Sort of like the non-repost Apple articles where we get weekly updates on subtle nuances of the upcoming releases, another article announcing when it launched, and then weekly updates on the sales after the launch? Okay, got it.
I used yours. And the distinction between a letter and a voicemail message doesn’t need a citation; it’s a simple fact. The letter was recorded by you and you have a common-law copyright to it while I simply have certain fair use rights to its contents; the voicemail message is recorded by my message machine and you implicitly transferred the ownership to me by dictating it for my machine to record. And I still have fair use rights to its contents.
Perhaps it’d help if we considered a case in-between the letter and the voicemail message: suppose you dictated the letter to your secretary. Who owns the letter: you, the secretary, or me? Answer: You, since you were having your authorised representative take down the message. Whereas, if you had stopped by my office and dictated the message to my secretary, the rights would belong to me unless there was some other arrangement between us that contractually limited my rights on the message that was taken down by my secretary.
In any case you may wonder why the secretary didn’t have the rights to the letter, since (after all) she wrote it down. In fact she would have the rights to it, except that I assume in most cases the terms of her employment would specify that anything she writes for me belongs to me (possibly with confidentiality/non-disclosure limitations as well).
Oh, no doubt there’s actual physical effects involved. Like I said about getting the adrenaline rush... I’ll make the hair on my arms stand up if I do. But it’s not something that I’m completely at the mercy of... I’m able to call it at will, to a degree (it loses intensity after a few times, since actual physical compounds are exhausted in the process and must be replenished). And most other emotions will, somewhat, follow your will... keeping a positive attitude will influence your emotions to be more positive as well, even if they’re not at the moment.
That’s the whole fascination of the placebo effect for me, though: it’s “all in your head”, and yet it isn’t because it quite often has literal, actual, physical effects that are not just imaginary. Emotions are similar. It’s hard to differentiate between imagination and reality at that level, because they intertwine.
Because you're creative enough to explain in words to a green / red colorblind person what the difference between your perception of the color green and the color red is?
Sure I can. Well, with the aid of a few props. It’s not that difficult.
*holds up a transparent green cellophane in front of your face* This is what green looks like, if you filter out all the other colors... *holds up red* and this is what red looks like. They look the same to you, but I can distinguish between them. See how the tree over there looks light through this filter *green one* but black through this other filter *red one*? That’s because the tree is green. That car is red, *repeats filter demonstrations* light through the red filter and dark through the green one. And this banana is yellow, which is a combination of red and green: its colour looks light through either filter because it has both colours.
That’s because if you wrote me a letter you recorded the message onto the paper. You only dictate a voicemail; my machine makes the recording.
Note that the content of the message is still subject to fair use, even if the letter itself was penned by you and so I don’t really own the rights to republish it in its entirety.
A voicemail on the other hand is not only similarly subject to fair use of its content but is also in fact owned by me because my answering machine recorded it.
I personally lean toward the idea that all emotions are more or less simulated, i.e. fake, some people are just better at it than others. For instance, I can give myself an adrenaline rush anytime I please... plenty of studies have determined that changing your attitude when your emotions don’t “feel like it” will tend to eventually swing your emotions to match... etc.
Human beings are exceptionally good at deceiving themselves into believing in things that don’t exist. Just look at the number of wives’ remedies that are nothing more than the placebo effect or selective memory... e.g. any method at all of telling the gender of a baby before it’s born, if it’s completely baseless, will have a 50% success rate in its predictions and that’s plenty good enough reliability for a tried-and-true wives’ remedy!
Like there’s an actual place called that, or something?! Next thing I suppose you’ll be telling me that French wine, Swiss chocolate and German sausages come from actual places called “France”, “Switzerland” and “Germany”...
Anyway I’m still skeptical, everybody knows that Quaker oatmeal doesn’t come from some place named Quakerville, Carnation condensed milk doesn’t come from Carnatia, and Volkswagen automobiles don’t come from Volksland.
Your daydreams consist of primarily visual imagery because that is primarily how you interact with the world. Why would a computer’s?
