That's nice, but he bought the textbook. He owned it. Those rights belong to him now. And he didn't want to "deny use" to anyone of what he owned.
Unless you throw in some crazy system of "leasing" or believe that when you buy a book, you can't read it aloud to anyone else. Say, over the radio. To people transcribing it. And systems like that HAVE been made "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...". They've worked out well in some cases, and horribly bad in other cases.
Post some examples of Wikipedia "getting it wrong" or GTFO.
Link the article and explain how it's wrong. Since you claim it's for ANY event after 1899, this should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Go ahead, we'll wait.
What? How does Google have ANYTHING to do with this story, parent post, or subject matter? Yes, Google is indeed rich enough to purchase some textbooks. How insightful, thank you for contributing to the conversation. And OH LOOK, someone with mod points agrees with you.
Now... the point of contention I have with this statement is that somehow, by having money, Google is evil.... Could you explain that a bit for me? Are we supposed to feel bad about the paychecks we bring home? Should be look at our nest eggs and savings and cackle like some evil mastermind knowing that we screwed someone over to acquire it?
It's posts like this, and they've been going on for a FUCKING DECADE, that make me feel like the majority of the hate, suspicion, and fear of Google is only so much jealousy. Now, don't get me wrong, if Google decided to turn Sith and... I dunno, blackmailing everyone with secrets gleamed from their free email service, then yeah that would be horrible. And they certainly have the potential to be evil. A lot of it. Almost (but not quite) the potential that Microsoft has, to pull out a comparable example. Quicker strike capabilities I guess. But by and far Google hasn't been even remotely as evil as Microsoft.
So really, if you hate "the Google" so much, you need to start coming up with more rational rants because otherwise you just kind of look like a fool and make the rational people trust Google even more.
(Also, it's "don't be evil", you're getting confused with the Japanese three-monkey thing).
No, evolution is still a cold-hearted bitch even when it's virtual bots trying to gain fitness points in a genetic algorithm to find the best way to trade stock. The entire point of the prisoner's dilema is that the optimal/rational route, the one that evolution takes, is to betray the other guy and grab what you can. The personification of nature and evolution both follow the same characteristics. The later certainly guided the former. If nature is a bitch, then evolution is the motherfucker that made it that way.
can run a query like "Google: Show me the kitchen sink from the home on 1920 Sycamore St". And anyone who has access to the plumber's account could run a query like "Google: Show me all paintings from all houses visited in the past 6 months, ordered by estimated value"
Hey, that'd be great. If someone comes along and takes my paintings after he runs that through Google, the cops should know exactly where to go look.
"People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" He replied: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities." -Eric Schmidt
A not-too-subtle hint that if you google how to steal things, and then things get stolen around you, Mr. Google snitched on you. Because he's bound by law to do so.
You can even take that recording, crop it to a couple of still shots of people's faces and search the internet for images close to it to see if you can identify who they are.
And I'm proud to report that my congressman, David Loebsack (D-IA) who is part of the privacy caucus, isn't one of the eight idiots going on a pointless smear campaign against Google. I guess this isn't blatent bullshit like the "scroogle" campaign, but it's pretty close. I mean, they point out that A BAR has preemptively banned Google glass. With a citation. Like it matters.
And #3: It has facial recognition. Of some sort. And it could be used "to unveil personal information about whomever... Could a human subject opt out of this collection of personal data?"
Come on, the question they meant to ask is how glass matches facial recognition to personal information, if Google keeps a database of everyone's face, and could people opt out of said database. But no, they don't have a fucking clue when it comes to technology. All they see is point-click-info and they lose their fucking minds.
YAY privacy, but HOLY FUCKING COW are these people making privacy advocates look like idiots being paid by microsoft.
Whoa whoa whoa, "anti-evolutionary"? The rules surrounding intellectual property may be dirty, rotten, and underhanded maybe. But anti-evolutionary?
Son, evolution is a cold-hearted bitch and she doesn't care if it's a one-sided fight, she will straight-up murderize your entire clutch of eggs. Even if it means less food for everyone in the long run. As long as it helps her and her own, in the here and now, she's down with that. Evolution will toss ethics right out the window, baby, bathwater, and all, if it means she gets to send another gene into the future. That bitch plays hardball and is the first to turn in the other prisoner. It's no dilemma to her. She can make some truly beautiful and breath-taking things, but she has no goal or sense of morals, and the moment you put her in a corner she will sucker-punch the nearest fatty so she's not the first eaten.
