Have you seen a football/soccer match? Some games have no goals at all. Therefore they are not substantial. More importantly, it says substantial portion, not 'important portion'. Substantial almost always refers to TIME, not importance.
Fans (the only real market for rebroadcasting) do not care about random goals. If you don't advertise which game etc. it came from it will not in any way affect resale value. Even if you do advertise the specific game, one goal in and of itself will not affect the value. You would have to compile a video of all the goals in the game and advertise the clip based on the specific game, and expressly state it contained all the goals, before you seriously affected the value of rebroadcast.
You can't make a claim of affecting the resale value of something that does not exist yet, because by definition, that thing is not already copyrighted.
Even if it did, again, a fair use exception would still apply, as a clip of one goal does not affect the sale value of the entire piece.
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
"
The use described is non commercial, a video of unplanned events, a tiny and non-substantial portion of the whole, and will not in any way reduce the value of the copyrighted material.
In the US, they have no right to stop you from making a vine of it. But that may not apply to England.
In the US, you can post a short clip of a news broadcast, which happens to contain a short clip of the goal being scored, without any legal penalty. If it's short enough, the US government laws declares fair use.
So what may be illegal in England is not necessary illegal in the United States.
In the United States, you are definitely allowed to show a short clip of the the guy starting at the kick and ending at the goal.
Merely putting a comment under the video is unlikely to help your legal case in any country. But burning a voice over into the video would add 'original content' to it, and that might give you more rights.
I am not an idiot, everything you said I knew and still say you are wrong.
Ebola only spreads by body fluids. The fact that it is infectious for a mere 10 days - by fluids - does not make up for it's main weakness, being too deadly.
I repeat my main statement, that a fool ignored:
KILLING EVERYONE IS A BAD STRATEGY TO SPREAD DISEASE.
1) Restricted Air Space. "Too many morons" only applies in/near cities. So you fly in the open areas, drive in the cities. I could easily see people flying the huge distance from Dallas to Houston, but having to ground yourself within city limits.
2) Flying could (in some scenarios) cost too much fuel or not work if you load up the vehicle. So you fly out to the home electronics store, but have to drive home once you tie your your big screen TV the roof.
3) Flying conditions. Specifically, say your vehicle is not rated for night flying. So you fly during the day, drive at night. Or perhaps a little bit of rain could do the trick. This particular scenario works now for the powered parachute vehicles that frankly are almost a flying car (main problem with them is the low speed - 35 mph on the ground or the air). You can't fly that thing in bad weather, but you can drive it home (granted you will get wet.)
Unforgiving of mistakes should vanish in less than 10 years - autopilots keep getting better and they can already take off and land.
I always think the real problems is speed/range. To get any reasonable amount of power for either speed or range, it costs a lot of money AND you need to carry so much fuel that the aircraft starts looking more and more like a helicopter.
Helicopters are good, but I personally think that powered parachutes are a better fit for the concept of a flying car.
1) They are cheap - $5-10 thousand dollars.
2) They take a lot less training (Sport pilot license takes only about 12 hours, and you can have a passenger.), as opposed to 35+ hours.
Their main problem is there low speed, 35 mph on the ground or the air, and the fact that you really shouldn't drive or fly them at night (without a better license) and you can't fly them very high.
Also, they basically can carry two normal sized people (or one American sized person.)
My point is that the thing that made The Spanish Flu so dangerous was the LOW death rate, not the high death rate. The military could not quarantine fast enough because they had a World War on, not because of the disease. .
The effects of the Spanish Flue were no where near as bad as Ebola and in fact often do not kill. Ebola kills 90% of the time if treated with the same level of skill as found in 1918. The 7% death rate was for people receiving 1918 modern medical care and counted for all ages.. The Spanish Flu's death rates above 7% were generally caused either by idiots trying to use magic to cure people that had an infections disease, or worse in populations that were already vulnerable. (i.e. pregnant women).
My main point is if I wanted to kill the most amount of people, I would design a much lower death rate, to encourage spreading of the disease, than Ebola's high 90%.
Truly the ideal killing disease is one that has a long period of incubation during which it is infectious but has few if any symptoms. Say a month to kill you with nothing more than a cough till the last couple of days. Now THAT would be dangerous.
The quicker a disease kills you, the LESS dangerous it generally is.
Airborne means we quarantine the area and let people die. But the rest of the world lives on. Nasty, but not really dangerous. Isolation kills the disease.