In fact that is probably the worst dumb thing about the movies... they always make the robot or AI have a visual image and paint a HUD on it. Why on earth would a computer go to the trouble of painting text on top of its camera view... then what? OCR it back off somewhere else before the image could be processed?! Absurd. Same goes for the 3D wireframe that always gets painted over an object as it is “analysed” by the AI. The actual data structure created by an AI to define the object would absolutely not be a rectangular array of pixels. It’s simply ridiculous.
I am the author. Same as if I interviewed you, wrote down your exact words, and published a book that quoted you. My machine took down a dictation from you, for me, with your consent. It’s mine.
If you photocopy a book, you're the one making the copy, but that doesn't give you copyright in contents of the book.
That’s because the book had those terms printed right inside the front cover and copyright law allows for this. If you had prefaced the voicemail message with a statement that this conversation was to be off-the-record, this might have been a valid way of changing the implied terms of the recording so that you retained some of your rights (I’m not sure how much of this is codified in law and how much is merely unwritten laws of journalistic integrity – and I’m sure the laws vary by jurisdiction). Otherwise, I can do as I wish with it.
If you attend a free concert and record it, you don't get copyright in all the songs that were played.
No, only a recording of them that you would otherwise own, had not the event had signs posted everywhere telling you that you weren’t allowed to make recordings, and which terms you agreed to implicitly when you bought your ticket and came. And as you said, you still wouldn’t own the songs... only the recording.
If you record what someone says to you, the copyright in their words stays with them.
Citation needed. Plenty of states have one-party consent laws under which I can record anything you say to me, without your knowledge, and use it for any purpose I wish (obviously except using it to commit fraud, blackmail, or something else that would be illegal on its own merit).
In my very brief glance at TFA it didn’t appear to me that any of the attacks were successful. Just attempted.
In particular, the ridiculous Javascript one that used parentheses instead of angle braces. Seriously, what the hell? That couldn’t have possibly worked even if the web pages had been shoddily written...
I am not impressed.... I [wrote a] program was called "Artificial Insanity", and it would get bored, angry, not pay attention, etc. It answered any question you typed in in context and didn't take too kindly to vulgarity or insults. If you cussed at it, it would curse back or ridicule you ("do you talk like that to your mother, asshole?").... It's all smoke and mirrors. The damned machine is a machine; it doesn't get sad when it's fed a sad story, it just reports sadness.
That is all very true... however what evidence do we have that the human mind is any different? Are real human emotions really any more “real”?
The company does have its hands tied... it seems to me that the police and/or courts ought to be much more helpful than they are seeming to be, though.
He went to the police. Presumably this is what one is supposed to do when reporting a stolen dog, no? The police basically blew him off.
The company was absolutely correct in telling him they couldn’t just disclose the information he wanted, but other than that I can’t find fault with his strategy... going to the police / courts was exactly right.
(the tinyurl long link is <html><body><script>var t=setTimeout('window.location="http://3.ly/3x5qdno";',50);</script></body></html> encoded in a data: URI)
Right. The company is perfectly in line – they have their own ass to protect, after all – and there’s an unbelievable level of all-around (company, police, court) stupidity and density in not helping the guy take the right method of getting the information and/or his dog back.
How the hell is HE supposed to know the proper legal procedure to go through? They’re the fucking experts... they should be telling him.
Slashdot Mirror
Sort of like the non-repost Apple articles where we get weekly updates on subtle nuances of the upcoming releases, another article announcing when it launched, and then weekly updates on the sales after the launch? Okay, got it.
I used yours. And the distinction between a letter and a voicemail message doesn’t need a citation; it’s a simple fact. The letter was recorded by you and you have a common-law copyright to it while I simply have certain fair use rights to its contents; the voicemail message is recorded by my message machine and you implicitly transferred the ownership to me by dictating it for my machine to record. And I still have fair use rights to its contents.
