The average American poster thinks of their "Free Speech" (other examples that follow the same pattern could be found too) right as a Holy Cow that is invincible, because it is protected by the constitution.
I had some posters here looking down on, say, Germany as an "undemocratic" country, because there are laws in place that actually limit free speech. (Which is protected by the constitution there, too)
But, at the bottom line, free speech in the US is even more limited, be it FCC rules, sue-trigger-happy lawyers, facebook EULAs, general politeness - anything down to school district regulations.
How exactly are you supposed to stick this thing in someone's non-alcoholic drink and them not notice the taste?
Isn't it part of the "powdered aclohol" thing that there isn't any flavour included? And hiding the taste of alcohol itself is easy: sugar. (That's why it's so easy to start your drinking career with Alcopops or Apfelkorn) Try for yourself: Mix Vodka (or Korn) and sugared Ice Tea. Even at 1:1 ratio you won't be able to taste any alcohol. Despite jugging down something with 25% pure alcohol content.
Someone once hammered really bad with that drink. I knew what I was drinking, but had no idea of how much alcohol I've been drinking in a really short time.
Or are they talking about adding more alcohol to my martini - in which case, yes please.
If you want something stronger than martini, then why just don't order something stronger?
All the stuff I read here (and in some other places) from snorting or eating the powdered version right down to the vodka tampax is just disgusting. If you don't want to drink, simply don't drink. It's not about getting plastered as fast as possible. It's about enjoying a good wine, beer or whisky, too.
I'm sorry, but I still don't fully understand this answer. Where should someone find such "fellow musicians"? How should one determine whether the quantity and quality of opinions of "fellow musicians" is likely to "minimize the risk [...] to a level where it is acceptable"?
Internet? facebook? come on, it has never been easier to find people sharing the same hobby!
Those people just shouldn't be deaf. Document that you acted responsible and were not plagiarizing on purpose.
How much money should one put aside for a settlement before beginning to compose music, just in case accidental plagiarism happens?
How much money do you set aside for speeding tickets before you're driving to work? Just in case that actual speeding happens? Would a judge believe you that it was "accidental" if he finds out that you were actually saving money so you can speed?
So what steps should a composer for a free project take in order not to damage something in the first place?
Be honest to himself. Does his music sound exactly like some other song? Ask fellow musicians for their opinion. And for heavens sake NOT copy some other songs and hope that no one will notice. Or licence the use of the song. (Or don't use it if it's not in budget)
Works as long as the right holder is not trying to sue him into bankrupcy with made up numbers "to set an example".
Sony v. Tenenbaum and Capitol v. Thomas show that incumbents in the music industry are not afraid "to set an example" in this manner.
So that's the real problem then. When a party is caught overestimating the damage it's THEM that should be fined. Avoiding damage (or at least curbing it) in the first place is due diligence for both sides.
Following the above steps should be enough to minimize the risk of accidental plagiarism to a level where it is acceptable. as long as we are talking about amounts that won't drive peopel into banckrupcy.
But if you allow unrealistic damages as in this case, THAT's what will kill music composing. Or do you think that recording an even verbatim cover of a 70s song without any original parts would call up licence fees in the 7.5 Million range?
While it would be nice to see "pro bono" work protected from such liability, my suggestion wouldn't change a thing to the current status:
Say, someone makes a non-profit website, uses an image he received under the impression of being CC licensed, and a few months after it goes life, he receives a pretty nice bill from an image agency. There is nowhere the money for that is comming from, but that won't void that bill.
If I do something that costs something (or damages something), I have to pay for that. No matter if I that action will bring me in additional money. I don't see any problem with this as long as BOTH PARTIES comply with their duty of damage minimization. (Don't know if that's in the US civil code. Here it is)
Like, in your example, the developer should be allowed to remove the music if it is found to be not under some matching free licence. (Due to error or inspiration) Works as long as the right holder is not trying to sue him into bankrupcy with made up numbers "to set an example". (that's the idea behind punitive damage, not wrong but of no use when we're talking about accidental damage)
I'm afraid the difference between "inspired", "derived" and "copa&paste" will have to be decided on a per case base.
The logic behind this verdict (expert says too similar to be original work) is basically ok, too. It becomes a problem when the US punitive damage comes into the mix. As mentioned in the summary "subconscious plagiarism" may sound strange, but that's how creative minds work. Artists always worked with inspirations and derivations. Sometimes subconscious, sometimes on purpose. (Like when Dürer drew his self portrait in the style until then reserved for religious icons)
But it shouldn't be considered as a crime with huge fines. It's daily business. So take the usual cut or fee it costs to cover an existing song, double it for the additional work due to "forgetting" or "not realizing", and that's it.
Any machinery only works to a certain precision. The bigger the load (size or whatever) is, the lower is usually the precision. We can shoot electron beams at single atoms and build cranes that lift trucks, but those will never be able to drop those trucks within âengstroms to a target. So not-exactness may be an additional hint for artificial origin.