Uh, yeah, about that. It pretty much happened. Technology and machines took over the farm job and everyone moved to the cities. More so than they did in the past. You know, what with the improvements from crop rotation leading to people moving to cities and helping with the Renaissance.
So... it's not that there are no farmers any more, just SIGNIFICANTLY LESS. And that's really what sociologists, historians, and people that make policy care about. Nothing ever works in absolutes in these fields, but they care what 80% of the masses do.
Then in the 1960, the smart people at the time predicted that computers would take over the work and no-one would have to work. And lo and behold, the vast swath of meaningless paper pushers are gone, replaced with email, databases, and computers. And manufacturing took a massive hit. The plants are still there, but they don't employ nearly as many people.
The "if not all" clause is complete bullshit and the professor should be ashamed for making it, but it's not unreasonable that the trend of technology automating away jobs will continue. Duh. And if you had been paying attention in history class this would have been obvious.
Ah yes, Academia, the bastion of the free market! Goodness knows their only motivational force is pure unfiltered greed. Which is why you never see those dirty Linux hippies anywhere near campus.
$19 billion plus academic publishing market for science, technology, engineering, and medical topics
University libraries account for 80% of their customers.
So what you're saying is that since the income of a typical university is 25% to 50% from tuition (and you can bet your ass that they justify the cost as providing access to students), that college students collectivly paid somewhere in the ballpark of $5 billion dollars to these companies.
Now... I'm all for helping out my fellows, and collective bargaining seems to bring down prices, but when I don't want what's being bargained for it kinda screws me over. As someone with an engineering degree who never needed to look in a journal to get his degree, I'm moderately miffed about that cost. And arguably, if there wasn't money there they'd probably just release all that info for free. Academics are big on that.
You know, back in my day vampires meant something. Next thing you know they're all sad and emo. Next they're sparkly and spend eternity hitting on highschool girls. Now they're your grandpa.
I tell ya. They don't make vampires like they used to.
Teaching students how to do proofs teaches them an abstract way of thinking that is universally applicable to solving open ended problems
You know what else teaches abstracting thinking and problem solving?
EVERY ENGINEERING COURSE. Seriously, you could point to any one of my engineering courses I took and argue that it helped develop abstract thought and made me better and solving open ended problems. Every god-damned one. Do you remember that engineering class that taught you rote memorization and how to solve problems, but only in this one specific way that was established in a prior class? NO, because they don't teach that class in engineering. This is the sort of bullshit argument that CEOs make when they say they're "realigning their position in the market." It could mean god-damned ANYTHING. It's so open ended as to be meaningless.
I understand the desire to make college a broad education and not some dumbed down tech-school for programmers. Teaching proofs would help with that, but so would teaching a myriad of other things.
oooooh yeah. That's right. CheggPost was a great tool to not get screwed by ISU's bookstore. Because Craigslist hadn't gotten to Ames yet.
Yeah, no, I witnessed the jump from CheggPost, a free tool to help fellow students to "Chegg" the business trying to make money. It wasn't a good change.
AFAICT, evolution is what made it possible for the original hydrogen atoms from the Big Bang to be having this conversation.
No, it was actually the hydrogen collecting together, reaching a critical mass, and turning into stars. The fusion at the core fused the hydrogen into more complex elements like, say, carbon and lead.
But without any sort of selection process, you can't call that step of history evolution. It's just chaos. Evolution only kicks in once you have, you know, a group of whatnots that get selected for, change a little, and get selected for again. So it wasn't evolution that turned hydrogen into bigger elements. And it wasn't evolution that kickstarted abiogenesis. But it certainly grabbed the wheel and hit the peddle to the metal from that point on.
it's testing for a characteristic that we cannot define
Wut? Dude, you just defined it. slang. And chatbots can most certainly learn slang. The winner of the... what... 2011? Turing competition imitated a 13 year old and used quite a lot of Internet slang.
