I don't know if Young Indiana Jones was actually a disaster... but it is interesting that one of the reported problems during production was that they kept changing directors every episode, and none of them had the same ideas about how the show should be made.
I agree with the NYT. I'm only a recent subscriber, but I find it covers my interests pretty well. If I want breaking news, I can get that with some of the best reporting in the country (and it will even buzz my phone to alert me, probably more often than I'd like). On other days, if I just want to read about travel destinations or check out movie reviews or read about books, I can do that, too. It's kind of like what they say about cameras: the only "good" camera is the one you actually leave the house with. Likewise, subscribing to a publication doesn't do you much good if actually reading it starts to feel like a chore.
For example, I used to subscribe to The Economist, but inevitably I found its style fatiguing. Its coverage is thorough, but there were just too many weeks where I found myself not reading anything, because it felt like too much of an investment when there were so many other things (like books) I could be reading. Even the audio edition (included with your subscription), which initially I marveled at, started to feel too pedantic and lifeless to really enjoy listening to. A shame, but I might still try it again if a really good bargain price came along.
But we're talking about commercial scale. If you only want 50 copies of a book, then sure, you could use inkjet technologies to print 50 books with unique features. We're talking about 7 million unique items, though, and in four-color process, too. I doubt it would have been possible 5-7 years ago.
2) character literals have the type char, rather than int. That means their size is different, and hence programs behave differently.
Admittedly I haven't looked at the standard in a long time, but last I heard, all of this is platform dependent. As in, if you're programming C on multiple platforms and making the assumption that a char is the same size as an int, you could be in for a rude awakening at some point.
Fuckin A. I'm a naturalized UK citizen, but I assure you that choice had precious little to do with a desire to move to England. Now I need a Plan B, I guess...
Also, don't device drivers for 64-bit Windows need to be signed? I.e. they need to be current device drivers in active development, which won't be the case for a lot of legacy hardware.
Subject heading says it... I'll say these companies can pat themselves on the back without spending much at all, especially when "being able to leave early on Friday" comes with the proviso that you must have completed a full eight-hour day of work before you leave. As long as those are the terms, shit, why not extend the policy to the rest of the week, too? Then, once everybody is working until their fingers bleed, you can gradually start dialing the policy back again, so you're getting 16 hours worth of work out of every employee, every day. EFFICIENCY! What could go wrong?
That USA Facts site sounds like an interesting idea, but the implementation could sure use some work. Navigate to the homepage and you're given a search box: What do you want to know about? "Search for some things."
Off the top of my head, I decide to compare the number of deaths by firearm due to murder and the number of firearm deaths due to suicide. And... for the life of my, I can't figure out how to make it call up that information. Which is odd, since if you went to the original Department of Justice surveys from which this data is surely drawn, you can figure it out in a minute or two. There are tables that show precisely those figures, labeled as such! So why is it so difficult to twist USA Facts' arm to extract that data?
Seems like his data sources are sound, but his search engine leaves much to be desired.
The questions seems weird to me. The media organizations I've been involved with have all gathered, filtered, and kept track of information using a loosely networked system of devices known as trained human brains. Much of information-gathering is subjective; there are many "pieces of information" that cross your desk each day which ultimately can and should be discarded, often because the "information" is simply inaccurate. I imagine it would be very difficult to train any kind of computer to make value judgments on something as vague and indeterminate as "information."
That said, one system that may resemble what the poster is talking about is the Bloomberg Terminal. It gathers information and news -- chiefly about financial markets -- and allows users to slice and dice it in various ways. I'm not sure any news-gathering organizations outside Bloomberg itself use it (or are allowed to use it), but Bloomberg makes a lot of money making the Terminals available to Wall Street traders and the like. (Subscriptions are VERY expensive.)
Delivery services make life much easier when you have trouble leaving your home.
