You have it backwards. The only presumption with the levy is is that you will engage in the private use copying that the levy is for. There is no presumption of guilt whatsoever.
That levy is for private and personal use copying only, and should not be taken as being a kind of general payment for the right to share copyrighted content without permission.
Don't you guys have a tax on media that effectively paid the rights holders for your now perfectly legitimate practice of copying things?
If you're referring to the blank media levy that you have to pay in Canada, the levy doesn't exist to legitimatize the illegitimate practice of media piracy, it exists to compensate the rights holders for personal and private use copying *ONLY*.
True, but that's not the case, is it? With professional chess players, their job is to play chess... period. If people weren't willing to pay to watch chess, there'd be no job, obviously, but conceptually, that's true about *ANY* job. Why would you get paid to do anything at all, regardless of what it was, if there wasn't some demand for it that people are willing to pay for? A job is not merely a means by which one makes money, it is whatever it is that one does that happens to also make money.
[Dyson] said the design was "all about the technology" and warned that it would be an expensive vehicle to purchase.
While I'd certainly agree that technology (or the lack of it) plays an important part in the slowness to accept electric vehicles, but if you market it at a price that is outside of the reach of the mass consumer, you can't exactly hope for large scale appeal either.
Obviously, but speaking generally, such a show of force would not necessarily always need to be directed against them as an attack unless you are also suggesting *that* was actually all that they would understand or respect -- perhaps that show of force could be used against a joint threat, or to provide protection or aid against some real threat against them and against which they would otherwise face extinction or subjugation.
No, it absolutely isn't, because without the entertainment side they wouldn't get paid and their "job" wouldn't exist.
Again, that's only the justification for how the job could be monetized, it does not make it their job. Their job is what ever it is that they are paid todo.... and that starts and finishes at playing chess. I don't dispute that they wouldn't get paid if people didn't find it entertaining, but that's still not what the professional chess players actually do THEMSELVES. What you are talking about is more of the marketability angle than anything that any professional chess players would ever actually even begin to think about, except perhaps between games. It's like saying that a carpenter's job is selling what they build instead of just actually building. Obviously if they don't sell, they don't make any money, but that doesn't mean that their job isn't just doing the building..
The job is entertaining folks who want to see how well a human can play chess.
A job is what you do for money (or barter, or trade), not how much justification exists for the activitiy to merit it. For the professional chess player, playing chess is their job. Entertaining others is secondary and entirely superfluous to that, and is only relevant as a justification for why somebody would be able to make money doing it.
You seem to be under the impression that a job is necessarily something that needs to exist in order for one to make money, and not simply something that one might happen to do that also makes money (particularly if they can make enough money at it that they can sustainably live on that amount)
I mentioned chess players as an example because offhand, it is one area where humans have already been surpassed by machines. In actuality, there aren't very many yet, so I'm rather hard pressed to come up with other examples.
People play chess against people because people like to pay chess against people, and insofar as there is money in it, people like to watch people play chess against people.
Exactly my point. If you truly enjoy doing something, then find a way to get very good at it, and eventually you will find a demand for that skill that people may be willing to pay for, Those are the kinds of jobs that exist today that are still going to exist when AI's can do anything humans can do, because having a computer do the same thing isn't going to interesting or desirable to anyone. The rest of the jobs that will exist are things that I expect nobody has imagined yet.
True... but that's only because most chess players that are god enough to make money can't make enough money to live on.
Some can, however. The top chess players make hundreds of thousands or sometimes in excess of a million dollars a year by playing chess.
Professional athletes often make enough money that they don't need any other career either. While I can see no small market for watching robotic athletes, which might someday otherwise be able to compete with and beat human athletes at some of their games, play certain kinds of games as well, I doubt it would displace existing human athletic competitiions, it would simply be a new entertainment form.
My point being that if you truly excel at what you do, you can probably find you may be able to make a living at it, because the demand for people with talent is always high. In the meanitme, you just keep working at it and getting better and better at what you do.
If you are the sort of person who believes themselves to be talentless, or worse, otherwise content with being mediocre, then you might have a problem.
Remember Henry Ford's assembly line? Old potatoes at this point, modern robots are assembling cars to much higher standards.