People think that airborne means it wafts from pole to pole. No. Airborne means it travels short distances. Measles for example spreads by air - up to 2 hours. Generally in the same room.
The deadliest virus in the past 100 years was the 1918 Spanish Flu. 75 Million dead. Less than 7% that got sick died.
Source
Over 60% of the population got sick, and most that did die died from complications. Airborne is not super nasty. A toxicity of about 20% would in the US kill 20 Senators, almost 100 congressmen, and 2 Supreme Court Judges (possibly more, SCOTUS are old and fragile).
Twenty percent toxicity would destroy our civilization. The fears of airborne are true, but overblown,
You are confusing aspects of communism that work with aspects that don't, and not realizing the top down planning bit was stolen from capitalism.
Basically, Marx communist philosophy stated that a) the fewer people in charge, the worse things went, but that b) supposedly having no one in charge was better than having everyone in charge. Then Lenin, Stalin and Mao claimed that one person in charge, as a 'transition period' before removing all power, was a good idea.
The first part (Marx part a) was totally true - that the fewer people in charge, the worse things went. Marx's bad idea was part b - the stupid idea that no one in charge was better than having multiple people in charge, and the even worse idea (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) that it was OK to have 1 person charge as a transition period, despite the fact that Marx communism clearly stated 1 person in charge was the worst possible idea.
Marx communism never wanted top down planning. That was a consequence of Lenin/Stalin/Mao claim that 1 person in charge was better than multiple people - an idea Marx would have derided as stupid.
They came up with it by seeing how WELL top down planning worked in capitalism. Because top down planning does work and is an inherent part of capitalism.
The problems of communism have to do with limiting the number of people at the top, as opposed to capitalism with encouraged as many possible people at the top.
But top down planning was all from capitalism. It is the concept of a boss and it's inherent uniformity of employees.
Communism's problem was not the hierarchy. That worked (a lot better than the chaos you have with no one in power). It was the fact that their was only one guy at the top. Capitalism has any possible people at the top. That is the difference.
That is, the only real difference between Lenin/Stalin/Mao and Capitalism is that Lenin/Stalin/Mao put one guy/group controlling everything on top of the hierarchy that Capitalism built.
That is, if the US government were to take a controlling stake in all existing businesses, then that would be communism. Similarly, when communists sold off all their various industries, but basically kept everything the same, they became capitalists.
Most of the time, something that is deadly is by definition NOT dangerous.
Why? Because it kills before it spreads. That is why Ebola is not particularly scary.
The real 'dangerous' virus kill about 20% of the time, and in the rest of the population it just makes sick - so it can be passed along to other people.
Now, there are exceptions. Prime examples are diseases that spread by air and can also reproduce in non-humans. Another prime example is a disease with a long incubation and minimal symptoms until it kills. Aids is a good example of this. It suffers from the difficulty in transmission, but otherwise is dangerous.
But back to the original dangerous virus. Something that kills 20% of the time, but otherwise lives in you without killing you. This is really nasty. Think of one out of every five people you know being killed by something they caught from YOU.
They are too expensive for average people.
AND
They have severe limitations that make them not practical.
There are basically two versions I have seen: A) Vertical take off devices that are basically the equivalent of helicopters. In fact, you might consider a Helicopter to BE a flying car, if you are rich enough to own one. But there are smaller things that don't look like helicopters and can easily fit in a typical driveway. Their practical limitations are: 1) expense 2) limited range, 3) fuel is not gasoline, and 4) takes a lot of training to operate.
The second version I have seen is B) Cars with wheels that can deploy a wing, and with a run-way take off. Most of these are very expensive (one exception below), and take a lot of training to operate.
The single exception is the powered parachute wing vehicles. They are relatively cheap little frame cars with a big fan pushing them. Once they get up to speed, they release a parachute, which forms a wing, and effectively they become an ultra-light airplane. The problems with these devices are very slow speeds - they tend to max out at about 35 mph. You need special training, though not quite as much as a full airplane or helicopter device. They also do not fly very high, can't fly at night,
The good news:
1) Computers may solve the training problem. We make software that we can trust to take off and land, we might be able to get into these devices safely.
2) New modern materials may bring the price down.
3) If they become more popular, then the fuel problem will not matter, whatever we decide to use will become as easy to find as gasoline.
That said, range, and speed problems are not likely to be easily overcome. They need dramatically improved engines.