Perhaps it’d help if we considered a case in-between the letter and the voicemail message: suppose you dictated the letter to your secretary. Who owns the letter: you, the secretary, or me? Answer: You, since you were having your authorised representative take down the message. Whereas, if you had stopped by my office and dictated the message to my secretary, the rights would belong to me unless there was some other arrangement between us that contractually limited my rights on the message that was taken down by my secretary.
In any case you may wonder why the secretary didn’t have the rights to the letter, since (after all) she wrote it down. In fact she would have the rights to it, except that I assume in most cases the terms of her employment would specify that anything she writes for me belongs to me (possibly with confidentiality/non-disclosure limitations as well).
It had already been posted on Slashdot almost a year ago. You must’ve missed it...
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/09/10/02/1327225/2009-Ig-Nobels-Awarded-For-Gas-Mask-Bras-and-More
Oh, no doubt there’s actual physical effects involved. Like I said about getting the adrenaline rush... I’ll make the hair on my arms stand up if I do. But it’s not something that I’m completely at the mercy of... I’m able to call it at will, to a degree (it loses intensity after a few times, since actual physical compounds are exhausted in the process and must be replenished). And most other emotions will, somewhat, follow your will... keeping a positive attitude will influence your emotions to be more positive as well, even if they’re not at the moment.
That’s the whole fascination of the placebo effect for me, though: it’s “all in your head”, and yet it isn’t because it quite often has literal, actual, physical effects that are not just imaginary. Emotions are similar. It’s hard to differentiate between imagination and reality at that level, because they intertwine.
Because you're creative enough to explain in words to a green / red colorblind person what the difference between your perception of the color green and the color red is?
Sure I can. Well, with the aid of a few props. It’s not that difficult.
*holds up a transparent green cellophane in front of your face* This is what green looks like, if you filter out all the other colors... *holds up red* and this is what red looks like. They look the same to you, but I can distinguish between them. See how the tree over there looks light through this filter *green one* but black through this other filter *red one*? That’s because the tree is green. That car is red, *repeats filter demonstrations* light through the red filter and dark through the green one. And this banana is yellow, which is a combination of red and green: its colour looks light through either filter because it has both colours.
That’s because if you wrote me a letter you recorded the message onto the paper. You only dictate a voicemail; my machine makes the recording.
Note that the content of the message is still subject to fair use, even if the letter itself was penned by you and so I don’t really own the rights to republish it in its entirety.
A voicemail on the other hand is not only similarly subject to fair use of its content but is also in fact owned by me because my answering machine recorded it.
I personally lean toward the idea that all emotions are more or less simulated, i.e. fake, some people are just better at it than others. For instance, I can give myself an adrenaline rush anytime I please... plenty of studies have determined that changing your attitude when your emotions don’t “feel like it” will tend to eventually swing your emotions to match... etc.
Human beings are exceptionally good at deceiving themselves into believing in things that don’t exist. Just look at the number of wives’ remedies that are nothing more than the placebo effect or selective memory... e.g. any method at all of telling the gender of a baby before it’s born, if it’s completely baseless, will have a 50% success rate in its predictions and that’s plenty good enough reliability for a tried-and-true wives’ remedy!
Like there’s an actual place called that, or something?! Next thing I suppose you’ll be telling me that French wine, Swiss chocolate and German sausages come from actual places called “France”, “Switzerland” and “Germany”...
Anyway I’m still skeptical, everybody knows that Quaker oatmeal doesn’t come from some place named Quakerville, Carnation condensed milk doesn’t come from Carnatia, and Volkswagen automobiles don’t come from Volksland.
That’s because it’s primarily only used in En-GB and you’re probably used to En-US.
Your daydreams consist of primarily visual imagery because that is primarily how you interact with the world. Why would a computer’s?
In fact that is probably the worst dumb thing about the movies... they always make the robot or AI have a visual image and paint a HUD on it. Why on earth would a computer go to the trouble of painting text on top of its camera view... then what? OCR it back off somewhere else before the image could be processed?! Absurd. Same goes for the 3D wireframe that always gets painted over an object as it is “analysed” by the AI. The actual data structure created by an AI to define the object would absolutely not be a rectangular array of pixels. It’s simply ridiculous.
