I thought News Agencies were given a pretty wide latitude when it came to copyright. They can play portions of copyrighted content or show copyrighted images without paying the content owners. Even if you accepted the "linking = infringement" line (which I don't), wouldn't the news agencies be all but immune to this kind of "infringement"?
To be fair, I don't think this guy put the image online. Other people did. However, the person to go after would be the person who put it online in the first place, knowing it was copyrighted.
Good point. Go to the police to make a record of when you discovered that this occurred, but don't go there expecting that they will crack the case and bring the thieves to justice.
"But if all of that doesn't happen and the virtual currency takes off, I'll be a multi-millionaire!" - People who invest in ICO's despite repeated warnings.
Given my experience, local police would throw their hands up in the air and say they couldn't do anything. I had my identity stolen and a credit card opened in my name. The police outright told me they didn't want to investigate because they'd likely track the criminal to another jurisdiction and some other department would get the arrest. I pushed and they did some investigations. They reached a "dead end" when they showed me the online credit card application the criminal filled out. I pointed out that they had the person's IP address and the date/time it was submitted. The officer looked at me blankly as I explained that you could use those to find the ISP and get the name of the person who owned that account. Sure, it might be a hacked system, but it would be something. Despite this, though, they didn't follow up on this and I eventually stopped pestering the police for updates. For all I know, the people who stole my identity are still doing it to other people.
I tried contacting the FBI but since I didn't lose a ton of money, they weren't interested in my case at all. Maybe this would rise to their level and they could track these scammers down. Local police, though, would be all but useless.
Let's suppose that Google goes ahead and makes a "Fake News Alert" Chrome plugin. Further, let's assume that they don't abuse their position (as someone else guessed they would by marking anti-Google posts as "fake" regardless of the truth) or engage in any partisan bias (marking true posts from one side as fake simply because Google workers tend to support the other side). Would this type of thing even be effective?
I'd argue that it wouldn't. This would be an optional plugin. You'd need to purposefully go and get the plugin. The only people who did that would be people who care whether a news source is fake or not. This would likely exclude almost everyone who posts fake news items. They don't care about truth as much as they care that the story fits their narrative. Even if they installed the plugin, they'd start seeing stories they agreed with marked as fake. Then, they'd either have to change their minds or just accuse Google as being part of the "establishment deep state conspiracy" (or something like that). Like Nigerian scammer victims, these people wouldn't want to admit that they were suckered by fake news in the past so they'd go with the "this news is real, Google's lying" explanation
While I commend Google for trying to figure out a way to fight stories that are completely fake, an optional plugin won't do anything.
But a guy flying in a one man armored suit, a man frozen for 60 or so years in a chunk of ice (with no physical problems), a Norse god with a magic hammer, a kid who can cling to walls, and a thief who can shrink down and talk with ants are all totally realistic, right?
This is like Biff from Back To The Future is president, and he gives noogies to any nerdy scientist he runs across.
Biff was actually based off of Donald Trump so it's not far off. Perhaps someone will spot a copy of Grays Sports Almanac in Donald Trump's pocket and there will be weird sightings of a Delorean hovering over the White House.
Koko the gorilla learned quite a bit of sign language and is able to communicate quite well. If I recall correctly, she has the mental capacity of a young human (probably around 6 years old). So she'll understand simple, real-world concepts and has a sense of self, but you wouldn't expect her to be able to, say, calculate complex mathematical equations. I have a feeling that a lot of higher intelligence animals (whales, dolphins, octopii, chimps, etc) have this kind of sentience, but we just don't have a decent method of recognizing it since they're not talking a human language to us the way a human child would.
I've long wanted a pair of Google Glasses (or a similar product) that would put a little pop-up overlay on people with vital information that I know about them. This way if I walk into a store and a "complete stranger" starts talking to me as if we've known each other for years, the overlay can inform me that this is "Mary Smith" who works three cubicles away from me, and who I worked with on the Foo project three years ago.
I've had people approach me in the store, talk to me as if they knew me for years, and then leave. My wife will ask me who that was and I'll respond "I have no idea." It might be someone I've interacted with at work for years, but put the same face in a store and I'll blank on who they are.
