OTOH, if I worked for Apple, I'd probably be swarmed by lawyers for writing a post like this one, among other things I dislike about Apple's culture. Also, if I worked for Apple my work would have much less impact on the world.
Another reason to be glad I deal with iOS, and not Android: namely, you don't.
I don't know what you thought to accomplish with that comment, but you did manage to show me what you are.
Google develops the base system, but OEMs modify the source -- sometimes heavily -- before they build and ship it, and they do not give Google a copy of the source of the code they ship. In general, Google has no ability to build system images for non-Nexus/Pixel devices.
In addition there are lots of firmware components that Google doesn't have any visibility into at all. For example, I work on the hardware-backed keystore, which requires a bit of firmware that runs in a trusted execution environment (e.g. ARM TrustZone). I defined the interface (the Hardware Abstraction Layer, or HAL) and I wrote the reference implementation of that HAL, which is actually used on a small number of devices that ship with the Google-provided TEE. But the vast majority of devices use an implementation of the HAL from another provider. Qualcomm, Trustonic, nVidia and Intel all write their own versions, and those are just the ones I know about. There may be others. I have no visibility into their code, and sometimes changes I make in the keystore system daemon or at the framework level are incompatible with their implementations. In an ideal world, the HAL should be so tightly-specified, and the compliance test suite so thorough, that I can have confidence that their implementations work exactly the same as the reference implementation. In reality, stuff is complicated, there are corner cases and subtle misunderstandings that no one foresaw. And don't forget about OEM changes.
So, per-device testing of the final per-device build is absolutely essential to have any kind of stability. Which means that OEMs have to do it. And carriers often don't trust that OEMs have done it adequately, so they insist on doing their own testing as well.
I should also point out that many of the other firmware components (bluetooth, wifi, camera, baseband, etc.) have dozens of implementations, not just a few like mine.
All of this is both the greatest strength and, IMO, the greatest weakness of the Android ecosystem. It's a strength because there is power in diversity, ability to hit more market niches at more price points and meet more users' needs. It's a weakness because the diversity means there's a lot more work to be done to test and validate changes, and because designing for an open ecosystem is a lot harder than for a closed one. Sometimes I think I should go work for Apple because my life would be much easier.
OTOH, if I worked for Apple, I'd probably be swarmed by lawyers for writing a post like this one, among other things I dislike about Apple's culture. Also, if I worked for Apple my work would have much less impact on the world.
Google has also released the third preview of Android N. The company says that it is now safe enough to be used on your primary smartphone and tablet. The new update comes with a feature called "Seamless Updates" which will install system updates in the background.
Oh yeah? Have they finally made it so these updates don't require the carrier's permission to install?
No, Google doesn't have any control over that.
What seamless updates does is use A/B boot partitions, so it can download an update and validate and install it in (say) the "B" partition. After it's all ready to go, you just have to reboot to activate it. It just looks like an ordinary reboot, no "optimizing apps" or anything. Incidentally, this also means that if the boot from "B" fails, the device can (and will) fall back to booting the working system on partition "A".
All of this is closely modeled on, perhaps even derived from, the way ChromeOS handles updates.
But in order for an update to be delivered it has to be built by the OEM and approved by the carrier. That's unavoidable as long as OEMs customize Android, including carrier-specific customization.
From my many years of experience in this game (software development), the biggest factor for finding someone with a different perspective is looking for someone who didn't come from a programming background. I've worked with people who were past accountants, lawyers, economists, doctors of various fields, mathematicians, and they found themselves in software. These people tend to be the ones with unique perspectives. Sex, age, race, religion have not been useful indicators of any kind.
Depends on what kind of a different perspective you're looking for. If you're building consumer products, differences in male and female usage can be significant.
Okay, but you still haven't said what you think YouTube should do.
If the owner of the video is signed up for revenue sharing, the comments here seem to indicate that flagged video revenue is kept by Youtube or sent to the copyright owner, even after the DMCA claim is resolved in favor of the video owner.
It's not at all surprising to me if YouTube doesn't retroactively figure out what payments were made to who and when due to that video and attempt to take back funds that were paid to the wrong party and pay them to the right party. Just thinking about what would be involved in that makes me shudder. What a pit of snakes. Especially since if YouTube did that they'd need to do it in all cases, even when the money involved is trivial.
If the money isn't trivial, then it seems to me that the uploader would have a slam dunk civil suit to recover the loss. If the court determined that the copyright owner's actions were willful, I think treble damages would apply. The uploader would have to subpoena YouTube to get the records of payments to the copyright owner, but I doubt that would be a problem.
