plenty of people WOULD have a problem with the sentence "Indian Savages".
That is probably just a short-sightedness of people today. The statement has only an assertion that some Indians were Savages being incited by the King against the colonists. The declaration doesn't imply that all or most of the Indians were "Savage", but some of the indians that were Savage against the colonists had been incited by people working under the King's workers
If the vehicle you're driving now was built in the past 10-20 years, chances are it's already drive-by-wire. You can press the brake pedal all you like, but if the traction control/electronic stability control/anti-lock brakes/etc decide not to apply any braking action due to a malfunction, you've got no brakes.
I drive a model car that is from the year 2000: The brakes are controlled by a cable system attached to the break pedal. And if that don't work, there's an E-brake lever that also operates the breaks mechanically.
And I expect my next car to not have anything more prone to have loss of braking in the event of electronics/computer malfunction, than that.
The feature allows the car to park autonomously without anyone in the car
The feature can operate electric motors capable of moving this heavy machinery with no human at the controls and able to stop it, in the event of an emergency. What happens in the event of a computer or actuator malfunction?
Keep in mind, the motors in the Tesla are capable of moving the vehicle at high speed. What kind of safety protocols are in place to make sure that if something goes wrong the car will not suddenly launch at high speed if there's a malfunction or continue driving if it crashes into something?
What kind of protections are there to prevent someone else from running up to the car and jumping in its path, or a thief running up yanking the door open, getting in the seat and driving away ---- Stealing the vehicle while it was in the process of parking?
Bitcoin mining does not work that way at all. You do not find or fail to find 1 Bitcoin. Even if you were working alone for entitlement to 100% of the reward which nobody does; the block reward has never been 1 Bitcoin.
Miners work in Stratum Pools, and receive proceeds through pay-per-share, pay for last N shares, or another proportional method. Statistically speaking, every proper pool DOES find multiple blocks. There is variability in how long it will be, and how many work shares are completed before a block is found, so this assertion is false: If you manage to find one bitcoin, then you win and it will be enough to pay for your entire rig and more. But there's also a chance you won't find anything
Because ALL the recognized pools find many blocks at a certain rate.
The basic mining process and rewards are coordinated like this:
You setup an account with your pool with a username and an address for payouts
Your pool communicates with your miner over the stratum protocol; your miner establishes a connection using your specified credentials and the pool address, and the pool server supplies your miner part of the block to be solved and your share of the search space.
Your miner works on its share of work, and at certain intervals delivers a response proving that it has completed a certain amount of work.
Eventually one of the working miners working on your pool finds a block which contains a block reward; However, the lucky miner is finding a block for the POOL, not themself ---- The contents the block had regarding payout was defined by the server, which the miner has no ability to control or change, so there is in general no extra compensation for being the lucky miner that found the block. The proceeds of the block are paid out in different proportions to MULTIPLE miners owed a share of a block reward for working the pool with excess and the pool fee paid to a Pool reserve address for further distributions of shares owed to miners, and finally to the pool operator.
In this manner: With bitcoin, it's typically either "win" or "lose." is FALSE. Every worker gets paid in relation to the amount of work they contribute to the pool ---- and it's not a huge amount per block to any one operator, certainly not a whole BTC, unless you have a MASSIVE amount of hashing power on the order of many hundreds thousands TH/s available.
Being on the defensive does NOT work for the long run. Ultimately those who oppose the unfettered expansion of copyright and suppression of rights and privileges we enjoy today need to come up with our own proposal to beat them back. An act that will greatly expand fair use and protect the rest of the world from having to enforce these companies' copyrights: while at the same time balancing the copyright so that they cannot reasonably scream "Unfair" ----- we need a proposal that most of the population would be willing to aggressively pledge their support to, even Musicians, Artists, and other creative people that make the copyrightable works,
So it's gotta be fair ---- but it's gotta be the opposite of these propositions such as "Filtering", or "DMCA-Like" rules that serve to stifle expression and interfere with fair use; We need to put an end to claims against casual Youtubers for "background music", and for commercial users, limit them to the ability to claim reasonable royalties based on peak simultaneous views highly restricted in maximum value; recognize the right of the people to share transformative creative expressions like Memes, Etc, without the consent of their originator.