And despite thousands of workers being displaced by those robots, the unemployment rate was not significantly affected in the long term.
Obviously displacing humans with machines has an impact on the short term, but the demand for people to do the things that they might happen to be able to do well is always going to be there... the jobs that will be replaced by machines are the jobs that most people wouldn't actually want to do if they had a choice, and that is quite far removed from the only kinds of jobs out there... and even farther removed from the only kinds of jobs that will ever exist. The fact that it might be cheaper to have a machine do a job is entirely irrelevant because money isn't the only governing factor to what makes a society healthy.
Its an activity that occasionally becomes a spectator event. If playing chess WAS a job it would have been taken over by machines back in the 90s.
Of course it's a specatator event, but that doesn't mean it's not a job. Those spectators paid to come see the event live, for example... and the people that play are being paid to do so, so how is it not a job? The fact that even the best players can be beaten by computer has not reduced the interest in paying to watch people play eachother *AT ALL*.
And as I said... this is just in one area where we've advanced computers to the point that they really *CAN* compete with human beings.
Obviously, it doesn't apply to all types of jobs... and it probably doesn't even apply to most of things that one might think of when they think of the word "job" today, but the demand for real human beings to do the things that they can do well, whatever that task might be, is certainly something that is always going to exist, and like chess players, the fact that a machine might someday do better is entirely superfluous.
Forever, because AI learns faster so if we create a new job, ANY new job, AI will be able to do it better and cheaper...understand?
Perhaps you are missing the point. Machines can already play chess better than humans, but those chess players are not losing their jobs to machines.
While I realize this area might be a bit niche, that's just one of the only areas where computers have actually already surpassed humans in ability. Perhaps there's other variables that are at play in determining whether we will pay a human being to do something than simply skill and cost?
Of course, I suppose they could just skyrocket your premiums, and increase your deductible, but otherwise I could all but guarantee that there is no way you'd ever see a single penny a theft claim if you were to come home and find your place had been robbed while also being a subscriber of this kind of service.
Even a so-called "entry level job" can pay quite fairly... as long as the salary keeps pace with the rise in cost of living, once you've found something you love to do, what's the problem?
.... the tech cannot be distinguished from regular eyewear by any kind of cursory examination.
I have no interest in spying on people, but I do very much like the idea of having a life-recorder with which I can record my day's experiences without my having to reach for another recording device such as my smart phone, and I could go back later and review things that I experienced that I might wish to review some detail on for posterity that would otherwise be forever lost simply on account of an imperfect memory and the fact that I didn't have my phone ready to record at that precise moment.
However, I don't particularly want to get my ass handed to me by people who think I'm wanting to spy on them every time I go out wearing such a device... or interested in uploading content to the internet or whatever, so I would rather that the device be completely invisible to onlookers.
Indeed... as a metaphor, "cassandra" is only applicable in hindsight to a situation when one realizes that a particular prophecy was not only ignored, but fulfilled. Ironically, likening a person to Cassandra before their prophecy has been fulfilled simply because they are not believed would mean the metaphor of Cassandra is not appropriate, since the usage of such a label like indicates a predisposition to believe in the accuracy of the prediction, whereas Cassandra was ubiquitously doubted, and if I recall correctly, ultimately locked up.
It's been a while since I last studied the mythology.... wasn't there one person who once believed one of her prophecies?
If you don't want your Alexa to respond to voice commands from whatever it can hear, don't let it hear things from sources that aren't authorized.
Definitely, but that would require that Amazon actually provide facilities to their users to allow them to secure them in that way.
But the fact that Amazon hasn't done so yet doesn't mean it should be open season on abusing it in this manner.
Now, I take it that all this rambling means you don't actually have a link to an actual law that was violated.
18 U.S.C. SS 1030(a)(5)(C). Unauthorized computer access and damage or loss due to negligence.
The loss in this case would be to any people who were unable to use their devices as they may have intended during this broadcast, as well as to anyone who may have inadvertently purchased the joke items (effectively, a denial of service attack). Really, in someplace like a living room, especially in a small living space such as an apartment, it's not at all hard to imagine that there might be people in easy earshot that do not have their eyes glued to a television, even while someone else is watching it. A human being can tune out such noise quite easily and still function, computers not so much.