That's not what the article said. In fact it said the benefits of cooperating outweigh the benefits of thinking for yourselves. That is you personally are not smarter than everyone else, no matter what you think.
Basically, the words "egalitarian" and "totalitarian" were in-aprropriate for what they discovered.
A better way to say it was that "libertarianism" was beaten out by "Capitalism". In other words, with successful people directing resources, a hierarchical group can out produce what a bunch of loaners that barely co-operate with each other because each of them think they are the smartest one.
I believe that telegrams were originally set up with X number of letters free, but punctuation cost extra. So often it made more sense to use to use 5 letters to add " STOP", rather than "."
Unless the article was on a FOX news TV show.
Then it would show a (D) next to their name no matter what party they actually belonged to.
(Fox news routinely puts the letters (D) after Republican's names if they are in trouble, but strangely enough not if the Republicans are doing something good.)
All three are Republicans that claim to want "small government", yet they insist that private contractors abide by the same rules that government agencies do - even when the contractors are cheaper and safer than than the government agencies last attempt.
I call it the "Dr. House" excuse. Basically it goes "Look, who do you want treating you, the a$$hole who's brilliant, or the above average guy who's nice?"
And the honest truth is that 99% percent of the time, we want the above average guy who's nice.
Yes, if you have something incurable, (or something that no one else can figure out what it is in the case of the TV show's Dr. House), then you want the genius no matter how arrogant he is. But in every day issues, you want someone that is going to be nice and do a reasonably good job - not a genius that is going to cure your wart while calling you an idiot and revealing to your wife that you sleep around.
Genius is NOT an excuse to be arrogant. Especially as sometimes the guy you are insulting is actually smarter than you (i.e. look at at Edison and Tesla - 2nd brightest man of his time refused to pay the first brightest man what he was worth and screwed himself ).
Part of being smart is having social skills. Part of being in business is using those social skills. If you can't or won't gain them and use them,
Humans do this too.
It is called "superstition" (Hm, I walked under a ladder and X bad things happened. Just like yesterday. Walking under a ladder must be the cause.)
There is general pattern recognition (Hm, this artist it clearly talented, he has created something similar to, but not identical to Picasso's early work.) and specific pattern recognition (This is an example of the subspecies called a "Spotted Owl".) As such, anything that helps pattern recognition will help all intelligence. Things that help certain kinds of pattern recognition will only certain skills.
Specifically:
Singular neurons are simple things, their value and complexity grows only when you have many of them connected in a network.
Genes (and other things) that make neurons work faster and allow for more connections, make for 'general intelligence'.
Genes (and other things) that affect which specific complex network, will only help skills that use those specific networks of neurons.
From what I read, the Russians can definitely defeat the previous generation of stealth technology. This is in fact, nothing new, we have known about this issue for years.
Stealth is at heart one of most top secret technologies.
I guarantee you, that people have been trying to improve it since before the Russians realized they could do the combo long/short radar.
The real question is, will the next generation stealth technology be defeated by this method, rather than the current generation.
That, is something we do not know and can not guess about.
Slashdot Mirror
Fans (the only real market for rebroadcasting) do not care about random goals. If you don't advertise which game etc. it came from it will not in any way affect resale value. Even if you do advertise the specific game, one goal in and of itself will not affect the value. You would have to compile a video of all the goals in the game and advertise the clip based on the specific game, and expressly state it contained all the goals, before you seriously affected the value of rebroadcast.
Even if it did, again, a fair use exception would still apply, as a clip of one goal does not affect the sale value of the entire piece.
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "
The use described is non commercial, a video of unplanned events, a tiny and non-substantial portion of the whole, and will not in any way reduce the value of the copyrighted material.
In the US, they have no right to stop you from making a vine of it. But that may not apply to England.
In the US, you can post a short clip of a news broadcast, which happens to contain a short clip of the goal being scored, without any legal penalty. If it's short enough, the US government laws declares fair use.
In the United States, you are definitely allowed to show a short clip of the the guy starting at the kick and ending at the goal.
Merely putting a comment under the video is unlikely to help your legal case in any country. But burning a voice over into the video would add 'original content' to it, and that might give you more rights.
Ebola only spreads by body fluids. The fact that it is infectious for a mere 10 days - by fluids - does not make up for it's main weakness, being too deadly.
I repeat my main statement, that a fool ignored:
KILLING EVERYONE IS A BAD STRATEGY TO SPREAD DISEASE.