The EU copyright filtering proposal came up because POWERFUL players are strongly in favor of a law like this one: these are players who don't believe in any kind of fair use and want automatic INDISCRIMINATE blocking of anything based off their famous material -- that they've often already massively profited from: This is about these players' boundless greed, and these powerful heavily funded players are able to make strongly persuasive proposals to legislators who don't necessarily fully understand the negatives of the proposals; then there's a whole system where these players tap their vast wealth resources to manufacture ARTIFICIAL public support for their propositions ---- they have no qualms against bribing politicians with campaign dollars and hiring partners to write letters from millions of fake people and other acts in their favor that involve paid confederates pretending to be concerned citizens.
The powerful players that want the filtering law are mainly concerned about profits and protecting them -- and they WILL be back with either more proposals, or the same proposal in a same or different forum, with more assets strategically deployed to support proposals in this direction of desired results --- and if Social Media or the World Wide Web or the Internet or something else like that is standing in their way.... they are happy if it gets bulldozed in the process / they'll push ignoring or downplaying the issue at the time of legislation and do whatever is in their power to do what they think protects their profits, even if it side consequences are it DESTROYs massive value for the rest of society and everyone else after the proposal becomes law.
I don't know what that is.... but there ought to be a rule that fees can only be charged for activities which each student actually participates in, So they can have their Chocolate Milk Night, but collect a $5 for admission for anyone participating..
Especially since student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy court.
We should change the law, so that at least all the interest cost on the loan and any principal balance in excess of $25k can be discharged in bankruptcy.
The whole point of advertising was to generate revenue. They were advertising the area to bring in tourist revenue. That is commercial use.
The concept of what commercial means is not whatever Mr. smooth wombat's personal opinion is - it is how the law and the courts have defined commercial usage; attracting interest to a geographic location or a subject matter is not "commercial" use. ---- . The court actually ruled according to the article that the usage was non-commercial: because the photo was not used to advertise a product or generate revenue.
Violent Hues’ use of the photo was also in good faith. The record indicates that Mr. Mico, Violent Hues’ owner, found the photo online and saw no indication that it was copyrighted. Mr. Mico attests that he thus believed the photo was publically available. This good faith is further confirmed by the fact that as soon as Violent Hues learned that the photo may potentially be copyrighted, it removed the photo from its website.
The Use was of a “Factual” Photo
The photograph in question contained creative elements (such as lighting and shutter speed choices) but was also a factual depiction of a real-world location: the Adams Morgan neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Violent Hues’ used the photo purely for its factual content, to provide festival attendees a depiction of the Adams Morgan neighborhood.
According to US LAW You DO have to register to have the full benefits of copyright protection:
411(c), no award of statutory damages or of attorney’s fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for— (1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or
(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.
What real benefit do YOU receive in exchange for the $700 + $7/Month ?
It seems overpriced. In exchange for letting them track you, the plate should be Free, also: the company should provide some other benefit to you in order to justify you doing this.
The basis of copyright law is that everything is automatically copyrighted by the owner.
Except you have to actually register your copyright and put the notices in, in order to sue someone and be able to collect statutory damages for a copyright violation and willful infringement ---- If you don't register the copyright and put the notice, then your damages are more limited, and the burden of proof in court for the plaintiff is very high.
A Virginia federal court has made a decision that photographers won't be happy to hear....