The thing is, it's not like anybody had any trouble getting food delivered before they invented robots. San Francisco is filled with delivery services... for prepared meals, for groceries, for whatever you want. And when you add the fact that these robots each have a human to guide them around, it's hard to see what value they add.
I hate to say it -- because I'm against the idea of robots barreling around our sidewalks -- but has the city government stopped to ask itself just what problem this startup is trying to solve?
It seems like food delivery is already a well-solved problem... unless, that is, your city becomes so expensive that no one can afford to live there on the kind of pay you get from a delivery job. Then maybe the robots become necessary.
If you think about it, nobody is going to commute two hours into San Francisco just to drive around delivering food. Wherever they live, I'm sure people eat there, too.
Our roads are made for people, not horses. We can deal with skateboards and unicycles and bicycles, but not your new fangled horse carriages.
Actually, in San Francisco our roads are made for cars, trucks, and buses... AND bicycles, skateboards, unicycles, etc, none of which are allowed on sidewalks where the people are.
Correction: Fandango is co-owned by NBCUniversal (Comcast) and Warner Bros (which still has a 30 percent stake). So, yeah, I guess Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes must be single-handedly destroying the movie business.
When at first it only regulated the printing of books, which required expensive equipment to produce, it KINDA made sense
I think you've got that a little backwards. Reproducing books was a lot more laborious (and therefore expensive) before the invention of the printing press. The invention of relatively easy mass reproduction is what gave rise to copyright.
Can you "copyright" one? That's nonsensical, because the rights begin the moment the joke is told or written down. The author of a joke doesn't need to apply anywhere to get copyrights.
Some of the rights, yes. Not necessaily the right to sue for monetary damages.
Not saying I agree with ripping off jokes, but what damages has he suffered? How has he been harmed?
Just off the top of my head: He has asserted his sole, exclusive right to use the jokes for any purpose, either now or later. Maybe he was planning to record an HBO special next month. He can't use the jokes for that purpose now, though, because Conan took them and distributed them on his much larger TV platform, effectively spoiling them. For that, Kaseberg would like the court to hit Conan where it hurts: the wallet. He can't prove any actual damages, but he can ask the court to give a financial slap on the wrist.
If the blog was, indeed, the source of some of the jokes aired by the show, Mr. Kaseburg was wronged and is entitled to damages.
Not necessarily. The judge has said he needs to prove "willful infringement" (a specific legal definition) to receive damages. This is likely because it would be impossible to assign a value to a single joke told within an hour-long comedy program, or to jokes that Kaseburg has published on his own blog without receiving any form of payment. The only damages he could possibly get would be statutory damages, where the court awards a somewhat-arbitrary amount, and that's why the "willful" part is necessary. It can be pretty hard to make a case for willful infringement, though. If Conan's writers did swipe the jokes, but did so under the assumption that they could do so because the jokes were not subject to copyright, that might be enough to spoil Kaseberg's case.
I can think of scenarios where recipes could be copyrighted; say, if they include a lot of flowery, descriptive language, or are written in a funny way, or they interpolate the author's personal anecdotes.
A mere list of ingredients, however, absolutely cannot be copyrighted. And if you took the highly-descriptive recipe mentioned above, stripped out all the fancy language and just left the directions, that would probably not be considered a derivative work, either. It would still just be a list of ingredients and some steps to combine them, and thus not subject to copyright.
You are conflating Catholics with "all Christians." Generally speaking, Catholics do not generally use the term intelligent design, nor do they believe that arose over time out of causality is in conflict with the concept of a universe created by God.
Agreed. Frankly, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to set my password to "By the time you guess this password, I will have quit my job." I type fast enough that it wouldn't bother me.
Slashdot Mirror
Their payroll obligations are 500,000 Euros? How many employees do they have? Five?
I don't know if Young Indiana Jones was actually a disaster ... but it is interesting that one of the reported problems during production was that they kept changing directors every episode, and none of them had the same ideas about how the show should be made.