Your "what if" scenario is not really relevant, as any harm caused in your example would not be directly attributable to the content of the broadcast. While I do not dispute that my scenario is no less hypothetical, the negative consequences that might arise from it would entirely be the consequence of what the creators of South Park chose to put in that episode. Your example could happen regardless of the episode content, or even what program they happened to be watching. My example could only arise by the choice of a program creator deciding to control other people's devices, thinking that it's all okay because they don't really *MEAN* any harm. I'm sure you've heard the old proverb about good intentions and negative consequences at least once.
And for what it's worth, it did apparently bother quite a few people. There reportedly were people who had unplugged their devices after a few minutes because they were getting annoyed with how they were responding to the television during the episode. I would suggest that this is about on par with the state of affairs in the early 1980's for what would eventually be called computer viruses on home computers. Google "Elk cloner" sometime. Extraordinarily primitive by today's standards, but it definitely met all the requirements of what we call a computer virus today. No "real" harm was done then either, but things escalated quickly from there from being funny once to being annoying to hampering productivity to eventually being quite harmful. Fundamentally, it's the reason why laws outlawing unauthorized computer access even exist at all. To suggest it should somehow be immune from penalization only because the creators only meant it as a practical joke is not an excuse. The first home computer virus was just a practical joke too, after all.
Perhaps... but the OP didn't ask when (or how, or why) it was created, he asked when it appeared. Presumably "appeared" would typically mean appeared to people with a typical range of perceptual ability.
Besides... I would suggest that Comic Sans isn't even really that bad a font by (most) objective measures. The single biggest complaint that most can legitimately make about it is that it suffered hugely from overuse in contexts where a whimsical looking font was not actually appropriate (resume's, corporate bulletins, and even funeral announcements, to name just a few) and that is what gave it most of the bad rep it now enjoys. It has a few technical problems, but usually these are seen as secondary to how poorly people have historically used the whimsical font in places where it was not appropriate. If Comic Sans were to have originally had all of the characteristics of the more modern font Comic Neue, for example, it would have been no less reviled than it is today.
Sorta, yeah.... but reasonably, that's the only possibility. While it's true that bacteria that causes cavities *CAN* be possibly exchanged by saliva transfer, it's something that's not particularly common, because the quantity of saliva that has to be exchanged would generally need to be pretty high (like on the order of one person practically sticking their tongue directly into the other's mouth) or else the bacteria that causes such health issues would need to be *VERY* abundant so that a smaller quantity of saliva transfer is sufficient to cause a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
You have it backwards. The only presumption with the levy is is that you will engage in the private use copying that the levy is for. There is no presumption of guilt whatsoever.
That levy is for private and personal use copying only, and should not be taken as being a kind of general payment for the right to share copyrighted content without permission.
If you're referring to the blank media levy that you have to pay in Canada, the levy doesn't exist to legitimatize the illegitimate practice of media piracy, it exists to compensate the rights holders for personal and private use copying *ONLY*.
Don't a lot of businesses require vpn's in order to work from home? Would a vpn ban amount to making it impossible to telecommute?
True, but that's not the case, is it? With professional chess players, their job is to play chess... period. If people weren't willing to pay to watch chess, there'd be no job, obviously, but conceptually, that's true about *ANY* job. Why would you get paid to do anything at all, regardless of what it was, if there wasn't some demand for it that people are willing to pay for? A job is not merely a means by which one makes money, it is whatever it is that one does that happens to also make money.
While I'd certainly agree that technology (or the lack of it) plays an important part in the slowness to accept electric vehicles, but if you market it at a price that is outside of the reach of the mass consumer, you can't exactly hope for large scale appeal either.
Obviously, but speaking generally, such a show of force would not necessarily always need to be directed against them as an attack unless you are also suggesting *that* was actually all that they would understand or respect -- perhaps that show of force could be used against a joint threat, or to provide protection or aid against some real threat against them and against which they would otherwise face extinction or subjugation.