Sorry you don't want to hear about it but Fair Use applies to all kinds of works. Contrary to the implication of the summary though: Fair Use only applies in limited situations. It was very important that the Website's use was for a non-commercial purpose, their use was transformative, the intended use of the expression was to inform rather than simply to entertain or attract attention, and they didn't use the entire work. If any of those factors had been different, then the court may have rejected the website's fair use argument, So this is not the "blank check" to use photos on the internet without permission which the article implies.
heard a guy in West Virginia who thought it was still the 1970s on his kilowatt CB rig. He was stronger than any of the local CB guys
Cool... with that kind of power he could probably be heard across the country. I wonder if I could have a chat with your Virginia guy by adding a 2kW amplifier and doing some surgery on a 10 meter transceiver to allow transmit on the 27.25 Mhz range.
For some reason I doubt the FCC is underfunded enough to let THAT happen, though.
You know what? You take that up with your Senator.
Your suggestion is nonsense. The senate only deals with business before them and has no role in pointing out facts regarding the invalidity of treaties or amendments/additions to treaties that were not confirmed, just like the Senate don't have a role in pointing out that Bills they did not vote are not laws; the unapproved treaties simply are not law, and there are no binding obligations onto the people or our government --- they can be ignored or repudiated at any time.
Trump pretty much legitimized that thinking by pulling out of the agreement in the exact manner that the UNFCCC dictates.
Trump can do as he pleases; he can ignore or specifically repudiate the non-binding treaty at any time, and if he feels the non-binding agreement provides a withdrawal process that is more convenient, then he can "go through the motions", BUT going through the motions does absolutely zero to make it a legitimate or binding agreement: There's no clause in the constitution that a treaty or addition to a treaty (which is what this is, an addition or extension to the UNFCCC) can be confirmed by a successor president instead of the senate ----- In fact, nothing Trump can do will "legitimize" the agreement so that it becomes a binding on our government and future administrations.
Oh also, if that's the case, the Senate hasn't signed off on any of the tariffs the most recent admin, nor is the travel ban been agreed to by the Senate
The President has some authority under the law to create by executive order temporary travel bans, OR even to raise trade barriers, embargo or apply duties to goods. These do NOT require confirmation of the senate, Because they are an exercise of the executive authority within the law --- they not treaties or agreements binding on the government which change the law of the land ---- That is, future administrations can reverse or revise the executive orders at will, regardless of any previous administration's desires that their policies be long-lasting.
That is also the status for any unconfirmed "agreement" or treaty amendment such as the Paris accord; a future administration can simply repudiate and throw the agreement out at will. They only way they HAVE to follow conditions in the agreement for withdrawal is if the senate confirmed and approved that document.
Since it is a voluntary pledge made by your president as representative for the USA, you are still part of it, no congress approval needed...
False..... Whether you call it a "treaty" or a "pledge"; The president of the US has no authority to make it on his own without the consent of the senate --- he can only sign provisionally as a representative contingent on approval by the government body, for the US itself to agree to the "pledge".
You really expect a developing economy, responsibly for almost none of the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere and very little of the new CO2
If this were really about CO2, there should be no wealth transfer in the agreement. The responsibility for existing accumulated CO2 goes equally to all countries in the world. It's the TOTAL volume of new CO2 per square meter of country's land mass that needs to be capped and reduced; Not "amount of of CO2 per capita" or other such rubbishness.
In their consent they gave the President, who was then Bush #1, the ability to agree to whatever, so long as it was within the framework of the UNFCCC.
The Senate's action did not give Bush and successors any ability to bind the US to whatever agreement came from UNFCCC as a treaty --- another act by the Senate would be needed to confirm the actual text of the agreement. The constitution requires the senate confirm the exact treaty being agreed to: there is no procedure by which the senate can provide a "vague" confirmation that automatically approves whatever document the president comes up with.
The US is not bound to the agreement in the first place, because the constitution Requires 2/3 supermajority senate approval to enter the US into a binding treaty, and the senate confirmation was never obtained, Therefore: the US never agreed.
We also survived 10,000 years without indoor plumbing. Doesn't mean I want to go back to that.
Thankfully there is little chance that some national company is going to snatch up your local water utility company and Integrate your water grid into the same system as their "national water grid" in order to realize reduced cost and synergies with the downside that it would now be possible to have a "National water outage"
Slashdot Mirror
plenty of people WOULD have a problem with the sentence "Indian Savages".
