Perhaps not, but they certainly started selling stuff with the images of the characters from the movie including putting Elijah Woods face on things. That's what prompted the legal action.
I haven't seen any indication that the character image infringement issues were what "really" prompted the action. If that were so, this would be a non-story now (since they've removed all copyrighted pictures from their website and fliers)
The copyright infringement may be where the pub was most definitively in the wrong, but it is far from the core of the issue.
If this was just a dispute over promotional material, the pub wouldn't need any licensing fees at all -- it would just have to stop using the screencaps.
The studio demanded the pub stop all references to all "trademarked" characters (which would require them to change drink names and the pub name), despite the fact that it's clearly had rights for less than the pub's been operation (20 years). That's not a debate over copyright imagery, and indeed the article calls it a "trademark dispute."
That's just absurd. I only regret that Fry and McKellen are actually paying these trademark trolls.
If it was as easy as pretending to be a hot girl online, screw Anonymous--the CIA would have already done it and solved this little "problem." Unless you're one of the nuts that thinks they're "in on it."
Unpaid internship may not be as "good" as a real job on a cv or resume, but it's better than the hole in your resume that unemployment represents. You hear that from employment consultants, from managers, from professors and from parents.
And so the mentality becomes: if you're lucky enough to be able to afford to work for free, consider yourself lucky and do it. You're "lucky" because the economy is so bad and everyone's unemployed, but look! You're productive! Everything is solved.
And everyone who can't, tough on them; they can wash trash cans all day for $7 an hour. Serves them right for being poor.
Just bring us into the 21st century, for the love of FSM! Modern healthcare is not a doctor proscribing a treatment anymore... it's a network of specialists making recommendations and sharing data with each other. However, this "sharing" more often than not goes at pre-Internet speeds. Delays of days or even weeks are common as multiple opinions are sought, insurance companies are contacted, enormous paper portfolio are passed around, one for each facility... it's a real mess. It's not "doctoring" that keeps them busy; it's bureaucracy. It's reading test results off of carbon paper forms and waiting to see if their patient can even afford the "gold standard" treatment they want to give them (even if they're insured!)
Watson can't deal with any of that, really. And that ignores the danger bureaucratic errors can pose to an AI, such as test results that are inexplicably attributed to the wrong patient... what happens when Watson makes a crap diagnosis because of bad data? Can he eliminate bad data or even "show his work?"
This isn't going to be a popular opinion, but here goes: just because you work for a company that (ab)uses SEO, doesn't mean you have no work ethic and copy-paste everything. Content that is copied word for word does worse on rankings than content that isn't, so eHow actually does try to screen it out via an automatic plagiarism checker. They also have quality standards, haphazardly enforced as they can be.
That doesn't mean that everyone knows what they're talking about, and that bad content doesn't get through. But assuming that if you're a member of a company that employs thousands of people, you must be making a living off copy-pasting is quite ignorant.
See also: this article; it's admittedly a bit out of date.
To places like Demand Media, buying new domain names is cheap. And Demand is only one of many content farms out there; if you just block domains you'll be playing Whack-a-Mole forever. Only making it so that these places can't turn a profit will have any long-term effect at all.
Demand Media is a content farm; they pay people to write articles based on their interpretations of the Google algorithm. 95% "White-hat SEO", and no different from what places like HuffPost does. If the algorithm changes, they can make adjustments, do better keywords and content policing, and still make a buck.
Link farms, on the other hand, camp domain names and make a website entirely of Google ads, keywords and algorithms, usually by exploiting flaws in the rankings system that would normally discriminate against this kind of thing, aka "Black-hat CEO". They don't tend to have IPOs though, because anyone with half a brain knows they won't last once the loophole is fixed.
That's what corporation regulation and personal income taxes are for.
Of course, in the spirit of "compromise" we've thrown those under the bridge. So really, we're living in the worst of all possible worlds. Those rich old white guys get to keep their profits and squeeze the rest of us, with us all the while believing that the Democrats are our "only defense against these horrible monsters."
I reluctantly put on my pedant's mask and wizard hat.
Glenn Beck's ratings are still above the competition, but they are ALSO in freefall: down 30% since the beginning of the year (his competitors are suffering, but not as much). Moreover, they're down with the advertiser's gold mine demographic of 25-50-year-olds, 48% 2010 to 2011 year-over-year. Don't get me wrong; he's still very popular, and people declaring right-wing sensationalism "dead" as a result of this are jumping to conclusions. But in the cable news world, this is a massive shakeup. (not sourced; do a fucking search)
Don't make the mistake he makes all the time: intentionally answering the wrong questions with the right answer to enter the land of crazies.