That still leaves open the possibility that a big copyright owner regularly makes claims against videos it doesn't own in order to extract the little bits of revenue while the process is followed. But YouTube keeps track of "strikes" and will eventually shut down channels who upload too much content they don't have rights to, or content owners who make too many claims to content they don't own, or shouldn't control.
A correction of that is one step in the right direction.
That step seems likely to land YouTube in a lot of litigation.
Also, I don't think individual content owners (aka "the little guy") can sign up for content ID.
According to the web site, the requirements are that you must own "exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community". Based on the categories offered on the sign-up form, I'd guess "substantial" means you have to have a couple of dozen works. And, of course, they have to be "frequently" uploaded by the YouTube user community, which I take to mean "often enough that policing them manually is difficult". My guess is that this last point is the key one, since the sign-up form also asks if you've sent takedown notices in the past.
Shawn, get your head out of your ass. Most of these poor people we're talking about have no electricity. No electricity means no electronic devices capable of delivering the internet.
I think you should actually learn something about the real situation. It's not true that most of the people we're talking about have no electricity. Most of them have very limited access to electricity, generally a generator, probably community-owned. But it's enough to charge a mobile phone... or a dozen. In fact in many remote villages in Africa the primary use of the generator is to charge the village's handful of phones.
You should look into the numerous studies about the (huge!) impact of mobile phone-based Internet in Africa before assuming that I have my head in my ass. I've actually read about this stuff, and you clearly have not.
I think you're really stretching here to try to make YouTube out as the bad guy
I've been clear that this is due to the way DMCA is set up. Youtube is just making money off of the bad situation.
Okay, but you still haven't said what you think YouTube should do.
Content ID breaks fair use.
The problem with fair use is that it's effectively impossible to know if it applies without going to court. There are some guidelines in the law, but there's no way that YouTube (or any third party) can possibly evaluate whether or not a given use qualifies. That's something that the copyright owner and the potential infringer have to resolve for themselves, perhaps in court. ContentID in no way breaks that, it just moves the burden of scanning for potential infringements from the copyright owner to YouTube (essentially a service YouTube provides to the content owner in exchange for a license). Consider scenarios with and without ContentID:
Scenario A: Random person uploads a video containing your content. You notice it and file a DMCA takedown. YouTube takes it down. Uploader files a response claiming fair use. YouTube puts the video back up. You and uploader resolve the dispute between yourselves (perhaps in court) and act accordingly.
Scenario B: Random person uploads a video containing your content. ContentID notices it and takes the video down. Uploader files a dispute, claiming fair use. YouTube puts the video back up and notifies you. You and uploader resolve the dispute between yourselves (perhaps in court) and act accordingly.
Where Fair Use is broken is that most content owners are trans-national megacorps and most uploaders are individuals who are very unlikely to challenge the deep-pockets owner even if their use is fair.
Actually, ContentID partly solves that problem because many content owners don't necessarily want the content taken down, they just want to get paid for it, and perhaps apply some other terms. For example, I made this video tribute to my mother-in-law for her funeral. It's a slideshow set to some songs that she loved... those songs are under copyright (in spite of their age). After I uploaded it, YouTube notified me that copyright-protected content was found in it, and that means that I cannot monetize it. I'm fine with that; I have no desire whatsoever to make money from it (nor any expectation that it would be interesting to enough people) and the way ContentID works, I am still free to use YouTube as a vehicle to share that video. Without ContentID my video would have gotten taken down entirely, because DMCA takedowns down't allow the owner to say things like "it's okay to leave it up, but send us the ad revenue."
Now, if my video's use of those songs really is Fair Use, and if I saw an opportunity to make a lot of money by monetizing it, I could file a dispute and then go negotiate with the owners of the songs, or we could go to court.
I would never sign up for Content ID and have innocent videos flagged. That's also bad.
But what happens when innocent videos are flagged is totally up to you. You could set as your policy that you want to allow all use of your material. Or you could reserve the right to monetize your material, but have YouTube notify you of flagged videos and you could review them an allow those that are innocent. Or you could reserve the right to monetize and rely on uploaders of innocent videos to dispute, and review the disputes and allow those that are innocent. Or... there are a variety of other policies you could apply.
Seriously, I think ContentID is about the best solution to the problem of Fair Use in video sharing that is allowed by law.
In reality, when looking at a pool of candidates, you do not single out the women because you need "a different perspective." You hire the person qualified to do the job.
Please point us to the website that holds the information that allows farms to be more productive. Do you really think there are some secret farming tricks that you can only access if you have internet access?