I agree with the NYT. I'm only a recent subscriber, but I find it covers my interests pretty well. If I want breaking news, I can get that with some of the best reporting in the country (and it will even buzz my phone to alert me, probably more often than I'd like). On other days, if I just want to read about travel destinations or check out movie reviews or read about books, I can do that, too. It's kind of like what they say about cameras: the only "good" camera is the one you actually leave the house with. Likewise, subscribing to a publication doesn't do you much good if actually reading it starts to feel like a chore.
For example, I used to subscribe to The Economist, but inevitably I found its style fatiguing. Its coverage is thorough, but there were just too many weeks where I found myself not reading anything, because it felt like too much of an investment when there were so many other things (like books) I could be reading. Even the audio edition (included with your subscription), which initially I marveled at, started to feel too pedantic and lifeless to really enjoy listening to. A shame, but I might still try it again if a really good bargain price came along.
But we're talking about commercial scale. If you only want 50 copies of a book, then sure, you could use inkjet technologies to print 50 books with unique features. We're talking about 7 million unique items, though, and in four-color process, too. I doubt it would have been possible 5-7 years ago.
2) character literals have the type char, rather than int. That means their size is different, and hence programs behave differently.
Admittedly I haven't looked at the standard in a long time, but last I heard, all of this is platform dependent. As in, if you're programming C on multiple platforms and making the assumption that a char is the same size as an int, you could be in for a rude awakening at some point.
Fuckin A. I'm a naturalized UK citizen, but I assure you that choice had precious little to do with a desire to move to England. Now I need a Plan B, I guess...
Also, don't device drivers for 64-bit Windows need to be signed? I.e. they need to be current device drivers in active development, which won't be the case for a lot of legacy hardware.
Subject heading says it ... I'll say these companies can pat themselves on the back without spending much at all, especially when "being able to leave early on Friday" comes with the proviso that you must have completed a full eight-hour day of work before you leave. As long as those are the terms, shit, why not extend the policy to the rest of the week, too? Then, once everybody is working until their fingers bleed, you can gradually start dialing the policy back again, so you're getting 16 hours worth of work out of every employee, every day. EFFICIENCY! What could go wrong?
That USA Facts site sounds like an interesting idea, but the implementation could sure use some work. Navigate to the homepage and you're given a search box: What do you want to know about? "Search for some things."
Off the top of my head, I decide to compare the number of deaths by firearm due to murder and the number of firearm deaths due to suicide. And ... for the life of my, I can't figure out how to make it call up that information. Which is odd, since if you went to the original Department of Justice surveys from which this data is surely drawn, you can figure it out in a minute or two. There are tables that show precisely those figures, labeled as such! So why is it so difficult to twist USA Facts' arm to extract that data?
Seems like his data sources are sound, but his search engine leaves much to be desired.
The questions seems weird to me. The media organizations I've been involved with have all gathered, filtered, and kept track of information using a loosely networked system of devices known as trained human brains. Much of information-gathering is subjective; there are many "pieces of information" that cross your desk each day which ultimately can and should be discarded, often because the "information" is simply inaccurate. I imagine it would be very difficult to train any kind of computer to make value judgments on something as vague and indeterminate as "information."
That said, one system that may resemble what the poster is talking about is the Bloomberg Terminal. It gathers information and news -- chiefly about financial markets -- and allows users to slice and dice it in various ways. I'm not sure any news-gathering organizations outside Bloomberg itself use it (or are allowed to use it), but Bloomberg makes a lot of money making the Terminals available to Wall Street traders and the like. (Subscriptions are VERY expensive.)
Delivery services make life much easier when you have trouble leaving your home.
The thing is, it's not like anybody had any trouble getting food delivered before they invented robots. San Francisco is filled with delivery services ... for prepared meals, for groceries, for whatever you want. And when you add the fact that these robots each have a human to guide them around, it's hard to see what value they add.