Again, that's only the justification for how the job could be monetized, it does not make it their job. Their job is what ever it is that they are paid todo.... and that starts and finishes at playing chess. I don't dispute that they wouldn't get paid if people didn't find it entertaining, but that's still not what the professional chess players actually do THEMSELVES. What you are talking about is more of the marketability angle than anything that any professional chess players would ever actually even begin to think about, except perhaps between games. It's like saying that a carpenter's job is selling what they build instead of just actually building. Obviously if they don't sell, they don't make any money, but that doesn't mean that their job isn't just doing the building..
A job is what you do for money (or barter, or trade), not how much justification exists for the activitiy to merit it. For the professional chess player, playing chess is their job. Entertaining others is secondary and entirely superfluous to that, and is only relevant as a justification for why somebody would be able to make money doing it.
You seem to be under the impression that a job is necessarily something that needs to exist in order for one to make money, and not simply something that one might happen to do that also makes money (particularly if they can make enough money at it that they can sustainably live on that amount)
Exactly my point. If you truly enjoy doing something, then find a way to get very good at it, and eventually you will find a demand for that skill that people may be willing to pay for, Those are the kinds of jobs that exist today that are still going to exist when AI's can do anything humans can do, because having a computer do the same thing isn't going to interesting or desirable to anyone. The rest of the jobs that will exist are things that I expect nobody has imagined yet.
I suspect that in the future, people will be doing things that we haven't even thought of yet.
Some can, however. The top chess players make hundreds of thousands or sometimes in excess of a million dollars a year by playing chess.
Professional athletes often make enough money that they don't need any other career either. While I can see no small market for watching robotic athletes, which might someday otherwise be able to compete with and beat human athletes at some of their games, play certain kinds of games as well, I doubt it would displace existing human athletic competitiions, it would simply be a new entertainment form.
My point being that if you truly excel at what you do, you can probably find you may be able to make a living at it, because the demand for people with talent is always high. In the meanitme, you just keep working at it and getting better and better at what you do.
If you are the sort of person who believes themselves to be talentless, or worse, otherwise content with being mediocre, then you might have a problem.
And despite thousands of workers being displaced by those robots, the unemployment rate was not significantly affected in the long term.
Obviously displacing humans with machines has an impact on the short term, but the demand for people to do the things that they might happen to be able to do well is always going to be there... the jobs that will be replaced by machines are the jobs that most people wouldn't actually want to do if they had a choice, and that is quite far removed from the only kinds of jobs out there... and even farther removed from the only kinds of jobs that will ever exist. The fact that it might be cheaper to have a machine do a job is entirely irrelevant because money isn't the only governing factor to what makes a society healthy.
Of course it's a specatator event, but that doesn't mean it's not a job. Those spectators paid to come see the event live, for example... and the people that play are being paid to do so, so how is it not a job? The fact that even the best players can be beaten by computer has not reduced the interest in paying to watch people play eachother *AT ALL*.
And as I said... this is just in one area where we've advanced computers to the point that they really *CAN* compete with human beings.
Obviously, it doesn't apply to all types of jobs... and it probably doesn't even apply to most of things that one might think of when they think of the word "job" today, but the demand for real human beings to do the things that they can do well, whatever that task might be, is certainly something that is always going to exist, and like chess players, the fact that a machine might someday do better is entirely superfluous.
Perhaps you are missing the point. Machines can already play chess better than humans, but those chess players are not losing their jobs to machines.
While I realize this area might be a bit niche, that's just one of the only areas where computers have actually already surpassed humans in ability. Perhaps there's other variables that are at play in determining whether we will pay a human being to do something than simply skill and cost?
Of course, I suppose they could just skyrocket your premiums, and increase your deductible, but otherwise I could all but guarantee that there is no way you'd ever see a single penny a theft claim if you were to come home and find your place had been robbed while also being a subscriber of this kind of service.
Even a so-called "entry level job" can pay quite fairly... as long as the salary keeps pace with the rise in cost of living, once you've found something you love to do, what's the problem?
I have no interest in spying on people, but I do very much like the idea of having a life-recorder with which I can record my day's experiences without my having to reach for another recording device such as my smart phone, and I could go back later and review things that I experienced that I might wish to review some detail on for posterity that would otherwise be forever lost simply on account of an imperfect memory and the fact that I didn't have my phone ready to record at that precise moment.