Actually, experience in Africa shows that the most immediate benefit of Internet access to subsistence farmers is actually to improve their market power. Improvements in farming methods are also very valuable, but given the fact that most such farmers never travel more than a few miles from their homes and have very limited access (pre-Internet) to communications infrastructure, they're at a severe disadvantage when negotiating with the factors who buy and transport their excess production. A simple "featurephone" with SMS and rudimentary web browsing capabilities allows them to understand market conditions and prices, and that alone dramatically increases their net income.
There's been a lot of research on this, particularly in Africa. Here, I'll google that for you, too: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=impact+of...
You did when you enlisted, as part of the enlistment physical. You may well have been drug tested during regular physical exams as well, whether they told you that was part of the tests they made of your urine or not. If you never got hit with a random drug test, you were just lucky not to be on a base or in a unit where the commander decided to do tests. Also, you weren't in one of the job categories with mandatory periodic drug tests.
Can female programmers do something that male programmers cannot? I don't think so.
Actually, they can. They provide different viewpoints and perspectives, arising from their different lives, and probably even from their different body/brain chemistry. Many studies have shown that diverse teams are more effective.
With regard to just writing code, there's probably not much difference, if any. But in most organizations software engineers play a pretty significant role in designing the user interactions as well, and diversity of viewpoints can be very valuable there.
Often, the limits between legal drugs and illicit drugs is purely arbitrary or even random.
That's largely irrelevant to the interest of employers. One reason some employers do drug tests is just to see if the employment candidates are people who can follow laws/rules. That's probably not the primary characteristic you look for in a software developer, but in many lower-level jobs it's very important.
That's not compensation. That's just stopping Youtube from making additional money off the content. At the end of the takedown, the only person who made any money is Youtube.
And? The copyright owner didn't lose anything whether YouTube made money or not. If the copyright owner wants to make some money, they can upload their own copy, which YouTube will duly monetize for them. If they want YouTube to actively police their content, they can sign up for ContentID.
I think you're really stretching here to try to make YouTube out as the bad guy. It's not even clear to me what would make you happy, other than perhaps YouTube returning to the advertisers any money they collected on a video prior to receipt of a takedown? Then the the advertisers would get free advertising, but the copyright holder's situation wouldn't have change at all.
Baloney. The 4+ billion people who don't already have internet access are primarily peasant farmers who are struggling to feed themselves
And the Internet would give them access to information that would enable their farms to be more productive, and information that would enable them to understand market pricing so they wouldn't be ripped off by middlemen when they sell their surplus, among many, many other benefits.
much less add anything to their national (or even local) economies.
Increasing the productivity of farms will add to local, and even national, economies.
They don't have the tools or the knowledge nor the willingness to learn anything that would allow them to jump to first-world levels of productivity.
There's no need for them to jump to first-world levels of productivity. Just increasing their own productivity by 20% will make huge differences.
In most places, they have neither reliable electrical power nor reliable potable water, and those folks need clean water a WHOLE lot more than they need internet access.
To get power and clean water, what they mostly need is to increase productivity and therefore income enough that they have the capital needed for those sorts of improvements. The Internet can help them do that.
It's a bit of a split conscience. On the one hand, fair use content should never be flagged. On the other, making ad money off of someone else's work without any way to get fair compensation isn't great either.
There is a way for copyright owners to get fair compensation. They can send a takedown, per the law, or they can sign up for ContentID, which YouTube isn't even obliged to offer.
But my point is that the problems with copyright law go far beyond questions of fair use. The majority of copyrighted content should be in the public domain. The content owners have stretched copyright so that it covers so much, for so long, that it's no longer a fair deal for the public.
There's no motivation, other than "don't be evil." Otherwise, they're getting paid to wait for the DMCA takedown notice to come in.
You're assuming that pro-actively enforcing copyrights is the right thing to do, and that not doing it constitutes being evil. I deeply disagree with that assumption.
Disclaimer: I work for Google but I'm speaking only for myself.
Oh I totally believe that they only had one copy of this critically important report. It's too bad that the dog ate it or whatever.
Allow me to quote from the summary
a CIA spokesperson has said another unopened computer disk with the full report is still locked in a vault at agency headquarters. "I can assure you that the CIA has retained a copy," wrote Dean Boyd, the agency's chief of public affairs, in an email. Feinstein is calling for the CIA inspector general to obtain a new copy of the report to replace the one that disappeared.
So they're not claiming it's completely gone. At worst this is a delaying tactic, not obstruction.