It's not just faces, though. My wife will mention a person. I'll respond "Who?" to which she'll reply "You know, So-And-So. We saw them six years ago at Disney World and talked with them for an hour." My wife remembers these conversations in detail, but I barely even remember that they took place (if at all).
The next version, which will come out next year will tout amazing new features - all of which will have been available in other products for years, but which Apple will pretend are revolutionary new ideas they came up with. Apple fans who bought Version 1 will line up to buy Version 2 so they don't get left behind.
My wife bought me an Amazon Echo Dot for my birthday (despite me not only not wanting one but expressing uneasiness with having a speaker listening in on us all the time). Her opinion was that I could have it in the kitchen reading recipes to me while I cooked. Our usage of it was as follows:
First Day: We asked a bunch of questions and started Googling funny things we could ask Echo. The kids got involved and had a blast asking her various things.
Second Day - End of First Week: My wife used it to play music while I was at work.
After First Week: It got unplugged and hasn't been used since. (Except, perhaps, for one or two times when we remembered about it, plugged it in, and used it for an hour or two before unplugging it again.)
A few years ago, my son's android tablet was having battery issues. It was 2 years old so the vendor wasn't supporting it. They offered to take it for about $60, examine it, and let me know what was happening to it. Then, I could choose to fix it (for more money though they "graciously" would deduct that $60 initial payment from the cost) or I could have it sent back. They couldn't guarantee that it wouldn't arrive back factory reset with all of my son's game data erased.
I found the battery online for about $15 and tools to do the repair for about another $10. Unfortunately, I needed to use the tools to pry the case open and I just couldn't get it done. I went to a repair shop and they were able to pry it open and replace the battery with the one I bought for $25. Even though I "wasted" money on the tools, I still got the tablet fixed for less than what the manufacturer wanted.
Because encrypting also hides information from criminals. If I'm buying something online, I want to give my credit card information to that site, not the whole world. If the site encrypts the traffic, it can protect my data. If it doesn't, anyone can listen in and then charge items on my credit cards. (It gets worse if you need to use a site to submit more personal information like your social security number.)
If the authorities have a backdoor key, it's only a matter of time before the criminals get that key too. Even if we assumed the authorities had the purest of intentions (a HUGE assumption mind you), I would still want encryption without "police only" back doors to protect against malicious users abusing the back door.
Why would you care about what strangers think of you? If they think you're horribly out of fashion, what influence will their negative opinion of you have on your life? For 99% of strangers, the answer is "none." After you've walked away from them, you might never see those strangers again. (And, if you do, the two of you might not even realize you've seen each other before.) So if a stranger is going to judge you based on your clothes, let them go right ahead. I'm sure some strangers judged me negatively because I'm a man in my 40's who wore a Harry Potter Entering The TARDIS t-shirt, but I don't care because I like that shirt.
Bitcoin's value is respected by a lot of people, so something purported in this paper falls flat on its face, especially with the fact that BTC is now twenty times that value, and still only going up.
During the Dot Com boom, there were plenty of eCurrencies that started up. During their rise, they were worth a lot, had a lot of people respecting them, and their value was all going up. Now, they are all extinct. (Not just worthless, but gone completely.) I'm not saying that it's 100% guaranteed that Bitcoin will follow, but don't just blindly assume that Bitcoin is so intrinsically different than those Dot Com Boom eCurrencies that it can't possibly fail.
The Obama administration changed it to 25Mbps. There was a lot of complaints from ISPs when they did, complaining that anything over the previous broadband figure (10Mbps, IIRC) wasn't really needed by anyone. Of course, people playing online games or watching videos online might disagree, but the ISPs don't care about that. They just care about needing to spend more money on their network instead of just using their monopolies to give us the bare minimum while charging us an arm and a leg.
Slashdot Mirror
Just make a normal building and then require all employees wear AR headsets that turn your plain old building into an architectural masterpiece.
I thought News Agencies were given a pretty wide latitude when it came to copyright. They can play portions of copyrighted content or show copyrighted images without paying the content owners. Even if you accepted the "linking = infringement" line (which I don't), wouldn't the news agencies be all but immune to this kind of "infringement"?
