If you want to claim that the composition and post-processing of a photograph are copyrightable that's very close to putting yourself out of business since someone else developed those methods and you learned from them.
Learning something in class, particularly things that have been known for decades or are explicitly public domain or are obviously not subject to legal restrictions, cannot reasonably be considered things you can't do in plying your trade. That's probably the main reason you took the class, to learn the techniques. The same applies more obviously to things you figure out on your own. However, a unique postprocessing technique, new, inventive, and sufficiently complex, producing a wholly unprecedented visual experience, should be able to claim some small protection for a short time. The photo in the article doesn't qualify.
If I were the first person in the world to build something with bricks, I would be eligible to get a patent on brick buildings.
I think the decision is bad. The images are substantially different, and there's nothing new about having a single colored object in a B&W photo. Making a quality image of this sort is quite easy. FWIW, I think the original is superior due to better composition.
Mozilla claims that poorly written addons are responsible for almost all of the memory leakage. I can get firefox to crash every couple of hours if I use the "vocabulary highlighter" extension, so it's easy for me to believe that leakage flaws are mostly not in mozilla's own code.
Small claims court is where the individual gains an advantage. Lawyers are to some degree forbidden and "loser pays legal fees" doesn't apply and couldn't be overwhelming if it did. A thousand people each suing in small claims court inflicts "death by 1000 cuts" on the violator. And if you can't drum up a flurry of people to sue the violator, then perhaps the seriousness of the problem exists only between your ears.
The only way in which to prevent damaging pollution is to make that pollution illegal and provide a reasonable means by which to monitor for violators.
No, that's not the only way, it might even not be the best way. Another way is an angry mob lynching the offender and burning down his business. Another way is buying surrounding property and preventing access to the offending business. Another way is to buy out the offending business and run it properly. Another way is to identify everyone who works at the offending company, ostracize them and insult them at every opportunity, refuse to sell them food. Another way is to provide similar pressures to their customers or suppliers. Another way is to get the local power company to shut off power. Another way is to provide superior competition to the business, and run them into bankruptcy. Another way is to write them lot's of letters saying "Pollution is wasteful. Here's a better way to run your business." Another way is to get hired by the business and fix it from within.
Oceans are pretty big, and an ocean wouldn't be owned by a single entity, any more than a whole continent is (I'm not counting governments, I mean property owners). Furthermore, certain aspects of areas might be owned: shipping rights, fishing rights, mining rights. If an adjoiner's polluted water is killing fish in the area where I have fishing rights, I sue him.
Food is valuable, and fish is high quality food. The economic power of a large, well-organized fishing company should be enough to force a polluter to behave better.
"Value" is not a concept that exists outside of a context. A value (I'm not considering the sense of value="what I want" here) is something that helps to achieve a goal or supports a person's well-being (which, although somewhat static, is also a goal). For example, a car is of value to getting to the hardware store, food is of value to my life. Walls are of value toward the goal of keeping roofs off the ground.
Life, in and of itself, is not a value, it is the context within which living things have values. Living things, particularly those that think and act, have the goals of preserving and improving their lives. Things which help me preserve and advance my life are valuable to me, they are not necessarily valuable to another person whose goal is his life, not mine. They are certainly not of value to the universe at large, because the concept of value has no meaning in the context of the whole universe.
Thus, your question
Without a Soul, how does any life have value at all?
is a meaningless word salad. It can have no answer because it makes no sense. Of value to what or to whom? What the Dickens is it you are labeling with the word "Soul"?
If an embryo becomes a "person" at conception, then the concept of "person" is severely degraded. With regard to what it can do at conception, a person is then inferior to any animal that doesn't attack human beings and any plant that can be safely eaten or used as a building material. It is only potential that gives an embryo at conception even hypothetical value. If you consider that the embryo might develop into a mass-murderer or a Bernie Madoff, demanding that it be brought to term because it has value as a person is unjustifiable speculation.
Living things act to preserve themselves, and to the extent that they can think they develop an (implicit or explicit) sense of value of their own life. It is from this sense of value that (after many additional considerations) the idea of a right of a person to his own life is developed. A thing without even a trace of a mechanism for thinking cannot be considered to have rights. If a brainless thing without rights is considered a "person", what's the point of the concept "person"?