However, I don't particularly want to get my ass handed to me by people who think I'm wanting to spy on them every time I go out wearing such a device... or interested in uploading content to the internet or whatever, so I would rather that the device be completely invisible to onlookers.
Indeed... as a metaphor, "cassandra" is only applicable in hindsight to a situation when one realizes that a particular prophecy was not only ignored, but fulfilled. Ironically, likening a person to Cassandra before their prophecy has been fulfilled simply because they are not believed would mean the metaphor of Cassandra is not appropriate, since the usage of such a label like indicates a predisposition to believe in the accuracy of the prediction, whereas Cassandra was ubiquitously doubted, and if I recall correctly, ultimately locked up.
It's been a while since I last studied the mythology.... wasn't there one person who once believed one of her prophecies?
Definitely, but that would require that Amazon actually provide facilities to their users to allow them to secure them in that way.
But the fact that Amazon hasn't done so yet doesn't mean it should be open season on abusing it in this manner.
18 U.S.C. SS 1030(a)(5)(C). Unauthorized computer access and damage or loss due to negligence.
The loss in this case would be to any people who were unable to use their devices as they may have intended during this broadcast, as well as to anyone who may have inadvertently purchased the joke items (effectively, a denial of service attack). Really, in someplace like a living room, especially in a small living space such as an apartment, it's not at all hard to imagine that there might be people in easy earshot that do not have their eyes glued to a television, even while someone else is watching it. A human being can tune out such noise quite easily and still function, computers not so much.
Your "what if" scenario is not really relevant, as any harm caused in your example would not be directly attributable to the content of the broadcast. While I do not dispute that my scenario is no less hypothetical, the negative consequences that might arise from it would entirely be the consequence of what the creators of South Park chose to put in that episode. Your example could happen regardless of the episode content, or even what program they happened to be watching. My example could only arise by the choice of a program creator deciding to control other people's devices, thinking that it's all okay because they don't really *MEAN* any harm. I'm sure you've heard the old proverb about good intentions and negative consequences at least once.
And for what it's worth, it did apparently bother quite a few people. There reportedly were people who had unplugged their devices after a few minutes because they were getting annoyed with how they were responding to the television during the episode. I would suggest that this is about on par with the state of affairs in the early 1980's for what would eventually be called computer viruses on home computers. Google "Elk cloner" sometime. Extraordinarily primitive by today's standards, but it definitely met all the requirements of what we call a computer virus today. No "real" harm was done then either, but things escalated quickly from there from being funny once to being annoying to hampering productivity to eventually being quite harmful. Fundamentally, it's the reason why laws outlawing unauthorized computer access even exist at all. To suggest it should somehow be immune from penalization only because the creators only meant it as a practical joke is not an excuse. The first home computer virus was just a practical joke too, after all.
Perhaps... but the OP didn't ask when (or how, or why) it was created, he asked when it appeared. Presumably "appeared" would typically mean appeared to people with a typical range of perceptual ability.
Besides... I would suggest that Comic Sans isn't even really that bad a font by (most) objective measures. The single biggest complaint that most can legitimately make about it is that it suffered hugely from overuse in contexts where a whimsical looking font was not actually appropriate (resume's, corporate bulletins, and even funeral announcements, to name just a few) and that is what gave it most of the bad rep it now enjoys. It has a few technical problems, but usually these are seen as secondary to how poorly people have historically used the whimsical font in places where it was not appropriate. If Comic Sans were to have originally had all of the characteristics of the more modern font Comic Neue, for example, it would have been no less reviled than it is today.
Sorta, yeah.... but reasonably, that's the only possibility. While it's true that bacteria that causes cavities *CAN* be possibly exchanged by saliva transfer, it's something that's not particularly common, because the quantity of saliva that has to be exchanged would generally need to be pretty high (like on the order of one person practically sticking their tongue directly into the other's mouth) or else the bacteria that causes such health issues would need to be *VERY* abundant so that a smaller quantity of saliva transfer is sufficient to cause a problem.
I can't imagine how poor the mother's dental hygiene was for that kind of transfer to happen.
Decades, but who's counting?