I've been told that if you try to ride a bicycle on the streets of Houston, passing drivers will throw things at you.
Food is not expensive in SV. It is about the same as everywhere else.
Not the same as San Francisco, then, where food is hella expensive.
I hate to say it -- because I'm against the idea of robots barreling around our sidewalks -- but has the city government stopped to ask itself just what problem this startup is trying to solve?
It seems like food delivery is already a well-solved problem ... unless, that is, your city becomes so expensive that no one can afford to live there on the kind of pay you get from a delivery job. Then maybe the robots become necessary.
If you think about it, nobody is going to commute two hours into San Francisco just to drive around delivering food. Wherever they live, I'm sure people eat there, too.
Our roads are made for people, not horses. We can deal with skateboards and unicycles and bicycles, but not your new fangled horse carriages.
Actually, in San Francisco our roads are made for cars, trucks, and buses ... AND bicycles, skateboards, unicycles, etc, none of which are allowed on sidewalks where the people are.
Correction: Fandango is co-owned by NBCUniversal (Comcast) and Warner Bros (which still has a 30 percent stake). So, yeah, I guess Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes must be single-handedly destroying the movie business.
When at first it only regulated the printing of books, which required expensive equipment to produce, it KINDA made sense
I think you've got that a little backwards. Reproducing books was a lot more laborious (and therefore expensive) before the invention of the printing press. The invention of relatively easy mass reproduction is what gave rise to copyright.
Can you "copyright" one? That's nonsensical, because the rights begin the moment the joke is told or written down. The author of a joke doesn't need to apply anywhere to get copyrights.
Some of the rights, yes. Not necessaily the right to sue for monetary damages.
Not saying I agree with ripping off jokes, but what damages has he suffered? How has he been harmed?
Just off the top of my head: He has asserted his sole, exclusive right to use the jokes for any purpose, either now or later. Maybe he was planning to record an HBO special next month. He can't use the jokes for that purpose now, though, because Conan took them and distributed them on his much larger TV platform, effectively spoiling them. For that, Kaseberg would like the court to hit Conan where it hurts: the wallet. He can't prove any actual damages, but he can ask the court to give a financial slap on the wrist.
If the blog was, indeed, the source of some of the jokes aired by the show, Mr. Kaseburg was wronged and is entitled to damages.
Not necessarily. The judge has said he needs to prove "willful infringement" (a specific legal definition) to receive damages. This is likely because it would be impossible to assign a value to a single joke told within an hour-long comedy program, or to jokes that Kaseburg has published on his own blog without receiving any form of payment. The only damages he could possibly get would be statutory damages, where the court awards a somewhat-arbitrary amount, and that's why the "willful" part is necessary. It can be pretty hard to make a case for willful infringement, though. If Conan's writers did swipe the jokes, but did so under the assumption that they could do so because the jokes were not subject to copyright, that might be enough to spoil Kaseberg's case.
I can think of scenarios where recipes could be copyrighted; say, if they include a lot of flowery, descriptive language, or are written in a funny way, or they interpolate the author's personal anecdotes.
A mere list of ingredients, however, absolutely cannot be copyrighted. And if you took the highly-descriptive recipe mentioned above, stripped out all the fancy language and just left the directions, that would probably not be considered a derivative work, either. It would still just be a list of ingredients and some steps to combine them, and thus not subject to copyright.
You are conflating Catholics with "all Christians." Generally speaking, Catholics do not generally use the term intelligent design, nor do they believe that arose over time out of causality is in conflict with the concept of a universe created by God.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Trump does not suffer fools....
Of course not ... they're the only people he can relate to.
It'd be pretty cheeky even for Trump to try to float an appointment to head up the FBI who doesn't have a law enforcement background.
Why? Obama did it. James Comey is a lawyer.
Agreed. Frankly, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to set my password to "By the time you guess this password, I will have quit my job." I type fast enough that it wouldn't bother me.