It depends. If you crop so much of the work out that the result is no sort of replacement for the original work, and it doesn't take away the owner's ability to profit from their work, and you aren't profiting from it, and you are using it just for its factual content, then, that can count as Fair Use, at least that's how US law works. I'm under the impression that EU and US are fairly in-sync with their copyright law (thanks, Disney!)
It wasn't for advertising, it was informative. "Go to the building that looks like this building, because this is an image of the building." They immediately removed the photo when the owner complained, showing good faith. They weren't profiting from the image, nor were they selling the image. The cropped image is not a sufficient replacement for the original image. And posting the photo on an obscure website that you'd only hit when looking for information about a film festival does not take away the copyright owner's ability to profit from the image. Similar to the concept that you can't copyright a photo of something that is ineligible for copyright, such as a photo of a public-domain painting; you can't copyright very much about a photo of a building. You can copyright composition (which was altered via cropping), camera settings, post-processing, things that make photography an art. But the defendant was deemed to solely be using the image for it's factual content, namely the appearance of a building. I could possibly see different judges reaching different rulings on the points, but this particular judgement is a reasonable one: what they were doing fell under fair use.
Some media outlets blew the story out of proportion, stating that if you find an image on the internet and you crop it, then it's fair use. And while that's potentially true, the ruling only applies to cases just like this one. So it's really no big deal.
I do suspect you're right about that story being why this EU decision was deemed worth writing about. Thanks for that!
This is honestly long overdue. If they manage to do this well, this could get pretty popular pretty fast. I've never gotten any joy out of Facebook, but I could honestly see myself giving this a try.
According to these guys, and according to the rules, use of an emulator is not allowed because supposedly, they don't behave exactly the same as an actual arcade circuitboard. I'm not quite sure I believe their claims, but they feel strongly about it, and Billy was well aware of this, and yet he apparently deceptively used an emulator anyway.
His score is still rather impressive, and no one disputes that the guy is really good at arcade games, he just doesn't deserve a record when he's breaking the rules.
If I'm reading the memo right, they're implying that they would create the network using European manufacturers, but not dismissing the possibility of setting up American entities (which basically don't exist right now). Alcatel-Lucent, Nokia, and Ericsson.
They address this in the memo. It's true that Europe/Finland once dominated wireless telecom, but this is no longer the case. China is really really big, and everyone there uses Huawei/ZTE. And the Chinese hardware sells cheaper. As to patents, they don't care about patents. Much of the innovation this round is software related; much less hardware innovation. Software patents are a bear to win, and nothing in the upcoming 5G standard is going to be standing behind a patent wall. It has to be possible to develop an alternative implementation that still meets the standard. That said, I don't believe that a government operated network is the solution to this. For one thing, there's no requirement that 5G be interconnected. 5G primarily lends itself to benefits within the realm of what's known as "Fixed mobile". It works best when you put a directional antenna on your roof which points at a basestation which either acts as a relay, or has a fiber connection to the Internet. From there, you connect your wireless devices via 802.11. The need to have perfect coverage all along the roads and in the woods and such is not important; handoff (switching between two towers without losing your call) is not important. You use 3G/4G for all that stuff. I'm all for government resources being spent to improve broadband speeds in rural areas, and honestly, 5G is a pretty effective way to accomplish it, but the problems of it being federal run seem to outweigh the benefits. State or local-run networks on the other hand, may make more sense. Then federal funds can be provided to subsidize installation and maintenance as appropriate.
I hate to break it to you, but Universities were overrun by liberals in the 18th century and maintained that control ever since. Please take more care the next time you feebly attempt to be shocking and edgy.
Heeeeeeeee wasn't talking about the collusion narrative. Are you a bot? He made a silly joke comment, and an anon spam-replied to it with that releasethememo off-topic junk. The only people who care about that are russian agents and trump agents. So he rightly concluded that a russian/trump agent replied to his post.