Yes, absolutely, but really its only different because of the scale. We only waterboarded (hopefully) a small number of people (possibly dozens) of times. Not hundreds or thousands. But seriously you can't claim the moral high ground over a criminal who raped his victims repeatedly when you drowned and resuscitated your own victims over and over again. The ONLY thing that made us better was the scale was pretty small by comparison.
Don't stoop to the GP's methods.
Clearly, the only difference wasn't the scale. Another crucial difference was the purpose. I'm not claiming that torture is justifiable, and I fully agree that what the US did was wrong, and that we should be ashamed and should take action to ensure it doesn't happen again, but motives do matter and there is a difference between abuse for its own sake or for individual gratification and abuse for a specific and important goal.
Maybe it doesn't. That doesn't mean it isn't interesting to many others here.
Why should I care that some guy who has hundreds of times more money than I ever will has bought a $1 billion stake in Apple? Why is this important to anyone except Warren Buffett?
I don't know if you should care, but I'll tell you why I care.
Warren Buffet has proven to be very good judge of companies' long-term prospects. No one seriously believes he's infallible, but his approach has been extremely successful. His vote of confidence in Apple's future is something I would consider very interesting at any time, but it's even more interesting right now because so many people are questioning Apple's future. Having lost Steve Jobs (who was an ass, but obviously did a great job of leading the company to success) and with the company's cash cow showing signs that it may begin to decline, it's not clear whether Apple will continue to be the technology leader[*] that it has been.
So, what this amounts to is very informed prognostication on the future of an important tech company. To me, that's news for nerds. For nearly anyone interested in technology or the economy, that's stuff that matters.
But this needs to be asked
I don't see why, actually.
and I challenge any of you to give me a real answer rather than insulting me. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone here is up to the challenge.
I don't much care about challenges, but I also don't make a habit of insulting people, and I don't think I have here.
[*] I know it's popular on slashdot to argue that Apple isn't a technology leader because their core strength isn't blue-sky innovation, but instead taking obviously-good and somewhat-proven ideas and executing them with great polish and skill. I think that view ignores a lot of real innovation that Apple does in the process of creating their premium products, and ignores the fact that Apple's successful products are often trend-setters, even though they often set the "trend" well after comparable competing products have been on the market for some time.
Women are property with no rights, gays should be stoned to death, people who leave the faith are executed by family members. This is what life is like in Iran since the Islamists took over. This is what Islamists want for the world.
But for some reason you gullible westerners would rather get outraged at keeping boys out of girls toilets. You almost deserve it.
Why do you think that people can only be bothered by one thing?
I agree that treatment of women as property, etc., is horrible. I also think that we should continue trying to improve the treatment of women and minorities (including LGBT, and Muslims) in our own country. Why should I have to pick only one? And, frankly, I think we have much more opportunity and even obligation to address the problems in our own country than to fix the problems in other countries, so if I do have to pick only one, I'll focus my efforts where I have a greater chance of doing some good... and where my effort or lack thereof will directly affect me.
During the Cold War there appeared to be real reason to be concerned about a foreign entity destroying our nation and remaking us in its own image. There is no fear of that today. At worst the horrors in the Middle East will spill over on us in the form of a few terror attacks (though that seems less of a worry now that the region is so wrapped up in its own internal conflicts), or we'll get some refugees who have a hard time adapting. We can easily absorb both unless we choose to damage ourselves, as we clearly did after 9/11.
The safe distance in question is not two seconds, though, it's more like two feet. All you need is enough time for the radar of the car behind to recognize the sudden deceleration and to brake. Unless the sudden deceleration is greater than the car behind can brake, you're fine, you only need a millisecond or two of following distance. Two feet gives us about 15 milliseconds, which is a twentieth of an eyeblink for a human, but a very long time for a computer. As for the vehicles further back, they will not only be able to see the deceleration of the vehicle in front of them, but they can be notified by radio so essentially the whole following train slows together (though there are some interesting security challenges in preventing spoofing; cryptographically it's easy, but the key management will be tough).
And if the car behind can't brake hard enough to avoid a collision (which is pretty unlikely), the fact that the entire train behind can brake essentially simultaneously means that none of them will hit any harder than the first follower, and those feet will quickly add up to car lengths, so they won't stack up very far back.
Slashdot Mirror
Software Development. We have a whole different team for coming up with design and layout called marketing.
Unless they're just code monkeys, software developers end up having a great deal of impact on UX.
OTOH, if I worked for Apple, I'd probably be swarmed by lawyers for writing a post like this one, among other things I dislike about Apple's culture. Also, if I worked for Apple my work would have much less impact on the world.
Another reason to be glad I deal with iOS, and not Android: namely, you don't.
