I don't know why this "fatalities in two crashes" myth is so pernicious. It was also falsely claimed in this Slashdot story on the third crash last Monday. But all of the linked articles are absolutely clear that there's been only one fatality, so it's not like the various submitters are just getting bad information from the media. Instead, the Subbys appear to be making up the second fatality out of nothing.
A more skeptical person than me would wonder if someone shorted TSLA.
Tesla hasn't had the best month so far as not one, not two, but a total of three crashes have been reported with the car's Autopilot self-driving system engaged at the time -- two of which resulted in fatalities
The first one was the guy watching the DVD who went under the truck. Or at least, all of him below the neck did. Fatality!
The second one was in Michigan, and the driver "survived a rollover crash."
This is the third one, and "the driver said he activated Autopilot mode at the beginning of his trip."
That's one fatality, Subby. These are your own links and summary. We expect you to read them, even if none of the posters or editors here do.
I don't know enough about this particular event to have a full opinion, the initial video did not show the whole story, the second video doesn't tell the whole story. Apparently, Alton flashed a gun and threatened a homeless man, police were called and Alton was armed. Alton resisted arrest and while wrestling with him still resisting, Alton reached for the concealed firearm and was subsequently shot dead. I watched both videos, Alton was clearly not cooperating and although he was on his back both officers (not small men by any standard) were struggling to get him rolled over and cuffed and Alton was not having any part of it.
Perhaps you should watch the videos again. From the second one, the officer that's closer to the camera - the same officer that pulled his gun, pointed it at Alton's chest, and shot him at point blank range - was kneeling on Alton's left arm. You can see Alton's left hand past the officer, fingers spread.
Now let me just ask you an objective question: when one officer is kneeling on his arm so that he can't move how is it Alton's fault that he can't roll over?
As a follow-up question, shouldn't the officer kneeling on his arm realize that he's kneeling on his arm (it was clearly intentional), and therefore not shoot him for "not having any part" of being rolled over?
You'll notice, I hope, that these two questions can be answered with a simple understanding of physics, and not require any inferences about whether he was "clearly" cooperating or not.
All Alton had to do was kneel and put his hands on his head and keep his mouth shut. Tell the officers he is indeed armed and where the firearm is located. Allow the officers to cuff him and remove the firearm for the officers own safety. If Alton is a legal concealed carry permit holder he would know these things.
A legal concealed carry permit holder tried that in Minnesota last night. He's dead now. Need it also be mentioned that he was black?
The other recent shooting in Minneapolis was due to a frightened officer who panic'd. That was a truly tragic event, it never should have happened. The car was pulled over for a broken tail light. The driver was asked to produce his license and registration which is standard procedure. He correctly informed the officer that he was a concealed carry permit holder and he was armed. At this point the officer drew his weapon, again, standard operating procedure. What happened next is the bad part. The victim was complying but there was some form of communication breakdown and he reached to get his wallet and the officer shot him four times. This all took place in mere seconds. You never ever take your hands off the steering wheel and do not make any sudden movements!
I see... On the one hand, it was the victim's fault for not complying. On the other hand, it was the victim's fault for complying too quickly. Regardless, it never is the police's fault - either they were acting properly, or it was a "truly tragic event (that was still the victim's fault)".
I don't need to delve into your masturbatory fantasy about how traffic stops go for white people, but I do want to address this:
It's about respect not about an officers authority.
Your badge does not entitle you to free respect. In fact, nothing entitles you to free respect. And if you feel that someone is being "disrespectful" to you, so therefore you should get to kill them with impunity, then you are the one who should be sucking on that barrel, not them. We have the right, as Americans, to tell the officer to give us the ticket or whatever else they want and then fuck off back to the fuckstation and eat their glazed fucknoughts with their fuckbuddies in blue. Disrespectful? Sure. A crime worthy of instant execution? Fuck you.
Don't all of those articles support the Clinton decision? The lawyers in each of the cases basically say, the normal punishment: "almost always dealt with through what the military calls "nonjudicial punishment" or Captain's Mast. Those involved were demoted and docked some pay, but didn't face a felony record or the prospect of years behind bars, the retired sailor said."
Petraeus was trading confidential information for considerations, nothing of the same was shown for Hillary. In both of the military examples the people were shown to have lost control of the information because those who shouldn't have had access, did access the information, that couldn't be shown for Clinton. For her another had access, but found no evidence anyone accessed any information they weren't allowed.
There isn't even an entry for people who were sent to prison for being careless about top secret security clearance.
The most likely occurrence for being sloppy would be a reprimand and extra training classes.
People are prosecuted for intentionally releasing top secret material to enemies or to the public.
People are not prosecuted for being careless or incorrectly configured servers.