Personhood is not a binary condition. During the process of development from a single cell to an adult, the degree of personhood (full humanity) increases. If an individual gets a disease that eats away his brain until he loses all contact with the world, his personhood decreases.
The question is not "is this a person", but "in the full context of what this life is, what it can do and what is required to keep it alive and well, is it enough of a person to say it has a certain degree of rights, and how much effort is proper to support its life?"
It's more than just "when", if fact "when" is only coincidental. It's a question of multiple aspects of "what". First, healthy human embryos have the potential to become human beings. Human beings are more important than dogs (more important to human beings, that is). Second, at early stages, embryos have nowhere near the abilities of even newborn dogs, yet we're willing to kill the occasional dog in the interests of science (that is to say, in the interests of improving the life of humans.) At what stage of development is it proper to say "in view of what this embryo is and what its potential is, it is proper to consider it more highly than a dog"?
Also coming into play is the issue that artificial [external] insemination involves embryos already outside a body, and that it is necessary to take positive action (implantation in a human female) for that embryo to become a full-fledged human being. This requirement of positive action to continue development is (as a moral issue) much different from an embryo already in a woman, which requires no action to continue development and positive action to end development. Furthermore, those unused embryos won't last forever; if not implanted they'll either be destroyed or degrade into uselessness. So why not use them?
We don't think it's proper to kill 10-year olds because of what they are, functioning human beings. That decision is based on what they are, not based on what their potential was 10-1/2 years ago. So although it is proper to give some consideration to potential, the preponderance of concern should be to what is.
Actually, "floating point" is an example of a definition that has changed over the years. Originally, floating point was a form of binary-coded-decimal that in each nibble could hold 0-9, minus, or a decimal point. To represent varying degrees of small numbers, the decimal point showed up at different places in the representation, like 123.45 or 1.2345, thus it "floated". What we now call "floating point" is more properly referred to as "scientific notation".
science shows precisely when abortion is no longer ethical, and it is when the baby develops a substantial part of its central nervous system
"A substantial part" is not precise. And if that "substantial part" is equivalent to, for instance, a full-grown dog, do dogs then also gain human rights? Scientifically speaking, of course.
"Pro-life" is actually a poor choice if only their opponents would use it properly. Are they pro-life with respect to the organisms that cause the plague?
Does using a nuclear engine to power the vehicle through the atmosphere increase the risk of a nuclear spill, or will it inherently spew radioactive material into the air? If not, why not use a nuclear engine to get off the surface?
If Earth had any significant net charge you'd stick to it. Really hard. Much harder than gravity pulls you.
Actually, if the Earth had a significant net charge, everything in electrical contact with the Earth (like you and me) would have close to the same potential. The Earth would repel us, not attract us.
There's more, from "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary" (Barnes & Noble Books, 1996) In addition to its original and continuing senses of "merry, lively" and "bright or showy," GAY has has various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel. This sexual world included homosexuals too, and GAY as an adjective meaning "homosexual" goes back at least to the the early 1900's.
For what it's worth, "gay" meaning "homosexual" was so well established that its meaning was clear in the 1938 film "Bringing up Baby" (Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn).
From The Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955: Definition Number 2. Addicted to social pleasures and dissipations; often euphem. : Of immoral life 1637
Definition Number 3. Bight or lively-looking, esp. in color; brilliant, showy ME
2 is 374 years old; ME means Middle English and is even older. Another definition, now obsolete, is "Specious", dating from 1529.
Regardless of the Constitution, there are two reasons for the separation of church and state: religion corrupts government, and government corrupts religion. They make each other worse.
Power over innocent people is a bad thing. Since both government and religion are instruments of power over people, it is best if they contest against each other, limiting the abuses that each brings against people in general.
The same sorts of improvements that can be applied to DFT can be applied to DCT. The underlying concept is the same, and the methods for improvement follow therefrom.
Slashdot Mirror
When I looked into the subject about 40 years ago, the owner of the photographic film became owner of the images on the film.