But what you're actually missing is that's it's not just slang. It's contextual awareness.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Get it? In the first context "like" is a comparator. In the second context "like" is a verb. And that's a hard problem that AI is getting incrementally better at all the time. In the original example, the ability to pick up on sexual innuendos would be one hell of a hard thing to do because... well... everything can be turned into a sexual innuendo.
a TT cannot be conducted if the parties don't speak the same language,
Well... yeah...
or don't share the same culture,
What? No. If someone isn't aware of a slang or what couscous is, that doesn't mean they can't communicate. It just makes it harder. If you ask someone as part of a Turing test what shape is on a black widow, and they don't know, that doesn't mean that they're automatically a bot. Indeed, if you asked some domain specific knowledge like how many times Kirk lost his shirt, they answered quickly, then you'd probably grow suspicous. But hey, there's a chance that you got paired with a raging geek.
or just are of different genders. How would you think a man can sustain a conversation with several girls about fashions?
Seriously? Ok dude, I think you need a refresher on just what the hell a Turing test is supposed to do. You need some basic form of communication, but once you have that, the subject matter and the participants knowledge thereof, from both the interviewer and the interviewee, is largely irrelevant.
for the tl;dr crowd that makes Neil Postman fume with righteous fury:
From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate hut at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
Except that most of the people that can handle college could probably take any problem thrown at them and and get proficient at it before going to college. I respect the whole "learning how to learn" mantra, but the smart kids in highschool get knowledgeable in college, I don't think they get smarter.
But a tester at Blizzard is someone who plays the game for 8 hours and logs bug tickets.
A test engineer, the sort that would have a "software testing" degree, would spend 2 hours writing test scripts so that you don't have to pay someone a full day to open all the door in doortopia. You know: automated regression testing, unit testing, fuzzing, input validation, all that shit that real code-shops should be doing, but the developers are too busy to do themselves.
Tester: Shit job a monkey can do. They are the pre-alpha "users". Test Engineer: Automates testers out of a job and curses everyone who thinks they're just a tester.
I was under the impression that once something becomes a meme, it is essentially public domain
Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it so.
Legally, no it doesn't work that way at all.
Culturally, the only thing that any self-respecting netizen would advance as a meme isn't created by corporate influences or anyone that has the money or means to try and... you know... "own" a meme. As much as the PR department of Folgers Crystals would love to have their product become a meme, that shit just ain't happenin. But companies are certainly trying. I mean, that thing with the Old Spice guy is pretty well known.
Most memes are created and spread by, well, the poor. Poor in comparison to companies that own "brands", at least. The poor by and far do not enjoy the legal rights that people with lawyers do, and so the vast majority of memes are thrown about without worrying about being sued.
So when you say "essentially in the public domain", you're actually kinda right. Any copyright owned by the poor probably isn't going to be enforced, which is almost equivalent to being in the public domain.
If that seems unfair to you.... YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHH how about that suit against Warner Bros.?
Yep, absolutely ludicrous, but if someone started using the idea of Bug Bunny and was making a buck, then Warner Bros. would unleash the lawyers and leap down your throat. It's important that the big boys have to play by the same rules as the little guys, even if the rules are bullshit.
You know, cause we kinda expect this system to try and be fair.
Trademark is one thing, but characters created without trademark should be considered travelers within the realm of culture, IMO
Warner Bros is a trademark. They've marked their trade with a logo. Bugs Bunny is a character. Content. The idea of a funny cartoon rabbit does not identify something made by Warner Bros. It is, as you say, a traveler within the realm of culture. Or does the blessed corporation's creations get imbued with some magical quality that places them above whatever youtube user #92859321 released?
Keyboard cat is content, it is not the logo, mark, brand, or signature of a company or maker. The name "keyboard cat".... maybe. But I'd still kinda call bullshit. The entire concept of intellectual property is kinda fucked up and hasn't kept up with the times.
Probably because everyone I've ever heard use the term "best practices" has been a useless corporate suit with no clue how to craft software. The people who know their shit simply say that this part is good or this part is bloody fucking stupid.
"Best Practices" is one of those corporate buzzwords that offers the veneer of competence that suits use as a tool when talking to their customers or their own bosses. Do your best to stay away. Those guys are poison and will assuredly steal any thunder you try and make for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nice, but he bought the textbook. He owned it. Those rights belong to him now. And he didn't want to "deny use" to anyone of what he owned.