I don't know what you thought to accomplish with that comment, but you did manage to show me what you are.
Google really needs to get its act together and bring security updates entirely in-house.
Impossible.
Google doesn't even have source code for non-Nexus/Pixel devices. See my other post in this thread for more detail.
No, Google doesn't have any control over that.
Isn't Google holding the source code?
No, actually.
Google develops the base system, but OEMs modify the source -- sometimes heavily -- before they build and ship it, and they do not give Google a copy of the source of the code they ship. In general, Google has no ability to build system images for non-Nexus/Pixel devices.
In addition there are lots of firmware components that Google doesn't have any visibility into at all. For example, I work on the hardware-backed keystore, which requires a bit of firmware that runs in a trusted execution environment (e.g. ARM TrustZone). I defined the interface (the Hardware Abstraction Layer, or HAL) and I wrote the reference implementation of that HAL, which is actually used on a small number of devices that ship with the Google-provided TEE. But the vast majority of devices use an implementation of the HAL from another provider. Qualcomm, Trustonic, nVidia and Intel all write their own versions, and those are just the ones I know about. There may be others. I have no visibility into their code, and sometimes changes I make in the keystore system daemon or at the framework level are incompatible with their implementations. In an ideal world, the HAL should be so tightly-specified, and the compliance test suite so thorough, that I can have confidence that their implementations work exactly the same as the reference implementation. In reality, stuff is complicated, there are corner cases and subtle misunderstandings that no one foresaw. And don't forget about OEM changes.
So, per-device testing of the final per-device build is absolutely essential to have any kind of stability. Which means that OEMs have to do it. And carriers often don't trust that OEMs have done it adequately, so they insist on doing their own testing as well.
I should also point out that many of the other firmware components (bluetooth, wifi, camera, baseband, etc.) have dozens of implementations, not just a few like mine.
All of this is both the greatest strength and, IMO, the greatest weakness of the Android ecosystem. It's a strength because there is power in diversity, ability to hit more market niches at more price points and meet more users' needs. It's a weakness because the diversity means there's a lot more work to be done to test and validate changes, and because designing for an open ecosystem is a lot harder than for a closed one. Sometimes I think I should go work for Apple because my life would be much easier.
OTOH, if I worked for Apple, I'd probably be swarmed by lawyers for writing a post like this one, among other things I dislike about Apple's culture. Also, if I worked for Apple my work would have much less impact on the world.
Google has also released the third preview of Android N. The company says that it is now safe enough to be used on your primary smartphone and tablet. The new update comes with a feature called "Seamless Updates" which will install system updates in the background.
Oh yeah? Have they finally made it so these updates don't require the carrier's permission to install?
No, Google doesn't have any control over that.
What seamless updates does is use A/B boot partitions, so it can download an update and validate and install it in (say) the "B" partition. After it's all ready to go, you just have to reboot to activate it. It just looks like an ordinary reboot, no "optimizing apps" or anything. Incidentally, this also means that if the boot from "B" fails, the device can (and will) fall back to booting the working system on partition "A".
All of this is closely modeled on, perhaps even derived from, the way ChromeOS handles updates.
But in order for an update to be delivered it has to be built by the OEM and approved by the carrier. That's unavoidable as long as OEMs customize Android, including carrier-specific customization.
From my many years of experience in this game (software development), the biggest factor for finding someone with a different perspective is looking for someone who didn't come from a programming background. I've worked with people who were past accountants, lawyers, economists, doctors of various fields, mathematicians, and they found themselves in software. These people tend to be the ones with unique perspectives. Sex, age, race, religion have not been useful indicators of any kind.
Depends on what kind of a different perspective you're looking for. If you're building consumer products, differences in male and female usage can be significant.
Okay, but you still haven't said what you think YouTube should do.
If the owner of the video is signed up for revenue sharing, the comments here seem to indicate that flagged video revenue is kept by Youtube or sent to the copyright owner, even after the DMCA claim is resolved in favor of the video owner.
It's not at all surprising to me if YouTube doesn't retroactively figure out what payments were made to who and when due to that video and attempt to take back funds that were paid to the wrong party and pay them to the right party. Just thinking about what would be involved in that makes me shudder. What a pit of snakes. Especially since if YouTube did that they'd need to do it in all cases, even when the money involved is trivial.
If the money isn't trivial, then it seems to me that the uploader would have a slam dunk civil suit to recover the loss. If the court determined that the copyright owner's actions were willful, I think treble damages would apply. The uploader would have to subpoena YouTube to get the records of payments to the copyright owner, but I doubt that would be a problem.