He's taking the only road. If he ordered a brutal crackdown now, the military (many of which are American-influenced and better-educated than the police forces) would probably refuse, like Tunisia.
Don't think he wouldn't do it if he thought he could get away with it.
Mubarak is hoping for one of two things. Either the protest loses momentum and goes away (yeah right), or it goes out of control and he can convince the military leaders that martial law and massive crackdowns is the only way out. Until then, he will do whatever he thinks is necessary to hold on.
For example, if there was a group that provided pamphlets detailing the correlation between campaign donations and introduction and adoption of legislation, but also decided that in the pursuit of absolute truth and disclosure as an ideal they would stand in graveyards and hand out pamphlets of the bad credit history, extramarital affairs, missed child support payments, etc. of people interred there, you can expect action to restrict distribution of pamphlets justified by the latter but broad enough to suppress the former as an intended side-effect.
Then it's the job of the people, the activists, and the legislators who haven't gone completely corrupt to point out such obviously intended side-effects. Even a child wouldn't fall for that one.
Fewer sounds in Japanese means that kanji is more necessary. Japanese has a staggering number of homonyms, and the tricks that speakers use to get around them (often without even thinking about it) don't work in writing. Kana-only sentences are horrific to read, much slower than reading kanji (as long as you know them, that is). That's partly because of the lack of spacing, but still...
Re:What about tags in Assange's arrest records?
on
Cablegate, the Game
·
· Score: 1
Given that there hasn't been so much as a police interview yet, let alone a trial, I don't see how there could be.
Whether there is or not though (or even whether the person is guilty or not), it's ridiculous to cross-examine a victim's behavior to determine guilt or innocence.
Re:What about tags in Assange's arrest records?
on
Cablegate, the Game
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There is no "victim script" someone follows after a rape. Never. You watch too many Lifetime movies if you think that is so.
They may turn up at a crisis center bloody. They may throw a party for their attacker. They may just cover their bruises and pretend it never happened. They may make a joke about it later. They may call it "bad sex" afterward. They may participate during the event, or stop resisting. They may have even agreed until a point, before withdrawing consent. They may do everything "right," and find out that it doesn't even matter.
That is the nature of sexual abuse of all forms. Often there is an attempt to deny the assault after it happened, because admitting it happened would compel them to act on it. To go to a complete stranger, and relive the event, who more often than not will deride them, blame them, or mishandle their case.
Then the second they stray from the Lifetime account, it provides a reason to take the man's side.
The only way to escape the circle of injustice, just understand: no means no.
Today alone, there are women who have arrived bruised and bloody into rape crisis centres, who have had their integrity questioned in court, who have to live with their attackers not only going free, but re-offending; I can't imagine how those women must feel about these patently ridiculous allegations being taken seriously.
I would imagine what they feel is something like, "Hey, Glenn Beck sounds just like that asshole defense attorney, or my 'friend' who told me it wasn't a big deal." Alternatively, if they know a little more about the situation, "As usual, the only time a complaint gets taken seriously is when there's a bigger political motive."
In fact, I don't have to imagine, as I have talked to several, including one about this very event.
New York Times already came out with something like this. It doesn't let you work with individual programs, but it only takes a few minutes of clicking before you realize that scrutinizing every detail of a (deliberately distorted) bad NSF decision actually doesn't save you much money compared with, say, raising taxes back to Clinton levels or ending the war in Afghanistan.
It makes me despair for the Republican party, because it makes me think that they might actually be drinking their own KoolAid. And that is never a good sign.
WWI-style strategies don't work so well when the other guy has planes, tanks and moveable artillery. At most, it'd be an annoyance. The capital would fall in days. Communication, then discipline would break down quickly as even the most crazy nutjob soldiers still know how to survive. (step 1: kill the crap-spewing officers)
The only option for NK would be an Afghanistan-style insurgency, which would also fail miserably, since the second the brainwashing program goes offline, the peasants will realize how much they've been had. The ludicrous lies they feed them can't withstand exposure to any knowledge at all. (which is why when propaganda operations went into effect last year, NK freaked out and threatened all-out war to get them to stop)
An invasion of NK would result in many, many deaths for Koreans on both sides, and should not be undertaken lightly. That said, it would be a certain lose for NK and the peninsula would probably be fully recovered within the decade.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps not, but they certainly started selling stuff with the images of the characters from the movie including putting Elijah Woods face on things. That's what prompted the legal action.
I haven't seen any indication that the character image infringement issues were what "really" prompted the action. If that were so, this would be a non-story now (since they've removed all copyrighted pictures from their website and fliers) The copyright infringement may be where the pub was most definitively in the wrong, but it is far from the core of the issue.