That is probably just a short-sightedness of people today. The statement has only an assertion that some Indians were Savages being incited by the King against the colonists. The declaration doesn't imply that all or most of the Indians were "Savage", but some of the indians that were Savage against the colonists had been incited by people working under the King's workers
The next version of the copyright filtering act will probably require VPN detection and blocking as well.
Where else can you get a $14 tub of popcorn?
At home, using an Uber-like App to request delivery of said popcorn?
BRB.... Registering NetflixConcessions.com J/K
If the vehicle you're driving now was built in the past 10-20 years, chances are it's already drive-by-wire. You can press the brake pedal all you like, but if the traction control/electronic stability control/anti-lock brakes/etc decide not to apply any braking action due to a malfunction, you've got no brakes.
I drive a model car that is from the year 2000:
The brakes are controlled by a cable system attached to the break pedal.
And if that don't work, there's an E-brake lever that also operates the breaks mechanically.
And I expect my next car to not have anything more prone to have loss of braking in the event of
electronics/computer malfunction, than that.
Next question: How many used infected Windows laptops do you have to sell, before your keylogger sends back some "interesting" data? J/K
The feature allows the car to park autonomously without anyone in the car
The feature can operate electric motors capable of moving this heavy machinery with no human at the controls and able to stop it, in the event of an emergency. What happens in the event of a computer or actuator malfunction?
Keep in mind, the motors in the Tesla are capable of moving the vehicle at high speed. What kind of safety protocols are in place to make sure that if something goes wrong the car will not suddenly launch at high speed if there's a malfunction or continue driving if it crashes into something?
What kind of protections are there to prevent someone else from running up to the car and jumping in its path, or a thief running up yanking the door open, getting in the seat and driving away ---- Stealing the vehicle while it was in the process of parking?
Bitcoin mining does not work that way at all. You do not find or fail to find 1 Bitcoin.
Even if you were working alone for entitlement to 100% of the reward which nobody does; the block
reward has never been 1 Bitcoin.
Miners work in Stratum Pools, and receive proceeds through pay-per-share, pay for last N shares, or
another proportional method. Statistically speaking, every proper pool DOES find multiple blocks.
There is variability in how long it will be, and how many work shares are completed before a block is found,
so this assertion is false:
If you manage to find one bitcoin, then you win and it will be enough to pay for your entire rig and more. But there's also a chance you won't find anything
Because ALL the recognized pools find many blocks at a certain rate.
The basic mining process and rewards are coordinated like this:
You setup an account with your pool with a username and an address for payouts
Your pool communicates with your miner over the stratum protocol; your miner establishes a connection using your specified credentials and the pool address, and the pool server supplies your miner part of the block to be solved and your share of the search space.
Your miner works on its share of work, and at certain intervals delivers a response proving that it has completed a
certain amount of work.
Eventually one of the working miners working on your pool finds a block which contains a block reward;
However, the lucky miner is finding a block for the POOL, not themself ---- The contents the block had regarding payout was defined by the server, which the miner has no ability to control or change, so there is in general no extra compensation for being the lucky miner that found the block.
The proceeds of the block are paid out in different proportions to MULTIPLE miners owed a share of a block reward for working the pool with
excess and the pool fee paid to a Pool reserve address for further distributions of shares owed to miners, and finally
to the pool operator.
In this manner: With bitcoin, it's typically either "win" or "lose." is FALSE.
Every worker gets paid in relation to the amount of work they contribute to the pool ---- and it's not a huge amount per block to any one operator, certainly not a whole BTC, unless you have a MASSIVE amount of hashing power on the order of many hundreds thousands TH/s available.