1) Restricted Air Space. "Too many morons" only applies in/near cities. So you fly in the open areas, drive in the cities. I could easily see people flying the huge distance from Dallas to Houston, but having to ground yourself within city limits.
2) Flying could (in some scenarios) cost too much fuel or not work if you load up the vehicle. So you fly out to the home electronics store, but have to drive home once you tie your your big screen TV the roof.
3) Flying conditions. Specifically, say your vehicle is not rated for night flying. So you fly during the day, drive at night. Or perhaps a little bit of rain could do the trick. This particular scenario works now for the powered parachute vehicles that frankly are almost a flying car (main problem with them is the low speed - 35 mph on the ground or the air). You can't fly that thing in bad weather, but you can drive it home (granted you will get wet.)
I always think the real problems is speed/range. To get any reasonable amount of power for either speed or range, it costs a lot of money AND you need to carry so much fuel that the aircraft starts looking more and more like a helicopter.
1) They are cheap - $5-10 thousand dollars. 2) They take a lot less training (Sport pilot license takes only about 12 hours, and you can have a passenger.), as opposed to 35+ hours.
Their main problem is there low speed, 35 mph on the ground or the air, and the fact that you really shouldn't drive or fly them at night (without a better license) and you can't fly them very high.
Also, they basically can carry two normal sized people (or one American sized person.)
The effects of the Spanish Flue were no where near as bad as Ebola and in fact often do not kill. Ebola kills 90% of the time if treated with the same level of skill as found in 1918. The 7% death rate was for people receiving 1918 modern medical care and counted for all ages.. The Spanish Flu's death rates above 7% were generally caused either by idiots trying to use magic to cure people that had an infections disease, or worse in populations that were already vulnerable. (i.e. pregnant women).
My main point is if I wanted to kill the most amount of people, I would design a much lower death rate, to encourage spreading of the disease, than Ebola's high 90%.
Truly the ideal killing disease is one that has a long period of incubation during which it is infectious but has few if any symptoms. Say a month to kill you with nothing more than a cough till the last couple of days. Now THAT would be dangerous.
The quicker a disease kills you, the LESS dangerous it generally is.
Not that hard to maintain a database of crapware and require people to double check before they activate it?
If your target market is not computer literate, than you either need to offer classes in how to use it, or a good manual.
People think that airborne means it wafts from pole to pole. No. Airborne means it travels short distances. Measles for example spreads by air - up to 2 hours. Generally in the same room.
The deadliest virus in the past 100 years was the 1918 Spanish Flu. 75 Million dead. Less than 7% that got sick died. Source Over 60% of the population got sick, and most that did die died from complications. Airborne is not super nasty. A toxicity of about 20% would in the US kill 20 Senators, almost 100 congressmen, and 2 Supreme Court Judges (possibly more, SCOTUS are old and fragile).
Twenty percent toxicity would destroy our civilization. The fears of airborne are true, but overblown,
Basically, Marx communist philosophy stated that a) the fewer people in charge, the worse things went, but that b) supposedly having no one in charge was better than having everyone in charge. Then Lenin, Stalin and Mao claimed that one person in charge, as a 'transition period' before removing all power, was a good idea.
The first part (Marx part a) was totally true - that the fewer people in charge, the worse things went. Marx's bad idea was part b - the stupid idea that no one in charge was better than having multiple people in charge, and the even worse idea (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) that it was OK to have 1 person charge as a transition period, despite the fact that Marx communism clearly stated 1 person in charge was the worst possible idea.
Marx communism never wanted top down planning. That was a consequence of Lenin/Stalin/Mao claim that 1 person in charge was better than multiple people - an idea Marx would have derided as stupid.
They came up with it by seeing how WELL top down planning worked in capitalism. Because top down planning does work and is an inherent part of capitalism.
The problems of communism have to do with limiting the number of people at the top, as opposed to capitalism with encouraged as many possible people at the top.
But top down planning was all from capitalism. It is the concept of a boss and it's inherent uniformity of employees.
Communism's problem was not the hierarchy. That worked (a lot better than the chaos you have with no one in power). It was the fact that their was only one guy at the top. Capitalism has any possible people at the top. That is the difference.
That is, the only real difference between Lenin/Stalin/Mao and Capitalism is that Lenin/Stalin/Mao put one guy/group controlling everything on top of the hierarchy that Capitalism built.