If you're interested in another technology that blurs the boundary between art and photography, look into "bromoil".
Learning something in class, particularly things that have been known for decades or are explicitly public domain or are obviously not subject to legal restrictions, cannot reasonably be considered things you can't do in plying your trade. That's probably the main reason you took the class, to learn the techniques. The same applies more obviously to things you figure out on your own. However, a unique postprocessing technique, new, inventive, and sufficiently complex, producing a wholly unprecedented visual experience, should be able to claim some small protection for a short time. The photo in the article doesn't qualify.
If I were the first person in the world to build something with bricks, I would be eligible to get a patent on brick buildings.
I think the decision is bad. The images are substantially different, and there's nothing new about having a single colored object in a B&W photo. Making a quality image of this sort is quite easy. FWIW, I think the original is superior due to better composition.
Mozilla claims that poorly written addons are responsible for almost all of the memory leakage. I can get firefox to crash every couple of hours if I use the "vocabulary highlighter" extension, so it's easy for me to believe that leakage flaws are mostly not in mozilla's own code.
Small claims court is where the individual gains an advantage. Lawyers are to some degree forbidden and "loser pays legal fees" doesn't apply and couldn't be overwhelming if it did. A thousand people each suing in small claims court inflicts "death by 1000 cuts" on the violator. And if you can't drum up a flurry of people to sue the violator, then perhaps the seriousness of the problem exists only between your ears.
No, that's not the only way, it might even not be the best way. Another way is an angry mob lynching the offender and burning down his business. Another way is buying surrounding property and preventing access to the offending business. Another way is to buy out the offending business and run it properly. Another way is to identify everyone who works at the offending company, ostracize them and insult them at every opportunity, refuse to sell them food. Another way is to provide similar pressures to their customers or suppliers. Another way is to get the local power company to shut off power. Another way is to provide superior competition to the business, and run them into bankruptcy. Another way is to write them lot's of letters saying "Pollution is wasteful. Here's a better way to run your business." Another way is to get hired by the business and fix it from within.
See? Lot's of other ways.
Oceans are pretty big, and an ocean wouldn't be owned by a single entity, any more than a whole continent is (I'm not counting governments, I mean property owners). Furthermore, certain aspects of areas might be owned: shipping rights, fishing rights, mining rights. If an adjoiner's polluted water is killing fish in the area where I have fishing rights, I sue him.
Food is valuable, and fish is high quality food. The economic power of a large, well-organized fishing company should be enough to force a polluter to behave better.
I'd like to see the day when missing, extracted, or damaged teeth are routinely regrown instead of replaced with titanium and ceramic.
"Value" is not a concept that exists outside of a context. A value (I'm not considering the sense of value="what I want" here) is something that helps to achieve a goal or supports a person's well-being (which, although somewhat static, is also a goal). For example, a car is of value to getting to the hardware store, food is of value to my life. Walls are of value toward the goal of keeping roofs off the ground.
Life, in and of itself, is not a value, it is the context within which living things have values. Living things, particularly those that think and act, have the goals of preserving and improving their lives. Things which help me preserve and advance my life are valuable to me , they are not necessarily valuable to another person whose goal is his life, not mine. They are certainly not of value to the universe at large, because the concept of value has no meaning in the context of the whole universe.
Thus, your question
is a meaningless word salad. It can have no answer because it makes no sense. Of value to what or to whom? What the Dickens is it you are labeling with the word "Soul"?
If an embryo becomes a "person" at conception, then the concept of "person" is severely degraded. With regard to what it can do at conception, a person is then inferior to any animal that doesn't attack human beings and any plant that can be safely eaten or used as a building material. It is only potential that gives an embryo at conception even hypothetical value. If you consider that the embryo might develop into a mass-murderer or a Bernie Madoff, demanding that it be brought to term because it has value as a person is unjustifiable speculation.
Living things act to preserve themselves, and to the extent that they can think they develop an (implicit or explicit) sense of value of their own life. It is from this sense of value that (after many additional considerations) the idea of a right of a person to his own life is developed. A thing without even a trace of a mechanism for thinking cannot be considered to have rights. If a brainless thing without rights is considered a "person", what's the point of the concept "person"?