It is not true that "anyone but hillary" would do prison time for what happened here. They would get butt hurt and it might even hurt their career (and might get them fired and their clearance withdrawn) but federal prosecution for all practical purposes does not occur in this kind of situation.
In December 1996, CIA Director John Deutch resigned after it was discovered that he had stored highly classified documents on his home computer, which was connected to the Internet.
After a criminal investigation, Deutch agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and pay a $5,000 fine. But before the prosecutors could file the papers in federal court, President Bill Clinton pardoned him on his last day in office.
Star Trek has replicators and limitless power. At that point, everyone is effectively a billionaire, so concepts like poverty and hunger disappear. Instead, "wealth" is gained through recognition, military rank, etc.
Star Wars is a more realistic and traditional economy, albeit a very large one. Hence, there's an aristocracy, a middle class, a lower class, etc.
I know I'm repeating myself from the thread about Oasis-class ocean liner, but... How come this kind of mega-ship is powered by burning fuel ?!
Explorer-class container ships (e.g.: the mentioned CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin) are bigger and heavier than Nimitz class Aircraft carriers (e.g.: USS Georges H.W. Bush), and the later are powered by nuclear reactors.
I agree with your query, but not your conclusion - I'd go the other direction. These are giant transoceanic ships, and the economics of capacity and costs are much more important than speed... So let's see a return to multi-masted schooners.
This is the kind of stuff that belongs on tmz. The saddest part (other than it making it to/.) is that a bunch of other renowned journalists praised the original article about trump's hairpiece.
The article discusses alleged copyright infringement for publishing a threatening cease and desist letter online. That seems right up the alley for yro.slashdot.org.
"this doesn't appear to be about predictions, as much as stolen copies of scripts or something."
But TSDF isn't implying that they are going to release a copy of the full script, which would be a copyright violation, but rather the simple name of a character. If, per Twin Peaks, they don't accompany that with substantial verbatim excepts from the script, then it is quite likely that the release of a name would be be fair use (if the publication of a characters name would even violate copyright at all, which if it didn't wouldn't even need a a fair use exception)
For copyright purposes, yes... However, it would still be misappropriation of trade secrets, which has no fair use defense, and is just as illegal.
According to Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use summary (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/) that Twin Peaks case might not be the precedent they say it is.
Not a fair use. A company published a book entitled Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who’s Who and What’s What, containing direct quotations and paraphrases from the television show Twin Peaks, as well as detailed descriptions of plots, characters, and setting. Important factors: The amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program. (Twin Peaks v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).)
(emphasis added)
It may be... FTA:
“AMC is aware that The Spoiling Dead Fans site is promoting your claim that you have received copyright protected, trade secret information about the most critical plot information in the unreleased next season of The Walking Dead,” the letter begins.
“You also state that you plan to distribute this purported highly confidential information despite your knowledge that such distribution, if the information is indeed accurate, is unauthorized and will greatly damage AMC, distributors of The Walking Dead as well as Walking Dead fans awaiting the new seasons’ release who wish to watch their favorite show unspoiled.”
While we can't know for certain without seeing the letter and/or what the Spoiling Dead folks claim to have received, this doesn't appear to be about predictions, as much as stolen copies of scripts or something.
Many atheists treat the non-existence of god(s) like a fact just like the religious treat the existence as fact, that their belief is the only right belief and all other beliefs are wrong. Sure, atheists have no religious practices but they can be just as insistent on spreading their belief, shutting down alternate beliefs and intolerant of those who believe differently than themselves.
Many gravitists treat the existence of gravity like a fact just just like the religious treat the existence as fact, that their belief is the only right belief and all other beliefs are wrong. Sure, gravitists have no religious practices but they can be just as insistent on spreading their belief, shutting down alternate beliefs and intolerant of those who believe differently than themselves.
So, is believing in gravity a religion? Or might religion require some of those "religious practices"?
When I was in high school, (25+ years ago) we had computer programming classes. The languages they covered were BASIC, Pascal, and LOGO. Sure, you could drive a little turtle around on the screen and make pretty Spirograph pictures, but nobody used it to play chess or do their taxes. Of course, many of the students in that class went on to take university classes in computer science.
Lesson: Rudimentary programming classes are not the end-all, be-all of computing. It's just a stepping stone to let you know if you want to continue your education in that field.
This. TFA refers to Obama "writing" a line of code with "moveForward(100);". Seems an awful lot like LOGO's "FD 100". It's an easy, intuitive first step to get kids interested in programming, while being accessible to third and fourth graders. No one is suggesting that drag and drop computing be the core of a CS undergraduate programming, but as a "my first application" for kids, it's perfect.