Unless you throw in some crazy system of "leasing" or believe that when you buy a book, you can't read it aloud to anyone else. Say, over the radio. To people transcribing it. And systems like that HAVE been made "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...". They've worked out well in some cases, and horribly bad in other cases.
Post some examples of Wikipedia "getting it wrong" or GTFO.
Link the article and explain how it's wrong. Since you claim it's for ANY event after 1899, this should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Go ahead, we'll wait.
What?
How does Google have ANYTHING to do with this story, parent post, or subject matter?
Yes, Google is indeed rich enough to purchase some textbooks. How insightful, thank you for contributing to the conversation. And OH LOOK, someone with mod points agrees with you.
Now... the point of contention I have with this statement is that somehow, by having money, Google is evil. ... Could you explain that a bit for me? Are we supposed to feel bad about the paychecks we bring home? Should be look at our nest eggs and savings and cackle like some evil mastermind knowing that we screwed someone over to acquire it?
It's posts like this, and they've been going on for a FUCKING DECADE, that make me feel like the majority of the hate, suspicion, and fear of Google is only so much jealousy. Now, don't get me wrong, if Google decided to turn Sith and... I dunno, blackmailing everyone with secrets gleamed from their free email service, then yeah that would be horrible. And they certainly have the potential to be evil. A lot of it. Almost (but not quite) the potential that Microsoft has, to pull out a comparable example. Quicker strike capabilities I guess. But by and far Google hasn't been even remotely as evil as Microsoft.
So really, if you hate "the Google" so much, you need to start coming up with more rational rants because otherwise you just kind of look like a fool and make the rational people trust Google even more.
(Also, it's "don't be evil", you're getting confused with the Japanese three-monkey thing).
Techerz, leef dem keeds awoon.
No, evolution is still a cold-hearted bitch even when it's virtual bots trying to gain fitness points in a genetic algorithm to find the best way to trade stock. The entire point of the prisoner's dilema is that the optimal/rational route, the one that evolution takes, is to betray the other guy and grab what you can. The personification of nature and evolution both follow the same characteristics. The later certainly guided the former. If nature is a bitch, then evolution is the motherfucker that made it that way.
can run a query like "Google: Show me the kitchen sink from the home on 1920 Sycamore St". And anyone who has access to the plumber's account could run a query like "Google: Show me all paintings from all houses visited in the past 6 months, ordered by estimated value"
Hey, that'd be great. If someone comes along and takes my paintings after he runs that through Google, the cops should know exactly where to go look.
"People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" He replied: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
-Eric Schmidt
A not-too-subtle hint that if you google how to steal things, and then things get stolen around you, Mr. Google snitched on you. Because he's bound by law to do so.
You can even take that recording, crop it to a couple of still shots of people's faces and search the internet for images close to it to see if you can identify who they are.
And I'm proud to report that my congressman, David Loebsack (D-IA) who is part of the privacy caucus, isn't one of the eight idiots going on a pointless smear campaign against Google. I guess this isn't blatent bullshit like the "scroogle" campaign, but it's pretty close. I mean, they point out that A BAR has preemptively banned Google glass. With a citation. Like it matters.
And #3: It has facial recognition. Of some sort. And it could be used "to unveil personal information about whomever... Could a human subject opt out of this collection of personal data?"
Come on, the question they meant to ask is how glass matches facial recognition to personal information, if Google keeps a database of everyone's face, and could people opt out of said database. But no, they don't have a fucking clue when it comes to technology. All they see is point-click-info and they lose their fucking minds.
YAY privacy, but HOLY FUCKING COW are these people making privacy advocates look like idiots being paid by microsoft.
Whoa whoa whoa, "anti-evolutionary"? The rules surrounding intellectual property may be dirty, rotten, and underhanded maybe. But anti-evolutionary?
Son, evolution is a cold-hearted bitch and she doesn't care if it's a one-sided fight, she will straight-up murderize your entire clutch of eggs. Even if it means less food for everyone in the long run. As long as it helps her and her own, in the here and now, she's down with that. Evolution will toss ethics right out the window, baby, bathwater, and all, if it means she gets to send another gene into the future. That bitch plays hardball and is the first to turn in the other prisoner. It's no dilemma to her. She can make some truly beautiful and breath-taking things, but she has no goal or sense of morals, and the moment you put her in a corner she will sucker-punch the nearest fatty so she's not the first eaten.