Or it may be some more random noise with veeery low frequency.
Agree on that. I read another article about that issue today, and that guy indeed had a point. (if you can ignore that facebook and google have been included for attention whoring)
The problem he mentioned was that actual phone operators are for example required to build all kind of gouvernment required bells and whistles into their network (emergency calls, independant power supply, wiretapping access...) while Skype et.al. don't have to spend that money and therefore can undercut them.
That point of view is still up to discussion, but at least not plain wrong as "Deutsche Telekom wants Google to be regulated"
In any case, if something breaks in normal use, email IKEA. They have a customer service that works. At the very least they can mail you broken parts.
And spare parts are available even years after you bought the cabinet. That's what I like about IKEA. Their stuff is custumizable and even after years I can get teh stuff that I need to extend or reconfigure my wardrobe. And about durability.... check the uproar that their announced change in Expedit caused. That thing seems to be the only shelv that could be loaded fully with records (or a fish tank) without bending. (Compared to more expensive and more sturdy looking stuff)
On the other hand, I have to agree with the couches. Great idea again to have a few basic constructions and lots of different covers that can be washed or replaced easily. But I can't remember sitting on anything as uncomfortable as an ikea couch.
And with their habot over the last years of retiring products and moving to shorter lived series, they're giving up that special IKEA-ness that made them popular with geekd. (ikeahacks.com)
Of course. debt in percent of GDP is probably a better indicator. But whatever indicator you use, you can't ignore debts. And if you can afford to LOAN more money that you have to borrow yourself (negative debt) that's definitly a sign of being "rich".
In the end, its gone anyway. that's just the future and you can't fight it. But pissing off people that can make it happen faster is what a complete fool does. [...] slapping people around that are building the machines that will replace them... is moronic. And that is apparently their little brainchild.
Is it really moronic? If the end of your business line is forseeable within the next few years, it might be the better idea to go all in and grab as much as you can, as long as the "machine that will replace you" has NOT been constructed yet.
Yes, It may speed up the end a year or two, but is that really such a big difference? Grab what you can get as long as you still have the chance.
As the article points out, this is not a big cost for the companies involved. Unionisation of the buses is not going to make the slightest bit of difference whatsoever to Google's desire to generate a self-driving vehicle.
Please note that Google is not listed among those 5 companies that contracted their busses out to that other company. I don't know about their transportation, but espescially Google has a lot of their service done by their own staff instead of outsourcing to the cheapest bidder:
You have a key that is far larger than the data you are encrypting, you never reuse parts of the key. The key is random garbage not generated by the computer, but sampled, e.g. random video mashes together or random noise audio mashed together. You transfer the private key by trusted method,
If you have a trusted communication method you could use the same method to send the actual message. (Exception being when you have a trusted channel once in a while)
Next is that video and audio are far too regular to count as reliable source of randomness. Have a look what work went into defining the entropy sources for the Linux pseudo random number generator. Things you thought should be more than random over a large stretch of time showed to be surprisingly predictable.
Take 5min to read this short essay by Asimov, you won't be dissapointed. Asimov was more than just the guy who wrote about fictional robot laws, for example, he was also well known skeptic. Not the modern anti-science kind, a real skeptic, spelt the old fashioned way!
None of it is about robot ethics, it's a metaphor about the folly of thinking that a list of rules, such as the ten commandments, could ever encapsulate all the vagaries of human morality.
Well, Kant with his categoric imperative managed that with even a single rule. (But kind of cheated as it was kind of recursive)
Besides, thanks for the hint. I know I should have read more Asimov (as I always liked what I read) but somehoe never could quite adjust to the style somehow.
Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.
But the importantthing is to keep the basic humility and remember that no matter if your current knowledge is incomplete or plain wrong, one day it will be amended or rectified. And by his own logic, the diffrence between remembering that and assuming your current theory is "right" in the simplistic way, is much much larger than between "wrong" or "incomplete"
c.f. Isaac Asimov and his laws of robotics, for example "I, Robot" (not the unrelated movie of the same title) Whatever I read so far by Asimov (not THAT much I admit) centered around such robo-ethical questions and how to circumvent them
So, according to the robot laws:
No, it SHOULD not as it would endanger a human. Thinking this through to the end would mean that a robot should never serve any drug (down to coffee) to a human. But yes, it would serve alcohol to an alcoholic as he would be kept from checking the contents of the brown bad it serves to the human and that has been packed by ANOTHER robot. Neither wrapping a beer bottle in a brown bag, nor fetching a brown paper bag is dangerous.
The realistic solution would be (as circumvention is that easy) to serve that drink but log it.
I don't mean that it should be like that, but it would be an alternative to those multi-million development companies that are currently for big construction projects. Rental houses create a constant stream of revenue and a share of that probably would make much a bigger difference for a construction worker who build the house than dumping it on top of the pile of a nameless hedgefund.