Some of the patents in the suit include sending email or making calls, but all of them recite using a front-facing camera in a "mirror mode", which seems to be what the suit's really about. They're just poorly written claims. For example, if you invent a time machine and have a patent that recites "a car, capable of driving and turning and accelerating and braking, the car including a flux capacitor and temporal modulator and fusion generator" and you sue someone who makes another time-traveling car, you're not suing them over "driving" or "turning".
Specifically, here's claim 1 of one of the patents:
1. A communication device comprising: a microphone; a speaker; an input device; a display; a first camera; a second camera; an antenna; and a multiple function implementer; wherein said multiple function implementer implements a voice communication function, a digital mirror function, a non-digital mirror function, and an email function; a voice communication is processed to be performed when said voice communication function is implemented; a first visual data is processed to be retrieved via said first camera, said first visual data is processed to be inverted, and said first visual data which is inverted is processed to be displayed on said display when said digital mirror function is implemented; a second visual data is processed to be retrieved via said second camera and said second visual data is processed to be displayed on said display when said non-digital mirror function is implemented, wherein said second visual data is the visual data which is not inverted; an email is processed to be authored in accordance with the user input and said email is processed to be transferred to another device in a wireless fashion when said email function is implemented.
Now, I'm certainly not saying that claim is valid or that there aren't ways I would attack these patents, but it would be just as silly to say "Apple sued over iPhones having antennas." Sure, "antenna" is in the claim, but the patent's not about antennas and just having an antenna is not nearly enough to infringe the claim.
Remember though that in the past you had to actually show a model of your invention, and have a patent inspector pass on it. Meaning that you had done some non-trivial amount of work first, you had the idea and also the means to demonstrate the idea, and now needed time to get manufacturing up and running.
Prototyping is easy in software, and wouldn't do jack shiat to stop patent trolling. Removing the requirement of providing a model helps small inventors in fields that require huge capital investment, like pharmaceuticals or large machines. It wouldn't do anything here.
Today the patent inspectors just rubber stamp everything, no one needs a working model, or even a non-working model. That's what's broken.
95% of patent applications are initially rejected, so that rubber stamp apparently says "denied".
The judges in the Eastern Texas Division actions may not have broken any laws (it's debatable), but it would be ludicrous to suggest that defendants in patent litigation are receiving fair trials there. A judicial system that unfairly favors one side in a lawsuit is, by definition, corrupt.
They make a big deal out of how there are 94 federal courts and yet most patent cases go to ED Texas, with a giant calculation that's entirely... irrelevant. As noted in the Slashdot headline, patent cases can be filed anywhere in the country. Criminal cases, for example, cannot, but have to be where the crime occurred (FRCP Rule 18). They also have time limits, under the Constitutional requirement for speedy trials. So, for example, if you file a patent infringement case in New York, where there's tons of crimes committed, your patent case will keep getting pushed down the docket. You might never actually get into court, because they have to handle the criminal cases first.
By contrast, nothing happens in the ED Texas. So, there's nothing on the docket to get in the way of your patent suit. TechDirt's suggestion that cases should be distributed evenly in all 94 federal courts completely ignores the fact that other cases cannot be distributed evenly. It's like saying you should load balance your webserver equally among your servers, completely ignoring the fact that one of them is also a production server operating at 99% load on another function.
I've recently toyed around with "Tilt Brush" in VR using a Vive, and while it might be not as boring as the "Job Simulator", it became pretty boring after 15 minutes or so. Doing "Tilt Brush" for 25 hours sounds dangerous to your mental health - not because of VR!
Agreed, but not the boredom... Tilt Brush is just a black background (plus whatever you create), so there's no horizon to orient yourself to. He would've had an easier time with something with a horizon, like Job Simulator, or even the Roman Villa demo.
It's not exactly communication per se, but it can be used to indicate instantaneously at a distance which of a predetermined set of actions has been randomly selected.
As to why it's not communication, it's effectively the same as if you had a third party randomly write "attack" or "no attack" on two pieces of paper, seal them up in envelopes, and give them to you and your commander before he left, with instructions to both of you not to open them for 5 years. Heck, once your commander was out of communication range, you could open them at that point, as long as you're willing to be locked into your battle plan.
Your post is absolutely correct, and also quite informative. However, there is a way to potentially communicate FTL, although communicate may not necessarily be the right word.
Imagine, if you will, that you've sent your space battle fleet to the homeworld of the Vulcans (i.e. planet Vulcan, because they're highly logical and not because Roddenberry is unimaginative). It's a 5 year trip, and today is the anniversary. You call the Vulcan ambassador into your office, and check your entangled particle measurement device. Reading the result, you look him square in the eye, and demand unconditional surrender of all of Vulcan's assets on Earth...