That is, if the US government were to take a controlling stake in all existing businesses, then that would be communism. Similarly, when communists sold off all their various industries, but basically kept everything the same, they became capitalists.
Why? Because it kills before it spreads. That is why Ebola is not particularly scary.
The real 'dangerous' virus kill about 20% of the time, and in the rest of the population it just makes sick - so it can be passed along to other people.
Now, there are exceptions. Prime examples are diseases that spread by air and can also reproduce in non-humans. Another prime example is a disease with a long incubation and minimal symptoms until it kills. Aids is a good example of this. It suffers from the difficulty in transmission, but otherwise is dangerous.
But back to the original dangerous virus. Something that kills 20% of the time, but otherwise lives in you without killing you. This is really nasty. Think of one out of every five people you know being killed by something they caught from YOU.
There are basically two versions I have seen: A) Vertical take off devices that are basically the equivalent of helicopters. In fact, you might consider a Helicopter to BE a flying car, if you are rich enough to own one. But there are smaller things that don't look like helicopters and can easily fit in a typical driveway. Their practical limitations are: 1) expense 2) limited range, 3) fuel is not gasoline, and 4) takes a lot of training to operate.
The second version I have seen is B) Cars with wheels that can deploy a wing, and with a run-way take off. Most of these are very expensive (one exception below), and take a lot of training to operate. The single exception is the powered parachute wing vehicles. They are relatively cheap little frame cars with a big fan pushing them. Once they get up to speed, they release a parachute, which forms a wing, and effectively they become an ultra-light airplane. The problems with these devices are very slow speeds - they tend to max out at about 35 mph. You need special training, though not quite as much as a full airplane or helicopter device. They also do not fly very high, can't fly at night,
The good news: 1) Computers may solve the training problem. We make software that we can trust to take off and land, we might be able to get into these devices safely.
2) New modern materials may bring the price down.
3) If they become more popular, then the fuel problem will not matter, whatever we decide to use will become as easy to find as gasoline.
That said, range, and speed problems are not likely to be easily overcome. They need dramatically improved engines.
Basically, the words "egalitarian" and "totalitarian" were in-aprropriate for what they discovered.
A better way to say it was that "libertarianism" was beaten out by "Capitalism". In other words, with successful people directing resources, a hierarchical group can out produce what a bunch of loaners that barely co-operate with each other because each of them think they are the smartest one.
I believe that telegrams were originally set up with X number of letters free, but punctuation cost extra. So often it made more sense to use to use 5 letters to add " STOP", rather than "."
Unless the article was on a FOX news TV show. Then it would show a (D) next to their name no matter what party they actually belonged to. (Fox news routinely puts the letters (D) after Republican's names if they are in trouble, but strangely enough not if the Republicans are doing something good.)
Does the (R) after name stand for "Reprobate"?
Real jobs don't come from HR. They come from business contacts.
I call it the "Dr. House" excuse. Basically it goes "Look, who do you want treating you, the a$$hole who's brilliant, or the above average guy who's nice?"
And the honest truth is that 99% percent of the time, we want the above average guy who's nice.
Yes, if you have something incurable, (or something that no one else can figure out what it is in the case of the TV show's Dr. House), then you want the genius no matter how arrogant he is. But in every day issues, you want someone that is going to be nice and do a reasonably good job - not a genius that is going to cure your wart while calling you an idiot and revealing to your wife that you sleep around.
Genius is NOT an excuse to be arrogant. Especially as sometimes the guy you are insulting is actually smarter than you (i.e. look at at Edison and Tesla - 2nd brightest man of his time refused to pay the first brightest man what he was worth and screwed himself ).
Part of being smart is having social skills. Part of being in business is using those social skills. If you can't or won't gain them and use them,
Humans do this too. It is called "superstition" (Hm, I walked under a ladder and X bad things happened. Just like yesterday. Walking under a ladder must be the cause.)
Specifically:
Singular neurons are simple things, their value and complexity grows only when you have many of them connected in a network.
Genes (and other things) that make neurons work faster and allow for more connections, make for 'general intelligence'.
Genes (and other things) that affect which specific complex network, will only help skills that use those specific networks of neurons.
Stealth is at heart one of most top secret technologies.
I guarantee you, that people have been trying to improve it since before the Russians realized they could do the combo long/short radar.
The real question is, will the next generation stealth technology be defeated by this method, rather than the current generation.
That, is something we do not know and can not guess about.