If this was just a dispute over promotional material, the pub wouldn't need any licensing fees at all -- it would just have to stop using the screencaps. The studio demanded the pub stop all references to all "trademarked" characters (which would require them to change drink names and the pub name), despite the fact that it's clearly had rights for less than the pub's been operation (20 years). That's not a debate over copyright imagery, and indeed the article calls it a "trademark dispute." That's just absurd. I only regret that Fry and McKellen are actually paying these trademark trolls.
If you don't like popups, don't use the "trial" version. Use the free version, which only sends a popup for update notifications, and can be disabled.
"Helping the guys."
Yup, that's right. Saw a whole gaggle of those Guy Fawkes-masked thugs selling underaged girls to slavers.
Oh. Wait. No, that was just the fucking mob.
Tone down the melodrama, please. Even if you think what they're doing now is "nothing" they aren't exactly aiding and abetting.
With what, magic pixie hacking dust?
If it was as easy as pretending to be a hot girl online, screw Anonymous--the CIA would have already done it and solved this little "problem." Unless you're one of the nuts that thinks they're "in on it."
Unpaid internship may not be as "good" as a real job on a cv or resume, but it's better than the hole in your resume that unemployment represents. You hear that from employment consultants, from managers, from professors and from parents.
And so the mentality becomes: if you're lucky enough to be able to afford to work for free, consider yourself lucky and do it. You're "lucky" because the economy is so bad and everyone's unemployed, but look! You're productive! Everything is solved.
And everyone who can't, tough on them; they can wash trash cans all day for $7 an hour. Serves them right for being poor.
Just bring us into the 21st century, for the love of FSM! Modern healthcare is not a doctor proscribing a treatment anymore... it's a network of specialists making recommendations and sharing data with each other. However, this "sharing" more often than not goes at pre-Internet speeds. Delays of days or even weeks are common as multiple opinions are sought, insurance companies are contacted, enormous paper portfolio are passed around, one for each facility... it's a real mess. It's not "doctoring" that keeps them busy; it's bureaucracy. It's reading test results off of carbon paper forms and waiting to see if their patient can even afford the "gold standard" treatment they want to give them (even if they're insured!)
Watson can't deal with any of that, really. And that ignores the danger bureaucratic errors can pose to an AI, such as test results that are inexplicably attributed to the wrong patient... what happens when Watson makes a crap diagnosis because of bad data? Can he eliminate bad data or even "show his work?"
This isn't going to be a popular opinion, but here goes: just because you work for a company that (ab)uses SEO, doesn't mean you have no work ethic and copy-paste everything. Content that is copied word for word does worse on rankings than content that isn't, so eHow actually does try to screen it out via an automatic plagiarism checker. They also have quality standards, haphazardly enforced as they can be.
That doesn't mean that everyone knows what they're talking about, and that bad content doesn't get through. But assuming that if you're a member of a company that employs thousands of people, you must be making a living off copy-pasting is quite ignorant.
See also: this article; it's admittedly a bit out of date.
To places like Demand Media, buying new domain names is cheap. And Demand is only one of many content farms out there; if you just block domains you'll be playing Whack-a-Mole forever. Only making it so that these places can't turn a profit will have any long-term effect at all.
Demand Media is a content farm; they pay people to write articles based on their interpretations of the Google algorithm. 95% "White-hat SEO", and no different from what places like HuffPost does. If the algorithm changes, they can make adjustments, do better keywords and content policing, and still make a buck.
Link farms, on the other hand, camp domain names and make a website entirely of Google ads, keywords and algorithms, usually by exploiting flaws in the rankings system that would normally discriminate against this kind of thing, aka "Black-hat CEO". They don't tend to have IPOs though, because anyone with half a brain knows they won't last once the loophole is fixed.
That's what corporation regulation and personal income taxes are for. Of course, in the spirit of "compromise" we've thrown those under the bridge. So really, we're living in the worst of all possible worlds. Those rich old white guys get to keep their profits and squeeze the rest of us, with us all the while believing that the Democrats are our "only defense against these horrible monsters."
And now we're the ones invading other countries, and they're the ones with the local crackdowns...
Just goes to show, science doesn't work if the world is out to get you. =P
I reluctantly put on my pedant's mask and wizard hat.
Glenn Beck's ratings are still above the competition, but they are ALSO in freefall: down 30% since the beginning of the year (his competitors are suffering, but not as much). Moreover, they're down with the advertiser's gold mine demographic of 25-50-year-olds, 48% 2010 to 2011 year-over-year. Don't get me wrong; he's still very popular, and people declaring right-wing sensationalism "dead" as a result of this are jumping to conclusions. But in the cable news world, this is a massive shakeup. (not sourced; do a fucking search)
Don't make the mistake he makes all the time: intentionally answering the wrong questions with the right answer to enter the land of crazies.