Because 5 light years away, the commander of your battle fleet measured his entangled particle. As had been prearranged, if it was spin +1, he was to continue on to the next stop on the planetary domination galactic tour leaving Vulcan unaware (i.e. planet Kronos, home of the Klingons); but if it was spin -1, he was to immediately begin the attack. It was, so he did... and when you measured your particle and found it was spin -1, you knew the attack was underway. Had it been +1, you would have offered the ambassador a drink and a military alliance against the Klingons, but that's the way the coin flips.
It's not exactly communication per se, but it can be used to indicate instantaneously at a distance which of a predetermined set of actions has been randomly selected.
He is only going by precedent set by the music industry for copyright infringement with charging for each instance of infringement instead of standard music rates which in the industry case would be the cost of a song or album.
While I agree with the rest of your post, you've got the wrong price here... The music industry doesn't go after people who simply download a single copy, where they could claim that the damages are just the cost of a single song or album - they go after people who upload or distribute the album or song to others. How much does it cost to distribute a song? Do you think Apple pays 99 cents to put a song up on iTunes that they then sell to several million people? Of course not.
It's tough to give an exact number for the distribution rights to an album, but, for example, Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles catalog for $47.5 million in 1985, which worked out to something like $37 thousand per song. That's more in line with what Tenenbaum and Thomas were forced to pay in their RIAA suits.
There's certainly an argument that that's too high, where they're not profiting or even charging for distribution... but any argument that starts with "they should only owe $1" is dead in the water.
With that said, while I'm not in favor of harsh punitive treatment in prisons IF it doesn't help prevent crime, nothing in the article sounds unreasonable.
According to the court opinion, he was woken up every half hour for the first year of his confinement and forced to acknowledge the guard. He was also subjected to strip searches and "anal inspections" every time he was moved, including from one cell to another, to the prison yard and back, etc. The court acknowledged that those can be reasonable for safety concerns in some situations, but considering that he was shackled when being moved, on camera, and watched by three officers, doing a cavity search before leaving one cell and after entering the next starts sounding more like punitive treatment rather than safety.
So, in other words the ideal living situation for the stereotypical techie! To be honest that almost does sound like the ideal living situation to me. I'd gladly give up ever seeing the outdoors again or ever communicating with another human again if I had unlimited access to any media I want and meals are provided for me.
He also was woken up every half hour for the first year of his imprisonment, during which "he had to give a sign of life," and was subjected to constant strip searches and "anal inspections" any time he left his cell (e.g. to go to a different cell, to meet with his lawyer, to go to the prison yard, to come back from the prison yard, etc., etc.), according to the opinion. The court acknowledged that reasonable safety requirements allow for some searches and surprise inspections, but these were done in the interest of torture, not safety.
I don't think you fully appreciate how being a public, political figure weighs into the fair use factors. The courts would balance the public's right to engage in political speech (the most protected category) against Bernie's rights here.
OTOH, section 43 of the Lanham Act was explicitly written to protect the publicity rights of celebrities and other public figures, because, let's be honest, no one's selling T-shirts with the likeness of Mildred Hoopenfart from West Nowhere, Idaho. Unless the subject is known to the public - i.e. a public figure - then there can be no likelihood that the public may falsely assume they're associated with or endorsing the product.
Additionally, this isn't solely political speech, it's commerce. The first amendment concerns are lessened when we're talking about commercial sales activity. Putting the same image on a protest sign or flyer would not implicate Lanham 43, for example, and Bernie would have no trademark rights whatsoever to assert in such a case.
See, this is why you read the *case law* and not just the statutes themselves. Otherwise you'd miss the fact that there's a fair use defense for trademarks:
See, this is why you read the *comment you're replying to* rather than just Wiki. Otherwise you'd miss the fact that we're talking about some alleged immunity for public figures that doesn't exist, even within the fair use doctrine. This is not comparative advertising, and assuming for the sake of argument that it is protected parody, it would be safe from liability because it is parody and not, as the grandparent claimed, because "as a public figure, Bernie's likeness is not [protectable by trademark]."
What trademark? As a public figure, Bernie's likeness is not protected.
Lanham Act, 43: FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN
(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person,...
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
I don't see "unless the another person is a public figure" in there, do you?
But it is a core belief that a lack of pirates causes global warming. Therefore, being prevented form talking or dressing like a pirate is forcing the believer to promote damage to the environment. Just because it isn't a personal punishment, that doesn't mean it's not a negative consequence of deviating from one's beliefs.
Except he's never dressed like a pirate before and he isn't suing to dress like a pirate, he's suing for $5M in damages. Remember, the government is not investigating whether the religion is true or not, but whether the belief is sincere or not - regardless of whether or not piracy and global warming are correlated, he does not appear to believe it. Accordingly, even if preventing him from wearing the outfit damages the environment, there's no attack on his freedom of conscience.