Uh, yeah, about that. It pretty much happened. Technology and machines took over the farm job and everyone moved to the cities. More so than they did in the past. You know, what with the improvements from crop rotation leading to people moving to cities and helping with the Renaissance.
So... it's not that there are no farmers any more, just SIGNIFICANTLY LESS. And that's really what sociologists, historians, and people that make policy care about. Nothing ever works in absolutes in these fields, but they care what 80% of the masses do.
Then in the 1960, the smart people at the time predicted that computers would take over the work and no-one would have to work. And lo and behold, the vast swath of meaningless paper pushers are gone, replaced with email, databases, and computers. And manufacturing took a massive hit. The plants are still there, but they don't employ nearly as many people.
The "if not all" clause is complete bullshit and the professor should be ashamed for making it, but it's not unreasonable that the trend of technology automating away jobs will continue. Duh. And if you had been paying attention in history class this would have been obvious.
Damn straight she is.
Is Linux valuable?
Ah yes, Academia, the bastion of the free market! Goodness knows their only motivational force is pure unfiltered greed. Which is why you never see those dirty Linux hippies anywhere near campus.
$19 billion plus academic publishing market for science, technology, engineering, and medical topics
University libraries account for 80% of their customers.
So what you're saying is that since the income of a typical university is 25% to 50% from tuition (and you can bet your ass that they justify the cost as providing access to students), that college students collectivly paid somewhere in the ballpark of $5 billion dollars to these companies.
Now... I'm all for helping out my fellows, and collective bargaining seems to bring down prices, but when I don't want what's being bargained for it kinda screws me over. As someone with an engineering degree who never needed to look in a journal to get his degree, I'm moderately miffed about that cost. And arguably, if there wasn't money there they'd probably just release all that info for free. Academics are big on that.
You know, back in my day vampires meant something. Next thing you know they're all sad and emo. Next they're sparkly and spend eternity hitting on highschool girls. Now they're your grandpa.
I tell ya. They don't make vampires like they used to.
Teaching students how to do proofs teaches them an abstract way of thinking that is universally applicable to solving open ended problems
You know what else teaches abstracting thinking and problem solving?
EVERY ENGINEERING COURSE. Seriously, you could point to any one of my engineering courses I took and argue that it helped develop abstract thought and made me better and solving open ended problems. Every god-damned one. Do you remember that engineering class that taught you rote memorization and how to solve problems, but only in this one specific way that was established in a prior class? NO, because they don't teach that class in engineering. This is the sort of bullshit argument that CEOs make when they say they're "realigning their position in the market." It could mean god-damned ANYTHING. It's so open ended as to be meaningless.
I understand the desire to make college a broad education and not some dumbed down tech-school for programmers. Teaching proofs would help with that, but so would teaching a myriad of other things.
oooooh yeah. That's right. CheggPost was a great tool to not get screwed by ISU's bookstore. Because Craigslist hadn't gotten to Ames yet.
Yeah, no, I witnessed the jump from CheggPost, a free tool to help fellow students to "Chegg" the business trying to make money. It wasn't a good change.
AFAICT, evolution is what made it possible for the original hydrogen atoms from the Big Bang to be having this conversation.
No, it was actually the hydrogen collecting together, reaching a critical mass, and turning into stars. The fusion at the core fused the hydrogen into more complex elements like, say, carbon and lead.
But without any sort of selection process, you can't call that step of history evolution. It's just chaos. Evolution only kicks in once you have, you know, a group of whatnots that get selected for, change a little, and get selected for again. So it wasn't evolution that turned hydrogen into bigger elements. And it wasn't evolution that kickstarted abiogenesis. But it certainly grabbed the wheel and hit the peddle to the metal from that point on.
it's testing for a characteristic that we cannot define
Wut? Dude, you just defined it. slang. And chatbots can most certainly learn slang. The winner of the... what... 2011? Turing competition imitated a 13 year old and used quite a lot of Internet slang.