Thank you for finally being a comment that explains this. I was very confused, and as usual, the other comments are just being snarky. The quotes made it sound like the code itself is somehow "less geeky". But if they genuinely did design a friendlier, more accessible IDE, then that's fantastic. They all build on top of the ideas of their predecessors in ways that only make sense if you know the long history of software development, or you just shut up and don't question it. IF they managed to improve any of that, then I commend their efforts.
"Sorry Anon, no raises this year. You should be satisfied with that bonus we gave you in 2018" -what employers will be saying every year for the next 3 years.
So far, every company has announced one-time bonuses. No announcements of raises. How come the companies benefit from tax breaks every year going forward, but employees get to benefit exactly once? Becaaaaaaause nothing mandates that companies use their funds for raises. And they have zero incentive to bother.
Apple gets awesome tax breaks for years to come, gives a small one-time bonus....If their tax-breaks are never-ending, then why are they giving a one-time bonus instead giving proper raises? Similarly, individual taxpayer breaks deflate to almost nothing after just a couple years, while, again, the corporate tax breaks don't decrease. Companies figured out how to screw you over in such a way that you smile and thank them for it.
No, it's not particularly good news. Apple, and a number of other companies have ALL announced one-time "BONUSES" of around $2,000. And, sure, it's better than nothing, and the people who need warm-fuzzies can call it a win. But it's extremely different from a $2K raise. In other words: "We have to vote on Burns' new contract. It's basically the same deal, except we get a free keg of beer for our meetings. In exchange for that, we have to give up our dental plan."
The new tax bill benefits corporations permanently, while the tax cuts given to the upper-middle middle and lower-classes drop off sharply year by year. Tax benefits that amount to around a couple hundred dollars per filer, which was only made possible at the cost of a major trillion+ dollar hike to the national debt, which Republicans traditionally loathe. A large chunk of Republicans also generally aren't supposed to like trusting the average taxpayer with large all-at-once payouts, such as the bonuses that corporations are awarding, because of the concern that joe-six-pack will blow that money on foolish luxury purchases instead of spreading it out through the year, evenly increasing the person's spending power.
So, yeah, the politicians and the companies are both giving taxpayers/employees enough money to have one sorta nice vacation in exchange for the ability to get out of a big chunk of their responsibilities to fund good old Uncle Sam indefinitely. This is a raw deal. Companies should be giving raises, not bonuses. But they don't, because there is nothing whatsoever forcing them to do so.
The routing tables used for IPv6 are different, but there's no added feature in IPv6 that would protect from a BGP attack or accidental misconfiguration.
I should warn you that Climatedepot is a website operated by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which is a nonprofit organization that is primarily funded by Donors Trust, which is a conservative/libertarian donor-advised fund; a fancy legal term for a mechanism to hide the identity of the sources of money, which can include corporations. Still, it is known that one of the largest donors to Donors Trust in multiple previous years has been the Koch Brothers, who are _heavily_ invested in the fossil fuel energy industry. Now don't get me wrong, the Koch brothers are not total monsters who delight in human suffering and keeping the world ignorant so that they may continue to stay in power. They actually do some good things at times. But, they do have some ulterior motives and a heck of a lot of power that they do appear to use to further those motives. So you should be wary of those sort of sources. Unlike government-funded scientists, who's job is to investigate and report findings; this site's job is to make its donors happy. And it's donors are happy when people think that climate change is not a thing or that humans are powerless to influence it one way or the other.
Meanwhile, entities like NASA didn't particularly care about what results it got from investigating climate change. They were just told that they have to do something useful, and not just hang out and play golf on the moon, so they picked climate change, and they happened to get these results. And similar situations happened with other government entities both within the US and in other nations. People just wanting to learn how the world works, and finding that oh dear, perhaps taking all that sequestered carbon, that was pulled out of the atmosphere by plant life over the course of millions of years and burning all of it in a little over a century isn't exactly something that the balancing factors like plant-growth and ocean absorption can sufficiently handle to prevent earth from going back to how friggin' hot it was all those millions of years ago, when the atmospheric carbon levels were higher.