Slashdot Mirror
In response to the third reported Autopilot crash, which was the first of three where there were no fatalities
The first crash in Florida was the guy who got killed going under the truck while watching his DVD. .
The second crash was a gallery owner in Detroit and he and his passenger survived without any injuries
The third crash - the one apparently without autopilot - hit a guard rail in Montana. "The two occupants walked away without major injuries."
I don't know why this "fatalities in two crashes" myth is so pernicious. It was also falsely claimed in this Slashdot story on the third crash last Monday. But all of the linked articles are absolutely clear that there's been only one fatality, so it's not like the various submitters are just getting bad information from the media. Instead, the Subbys appear to be making up the second fatality out of nothing.
A more skeptical person than me would wonder if someone shorted TSLA.
Tesla hasn't had the best month so far as not one, not two, but a total of three crashes have been reported with the car's Autopilot self-driving system engaged at the time -- two of which resulted in fatalities
The first one was the guy watching the DVD who went under the truck. Or at least, all of him below the neck did. Fatality!
The second one was in Michigan, and the driver "survived a rollover crash."
This is the third one, and "the driver said he activated Autopilot mode at the beginning of his trip."
That's one fatality, Subby. These are your own links and summary. We expect you to read them, even if none of the posters or editors here do.
I don't know enough about this particular event to have a full opinion, the initial video did not show the whole story, the second video doesn't tell the whole story. Apparently, Alton flashed a gun and threatened a homeless man, police were called and Alton was armed. Alton resisted arrest and while wrestling with him still resisting, Alton reached for the concealed firearm and was subsequently shot dead. I watched both videos, Alton was clearly not cooperating and although he was on his back both officers (not small men by any standard) were struggling to get him rolled over and cuffed and Alton was not having any part of it.
Perhaps you should watch the videos again. From the second one, the officer that's closer to the camera - the same officer that pulled his gun, pointed it at Alton's chest, and shot him at point blank range - was kneeling on Alton's left arm. You can see Alton's left hand past the officer, fingers spread.
Now let me just ask you an objective question: when one officer is kneeling on his arm so that he can't move how is it Alton's fault that he can't roll over?
As a follow-up question, shouldn't the officer kneeling on his arm realize that he's kneeling on his arm (it was clearly intentional), and therefore not shoot him for "not having any part" of being rolled over?
You'll notice, I hope, that these two questions can be answered with a simple understanding of physics, and not require any inferences about whether he was "clearly" cooperating or not.
All Alton had to do was kneel and put his hands on his head and keep his mouth shut. Tell the officers he is indeed armed and where the firearm is located. Allow the officers to cuff him and remove the firearm for the officers own safety. If Alton is a legal concealed carry permit holder he would know these things.
A legal concealed carry permit holder tried that in Minnesota last night. He's dead now. Need it also be mentioned that he was black?
The other recent shooting in Minneapolis was due to a frightened officer who panic'd. That was a truly tragic event, it never should have happened. The car was pulled over for a broken tail light. The driver was asked to produce his license and registration which is standard procedure. He correctly informed the officer that he was a concealed carry permit holder and he was armed. At this point the officer drew his weapon, again, standard operating procedure. What happened next is the bad part. The victim was complying but there was some form of communication breakdown and he reached to get his wallet and the officer shot him four times. This all took place in mere seconds. You never ever take your hands off the steering wheel and do not make any sudden movements!
I see... On the one hand, it was the victim's fault for not complying. On the other hand, it was the victim's fault for complying too quickly. Regardless, it never is the police's fault - either they were acting properly, or it was a "truly tragic event (that was still the victim's fault)".
I don't need to delve into your masturbatory fantasy about how traffic stops go for white people, but I do want to address this:
It's about respect not about an officers authority.
Your badge does not entitle you to free respect. In fact, nothing entitles you to free respect. And if you feel that someone is being "disrespectful" to you, so therefore you should get to kill them with impunity, then you are the one who should be sucking on that barrel, not them. We have the right, as Americans, to tell the officer to give us the ticket or whatever else they want and then fuck off back to the fuckstation and eat their glazed fucknoughts with their fuckbuddies in blue. Disrespectful? Sure. A crime worthy of instant execution? Fuck you.
Don't all of those articles support the Clinton decision? The lawyers in each of the cases basically say, the normal punishment: "almost always dealt with through what the military calls "nonjudicial punishment" or Captain's Mast. Those involved were demoted and docked some pay, but didn't face a felony record or the prospect of years behind bars, the retired sailor said."
Petraeus was trading confidential information for considerations, nothing of the same was shown for Hillary. In both of the military examples the people were shown to have lost control of the information because those who shouldn't have had access, did access the information, that couldn't be shown for Clinton. For her another had access, but found no evidence anyone accessed any information they weren't allowed.