That still leaves open the possibility that a big copyright owner regularly makes claims against videos it doesn't own in order to extract the little bits of revenue while the process is followed. But YouTube keeps track of "strikes" and will eventually shut down channels who upload too much content they don't have rights to, or content owners who make too many claims to content they don't own, or shouldn't control.
A correction of that is one step in the right direction.
That step seems likely to land YouTube in a lot of litigation.
Also, I don't think individual content owners (aka "the little guy") can sign up for content ID.
According to the web site, the requirements are that you must own "exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community". Based on the categories offered on the sign-up form, I'd guess "substantial" means you have to have a couple of dozen works. And, of course, they have to be "frequently" uploaded by the YouTube user community, which I take to mean "often enough that policing them manually is difficult". My guess is that this last point is the key one, since the sign-up form also asks if you've sent takedown notices in the past.
People around here think the words "the land of the free and the home of the brave" signify some deeply held core American values
No, we think they're aspirational ideals, and as ideals they are meaningful to the degree that we actually try to achieve them.
Shawn, get your head out of your ass. Most of these poor people we're talking about have no electricity. No electricity means no electronic devices capable of delivering the internet.
I think you should actually learn something about the real situation. It's not true that most of the people we're talking about have no electricity. Most of them have very limited access to electricity, generally a generator, probably community-owned. But it's enough to charge a mobile phone... or a dozen. In fact in many remote villages in Africa the primary use of the generator is to charge the village's handful of phones.
You should look into the numerous studies about the (huge!) impact of mobile phone-based Internet in Africa before assuming that I have my head in my ass. I've actually read about this stuff, and you clearly have not.
I think you're really stretching here to try to make YouTube out as the bad guy
I've been clear that this is due to the way DMCA is set up. Youtube is just making money off of the bad situation.
Okay, but you still haven't said what you think YouTube should do.
Content ID breaks fair use.
The problem with fair use is that it's effectively impossible to know if it applies without going to court. There are some guidelines in the law, but there's no way that YouTube (or any third party) can possibly evaluate whether or not a given use qualifies. That's something that the copyright owner and the potential infringer have to resolve for themselves, perhaps in court. ContentID in no way breaks that, it just moves the burden of scanning for potential infringements from the copyright owner to YouTube (essentially a service YouTube provides to the content owner in exchange for a license). Consider scenarios with and without ContentID:
Scenario A: Random person uploads a video containing your content. You notice it and file a DMCA takedown. YouTube takes it down. Uploader files a response claiming fair use. YouTube puts the video back up. You and uploader resolve the dispute between yourselves (perhaps in court) and act accordingly.
Scenario B: Random person uploads a video containing your content. ContentID notices it and takes the video down. Uploader files a dispute, claiming fair use. YouTube puts the video back up and notifies you. You and uploader resolve the dispute between yourselves (perhaps in court) and act accordingly.
Where Fair Use is broken is that most content owners are trans-national megacorps and most uploaders are individuals who are very unlikely to challenge the deep-pockets owner even if their use is fair.
Actually, ContentID partly solves that problem because many content owners don't necessarily want the content taken down, they just want to get paid for it, and perhaps apply some other terms. For example, I made this video tribute to my mother-in-law for her funeral. It's a slideshow set to some songs that she loved... those songs are under copyright (in spite of their age). After I uploaded it, YouTube notified me that copyright-protected content was found in it, and that means that I cannot monetize it. I'm fine with that; I have no desire whatsoever to make money from it (nor any expectation that it would be interesting to enough people) and the way ContentID works, I am still free to use YouTube as a vehicle to share that video. Without ContentID my video would have gotten taken down entirely, because DMCA takedowns down't allow the owner to say things like "it's okay to leave it up, but send us the ad revenue."
Now, if my video's use of those songs really is Fair Use, and if I saw an opportunity to make a lot of money by monetizing it, I could file a dispute and then go negotiate with the owners of the songs, or we could go to court.
I would never sign up for Content ID and have innocent videos flagged. That's also bad.
But what happens when innocent videos are flagged is totally up to you. You could set as your policy that you want to allow all use of your material. Or you could reserve the right to monetize your material, but have YouTube notify you of flagged videos and you could review them an allow those that are innocent. Or you could reserve the right to monetize and rely on uploaders of innocent videos to dispute, and review the disputes and allow those that are innocent. Or... there are a variety of other policies you could apply.
Seriously, I think ContentID is about the best solution to the problem of Fair Use in video sharing that is allowed by law.
In reality, when looking at a pool of candidates, you do not single out the women because you need "a different perspective." You hire the person qualified to do the job.
