You could probably still use sketches; those are pretty obviously conceptual. But yeah, the renderings clause is getting more complaints than anything else in the discussion thread.
I read a comment in the discussion of the thread that notes that the rule does not prohibit pledging Z times a level's cost in expectation of getting Z instances of the level reward. Making sure the creator knows that's what you want may be a little more effort, though.
IANAL, but I would say it's probably a very weak one, given that there's nothing in writing. An investment firm would have signed papers before handing over a check. However, going through the Kickstarter faq, the terms of use apparently require the creator to really try to do what they claimed, so there is some level of recourse, even if it's indirect:
http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%20basics#IsACreaLegaObliToFulfThePromOfTheiProj
Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?
Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) We crafted these terms to create a legal requirement for creators to follow through on their projects, and to give backers a recourse if they don't. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.
that's because the investment firm would make sure there was a contract. If a guy showed up and said "I want to try to do this, give me a million bucks" and they handed over a check without any more of a contract than that, they'd have no real leg to stand on either. (They'd probably still sue, using the "my lawyers can BS a judge better than yours can" plan, but...)
I recall reading an article (or a mention of an article, or something) about an experiment where a pigeon was trained to peck a button when shown a photograph containing a human. The accuracy was pretty good, but there was one photo that it would peck for that didn't have any people in it. Or so the researchers thought until they used a magnifying glass to find one person off in the background...
A trained neural network can be more accurate and faster than one would think:)
You're assuming that "the robots can do the job cheaper than the humans" will be overridden by "once the humans aren't doing the job and not earning an income, the job will not be necessary any more". That kind of long range thinking is rare in modern corporate America.
I'd like that too, but what I really expect is that nothing created in my lifetime or my parents' lifetimes will leave copyright in my child's lifetime. Not much from my grandparents' lifetimes, for that matter. Which sucks. There were a bunch of good stories in Analog and IASFM that I don't think were or will be collected, and once the paper copies have died, that's it.
I suspect tablet-ish control systems won't get really popular until the surface gets rigged to give tactile feedback. I recall seeing a couple of articles about progress in this area. Once you can again feel when you're in the right spot without looking, having a reconfigurable panel will be pretty cool.
Of course, if vocal command systems (siri et al) get more common and sophisticated, that may reduce the need for the touch-feedback system. I don't think it'll eliminate it completely, though.
There is 1 licensed dealer. You order from elsewhere, have them ship to him, and then he files paperwork to transfer it to you. After you've taken your safety courses, which are not offered in the District. You have to go to another state.
There's a blog series called "Emily gets her gun" detailing the quest of an 'Opinion' editor at the Washington Times to get a gun after Heller. It's a testament to bureaucracy.
unfortunately, some of the stuff they have discs for they don't stream (and nobody else does either). And even for the stuff they do stream, they don't have the language options.
as the existence of this level of 'memory' becomes more ingrained in society, either folks will learn to deemphasize stuff from long ago or folks will learn to avoid leaving trails. I expect the former, because the latter is looking less and less feasible. But one way or another, I think the current state (of taking old stuff as currently significant) is an artifact of folks not being used to ever seeing stuff that old.
of course, I may be overly optimistic in assuming that this situation will even last that many generations. But if it does, there will be some adaptation.
Well, when I said "reason to believe", I pretty much meant "belief based on a reason", which seems to be what you're saying as well... something the minor giving the adult cash, or "Daddy, buy me this for the party!". I don't know that it needs to be statute; it could be store policy. But I've seen a number of anecdotes from liquor store employees about such situations, including some from other folks responding to this. *shrug* YMMV.
(Liquor store clerks hit this situation a lot; they're usually if not always forbidden to sell to an adult if they have reason to believe that the adult is going to supply it to a minor.)
Lockheed-Martin's UDRP proceedings show a precedent (I don't know how strong; it was arbitrated since Kenzie registered the relevant sites through GoDaddy) for considering this behavior to be "operating in bad faith".
Slashdot Mirror
You could probably still use sketches; those are pretty obviously conceptual. But yeah, the renderings clause is getting more complaints than anything else in the discussion thread.