Look up CIA Director John Deutch.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/re...
There isn't even an entry for people who were sent to prison for being careless about top secret security clearance.
The most likely occurrence for being sloppy would be a reprimand and extra training classes.
People are prosecuted for intentionally releasing top secret material to enemies or to the public.
People are not prosecuted for being careless or incorrectly configured servers.
It is not true that "anyone but hillary" would do prison time for what happened here. They would get butt hurt and it might even hurt their career (and might get them fired and their clearance withdrawn) but federal prosecution for all practical purposes does not occur in this kind of situation.
In December 1996, CIA Director John Deutch resigned after it was discovered that he had stored highly classified documents on his home computer, which was connected to the Internet.
After a criminal investigation, Deutch agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and pay a $5,000 fine. But before the prosecutors could file the papers in federal court, President Bill Clinton pardoned him on his last day in office.
Star Wars is a more realistic and traditional economy, albeit a very large one. Hence, there's an aristocracy, a middle class, a lower class, etc.
especially on fue
I know I'm repeating myself from the thread about Oasis-class ocean liner, but... How come this kind of mega-ship is powered by burning fuel ?!
Explorer-class container ships (e.g.: the mentioned CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin) are bigger and heavier than Nimitz class Aircraft carriers (e.g.: USS Georges H.W. Bush), and the later are powered by nuclear reactors.
I agree with your query, but not your conclusion - I'd go the other direction. These are giant transoceanic ships, and the economics of capacity and costs are much more important than speed... So let's see a return to multi-masted schooners.
This is the kind of stuff that belongs on tmz. The saddest part (other than it making it to /.) is that a bunch of other renowned journalists praised the original article about trump's hairpiece.
The article discusses alleged copyright infringement for publishing a threatening cease and desist letter online. That seems right up the alley for yro.slashdot.org.
"this doesn't appear to be about predictions, as much as stolen copies of scripts or something."
But TSDF isn't implying that they are going to release a copy of the full script, which would be a copyright violation, but rather the simple name of a character. If, per Twin Peaks, they don't accompany that with substantial verbatim excepts from the script, then it is quite likely that the release of a name would be be fair use (if the publication of a characters name would even violate copyright at all, which if it didn't wouldn't even need a a fair use exception)
For copyright purposes, yes... However, it would still be misappropriation of trade secrets, which has no fair use defense, and is just as illegal.
According to Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use summary (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/) that Twin Peaks case might not be the precedent they say it is.
Not a fair use. A company published a book entitled Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who’s Who and What’s What, containing direct quotations and paraphrases from the television show Twin Peaks, as well as detailed descriptions of plots, characters, and setting. Important factors: The amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program. (Twin Peaks v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).)
(emphasis added)
It may be... FTA:
“AMC is aware that The Spoiling Dead Fans site is promoting your claim that you have received copyright protected, trade secret information about the most critical plot information in the unreleased next season of The Walking Dead,” the letter begins. “You also state that you plan to distribute this purported highly confidential information despite your knowledge that such distribution, if the information is indeed accurate, is unauthorized and will greatly damage AMC, distributors of The Walking Dead as well as Walking Dead fans awaiting the new seasons’ release who wish to watch their favorite show unspoiled.”
While we can't know for certain without seeing the letter and/or what the Spoiling Dead folks claim to have received, this doesn't appear to be about predictions, as much as stolen copies of scripts or something.
Many atheists treat the non-existence of god(s) like a fact just like the religious treat the existence as fact, that their belief is the only right belief and all other beliefs are wrong. Sure, atheists have no religious practices but they can be just as insistent on spreading their belief, shutting down alternate beliefs and intolerant of those who believe differently than themselves.
Many gravitists treat the existence of gravity like a fact just just like the religious treat the existence as fact, that their belief is the only right belief and all other beliefs are wrong. Sure, gravitists have no religious practices but they can be just as insistent on spreading their belief, shutting down alternate beliefs and intolerant of those who believe differently than themselves.
So, is believing in gravity a religion? Or might religion require some of those "religious practices"?
When I was in high school, (25+ years ago) we had computer programming classes. The languages they covered were BASIC, Pascal, and LOGO. Sure, you could drive a little turtle around on the screen and make pretty Spirograph pictures, but nobody used it to play chess or do their taxes. Of course, many of the students in that class went on to take university classes in computer science. Lesson: Rudimentary programming classes are not the end-all, be-all of computing. It's just a stepping stone to let you know if you want to continue your education in that field.
This. TFA refers to Obama "writing" a line of code with "moveForward(100);". Seems an awful lot like LOGO's "FD 100". It's an easy, intuitive first step to get kids interested in programming, while being accessible to third and fourth graders. No one is suggesting that drag and drop computing be the core of a CS undergraduate programming, but as a "my first application" for kids, it's perfect.