Part of the job is providing a perspective.
Please point us to the website that holds the information that allows farms to be more productive. Do you really think there are some secret farming tricks that you can only access if you have internet access?
Here you go.
Actually, experience in Africa shows that the most immediate benefit of Internet access to subsistence farmers is actually to improve their market power. Improvements in farming methods are also very valuable, but given the fact that most such farmers never travel more than a few miles from their homes and have very limited access (pre-Internet) to communications infrastructure, they're at a severe disadvantage when negotiating with the factors who buy and transport their excess production. A simple "featurephone" with SMS and rudimentary web browsing capabilities allows them to understand market conditions and prices, and that alone dramatically increases their net income.
There's been a lot of research on this, particularly in Africa. Here, I'll google that for you, too: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=impact+of...
I never had a drug test in the military, ever.
You did when you enlisted, as part of the enlistment physical. You may well have been drug tested during regular physical exams as well, whether they told you that was part of the tests they made of your urine or not. If you never got hit with a random drug test, you were just lucky not to be on a base or in a unit where the commander decided to do tests. Also, you weren't in one of the job categories with mandatory periodic drug tests.
Can female programmers do something that male programmers cannot? I don't think so.
Actually, they can. They provide different viewpoints and perspectives, arising from their different lives, and probably even from their different body/brain chemistry. Many studies have shown that diverse teams are more effective.
With regard to just writing code, there's probably not much difference, if any. But in most organizations software engineers play a pretty significant role in designing the user interactions as well, and diversity of viewpoints can be very valuable there.
Often, the limits between legal drugs and illicit drugs is purely arbitrary or even random.
That's largely irrelevant to the interest of employers. One reason some employers do drug tests is just to see if the employment candidates are people who can follow laws/rules. That's probably not the primary characteristic you look for in a software developer, but in many lower-level jobs it's very important.
That's not compensation. That's just stopping Youtube from making additional money off the content. At the end of the takedown, the only person who made any money is Youtube.
And? The copyright owner didn't lose anything whether YouTube made money or not. If the copyright owner wants to make some money, they can upload their own copy, which YouTube will duly monetize for them. If they want YouTube to actively police their content, they can sign up for ContentID.
I think you're really stretching here to try to make YouTube out as the bad guy. It's not even clear to me what would make you happy, other than perhaps YouTube returning to the advertisers any money they collected on a video prior to receipt of a takedown? Then the the advertisers would get free advertising, but the copyright holder's situation wouldn't have change at all.
Seriously, what solution would you propose?
Baloney. The 4+ billion people who don't already have internet access are primarily peasant farmers who are struggling to feed themselves
And the Internet would give them access to information that would enable their farms to be more productive, and information that would enable them to understand market pricing so they wouldn't be ripped off by middlemen when they sell their surplus, among many, many other benefits.
much less add anything to their national (or even local) economies.
Increasing the productivity of farms will add to local, and even national, economies.
They don't have the tools or the knowledge nor the willingness to learn anything that would allow them to jump to first-world levels of productivity.
There's no need for them to jump to first-world levels of productivity. Just increasing their own productivity by 20% will make huge differences.
In most places, they have neither reliable electrical power nor reliable potable water, and those folks need clean water a WHOLE lot more than they need internet access.
To get power and clean water, what they mostly need is to increase productivity and therefore income enough that they have the capital needed for those sorts of improvements. The Internet can help them do that.
It's a bit of a split conscience. On the one hand, fair use content should never be flagged. On the other, making ad money off of someone else's work without any way to get fair compensation isn't great either.
There is a way for copyright owners to get fair compensation. They can send a takedown, per the law, or they can sign up for ContentID, which YouTube isn't even obliged to offer.
But my point is that the problems with copyright law go far beyond questions of fair use. The majority of copyrighted content should be in the public domain. The content owners have stretched copyright so that it covers so much, for so long, that it's no longer a fair deal for the public.
There's no motivation, other than "don't be evil." Otherwise, they're getting paid to wait for the DMCA takedown notice to come in.
You're assuming that pro-actively enforcing copyrights is the right thing to do, and that not doing it constitutes being evil. I deeply disagree with that assumption.
Disclaimer: I work for Google but I'm speaking only for myself.
Oh I totally believe that they only had one copy of this critically important report. It's too bad that the dog ate it or whatever.
Allow me to quote from the summary
a CIA spokesperson has said another unopened computer disk with the full report is still locked in a vault at agency headquarters. "I can assure you that the CIA has retained a copy," wrote Dean Boyd, the agency's chief of public affairs, in an email. Feinstein is calling for the CIA inspector general to obtain a new copy of the report to replace the one that disappeared.
