So if I strap a GoPro to my helmet and I bike around the world, I have no copyright on the video ?
According to this, no you have not. And if some "improved" GoPro in the future were to radio your data back to GoPro's office (or to anyone they sold the link to) they could do what they liked with it including putting your journey on YouTube.
Surely stating that copyright protection is not applicable means that the manufacturer cannot copyright it either.
Maybe they can't copyright it, but if they are the only ones with a copy (be sure that will be the case) they can still sell it to people like advertisers.
If you even glance at the article or summary for a moment... you will learn that Chinese researchers in this experiment were trying to do neither of these things
Whatever the Chinese researches intended, or did not intend, has nothing to do with it. Others will make of it and use it however they will. In any case I took the GP's "you" as a general one, not just to the researchers, as part of a question addressed to the world at large.
Peoples' reactions are much more informative.... than anything in the article.
That applies to your reaction too (and my reaction to your reaction, to save you saying it).
No they will just have to worry about some terrorist renting one, packing it with explosives and then crashing it into those skyscrapers filled with the idle rich. With self-flying cars, they won't even have to fly it themselves.
But I understand that they only get a ticket to paradise and a date with a houri there if they kill themselves in the process. So we have nothing to worry about
Air travel is already FAR safer than driving and yet we still drive far more than we fly
Aircraft accidents are dominated by take-off, landing, and other crashes close to airports. Crashes away from airports are rare partly because the sky is pretty empty of other planes to collide with, and also because commercial aircraft are very well maintained (by car standards). Long distance commercial flights have a good safety record (fatalities per mile) because only a small proportion of their travel is spent in take-off and landing; such flights have a safety record similar to trains (West European trains anyway).
That changes however if aircraft are used for short trips, especially private ones, because proportionately more take off and landing is involved. That would be even more so with the use (and maintenance) that flying cars are likely to get.
... (battery based is only practical for extremely small aircraft due to the nasty fact that doubling the size of battery increases its volume by the square and its weight by the cube).
Hmm I wonder if Boeing even thought about these costs before they decided to spend billions of dollars on research down this road. I guess it's just something an army of engineers don't think about when they are designing a new product
I've worked in some large engineering companies, and no they don't.
The way it works is that a small research group has some finance to think up ideas. They have some, mostly crazy. PR seizes on one from time-to-time and takes it up to create a stir and get the company into the news. Then the bean counters and market research guys notice it and do some sums, with bad results. A board member steps in and vetos it as being "Not within the company's vision". Research group moves on to next idea. Rinse and repeat.
" this technology will only be affordable by the wealthiest peoples and that it will have very little effect on the rest of the population (except for the noise)."
That's what some people said about airplanes & horseless carriages.
It was true except for the "effect" bit - which is arguably negative on balance.
This. I don't believe that even the average Joe would give out their PIN to a caller, otherwise we would hear of far more successful scams than there are. In the UK, practically every bit of correspondence from banks hammers the point that you should never give out your PIN, even to bank staff (real or fake).
Need not worry : the USA was among the first in submarine tech. They were used in the War of Independence and in the Civil War - tiny things driven by hand-turned propellors, not successful though.
Why mention 1943? The British built a diese/electric sub in 1910, the D1. The Germans ditto with U19. There were earlier petrol/electic subs (dangerous combination) but the vast majority of subs in WW1 were diesel/electric. There may have been even earlier diesel/electric subs built by Russia or France but I don't know, and the British built some steam-tubine/diesel ones (the K-class).
I gather from TFA that it still does this even if the phone is in your pocket. Tha's if you have a smartphone and an Instagram account. I have neither. WTF is this Instagram anyway?
I don't know why/. are allowing adverts to be posted as articles (we had one for MS crap yesterday, and another which was a session of licking Gates' arsehole), and in the comments like this one. It's getting tedious, and I'm getting less and less inclined to come here.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I strap a GoPro to my helmet and I bike around the world, I have no copyright on the video ?
According to this, no you have not. And if some "improved" GoPro in the future were to radio your data back to GoPro's office (or to anyone they sold the link to) they could do what they liked with it including putting your journey on YouTube.
Surely stating that copyright protection is not applicable means that the manufacturer cannot copyright it either.
Maybe they can't copyright it, but if they are the only ones with a copy (be sure that will be the case) they can still sell it to people like advertisers.
Looks like you focussed on whether the USA constitution was 230 years old or not, but missed the fact that it does not wash in Europe anyway.