Specifically, here's claim 1 of one of the patents:
1. A communication device comprising:
a microphone;
a speaker;
an input device;
a display;
a first camera;
a second camera;
an antenna; and
a multiple function implementer;
wherein said multiple function implementer implements a voice communication function, a digital mirror function, a non-digital mirror function, and an email function;
a voice communication is processed to be performed when said voice communication function is implemented;
a first visual data is processed to be retrieved via said first camera, said first visual data is processed to be inverted, and said first visual data which is inverted is processed to be displayed on said display when said digital mirror function is implemented;
a second visual data is processed to be retrieved via said second camera and said second visual data is processed to be displayed on said display when said non-digital mirror function is implemented,
wherein said second visual data is the visual data which is not inverted; an email is processed to be authored in accordance with the user input and said email is processed to be transferred to another device in a wireless fashion when said email function is implemented.
Now, I'm certainly not saying that claim is valid or that there aren't ways I would attack these patents, but it would be just as silly to say "Apple sued over iPhones having antennas." Sure, "antenna" is in the claim, but the patent's not about antennas and just having an antenna is not nearly enough to infringe the claim.
Remember though that in the past you had to actually show a model of your invention, and have a patent inspector pass on it. Meaning that you had done some non-trivial amount of work first, you had the idea and also the means to demonstrate the idea, and now needed time to get manufacturing up and running.
Prototyping is easy in software, and wouldn't do jack shiat to stop patent trolling. Removing the requirement of providing a model helps small inventors in fields that require huge capital investment, like pharmaceuticals or large machines. It wouldn't do anything here.
Today the patent inspectors just rubber stamp everything, no one needs a working model, or even a non-working model. That's what's broken.
95% of patent applications are initially rejected, so that rubber stamp apparently says "denied".
if you're going to suggest that a federal judge is corrupt, you should at least have some evidence to support your claim.
This article provides a fairly complete explanation: https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
The judges in the Eastern Texas Division actions may not have broken any laws (it's debatable), but it would be ludicrous to suggest that defendants in patent litigation are receiving fair trials there. A judicial system that unfairly favors one side in a lawsuit is, by definition, corrupt.
They make a big deal out of how there are 94 federal courts and yet most patent cases go to ED Texas, with a giant calculation that's entirely... irrelevant. As noted in the Slashdot headline, patent cases can be filed anywhere in the country. Criminal cases, for example, cannot, but have to be where the crime occurred (FRCP Rule 18). They also have time limits, under the Constitutional requirement for speedy trials. So, for example, if you file a patent infringement case in New York, where there's tons of crimes committed, your patent case will keep getting pushed down the docket. You might never actually get into court, because they have to handle the criminal cases first.
By contrast, nothing happens in the ED Texas. So, there's nothing on the docket to get in the way of your patent suit. TechDirt's suggestion that cases should be distributed evenly in all 94 federal courts completely ignores the fact that other cases cannot be distributed evenly. It's like saying you should load balance your webserver equally among your servers, completely ignoring the fact that one of them is also a production server operating at 99% load on another function.
I've recently toyed around with "Tilt Brush" in VR using a Vive, and while it might be not as boring as the "Job Simulator", it became pretty boring after 15 minutes or so. Doing "Tilt Brush" for 25 hours sounds dangerous to your mental health - not because of VR!
Agreed, but not the boredom... Tilt Brush is just a black background (plus whatever you create), so there's no horizon to orient yourself to. He would've had an easier time with something with a horizon, like Job Simulator, or even the Roman Villa demo.
It's not exactly communication per se, but it can be used to indicate instantaneously at a distance which of a predetermined set of actions has been randomly selected.
As to why it's not communication, it's effectively the same as if you had a third party randomly write "attack" or "no attack" on two pieces of paper, seal them up in envelopes, and give them to you and your commander before he left, with instructions to both of you not to open them for 5 years. Heck, once your commander was out of communication range, you could open them at that point, as long as you're willing to be locked into your battle plan.
Your post is absolutely correct, and also quite informative. However, there is a way to potentially communicate FTL, although communicate may not necessarily be the right word.
Imagine, if you will, that you've sent your space battle fleet to the homeworld of the Vulcans (i.e. planet Vulcan, because they're highly logical and not because Roddenberry is unimaginative). It's a 5 year trip, and today is the anniversary. You call the Vulcan ambassador into your office, and check your entangled particle measurement device. Reading the result, you look him square in the eye, and demand unconditional surrender of all of Vulcan's assets on Earth...