Unfortunately, 97% of scientists say quite strongly that human caused climate change is indeed real. This climate change is why we now have a Northwest passage for shipping during part of the year, and that season is growing every year. That clear pathway in the arctic hasn't been a thing going back at least as far as 5000 years. And this creates a chain reaction, because the white ice was quite good at reflecting sunlight, while the dark water and land is not. This causes more warming. It also causes the thawing of the permafrost, which causes a massive leap in preserved methane, produced from ancient broken down biomass (it's basically moss). And methane is demonstrably a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
I would urge you to try and get your proof of the existence or non-existence of climate change from less biased sources. Learn what research has been done, the justification for how they reached their conclusions, and then go back to the biased sites and scrutinize if their counter arguments hold up, or if they are possibly using sneaky logic and carefully represented data to make things look reasonable, so long as the information isn't scrutinized.
Or if you're lazy, dis: https://xkcd.com/1732/ That said, if you happen to be a conspiracy theorist, that comic's author did briefly work for NASA so, um, maybe they "got to him" or something.
I don't care if he was a former chairman of the FCC (and by the way, he's not the _previous_ chairman; he's not the chairman that was in place under Obama). He is presently speaking as a lobbyist for the telecom industry. He's being paid massive ammounts of money to express this position. And as with Pai's arguments, he's failing to make any decent arguments. His claim is that Title II is overbearing. It isn't. His claim is that Title II prevents technology advancement. It doesn't. And his tired old claim that things were just fine back in 2005. Things were only fine in 2005 because ISPs did not have the hardware needed to do things like throttling based on packet contents. When they finally did and tried using it, the matter got held up in the courts until 2014. And until 2015, wireless carriers would do crummy things like try to charge extra for the privilege to tether, which does not in fact cost them anything to provide. They charged for it because they afraid that if you could tether devices, then you would end up using more bandwidth than if you were restricted to using your mobile handset.
Title II of the communications act is only around 100 pages. And it is agreed that a large portion of it does not apply to ISPs, so it can be ignored. So I urge everyone to go read it and find out just how restrictive it...isn't. Then decide for yourself if it sounds like the Internet should be treated more like the telephone service is treated, or if it should be treated more like how cable is allowed to misbehave. The latter just doesn't apply to what ISPs provide, what we want them to provide, and what they should continue to provide: access to the Internet. If they tack on DNS, or a Usenet server, or caching, or an included email account, that's all well and good, but that's not what we care about, that's not why we subscribe.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah, I'm not the only one. Lisa Frank stickers make my laptop run faster!!
Calcium carbonate makes much more sense, and even that is fraught with problems.
It depends. If you crop so much of the work out that the result is no sort of replacement for the original work, and it doesn't take away the owner's ability to profit from their work, and you aren't profiting from it, and you are using it just for its factual content, then, that can count as Fair Use, at least that's how US law works. I'm under the impression that EU and US are fairly in-sync with their copyright law (thanks, Disney!)
It wasn't for advertising, it was informative. "Go to the building that looks like this building, because this is an image of the building." They immediately removed the photo when the owner complained, showing good faith. They weren't profiting from the image, nor were they selling the image. The cropped image is not a sufficient replacement for the original image. And posting the photo on an obscure website that you'd only hit when looking for information about a film festival does not take away the copyright owner's ability to profit from the image. Similar to the concept that you can't copyright a photo of something that is ineligible for copyright, such as a photo of a public-domain painting; you can't copyright very much about a photo of a building. You can copyright composition (which was altered via cropping), camera settings, post-processing, things that make photography an art. But the defendant was deemed to solely be using the image for it's factual content, namely the appearance of a building. I could possibly see different judges reaching different rulings on the points, but this particular judgement is a reasonable one: what they were doing fell under fair use.
Some media outlets blew the story out of proportion, stating that if you find an image on the internet and you crop it, then it's fair use. And while that's potentially true, the ruling only applies to cases just like this one. So it's really no big deal.
I do suspect you're right about that story being why this EU decision was deemed worth writing about. Thanks for that!
An EU court ruled that taking an existing invention and hot-gluing a clock on the side does not count as a totally new invention.