But what you're actually missing is that's it's not just slang. It's contextual awareness.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Get it? In the first context "like" is a comparator. In the second context "like" is a verb. And that's a hard problem that AI is getting incrementally better at all the time. In the original example, the ability to pick up on sexual innuendos would be one hell of a hard thing to do because... well... everything can be turned into a sexual innuendo.
a TT cannot be conducted if the parties don't speak the same language,
Well... yeah...
or don't share the same culture,
What? No. If someone isn't aware of a slang or what couscous is, that doesn't mean they can't communicate. It just makes it harder. If you ask someone as part of a Turing test what shape is on a black widow, and they don't know, that doesn't mean that they're automatically a bot. Indeed, if you asked some domain specific knowledge like how many times Kirk lost his shirt, they answered quickly, then you'd probably grow suspicous. But hey, there's a chance that you got paired with a raging geek.
or just are of different genders. How would you think a man can sustain a conversation with several girls about fashions?
Seriously? Ok dude, I think you need a refresher on just what the hell a Turing test is supposed to do. You need some basic form of communication, but once you have that, the subject matter and the participants knowledge thereof, from both the interviewer and the interviewee, is largely irrelevant.
for the tl;dr crowd that makes Neil Postman fume with righteous fury:
From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be
reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single
sentence.
The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate hut
at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that
policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
Except that most of the people that can handle college could probably take any problem thrown at them and and get proficient at it before going to college. I respect the whole "learning how to learn" mantra, but the smart kids in highschool get knowledgeable in college, I don't think they get smarter.
But a tester at Blizzard is someone who plays the game for 8 hours and logs bug tickets.
A test engineer, the sort that would have a "software testing" degree, would spend 2 hours writing test scripts so that you don't have to pay someone a full day to open all the door in doortopia. You know: automated regression testing, unit testing, fuzzing, input validation, all that shit that real code-shops should be doing, but the developers are too busy to do themselves.
Tester: Shit job a monkey can do. They are the pre-alpha "users".
Test Engineer: Automates testers out of a job and curses everyone who thinks they're just a tester.
I was under the impression that once something becomes a meme, it is essentially public domain
Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it so.
Legally, no it doesn't work that way at all.
Culturally, the only thing that any self-respecting netizen would advance as a meme isn't created by corporate influences or anyone that has the money or means to try and... you know... "own" a meme. As much as the PR department of Folgers Crystals would love to have their product become a meme, that shit just ain't happenin. But companies are certainly trying. I mean, that thing with the Old Spice guy is pretty well known.
Most memes are created and spread by, well, the poor. Poor in comparison to companies that own "brands", at least. The poor by and far do not enjoy the legal rights that people with lawyers do, and so the vast majority of memes are thrown about without worrying about being sued.
So when you say "essentially in the public domain", you're actually kinda right. Any copyright owned by the poor probably isn't going to be enforced, which is almost equivalent to being in the public domain.
If that seems unfair to you.... YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHH how about that suit against Warner Bros.?
Yep, absolutely ludicrous, but if someone started using the idea of Bug Bunny and was making a buck, then Warner Bros. would unleash the lawyers and leap down your throat. It's important that the big boys have to play by the same rules as the little guys, even if the rules are bullshit.
You know, cause we kinda expect this system to try and be fair.
Trademark is one thing, but characters created without trademark should be considered travelers within the realm of culture, IMO
Warner Bros is a trademark. They've marked their trade with a logo. Bugs Bunny is a character. Content. The idea of a funny cartoon rabbit does not identify something made by Warner Bros. It is, as you say, a traveler within the realm of culture. Or does the blessed corporation's creations get imbued with some magical quality that places them above whatever youtube user #92859321 released?
Keyboard cat is content, it is not the logo, mark, brand, or signature of a company or maker. The name "keyboard cat".... maybe. But I'd still kinda call bullshit. The entire concept of intellectual property is kinda fucked up and hasn't kept up with the times.
Probably because everyone I've ever heard use the term "best practices" has been a useless corporate suit with no clue how to craft software. The people who know their shit simply say that this part is good or this part is bloody fucking stupid.
"Best Practices" is one of those corporate buzzwords that offers the veneer of competence that suits use as a tool when talking to their customers or their own bosses. Do your best to stay away. Those guys are poison and will assuredly steal any thunder you try and make for yourself.