TFA says they react to explosives to "escape" like they would from a cat... so what about people who own a lot of cats?
He's taking the only road. If he ordered a brutal crackdown now, the military (many of which are American-influenced and better-educated than the police forces) would probably refuse, like Tunisia.
Don't think he wouldn't do it if he thought he could get away with it.
Mubarak is hoping for one of two things. Either the protest loses momentum and goes away (yeah right), or it goes out of control and he can convince the military leaders that martial law and massive crackdowns is the only way out. Until then, he will do whatever he thinks is necessary to hold on.
For example, if there was a group that provided pamphlets detailing the correlation between campaign donations and introduction and adoption of legislation, but also decided that in the pursuit of absolute truth and disclosure as an ideal they would stand in graveyards and hand out pamphlets of the bad credit history, extramarital affairs, missed child support payments, etc. of people interred there, you can expect action to restrict distribution of pamphlets justified by the latter but broad enough to suppress the former as an intended side-effect.
Then it's the job of the people, the activists, and the legislators who haven't gone completely corrupt to point out such obviously intended side-effects. Even a child wouldn't fall for that one.
Fewer sounds in Japanese means that kanji is more necessary. Japanese has a staggering number of homonyms, and the tricks that speakers use to get around them (often without even thinking about it) don't work in writing. Kana-only sentences are horrific to read, much slower than reading kanji (as long as you know them, that is). That's partly because of the lack of spacing, but still...
Given that there hasn't been so much as a police interview yet, let alone a trial, I don't see how there could be.
Whether there is or not though (or even whether the person is guilty or not), it's ridiculous to cross-examine a victim's behavior to determine guilt or innocence.
There is no "victim script" someone follows after a rape. Never. You watch too many Lifetime movies if you think that is so.
They may turn up at a crisis center bloody. They may throw a party for their attacker. They may just cover their bruises and pretend it never happened. They may make a joke about it later. They may call it "bad sex" afterward. They may participate during the event, or stop resisting. They may have even agreed until a point, before withdrawing consent. They may do everything "right," and find out that it doesn't even matter.
That is the nature of sexual abuse of all forms. Often there is an attempt to deny the assault after it happened, because admitting it happened would compel them to act on it. To go to a complete stranger, and relive the event, who more often than not will deride them, blame them, or mishandle their case.
Then the second they stray from the Lifetime account, it provides a reason to take the man's side.
The only way to escape the circle of injustice, just understand: no means no.
Today alone, there are women who have arrived bruised and bloody into rape crisis centres, who have had their integrity questioned in court, who have to live with their attackers not only going free, but re-offending; I can't imagine how those women must feel about these patently ridiculous allegations being taken seriously.
I would imagine what they feel is something like, "Hey, Glenn Beck sounds just like that asshole defense attorney, or my 'friend' who told me it wasn't a big deal." Alternatively, if they know a little more about the situation, "As usual, the only time a complaint gets taken seriously is when there's a bigger political motive."
In fact, I don't have to imagine, as I have talked to several, including one about this very event.
New York Times already came out with something like this. It doesn't let you work with individual programs, but it only takes a few minutes of clicking before you realize that scrutinizing every detail of a (deliberately distorted) bad NSF decision actually doesn't save you much money compared with, say, raising taxes back to Clinton levels or ending the war in Afghanistan.
It makes me despair for the Republican party, because it makes me think that they might actually be drinking their own KoolAid. And that is never a good sign.
Ah, political propaganda (complete with car analogies!) as "proof." Truly the American way.
I'd love to check the sources on this "educational" video, but conveniently the main source is down.
NK's GNP sucks, and "training" for a long time in lieu of anything else only works in shounen anime.
WWI-style strategies don't work so well when the other guy has planes, tanks and moveable artillery. At most, it'd be an annoyance. The capital would fall in days. Communication, then discipline would break down quickly as even the most crazy nutjob soldiers still know how to survive. (step 1: kill the crap-spewing officers)
The only option for NK would be an Afghanistan-style insurgency, which would also fail miserably, since the second the brainwashing program goes offline, the peasants will realize how much they've been had. The ludicrous lies they feed them can't withstand exposure to any knowledge at all. (which is why when propaganda operations went into effect last year, NK freaked out and threatened all-out war to get them to stop)
An invasion of NK would result in many, many deaths for Koreans on both sides, and should not be undertaken lightly. That said, it would be a certain lose for NK and the peninsula would probably be fully recovered within the decade.
Nazi Germany. Fascist Japan. East Germany.
How many of these "culturally incorrigible" countries did we have to obliterate again?
Oh, that's right, none.
At least I am reassured that the Westerners that made these kinds of stupid arguments back then lost the argument... as hopefully they will today.