the photo on the web site, but also redistributing it while even falsely claiming to own the copyright of the photo - should be on the high end of this factor.
Admittedly I have a small sample size but my one and only driver issue over the past decade has been with Windows 10.
fan base != installed base
Largely because PCs come with Windows pre-installed. Using it on this laptop as well. Works good enough for what I do with it most of the time (surfing, reading mail), but it still sucks - first time in a very long time that I had a driver issue was on this Windows system! Pretty hard to trouble shoot and fix as it was the WiFi driver knocking me completely off-line... It just doesn't suck bad enough to reinstall.
at least Ubuntu has a stable fan base. Haven't seen anything like it for Windows in many many years.
Microsoft may feel compelled to push harder on Windows 10 adoption and paid services to prove it can survive without a viable smartphone.
Which makes me wonder: why did MS think it needs a viable smartphone (smartphone OS?) just to survive, and why do other people think this as well forcing MS to prove the opposite?
Maybe they should have a good look at OS-X, Mint and Ubuntu, get some good ideas on how to design a proper modern OS (ssh out of the box would be awesome, both command prompt and a way to easily connect to sftp servers which only Windows fails at nowadays), and make Windows desirable again. They for sure have the money and manpower available to pull that off. No need for their own smart phone. It may even work well on tablets. Just make sure it can connect again with the rest of the world!
The difference is that the US is keen on taking revenge, and the whole legal/prison system is designed around that.
Norway is about punishment instead, without allowing personal grudges to get in the way.
There is indeed no correlation between increasing penalties and lowering crime rates. The obvious conclusion should be that longer/harsher penalties are not a solution to crime, and that solutions have to be sought in different ways. Somehow Norway seems to be doing quite well, overall.
No matter how good a sales, if there is no demand (for lack technical need, for lack of economic need, for lack of money with customers, whatever) there are no sales. That could also be an issue. The market moving to mobile devices - smaller and fewer chips than a desktop or even laptop) may be yet another reason slowing sales.
How many people do you think Intel really need to run those robotic factories, beyond the one pressing the "start" button?
How many at Intel you think are involved in marketing, sales and support?
Putting in a general notice such as "limits may exist in your part of the world, look them up before flying this thing", and maybe even spending a few hours online to get links to rule making bodies in their major export markets, shouldn't be too much to ask.
There are lots of "common sense" things, especially in US manuals, such as don't iron clothes on your body or while taking a bath.
Obviously plenty of people need reminders.
I got a small, China made drone here.
The bilingual (Chinese/Chinglish) manual makes me understand how to operate the thing, but not a single word about safety. Just adding legal limits (e.g. minimum distance from airports, maximum height, distance from buildings - or even links to national web sites where such rules are explained) of where to fly them would be a great improvement.
I'm with you. Watched the first for the 3D thing, which was cool. That's all I remember it for, not its story. I can't even remember anything of that part, no characters that stood out, no remarkable philosophy. And then four sequels planned in one go?!
Darn. I like melons.
I'm white, therefore I can not understand what it's like being black.
Does that make me racist, a computer, or both?
On the other hand, 15% of Slashdot readers can't tell the difference between Obama and Hitler, with this AI can do so.
You think this is a good or a bad thing?