To be fair, I don't think this guy put the image online. Other people did. However, the person to go after would be the person who put it online in the first place, knowing it was copyrighted.
When you try to share a tweet, Twitter gives you code to embed it on a page. Is Twitter contributing to copyright infringement?
Good point. Go to the police to make a record of when you discovered that this occurred, but don't go there expecting that they will crack the case and bring the thieves to justice.
"But if all of that doesn't happen and the virtual currency takes off, I'll be a multi-millionaire!" - People who invest in ICO's despite repeated warnings.
Given my experience, local police would throw their hands up in the air and say they couldn't do anything. I had my identity stolen and a credit card opened in my name. The police outright told me they didn't want to investigate because they'd likely track the criminal to another jurisdiction and some other department would get the arrest. I pushed and they did some investigations. They reached a "dead end" when they showed me the online credit card application the criminal filled out. I pointed out that they had the person's IP address and the date/time it was submitted. The officer looked at me blankly as I explained that you could use those to find the ISP and get the name of the person who owned that account. Sure, it might be a hacked system, but it would be something. Despite this, though, they didn't follow up on this and I eventually stopped pestering the police for updates. For all I know, the people who stole my identity are still doing it to other people.
I tried contacting the FBI but since I didn't lose a ton of money, they weren't interested in my case at all. Maybe this would rise to their level and they could track these scammers down. Local police, though, would be all but useless.
Don't call it the "Brooklyn Bridge." Call it the "Blockchain Bridge" and you'll get millions from investors.
Let's suppose that Google goes ahead and makes a "Fake News Alert" Chrome plugin. Further, let's assume that they don't abuse their position (as someone else guessed they would by marking anti-Google posts as "fake" regardless of the truth) or engage in any partisan bias (marking true posts from one side as fake simply because Google workers tend to support the other side). Would this type of thing even be effective?
I'd argue that it wouldn't. This would be an optional plugin. You'd need to purposefully go and get the plugin. The only people who did that would be people who care whether a news source is fake or not. This would likely exclude almost everyone who posts fake news items. They don't care about truth as much as they care that the story fits their narrative. Even if they installed the plugin, they'd start seeing stories they agreed with marked as fake. Then, they'd either have to change their minds or just accuse Google as being part of the "establishment deep state conspiracy" (or something like that). Like Nigerian scammer victims, these people wouldn't want to admit that they were suckered by fake news in the past so they'd go with the "this news is real, Google's lying" explanation
While I commend Google for trying to figure out a way to fight stories that are completely fake, an optional plugin won't do anything.
They're just going to use the Google Time Machine. The only problem is that they haven't totally worked out the bugs just yet.
"Ok, Google. Take me ten years back."
"Taking you to the Triassic."
Deadpool vs. Godzilla.
That would be a very interesting combination.
But a guy flying in a one man armored suit, a man frozen for 60 or so years in a chunk of ice (with no physical problems), a Norse god with a magic hammer, a kid who can cling to walls, and a thief who can shrink down and talk with ants are all totally realistic, right?
Biff was actually based off of Donald Trump so it's not far off. Perhaps someone will spot a copy of Grays Sports Almanac in Donald Trump's pocket and there will be weird sightings of a Delorean hovering over the White House.
Koko the gorilla learned quite a bit of sign language and is able to communicate quite well. If I recall correctly, she has the mental capacity of a young human (probably around 6 years old). So she'll understand simple, real-world concepts and has a sense of self, but you wouldn't expect her to be able to, say, calculate complex mathematical equations. I have a feeling that a lot of higher intelligence animals (whales, dolphins, octopii, chimps, etc) have this kind of sentience, but we just don't have a decent method of recognizing it since they're not talking a human language to us the way a human child would.
I've long wanted a pair of Google Glasses (or a similar product) that would put a little pop-up overlay on people with vital information that I know about them. This way if I walk into a store and a "complete stranger" starts talking to me as if we've known each other for years, the overlay can inform me that this is "Mary Smith" who works three cubicles away from me, and who I worked with on the Foo project three years ago.
