GPUs are pretty good at image processing tasks. They're designed to do two things - process vertices in parallel, and process pixels in parallel. Image processing is all about processing pixels.
I'd presume demand varies unpredictably though. Once you do haver a set of designs, you don't really want to wait for more than a day or so for a part if you don't have to, but there are going to be times when no team is in the prototyping stage.
So the survey really needs to ask whether people do actually make a journey for buying a DVD.
My buying patterns are certainly similar to your assumptions. Also I tend not to drive to the shops because where I live public transport is more convenient than parking.
Self driving cars have some applications. A system that used existing roadways would be much cheaper to set up, so there's at least some market, and such a niche would be a good place to start.
I'm not so sure. Torrent sites merely link to material that may or may not be mostly copyrighted; they do not host it themselves.
This seems to be largely irrelevant from a legal point of view. I've not heard of a situation where linking to copyrighted files was seen as a defence. On the contrary, YouTube does host copyright infringing files, but seems to be in the clear legally because they're fairly active in removing them when they're made aware of them. Google itself will remove infringing links if it is made aware of them.
I have no problem with the argument that the registrar shouldn't take down domains based on a police complaint, or that copyright is itself wrong. I mean I will agree with the first and have somewhat complex views on the second, but they're largely based on opinion, so will accept that people disagree.
Painting torrentz.eu as an innocent party here doesn't seem to be a particularly credible complaint. If it were to go to court, based on the law as is written, rather than what I think it should be, I have no doubt that torrentz.eu would be seen as infringing copyright material.
90% of the content of my apartment was illegal material I wouldn't be all that surprised.
And as far as I can see, linking to material and hosting material isn't seen as any different from a legal perspective. to preempt the tedious predictable "but Google" response; Google's defence here isn't that they link, but that they remove material if they're made aware that it's infringing. YouTube does host content and they have essentially the same takedown procedure as Google, so generally seem to be pretty robust against claims of criminal copyright infringement.
Well, sort of. It's a little difficult for walmart to claim that they were unwillingly or unwittingly selling drugs. This is more a question of "mens rea". Guilt is about willingness to cause harm rather than quantity of harm. For much the same reason, I'm guilty of a crime even if I fail to actually complete the act.
But broadly speaking, yes.
Indexing is okay. Indexing infringing material is not.
It is not reasonable to expect a company to eliminate 100% of infringing material, so a certain amount is tolerated. It is reasonable to expect a company to make some effort to reduce the problem.
The bigger the problem is, the more effort they should make here.
There are many other factors that will be taken into consideration. These will be weighed and balanced with a large degree of subjectability.
I really think it's naive to claim that torrentz.eu and google are doing the same thing based on the fact that they're both indexing. Are you really claiming the people running torrentz.eu aren't aware of the level of piracy that goes on, or that they are trying to do something to reduce it? Do you think, that if they could wave a magic wand and prevent any piracy they would do so?
The law doesn't work like that. There isn't a strict rule that "Below x% it's legal".
You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that the users actually want those cat pictures rather than the copyright infringing files. This is why the law uses a human element. We can use our judgement. You'd also have to be a complete idiot to believe that torrentz.eu isn't primarily interested in facilitating copyright infringement.
What proportion of Torrentz.eu users would you say are looking for non infringing files? What proportion of Google users would you say are looking for infringing files?
Personally I'd guess that most - possibly more thqan 99% of users- use torrentz.eu purely for copyright infringing uses. I know I do, and so do most of my friends. I'd also estimate that less than 5% of Google users are looking for infringing files.
If any service is mostly used illegally, I'd expect the police to attempt to have it shut down.
A wide display is nice for showing two documents next to each other (code and documentation, or compiler output or whatever) but fiddling around with windows to get them to the right place is a tedious task.
Perhaps Windows 8 does this better (not used it) but from reports it doesn't sound like it does this particularly well,
Community support is people who actually *use* the product. There are a lot more people there than could possibly be employed by the company, and the problems and solutions will be kept so you're likely to find the solution via google without even needing to deal with the hassle of tech support.
A good company will keep tabs on the forums and if there's a particular common issue, they'll investigate that. I'd rather they spend the money doing that than dealing with what their customers can do.
There is a certain rationale to the complaint though.
"Begging the question" is still a valid term in debate. It retains that meaning. We can work out which people are using from context (if they use the more modern meaning, they'll usually specifiy the question being begged) but it's not that unreasonable to want to defend a useful term.
Personally I'd avoid its use and say "raises the question" instead rather than get on someone case for using an ambiguous term.
Top 3%, designed everything from anti-matter weapons to consumer teleportation devices, been an a-list celebrity, received 3 doctorates from Oxford universties, all on the subject of bovine defecation and have the gall to offer my top of the line Theramin for $35,000.25
Nobody is suggesting truly driverless cars yet, in the sense of cars driving empty. They will have a controller who can tell it to stop, and pull over.
True. People often get freedom of speech and the First Amendment mixed up. The First Amendment is just a means to preserve freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a more abstract philosophical concept.
The law would offer similar protection against companies that the existing law (i.e. the first amendment) offers against the government.
Actually I'm not sure why the EU seems to think this is an area where it needs to get involved. It seems to be an issue that will affect each member state individually. I can't see how the UK not implementing NN, or the Netherlands doing so will affect the other in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
But you wouldn't really argue that a 2 year old was capable of demonstrating functional intelligence.
Well, you already pay that, but it's hidden as part of the ticket price.
In the EU, it's already tightly regulated; EU roaming is 45c per MB and will be going down to 20c next month.
GPUs are pretty good at image processing tasks. They're designed to do two things - process vertices in parallel, and process pixels in parallel. Image processing is all about processing pixels.