So they needed two moms
Yes, it's brilliant when China in particular is short of women thanks to baby girls being aborted or murdered, at least in the rural areas.
If you even glance at the article or summary for a moment ... you will learn that Chinese researchers in this experiment were trying to do neither of these things
Whatever the Chinese researches intended, or did not intend, has nothing to do with it. Others will make of it and use it however they will. In any case I took the GP's "you" as a general one, not just to the researchers, as part of a question addressed to the world at large.
Peoples' reactions are much more informative .... than anything in the article.
That applies to your reaction too (and my reaction to your reaction, to save you saying it).
Zeppelins are truly a majestic form of transportation, until you try to land one in a storm.
Citation?
No they will just have to worry about some terrorist renting one, packing it with explosives and then crashing it into those skyscrapers filled with the idle rich. With self-flying cars, they won't even have to fly it themselves.
But I understand that they only get a ticket to paradise and a date with a houri there if they kill themselves in the process. So we have nothing to worry about
Air travel is already FAR safer than driving and yet we still drive far more than we fly
Aircraft accidents are dominated by take-off, landing, and other crashes close to airports. Crashes away from airports are rare partly because the sky is pretty empty of other planes to collide with, and also because commercial aircraft are very well maintained (by car standards). Long distance commercial flights have a good safety record (fatalities per mile) because only a small proportion of their travel is spent in take-off and landing; such flights have a safety record similar to trains (West European trains anyway).
That changes however if aircraft are used for short trips, especially private ones, because proportionately more take off and landing is involved. That would be even more so with the use (and maintenance) that flying cars are likely to get.
... (battery based is only practical for extremely small aircraft due to the nasty fact that doubling the size of battery increases its volume by the square and its weight by the cube).
With you until you wrote that.
Hmm I wonder if Boeing even thought about these costs before they decided to spend billions of dollars on research down this road. I guess it's just something an army of engineers don't think about when they are designing a new product
I've worked in some large engineering companies, and no they don't.
The way it works is that a small research group has some finance to think up ideas. They have some, mostly crazy. PR seizes on one from time-to-time and takes it up to create a stir and get the company into the news. Then the bean counters and market research guys notice it and do some sums, with bad results. A board member steps in and vetos it as being "Not within the company's vision". Research group moves on to next idea. Rinse and repeat.
Then yourself is blind. Most planes have auto pilots. Many cars these days are capable of self driving and do it.
He said "self-flying cars", not "planes", and I've never knowingly seen one, or a S-D car either.
" this technology will only be affordable by the wealthiest peoples and that it will have very little effect on the rest of the population (except for the noise)."
That's what some people said about airplanes & horseless carriages.
It was true except for the "effect" bit - which is arguably negative on balance.
Citation?
What exacly are you afraid of? Of breaking down into a jibbering wreck and blurting out all your passwords and PIN numbers?
He said that neigbours asked to send emails, not that they got to send them. I also have a landline phone that will work through power cuts.
"you'd fall for it, too,"
No, no we wouldn't.
This. I don't believe that even the average Joe would give out their PIN to a caller, otherwise we would hear of far more successful scams than there are. In the UK, practically every bit of correspondence from banks hammers the point that you should never give out your PIN, even to bank staff (real or fake).
making it illegal does nothing because criminals don't follow laws or they wouldn't be criminals.
I keep hearing this, so I'm persuaded. We'll do away with all laws then; it will save paper and as a bonus I'll be able to murder anyone I want.
This new invention may save my marriage.
It could ruin mine.
Need not worry : the USA was among the first in submarine tech. They were used in the War of Independence and in the Civil War - tiny things driven by hand-turned propellors, not successful though.
Captain Dork, I think your carriage return key is sticking.
Sound like you have just been watching "Dr Strangelove". Those 1960's American airman rode bombs like they rode broncos; men were men then.
Why mention 1943? The British built a diese/electric sub in 1910, the D1. The Germans ditto with U19. There were earlier petrol/electic subs (dangerous combination) but the vast majority of subs in WW1 were diesel/electric. There may have been even earlier diesel/electric subs built by Russia or France but I don't know, and the British built some steam-tubine/diesel ones (the K-class).
I gather from TFA that it still does this even if the phone is in your pocket. Tha's if you have a smartphone and an Instagram account. I have neither. WTF is this Instagram anyway?
I don't know why /. are allowing adverts to be posted as articles (we had one for MS crap yesterday, and another which was a session of licking Gates' arsehole), and in the comments like this one. It's getting tedious, and I'm getting less and less inclined to come here.
Banksy is a British graffiti artist.