If TV hadn't been sucking more and more each season since around the 2007 WGA strike, I'd happily continue to watch TV.
Except for EVERY screenplay EVER written.
This is honestly long overdue. If they manage to do this well, this could get pretty popular pretty fast. I've never gotten any joy out of Facebook, but I could honestly see myself giving this a try.
"Powerful" is apparently now another word for "accurate", only with more ZAZZ. (But yeah, this bugged me too)
His score is still rather impressive, and no one disputes that the guy is really good at arcade games, he just doesn't deserve a record when he's breaking the rules.
To clarify, he wasn't planning to prove or disprove anything with this particular launch regarding Flat Earth, he was just raising awareness.
End-to-end encryption only protects confidentiality, not accessibility.
If I'm reading the memo right, they're implying that they would create the network using European manufacturers, but not dismissing the possibility of setting up American entities (which basically don't exist right now). Alcatel-Lucent, Nokia, and Ericsson.
They address this in the memo. It's true that Europe/Finland once dominated wireless telecom, but this is no longer the case. China is really really big, and everyone there uses Huawei/ZTE. And the Chinese hardware sells cheaper. As to patents, they don't care about patents. Much of the innovation this round is software related; much less hardware innovation. Software patents are a bear to win, and nothing in the upcoming 5G standard is going to be standing behind a patent wall. It has to be possible to develop an alternative implementation that still meets the standard. That said, I don't believe that a government operated network is the solution to this. For one thing, there's no requirement that 5G be interconnected. 5G primarily lends itself to benefits within the realm of what's known as "Fixed mobile". It works best when you put a directional antenna on your roof which points at a basestation which either acts as a relay, or has a fiber connection to the Internet. From there, you connect your wireless devices via 802.11. The need to have perfect coverage all along the roads and in the woods and such is not important; handoff (switching between two towers without losing your call) is not important. You use 3G/4G for all that stuff. I'm all for government resources being spent to improve broadband speeds in rural areas, and honestly, 5G is a pretty effective way to accomplish it, but the problems of it being federal run seem to outweigh the benefits. State or local-run networks on the other hand, may make more sense. Then federal funds can be provided to subsidize installation and maintenance as appropriate.
I hate to break it to you, but Universities were overrun by liberals in the 18th century and maintained that control ever since. Please take more care the next time you feebly attempt to be shocking and edgy.
But what if more expensive sensors are met with more expensive physics???
Heeeeeeeee wasn't talking about the collusion narrative. Are you a bot? He made a silly joke comment, and an anon spam-replied to it with that releasethememo off-topic junk. The only people who care about that are russian agents and trump agents. So he rightly concluded that a russian/trump agent replied to his post.
Thank you for finally being a comment that explains this. I was very confused, and as usual, the other comments are just being snarky. The quotes made it sound like the code itself is somehow "less geeky". But if they genuinely did design a friendlier, more accessible IDE, then that's fantastic. They all build on top of the ideas of their predecessors in ways that only make sense if you know the long history of software development, or you just shut up and don't question it. IF they managed to improve any of that, then I commend their efforts.
"Sorry Anon, no raises this year. You should be satisfied with that bonus we gave you in 2018" -what employers will be saying every year for the next 3 years.
So far, every company has announced one-time bonuses. No announcements of raises. How come the companies benefit from tax breaks every year going forward, but employees get to benefit exactly once? Becaaaaaaause nothing mandates that companies use their funds for raises. And they have zero incentive to bother.
Apple gets awesome tax breaks for years to come, gives a small one-time bonus....If their tax-breaks are never-ending, then why are they giving a one-time bonus instead giving proper raises? Similarly, individual taxpayer breaks deflate to almost nothing after just a couple years, while, again, the corporate tax breaks don't decrease. Companies figured out how to screw you over in such a way that you smile and thank them for it.
"Dental plan!"
"Lisa needs braces!"
"Dental plan!"
"Lisa needs braces!"
"Dental plan!"
"Lisa needs braces!"