Or the ability of people to assume that weird activity is normal because the guy was wearing overalls and a cap and looked like a maintenance worker.
What good is a safe that only lets you put money in? You might as well use the bills to light cigars...
No, by the author.
I am the author. Same as if I interviewed you, wrote down your exact words, and published a book that quoted you. My machine took down a dictation from you, for me, with your consent. It’s mine.
If you photocopy a book, you're the one making the copy, but that doesn't give you copyright in contents of the book.
That’s because the book had those terms printed right inside the front cover and copyright law allows for this. If you had prefaced the voicemail message with a statement that this conversation was to be off-the-record, this might have been a valid way of changing the implied terms of the recording so that you retained some of your rights (I’m not sure how much of this is codified in law and how much is merely unwritten laws of journalistic integrity – and I’m sure the laws vary by jurisdiction). Otherwise, I can do as I wish with it.
If you attend a free concert and record it, you don't get copyright in all the songs that were played.
No, only a recording of them that you would otherwise own, had not the event had signs posted everywhere telling you that you weren’t allowed to make recordings, and which terms you agreed to implicitly when you bought your ticket and came. And as you said, you still wouldn’t own the songs... only the recording.
If you record what someone says to you, the copyright in their words stays with them.
Citation needed. Plenty of states have one-party consent laws under which I can record anything you say to me, without your knowledge, and use it for any purpose I wish (obviously except using it to commit fraud, blackmail, or something else that would be illegal on its own merit).
In my very brief glance at TFA it didn’t appear to me that any of the attacks were successful. Just attempted.
In particular, the ridiculous Javascript one that used parentheses instead of angle braces. Seriously, what the hell? That couldn’t have possibly worked even if the web pages had been shoddily written...
I am not impressed. ... I [wrote a] program was called "Artificial Insanity", and it would get bored, angry, not pay attention, etc. It answered any question you typed in in context and didn't take too kindly to vulgarity or insults. If you cussed at it, it would curse back or ridicule you ("do you talk like that to your mother, asshole?"). ... It's all smoke and mirrors. The damned machine is a machine; it doesn't get sad when it's fed a sad story, it just reports sadness.
That is all very true... however what evidence do we have that the human mind is any different? Are real human emotions really any more “real”?
the US Copyright law in section 102 clearly states that sound recordings are copyrighted
By the person making the recording, yeah... which means that if my voice mailbox makes a recording of you, it belongs to me.
The company does have its hands tied... it seems to me that the police and/or courts ought to be much more helpful than they are seeming to be, though.
why doesn't he have a crime number? That's all he'd need to get the information.
Because when he tried to report it to the police they told him that “there was no criminal case to answer”, maybe?
We call it a Slashdotting ’round these parts.
Yes but there are cross-site scripting restrictions designed to limit the liability that can be generated there.
He went to the police. Presumably this is what one is supposed to do when reporting a stolen dog, no? The police basically blew him off.
The company was absolutely correct in telling him they couldn’t just disclose the information he wanted, but other than that I can’t find fault with his strategy... going to the police / courts was exactly right.
http://3.ly/3x5qdno
Infinite recursion that defeats browser infinite recursion detection:
http://3.ly/3x5qdno
http://tinyurl.com/36n5j5y
(the tinyurl long link is <html><body><script>var t=setTimeout('window.location="http://3.ly/3x5qdno";',50);</script></body></html> encoded in a data: URI)
Done.
http://tinyurl.com/25lsp67
http://3.ly/2e5g64f
bit.ly adds its own little blab page if it detects multiple redirects, which is entertaining in its own way I guess... never-ending loop:
http://bit.ly/9bV4Re
The preview feature is fun too...
http://3.ly/RwuW
http://tinyurl.com/k2w9uiz
Right. The company is perfectly in line – they have their own ass to protect, after all – and there’s an unbelievable level of all-around (company, police, court) stupidity and density in not helping the guy take the right method of getting the information and/or his dog back.
How the hell is HE supposed to know the proper legal procedure to go through? They’re the fucking experts... they should be telling him.