Personhood is not a binary condition. During the process of development from a single cell to an adult, the degree of personhood (full humanity) increases. If an individual gets a disease that eats away his brain until he loses all contact with the world, his personhood decreases.
The question is not "is this a person", but "in the full context of what this life is, what it can do and what is required to keep it alive and well, is it enough of a person to say it has a certain degree of rights, and how much effort is proper to support its life?"
It's more than just "when", if fact "when" is only coincidental. It's a question of multiple aspects of "what". First, healthy human embryos have the potential to become human beings. Human beings are more important than dogs (more important to human beings, that is). Second, at early stages, embryos have nowhere near the abilities of even newborn dogs, yet we're willing to kill the occasional dog in the interests of science (that is to say, in the interests of improving the life of humans.) At what stage of development is it proper to say "in view of what this embryo is and what its potential is, it is proper to consider it more highly than a dog"?
Also coming into play is the issue that artificial [external] insemination involves embryos already outside a body, and that it is necessary to take positive action (implantation in a human female) for that embryo to become a full-fledged human being. This requirement of positive action to continue development is (as a moral issue) much different from an embryo already in a woman, which requires no action to continue development and positive action to end development. Furthermore, those unused embryos won't last forever; if not implanted they'll either be destroyed or degrade into uselessness. So why not use them?
We don't think it's proper to kill 10-year olds because of what they are, functioning human beings. That decision is based on what they are, not based on what their potential was 10-1/2 years ago. So although it is proper to give some consideration to potential, the preponderance of concern should be to what is.
Actually, "floating point" is an example of a definition that has changed over the years. Originally, floating point was a form of binary-coded-decimal that in each nibble could hold 0-9, minus, or a decimal point. To represent varying degrees of small numbers, the decimal point showed up at different places in the representation, like 123.45 or 1.2345, thus it "floated". What we now call "floating point" is more properly referred to as "scientific notation".
"A substantial part" is not precise. And if that "substantial part" is equivalent to, for instance, a full-grown dog, do dogs then also gain human rights? Scientifically speaking, of course.
You contradict yourself.
Proper rules are closer to "rules we benefit from", they are chosen rationally. "Feel-good" rules are chosen emotionally are are likely to cause harm.
"Pro-life" is actually a poor choice if only their opponents would use it properly. Are they pro-life with respect to the organisms that cause the plague?
Does using a nuclear engine to power the vehicle through the atmosphere increase the risk of a nuclear spill, or will it inherently spew radioactive material into the air? If not, why not use a nuclear engine to get off the surface?
Actually, if the Earth had a significant net charge, everything in electrical contact with the Earth (like you and me) would have close to the same potential. The Earth would repel us, not attract us.
Holland.
Never heard of hydroponics, eh?
There's more, from "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary" (Barnes & Noble Books, 1996)
In addition to its original and continuing senses of "merry, lively" and "bright or showy," GAY has has various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel. This sexual world included homosexuals too, and GAY as an adjective meaning "homosexual" goes back at least to the the early 1900's.
For what it's worth, "gay" meaning "homosexual" was so well established that its meaning was clear in the 1938 film "Bringing up Baby" (Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn).
From The Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955:
Definition Number 2. Addicted to social pleasures and dissipations; often euphem. : Of immoral life 1637
Definition Number 3. Bight or lively-looking, esp. in color; brilliant, showy ME
2 is 374 years old; ME means Middle English and is even older. Another definition, now obsolete, is "Specious", dating from 1529.
The idea that without Alan Turing's existence the things he developed would never have happened is nothing short of absurd.
Regardless of the Constitution, there are two reasons for the separation of church and state: religion corrupts government, and government corrupts religion. They make each other worse.
Power over innocent people is a bad thing. Since both government and religion are instruments of power over people, it is best if they contest against each other, limiting the abuses that each brings against people in general.
The same sorts of improvements that can be applied to DFT can be applied to DCT. The underlying concept is the same, and the methods for improvement follow therefrom.