Being on the defensive does NOT work for the long run. Ultimately those who oppose the unfettered expansion of copyright and suppression of rights and privileges we enjoy today need to come up with our own proposal to beat them back. An act that will greatly expand fair use and protect the rest of the world from having to enforce these companies' copyrights: while at the same time balancing the copyright so that they cannot reasonably scream "Unfair" ----- we need a proposal that most of the population would be willing to aggressively pledge their support to, even Musicians, Artists, and other creative people that make the copyrightable works,
So it's gotta be fair ---- but it's gotta be the opposite of these propositions such as "Filtering", or "DMCA-Like" rules that serve to stifle expression and interfere with fair use; We need to put an end to claims against casual Youtubers for "background music",
and for commercial users, limit them to the ability to claim reasonable royalties based on peak simultaneous views highly restricted in maximum value; recognize the right of the people to share transformative creative expressions like Memes, Etc, without the consent of their originator.
The EU copyright filtering proposal came up because POWERFUL players are strongly in favor of a law like this one: these are players who don't believe in any kind of fair use and want automatic INDISCRIMINATE blocking of anything based off their famous material -- that they've often already massively profited from: This is about these players' boundless greed, and these powerful heavily funded players are able to make strongly persuasive proposals to legislators who don't necessarily fully understand the negatives of the proposals; then there's a whole system where these players tap their vast wealth resources to manufacture ARTIFICIAL public support for their propositions ---- they have no qualms against bribing politicians with campaign dollars and hiring partners to write letters from millions of fake people and other acts in their favor that involve paid confederates pretending to be concerned citizens.
The powerful players that want the filtering law are mainly concerned about profits and protecting them -- and they WILL be back with either more proposals, or the same proposal in a same or different forum, with more assets strategically deployed to support proposals in this direction of desired results --- and if Social Media or the World Wide Web or the Internet or something else like that is standing in their way.... they are happy if it gets bulldozed in the process / they'll push ignoring or downplaying the issue at the time of legislation and do whatever is in their power to do what they think protects their profits, even if it side consequences are it DESTROYs massive value for the rest of society and everyone else after the proposal becomes law.
'Chocolate Milk Night,'
I don't know what that is.... but there ought to be a rule that fees can only be charged for activities which each student actually participates in, So they can have their Chocolate Milk Night, but collect a $5 for admission for anyone participating..
Especially since student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy court.
We should change the law, so that at least all the interest cost on the loan and any principal balance in excess of $25k can be discharged in bankruptcy.
The whole point of advertising was to generate revenue. They were advertising the area to bring in tourist revenue. That is commercial use.
The concept of what commercial means is not whatever Mr. smooth wombat's personal opinion is - it is how the law and the courts have defined commercial usage; attracting interest to a geographic location or a subject matter is not "commercial" use. ---- .
The court actually ruled according to the article that the usage was non-commercial: because the photo was not used to advertise a product or generate revenue.
According to US LAW You DO have to register to have the full benefits of copyright protection:
411(c), no award of statutory damages or of attorney’s fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for—
(1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or
(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.
What real benefit do YOU receive in exchange for the $700 + $7/Month ?
It seems overpriced. In exchange for letting them track you, the plate should be Free, also: the company should provide some other benefit to you in order to justify you doing this.
The basis of copyright law is that everything is automatically copyrighted by the owner.
Except you have to actually register your copyright and put the notices in, in order to sue someone and be able to collect statutory damages for a copyright violation and willful infringement ---- If you don't register the copyright and put the notice, then your damages are more limited, and the burden of proof in court for the plaintiff is very high.
A Virginia federal court has made a decision that photographers won't be happy to hear ....
Sorry you don't want to hear about it but Fair Use applies to all kinds of works. Contrary to the implication of the summary though: Fair Use only applies in limited situations. It was very important that the Website's use was for a non-commercial purpose, their use was transformative, the intended use of the expression was to inform rather than simply to entertain or attract attention, and they didn't use the entire work. If any of those factors had been different, then the court may have rejected the website's fair use argument, So this is not the "blank check" to use photos on the internet without permission which the article implies.
If you manage to find one bitcoin, then you win and it will be enough to pay for your entire rig and more
That's actually not how mining works.