I've had people approach me in the store, talk to me as if they knew me for years, and then leave. My wife will ask me who that was and I'll respond "I have no idea." It might be someone I've interacted with at work for years, but put the same face in a store and I'll blank on who they are.
It's not just faces, though. My wife will mention a person. I'll respond "Who?" to which she'll reply "You know, So-And-So. We saw them six years ago at Disney World and talked with them for an hour." My wife remembers these conversations in detail, but I barely even remember that they took place (if at all).
The next version, which will come out next year will tout amazing new features - all of which will have been available in other products for years, but which Apple will pretend are revolutionary new ideas they came up with. Apple fans who bought Version 1 will line up to buy Version 2 so they don't get left behind.
My wife bought me an Amazon Echo Dot for my birthday (despite me not only not wanting one but expressing uneasiness with having a speaker listening in on us all the time). Her opinion was that I could have it in the kitchen reading recipes to me while I cooked. Our usage of it was as follows:
First Day: We asked a bunch of questions and started Googling funny things we could ask Echo. The kids got involved and had a blast asking her various things.
Second Day - End of First Week: My wife used it to play music while I was at work.
After First Week: It got unplugged and hasn't been used since. (Except, perhaps, for one or two times when we remembered about it, plugged it in, and used it for an hour or two before unplugging it again.)
A few years ago, my son's android tablet was having battery issues. It was 2 years old so the vendor wasn't supporting it. They offered to take it for about $60, examine it, and let me know what was happening to it. Then, I could choose to fix it (for more money though they "graciously" would deduct that $60 initial payment from the cost) or I could have it sent back. They couldn't guarantee that it wouldn't arrive back factory reset with all of my son's game data erased.
I found the battery online for about $15 and tools to do the repair for about another $10. Unfortunately, I needed to use the tools to pry the case open and I just couldn't get it done. I went to a repair shop and they were able to pry it open and replace the battery with the one I bought for $25. Even though I "wasted" money on the tools, I still got the tablet fixed for less than what the manufacturer wanted.
Because encrypting also hides information from criminals. If I'm buying something online, I want to give my credit card information to that site, not the whole world. If the site encrypts the traffic, it can protect my data. If it doesn't, anyone can listen in and then charge items on my credit cards. (It gets worse if you need to use a site to submit more personal information like your social security number.)
If the authorities have a backdoor key, it's only a matter of time before the criminals get that key too. Even if we assumed the authorities had the purest of intentions (a HUGE assumption mind you), I would still want encryption without "police only" back doors to protect against malicious users abusing the back door.
Why would you care about what strangers think of you? If they think you're horribly out of fashion, what influence will their negative opinion of you have on your life? For 99% of strangers, the answer is "none." After you've walked away from them, you might never see those strangers again. (And, if you do, the two of you might not even realize you've seen each other before.) So if a stranger is going to judge you based on your clothes, let them go right ahead. I'm sure some strangers judged me negatively because I'm a man in my 40's who wore a Harry Potter Entering The TARDIS t-shirt, but I don't care because I like that shirt.
During the Dot Com boom, there were plenty of eCurrencies that started up. During their rise, they were worth a lot, had a lot of people respecting them, and their value was all going up. Now, they are all extinct. (Not just worthless, but gone completely.) I'm not saying that it's 100% guaranteed that Bitcoin will follow, but don't just blindly assume that Bitcoin is so intrinsically different than those Dot Com Boom eCurrencies that it can't possibly fail.
Here's another method also: https://android.gadgethacks.com/how-to/fully-control-your-android-device-from-any-computer-0164097/
The Obama administration changed it to 25Mbps. There was a lot of complaints from ISPs when they did, complaining that anything over the previous broadband figure (10Mbps, IIRC) wasn't really needed by anyone. Of course, people playing online games or watching videos online might disagree, but the ISPs don't care about that. They just care about needing to spend more money on their network instead of just using their monopolies to give us the bare minimum while charging us an arm and a leg.
Data Caps and Ant-Net Neutrality have always been about the ISPs protecting their TV revenue by leveraging their broadband monopolies.