So they're not claiming it's completely gone. At worst this is a delaying tactic, not obstruction.
Yes, absolutely, but really its only different because of the scale. We only waterboarded (hopefully) a small number of people (possibly dozens) of times. Not hundreds or thousands. But seriously you can't claim the moral high ground over a criminal who raped his victims repeatedly when you drowned and resuscitated your own victims over and over again. The ONLY thing that made us better was the scale was pretty small by comparison.
Don't stoop to the GP's methods.
Clearly, the only difference wasn't the scale. Another crucial difference was the purpose. I'm not claiming that torture is justifiable, and I fully agree that what the US did was wrong, and that we should be ashamed and should take action to ensure it doesn't happen again, but motives do matter and there is a difference between abuse for its own sake or for individual gratification and abuse for a specific and important goal.
How does this affect me?
Maybe it doesn't. That doesn't mean it isn't interesting to many others here.
Why should I care that some guy who has hundreds of times more money than I ever will has bought a $1 billion stake in Apple? Why is this important to anyone except Warren Buffett?
I don't know if you should care, but I'll tell you why I care.
Warren Buffet has proven to be very good judge of companies' long-term prospects. No one seriously believes he's infallible, but his approach has been extremely successful. His vote of confidence in Apple's future is something I would consider very interesting at any time, but it's even more interesting right now because so many people are questioning Apple's future. Having lost Steve Jobs (who was an ass, but obviously did a great job of leading the company to success) and with the company's cash cow showing signs that it may begin to decline, it's not clear whether Apple will continue to be the technology leader[*] that it has been.
So, what this amounts to is very informed prognostication on the future of an important tech company. To me, that's news for nerds. For nearly anyone interested in technology or the economy, that's stuff that matters.
But this needs to be asked
I don't see why, actually.
and I challenge any of you to give me a real answer rather than insulting me. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone here is up to the challenge.
I don't much care about challenges, but I also don't make a habit of insulting people, and I don't think I have here.
[*] I know it's popular on slashdot to argue that Apple isn't a technology leader because their core strength isn't blue-sky innovation, but instead taking obviously-good and somewhat-proven ideas and executing them with great polish and skill. I think that view ignores a lot of real innovation that Apple does in the process of creating their premium products, and ignores the fact that Apple's successful products are often trend-setters, even though they often set the "trend" well after comparable competing products have been on the market for some time.
Women are property with no rights, gays should be stoned to death, people who leave the faith are executed by family members. This is what life is like in Iran since the Islamists took over. This is what Islamists want for the world.
But for some reason you gullible westerners would rather get outraged at keeping boys out of girls toilets. You almost deserve it.
Why do you think that people can only be bothered by one thing?
I agree that treatment of women as property, etc., is horrible. I also think that we should continue trying to improve the treatment of women and minorities (including LGBT, and Muslims) in our own country. Why should I have to pick only one? And, frankly, I think we have much more opportunity and even obligation to address the problems in our own country than to fix the problems in other countries, so if I do have to pick only one, I'll focus my efforts where I have a greater chance of doing some good... and where my effort or lack thereof will directly affect me.
During the Cold War there appeared to be real reason to be concerned about a foreign entity destroying our nation and remaking us in its own image. There is no fear of that today. At worst the horrors in the Middle East will spill over on us in the form of a few terror attacks (though that seems less of a worry now that the region is so wrapped up in its own internal conflicts), or we'll get some refugees who have a hard time adapting. We can easily absorb both unless we choose to damage ourselves, as we clearly did after 9/11.
Yes, autonomous taxis will clearly erase the need for chauffered taxis and much personal car ownership.
The safe distance in question is not two seconds, though, it's more like two feet. All you need is enough time for the radar of the car behind to recognize the sudden deceleration and to brake. Unless the sudden deceleration is greater than the car behind can brake, you're fine, you only need a millisecond or two of following distance. Two feet gives us about 15 milliseconds, which is a twentieth of an eyeblink for a human, but a very long time for a computer. As for the vehicles further back, they will not only be able to see the deceleration of the vehicle in front of them, but they can be notified by radio so essentially the whole following train slows together (though there are some interesting security challenges in preventing spoofing; cryptographically it's easy, but the key management will be tough).
And if the car behind can't brake hard enough to avoid a collision (which is pretty unlikely), the fact that the entire train behind can brake essentially simultaneously means that none of them will hit any harder than the first follower, and those feet will quickly add up to car lengths, so they won't stack up very far back.