The new tax bill benefits corporations permanently, while the tax cuts given to the upper-middle middle and lower-classes drop off sharply year by year. Tax benefits that amount to around a couple hundred dollars per filer, which was only made possible at the cost of a major trillion+ dollar hike to the national debt, which Republicans traditionally loathe. A large chunk of Republicans also generally aren't supposed to like trusting the average taxpayer with large all-at-once payouts, such as the bonuses that corporations are awarding, because of the concern that joe-six-pack will blow that money on foolish luxury purchases instead of spreading it out through the year, evenly increasing the person's spending power.
So, yeah, the politicians and the companies are both giving taxpayers/employees enough money to have one sorta nice vacation in exchange for the ability to get out of a big chunk of their responsibilities to fund good old Uncle Sam indefinitely. This is a raw deal. Companies should be giving raises, not bonuses. But they don't, because there is nothing whatsoever forcing them to do so.
The routing tables used for IPv6 are different, but there's no added feature in IPv6 that would protect from a BGP attack or accidental misconfiguration.
I should warn you that Climatedepot is a website operated by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which is a nonprofit organization that is primarily funded by Donors Trust, which is a conservative/libertarian donor-advised fund; a fancy legal term for a mechanism to hide the identity of the sources of money, which can include corporations. Still, it is known that one of the largest donors to Donors Trust in multiple previous years has been the Koch Brothers, who are _heavily_ invested in the fossil fuel energy industry. Now don't get me wrong, the Koch brothers are not total monsters who delight in human suffering and keeping the world ignorant so that they may continue to stay in power. They actually do some good things at times. But, they do have some ulterior motives and a heck of a lot of power that they do appear to use to further those motives. So you should be wary of those sort of sources. Unlike government-funded scientists, who's job is to investigate and report findings; this site's job is to make its donors happy. And it's donors are happy when people think that climate change is not a thing or that humans are powerless to influence it one way or the other.
Meanwhile, entities like NASA didn't particularly care about what results it got from investigating climate change. They were just told that they have to do something useful, and not just hang out and play golf on the moon, so they picked climate change, and they happened to get these results. And similar situations happened with other government entities both within the US and in other nations. People just wanting to learn how the world works, and finding that oh dear, perhaps taking all that sequestered carbon, that was pulled out of the atmosphere by plant life over the course of millions of years and burning all of it in a little over a century isn't exactly something that the balancing factors like plant-growth and ocean absorption can sufficiently handle to prevent earth from going back to how friggin' hot it was all those millions of years ago, when the atmospheric carbon levels were higher.
Unfortunately, 97% of scientists say quite strongly that human caused climate change is indeed real. This climate change is why we now have a Northwest passage for shipping during part of the year, and that season is growing every year. That clear pathway in the arctic hasn't been a thing going back at least as far as 5000 years. And this creates a chain reaction, because the white ice was quite good at reflecting sunlight, while the dark water and land is not. This causes more warming. It also causes the thawing of the permafrost, which causes a massive leap in preserved methane, produced from ancient broken down biomass (it's basically moss). And methane is demonstrably a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
I would urge you to try and get your proof of the existence or non-existence of climate change from less biased sources. Learn what research has been done, the justification for how they reached their conclusions, and then go back to the biased sites and scrutinize if their counter arguments hold up, or if they are possibly using sneaky logic and carefully represented data to make things look reasonable, so long as the information isn't scrutinized. Or if you're lazy, dis: https://xkcd.com/1732/ That said, if you happen to be a conspiracy theorist, that comic's author did briefly work for NASA so, um, maybe they "got to him" or something.
Title II of the communications act is only around 100 pages. And it is agreed that a large portion of it does not apply to ISPs, so it can be ignored. So I urge everyone to go read it and find out just how restrictive it...isn't. Then decide for yourself if it sounds like the Internet should be treated more like the telephone service is treated, or if it should be treated more like how cable is allowed to misbehave. The latter just doesn't apply to what ISPs provide, what we want them to provide, and what they should continue to provide: access to the Internet. If they tack on DNS, or a Usenet server, or caching, or an included email account, that's all well and good, but that's not what we care about, that's not why we subscribe.