Because 5 light years away, the commander of your battle fleet measured his entangled particle. As had been prearranged, if it was spin +1, he was to continue on to the next stop on the planetary domination galactic tour leaving Vulcan unaware (i.e. planet Kronos, home of the Klingons); but if it was spin -1, he was to immediately begin the attack. It was, so he did... and when you measured your particle and found it was spin -1, you knew the attack was underway. Had it been +1, you would have offered the ambassador a drink and a military alliance against the Klingons, but that's the way the coin flips.
It's not exactly communication per se, but it can be used to indicate instantaneously at a distance which of a predetermined set of actions has been randomly selected.
He is only going by precedent set by the music industry for copyright infringement with charging for each instance of infringement instead of standard music rates which in the industry case would be the cost of a song or album.
While I agree with the rest of your post, you've got the wrong price here... The music industry doesn't go after people who simply download a single copy, where they could claim that the damages are just the cost of a single song or album - they go after people who upload or distribute the album or song to others. How much does it cost to distribute a song? Do you think Apple pays 99 cents to put a song up on iTunes that they then sell to several million people? Of course not.
It's tough to give an exact number for the distribution rights to an album, but, for example, Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles catalog for $47.5 million in 1985, which worked out to something like $37 thousand per song. That's more in line with what Tenenbaum and Thomas were forced to pay in their RIAA suits.
There's certainly an argument that that's too high, where they're not profiting or even charging for distribution... but any argument that starts with "they should only owe $1" is dead in the water.
With that said, while I'm not in favor of harsh punitive treatment in prisons IF it doesn't help prevent crime, nothing in the article sounds unreasonable.
According to the court opinion, he was woken up every half hour for the first year of his confinement and forced to acknowledge the guard. He was also subjected to strip searches and "anal inspections" every time he was moved, including from one cell to another, to the prison yard and back, etc. The court acknowledged that those can be reasonable for safety concerns in some situations, but considering that he was shackled when being moved, on camera, and watched by three officers, doing a cavity search before leaving one cell and after entering the next starts sounding more like punitive treatment rather than safety.
So, in other words the ideal living situation for the stereotypical techie! To be honest that almost does sound like the ideal living situation to me. I'd gladly give up ever seeing the outdoors again or ever communicating with another human again if I had unlimited access to any media I want and meals are provided for me.
He also was woken up every half hour for the first year of his imprisonment, during which "he had to give a sign of life," and was subjected to constant strip searches and "anal inspections" any time he left his cell (e.g. to go to a different cell, to meet with his lawyer, to go to the prison yard, to come back from the prison yard, etc., etc.), according to the opinion. The court acknowledged that reasonable safety requirements allow for some searches and surprise inspections, but these were done in the interest of torture, not safety.
I don't think you fully appreciate how being a public, political figure weighs into the fair use factors. The courts would balance the public's right to engage in political speech (the most protected category) against Bernie's rights here.
OTOH, section 43 of the Lanham Act was explicitly written to protect the publicity rights of celebrities and other public figures, because, let's be honest, no one's selling T-shirts with the likeness of Mildred Hoopenfart from West Nowhere, Idaho. Unless the subject is known to the public - i.e. a public figure - then there can be no likelihood that the public may falsely assume they're associated with or endorsing the product.
Additionally, this isn't solely political speech, it's commerce. The first amendment concerns are lessened when we're talking about commercial sales activity. Putting the same image on a protest sign or flyer would not implicate Lanham 43, for example, and Bernie would have no trademark rights whatsoever to assert in such a case.
See, this is why you read the *case law* and not just the statutes themselves. Otherwise you'd miss the fact that there's a fair use defense for trademarks:
See, this is why you read the *comment you're replying to* rather than just Wiki. Otherwise you'd miss the fact that we're talking about some alleged immunity for public figures that doesn't exist, even within the fair use doctrine. This is not comparative advertising, and assuming for the sake of argument that it is protected parody, it would be safe from liability because it is parody and not, as the grandparent claimed, because "as a public figure, Bernie's likeness is not [protectable by trademark]."
HTH. HAND.
What trademark? As a public figure, Bernie's likeness is not protected.
Lanham Act, 43: FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN
(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person,...
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
I don't see "unless the another person is a public figure" in there, do you?
But it is a core belief that a lack of pirates causes global warming. Therefore, being prevented form talking or dressing like a pirate is forcing the believer to promote damage to the environment. Just because it isn't a personal punishment, that doesn't mean it's not a negative consequence of deviating from one's beliefs.
Except he's never dressed like a pirate before and he isn't suing to dress like a pirate, he's suing for $5M in damages. Remember, the government is not investigating whether the religion is true or not, but whether the belief is sincere or not - regardless of whether or not piracy and global warming are correlated, he does not appear to believe it. Accordingly, even if preventing him from wearing the outfit damages the environment, there's no attack on his freedom of conscience.