I read a comment in the discussion of the thread that notes that the rule does not prohibit pledging Z times a level's cost in expectation of getting Z instances of the level reward. Making sure the creator knows that's what you want may be a little more effort, though.
http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%20basics#IsACreaLegaObliToFulfThePromOfTheiProj
Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?
Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) We crafted these terms to create a legal requirement for creators to follow through on their projects, and to give backers a recourse if they don't. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.
that's because the investment firm would make sure there was a contract. If a guy showed up and said "I want to try to do this, give me a million bucks" and they handed over a check without any more of a contract than that, they'd have no real leg to stand on either. (They'd probably still sue, using the "my lawyers can BS a judge better than yours can" plan, but...)
I believe it was a reference to a 1964 paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/146/3643/549.abstract
But I'm not willing to spend $20 to read the paper and see if it confirms this anecdote.
I recall reading an article (or a mention of an article, or something) about an experiment where a pigeon was trained to peck a button when shown a photograph containing a human. The accuracy was pretty good, but there was one photo that it would peck for that didn't have any people in it. Or so the researchers thought until they used a magnifying glass to find one person off in the background... :)
A trained neural network can be more accurate and faster than one would think
You're assuming that "the robots can do the job cheaper than the humans" will be overridden by "once the humans aren't doing the job and not earning an income, the job will not be necessary any more". That kind of long range thinking is rare in modern corporate America.
I'd like that too, but what I really expect is that nothing created in my lifetime or my parents' lifetimes will leave copyright in my child's lifetime. Not much from my grandparents' lifetimes, for that matter. Which sucks. There were a bunch of good stories in Analog and IASFM that I don't think were or will be collected, and once the paper copies have died, that's it.
Thanks! It's been too long since my chem classes...
but is it still really "oxidation"?
if it stays down long enough for those to be an issue, I wouldn't be going further than the next exit anyway.
I suspect tablet-ish control systems won't get really popular until the surface gets rigged to give tactile feedback. I recall seeing a couple of articles about progress in this area. Once you can again feel when you're in the right spot without looking, having a reconfigurable panel will be pretty cool.
Of course, if vocal command systems (siri et al) get more common and sophisticated, that may reduce the need for the touch-feedback system. I don't think it'll eliminate it completely, though.
There is 1 licensed dealer. You order from elsewhere, have them ship to him, and then he files paperwork to transfer it to you. After you've taken your safety courses, which are not offered in the District. You have to go to another state.
There's a blog series called "Emily gets her gun" detailing the quest of an 'Opinion' editor at the Washington Times to get a gun after Heller. It's a testament to bureaucracy.
You are correct, and I apologize for failing to notice that.
parent didn't categorize anything as a 'blatant lie'. Parent didn't even use the words 'blatant' or 'lie'.
unfortunately, some of the stuff they have discs for they don't stream (and nobody else does either). And even for the stuff they do stream, they don't have the language options.
Why hire someone? A robot to write asshat comments should be less than a day's work, especially when they can refer to previous asshat comments...
as the existence of this level of 'memory' becomes more ingrained in society, either folks will learn to deemphasize stuff from long ago or folks will learn to avoid leaving trails. I expect the former, because the latter is looking less and less feasible. But one way or another, I think the current state (of taking old stuff as currently significant) is an artifact of folks not being used to ever seeing stuff that old.
of course, I may be overly optimistic in assuming that this situation will even last that many generations. But if it does, there will be some adaptation.
"He's dead, you can eat him now" :)
It is Texas. "He needed an asskicking" might fly as a defense.
Well, when I said "reason to believe", I pretty much meant "belief based on a reason", which seems to be what you're saying as well... something the minor giving the adult cash, or "Daddy, buy me this for the party!". I don't know that it needs to be statute; it could be store policy. But I've seen a number of anecdotes from liquor store employees about such situations, including some from other folks responding to this. *shrug* YMMV.
(Liquor store clerks hit this situation a lot; they're usually if not always forbidden to sell to an adult if they have reason to believe that the adult is going to supply it to a minor.)
If the Target clerk knew that you were doing it, then legally (as far as enforcing ITAR restrictions) yes.
Lockheed-Martin's UDRP proceedings show a precedent (I don't know how strong; it was arbitrated since Kenzie registered the relevant sites through GoDaddy) for considering this behavior to be "operating in bad faith".
640 speakers should be enough for anyone!