I'd presume demand varies unpredictably though. Once you do haver a set of designs, you don't really want to wait for more than a day or so for a part if you don't have to, but there are going to be times when no team is in the prototyping stage.
So the survey really needs to ask whether people do actually make a journey for buying a DVD.
My buying patterns are certainly similar to your assumptions. Also I tend not to drive to the shops because where I live public transport is more convenient than parking.
It's really the question of dial-home DRM. My DVDs will continue to work while my player works, and would do even if the DRM was effective.
Self driving cars have some applications. A system that used existing roadways would be much cheaper to set up, so there's at least some market, and such a niche would be a good place to start.
I'm not so sure. Torrent sites merely link to material that may or may not be mostly copyrighted; they do not host it themselves.
This seems to be largely irrelevant from a legal point of view. I've not heard of a situation where linking to copyrighted files was seen as a defence. On the contrary, YouTube does host copyright infringing files, but seems to be in the clear legally because they're fairly active in removing them when they're made aware of them. Google itself will remove infringing links if it is made aware of them.
Is there literally no data on their servers? How does it index its search results?
I have no problem with the argument that the registrar shouldn't take down domains based on a police complaint, or that copyright is itself wrong. I mean I will agree with the first and have somewhat complex views on the second, but they're largely based on opinion, so will accept that people disagree.
Painting torrentz.eu as an innocent party here doesn't seem to be a particularly credible complaint. If it were to go to court, based on the law as is written, rather than what I think it should be, I have no doubt that torrentz.eu would be seen as infringing copyright material.
90% of the content of my apartment was illegal material I wouldn't be all that surprised.
And as far as I can see, linking to material and hosting material isn't seen as any different from a legal perspective. to preempt the tedious predictable "but Google" response; Google's defence here isn't that they link, but that they remove material if they're made aware that it's infringing. YouTube does host content and they have essentially the same takedown procedure as Google, so generally seem to be pretty robust against claims of criminal copyright infringement.
Well, sort of. It's a little difficult for walmart to claim that they were unwillingly or unwittingly selling drugs. This is more a question of "mens rea". Guilt is about willingness to cause harm rather than quantity of harm. For much the same reason, I'm guilty of a crime even if I fail to actually complete the act.
But broadly speaking, yes.
Indexing is okay. Indexing infringing material is not.
It is not reasonable to expect a company to eliminate 100% of infringing material, so a certain amount is tolerated. It is reasonable to expect a company to make some effort to reduce the problem.
The bigger the problem is, the more effort they should make here.
There are many other factors that will be taken into consideration. These will be weighed and balanced with a large degree of subjectability.
I really think it's naive to claim that torrentz.eu and google are doing the same thing based on the fact that they're both indexing. Are you really claiming the people running torrentz.eu aren't aware of the level of piracy that goes on, or that they are trying to do something to reduce it? Do you think, that if they could wave a magic wand and prevent any piracy they would do so?
Me too:)
I think a lot of Slashdot users can't cope with the fact that the law and software algorithms work differently.
The law doesn't work like that. There isn't a strict rule that "Below x% it's legal".
You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that the users actually want those cat pictures rather than the copyright infringing files. This is why the law uses a human element. We can use our judgement. You'd also have to be a complete idiot to believe that torrentz.eu isn't primarily interested in facilitating copyright infringement.
What proportion of Torrentz.eu users would you say are looking for non infringing files? What proportion of Google users would you say are looking for infringing files?
Personally I'd guess that most - possibly more thqan 99% of users- use torrentz.eu purely for copyright infringing uses. I know I do, and so do most of my friends. I'd also estimate that less than 5% of Google users are looking for infringing files.
If any service is mostly used illegally, I'd expect the police to attempt to have it shut down.
A wide display is nice for showing two documents next to each other (code and documentation, or compiler output or whatever) but fiddling around with windows to get them to the right place is a tedious task.
Perhaps Windows 8 does this better (not used it) but from reports it doesn't sound like it does this particularly well,
Community support is people who actually *use* the product. There are a lot more people there than could possibly be employed by the company, and the problems and solutions will be kept so you're likely to find the solution via google without even needing to deal with the hassle of tech support.
A good company will keep tabs on the forums and if there's a particular common issue, they'll investigate that. I'd rather they spend the money doing that than dealing with what their customers can do.
The whole point of an FPS is that you're running around pretending to be a soldier. Fun, but I'm not sure that will ever be considered "mature".
There is a certain rationale to the complaint though.
"Begging the question" is still a valid term in debate. It retains that meaning. We can work out which people are using from context (if they use the more modern meaning, they'll usually specifiy the question being begged) but it's not that unreasonable to want to defend a useful term.
Personally I'd avoid its use and say "raises the question" instead rather than get on someone case for using an ambiguous term.
Top 3%, designed everything from anti-matter weapons to consumer teleportation devices, been an a-list celebrity, received 3 doctorates from Oxford universties, all on the subject of bovine defecation and have the gall to offer my top of the line Theramin for $35,000.25
Nobody is suggesting truly driverless cars yet, in the sense of cars driving empty. They will have a controller who can tell it to stop, and pull over.
True. People often get freedom of speech and the First Amendment mixed up. The First Amendment is just a means to preserve freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a more abstract philosophical concept.
The law would offer similar protection against companies that the existing law (i.e. the first amendment) offers against the government.
Can't think of anything specific. Of course a union benefits from having more members but this isn't really specific to the UK.
Yes.
Actually I'm not sure why the EU seems to think this is an area where it needs to get involved. It seems to be an issue that will affect each member state individually. I can't see how the UK not implementing NN, or the Netherlands doing so will affect the other in any way.