How about the NIH, the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs), the DOT, the FHA, and the OMB ?
heard a guy in West Virginia who thought it was still the 1970s on his kilowatt CB rig. He was stronger than any of the local CB guys
Cool... with that kind of power he could probably be heard across the country. I wonder if I could have a chat with your Virginia guy by adding a 2kW amplifier and doing some surgery on a 10 meter transceiver to allow transmit on the 27.25 Mhz range.
For some reason I doubt the FCC is underfunded enough to let THAT happen, though.
Bring up the SLA and at LEAST request outage credits....
You know what? You take that up with your Senator.
Your suggestion is nonsense. The senate only deals with business before them and has no role in pointing out facts regarding the invalidity of treaties or amendments/additions to treaties that were not confirmed, just like the Senate don't have a role in pointing out that Bills they did not vote are not laws; the unapproved treaties simply are not law, and there are no binding obligations onto the people or our government --- they can be ignored or repudiated at any time.
Trump pretty much legitimized that thinking by pulling out of the agreement in the exact manner that the UNFCCC dictates.
Trump can do as he pleases; he can ignore or specifically repudiate the non-binding treaty at any time, and if he feels the non-binding agreement provides a withdrawal process that is more convenient, then he can "go through the motions", BUT going through the motions does absolutely zero to make it a legitimate or binding agreement: There's no clause in the constitution that a treaty or addition to a treaty (which is what this is, an addition or extension to the UNFCCC) can be confirmed by a successor president instead of the senate ----- In fact, nothing Trump can do will "legitimize" the agreement so that it becomes a binding on our government and future administrations.
Oh also, if that's the case, the Senate hasn't signed off on any of the tariffs the most recent admin, nor is the travel ban been agreed to by the Senate
The President has some authority under the law to create by executive order temporary travel bans, OR even to
raise trade barriers, embargo or apply duties to goods.
These do NOT require confirmation of the senate, Because they are an exercise of the executive
authority within the law --- they not treaties or agreements binding on the government
which change the law of the land ---- That is, future administrations can reverse or revise the
executive orders at will, regardless of any previous administration's desires that their policies be long-lasting.
That is also the status for any unconfirmed "agreement" or treaty amendment such as the Paris accord;
a future administration can simply repudiate and throw the agreement out at will.
They only way they HAVE to follow conditions in the agreement for withdrawal is if the senate confirmed and approved that
document.
Since it is a voluntary pledge made by your president as representative for the USA, you are still part of it, no congress approval needed...
False..... Whether you call it a "treaty" or a "pledge"; The president of the US has no authority to make it on his own without the consent of the senate --- he can only sign provisionally as a representative contingent on approval by the government body, for the US itself to agree to the "pledge".
You really expect a developing economy, responsibly for almost none of the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere and very little of the new CO2
If this were really about CO2, there should be no wealth transfer in the agreement.
The responsibility for existing accumulated CO2 goes equally to all countries in the world.
It's the TOTAL volume of new CO2 per square meter of country's land mass that needs to be capped and reduced; Not "amount of of CO2 per capita" or other such rubbishness.
In their consent they gave the President, who was then Bush #1, the ability to agree to whatever, so long as it was within the framework of the UNFCCC.
The Senate's action did not give Bush and successors any ability to bind the US to whatever agreement came from UNFCCC as a treaty --- another act by the Senate would be needed to confirm the actual text of the agreement. The constitution requires the senate confirm the exact treaty being agreed to: there is no procedure by which the senate can provide a "vague" confirmation that automatically approves whatever document the president comes up with.
The US is not bound to the agreement in the first place, because the constitution Requires 2/3 supermajority senate approval to enter the US into a binding treaty, and the senate confirmation was never obtained, Therefore: the US never agreed.
We also survived 10,000 years without indoor plumbing. Doesn't mean I want to go back to that.
Thankfully there is little chance that some national company is going to snatch up your local water utility company and Integrate your water grid into the same system as their "national water grid" in order to realize reduced cost and synergies with the downside that it would now be possible to have a "National water outage"