Already posted, so please accept this +1 insightfull.
But there is one flaw: How would you measure if we have "enough" people in music creation? Do numbers count at all? What about quality? How many pop idols would be needed to outweigh a Leonard Bernstein? How many for an Elvis Presley?
Slashdot Mirror
That's the almost funny thing here.
The average American poster thinks of their "Free Speech" (other examples that follow the same pattern could be found too) right as a Holy Cow that is invincible, because it is protected by the constitution.
I had some posters here looking down on, say, Germany as an "undemocratic" country, because there are laws in place that actually limit free speech. (Which is protected by the constitution there, too)
But, at the bottom line, free speech in the US is even more limited, be it FCC rules, sue-trigger-happy lawyers, facebook EULAs, general politeness - anything down to school district regulations.
How exactly are you supposed to stick this thing in someone's non-alcoholic drink and them not notice the taste?
Isn't it part of the "powdered aclohol" thing that there isn't any flavour included? And hiding the taste of alcohol itself is easy: sugar. (That's why it's so easy to start your drinking career with Alcopops or Apfelkorn) Try for yourself: Mix Vodka (or Korn) and sugared Ice Tea. Even at 1:1 ratio you won't be able to taste any alcohol. Despite jugging down something with 25% pure alcohol content.
Someone once hammered really bad with that drink. I knew what I was drinking, but had no idea of how much alcohol I've been drinking in a really short time.
Or are they talking about adding more alcohol to my martini - in which case, yes please.
If you want something stronger than martini, then why just don't order something stronger?
All the stuff I read here (and in some other places) from snorting or eating the powdered version right down to the vodka tampax is just disgusting. If you don't want to drink, simply don't drink. It's not about getting plastered as fast as possible. It's about enjoying a good wine, beer or whisky, too.
But you won't need even water if you carry the alcohol in liquid form. That's even lighter as you don't need a filler!
I'm sorry, but I still don't fully understand this answer. Where should someone find such "fellow musicians"? How should one determine whether the quantity and quality of opinions of "fellow musicians" is likely to "minimize the risk [...] to a level where it is acceptable"?
Internet? facebook? come on, it has never been easier to find people sharing the same hobby!
Those people just shouldn't be deaf. Document that you acted responsible and were not plagiarizing on purpose.
How much money should one put aside for a settlement before beginning to compose music, just in case accidental plagiarism happens?
How much money do you set aside for speeding tickets before you're driving to work? Just in case that actual speeding happens? Would a judge believe you that it was "accidental" if he finds out that you were actually saving money so you can speed?
So what steps should a composer for a free project take in order not to damage something in the first place?
Be honest to himself. Does his music sound exactly like some other song? Ask fellow musicians for their opinion. And for heavens sake NOT copy some other songs and hope that no one will notice. Or licence the use of the song. (Or don't use it if it's not in budget)
Works as long as the right holder is not trying to sue him into bankrupcy with made up numbers "to set an example".
Sony v. Tenenbaum and Capitol v. Thomas show that incumbents in the music industry are not afraid "to set an example" in this manner.
So that's the real problem then. When a party is caught overestimating the damage it's THEM that should be fined. Avoiding damage (or at least curbing it) in the first place is due diligence for both sides.
Following the above steps should be enough to minimize the risk of accidental plagiarism to a level where it is acceptable. as long as we are talking about amounts that won't drive peopel into banckrupcy.
But if you allow unrealistic damages as in this case, THAT's what will kill music composing. Or do you think that recording an even verbatim cover of a 70s song without any original parts would call up licence fees in the 7.5 Million range?
While it would be nice to see "pro bono" work protected from such liability, my suggestion wouldn't change a thing to the current status:
Say, someone makes a non-profit website, uses an image he received under the impression of being CC licensed, and a few months after it goes life, he receives a pretty nice bill from an image agency. There is nowhere the money for that is comming from, but that won't void that bill.
If I do something that costs something (or damages something), I have to pay for that. No matter if I that action will bring me in additional money. I don't see any problem with this as long as BOTH PARTIES comply with their duty of damage minimization. (Don't know if that's in the US civil code. Here it is)
Like, in your example, the developer should be allowed to remove the music if it is found to be not under some matching free licence. (Due to error or inspiration) Works as long as the right holder is not trying to sue him into bankrupcy with made up numbers "to set an example". (that's the idea behind punitive damage, not wrong but of no use when we're talking about accidental damage)
I'm afraid the difference between "inspired", "derived" and "copa&paste" will have to be decided on a per case base.
The logic behind this verdict (expert says too similar to be original work) is basically ok, too. It becomes a problem when the US punitive damage comes into the mix. As mentioned in the summary "subconscious plagiarism" may sound strange, but that's how creative minds work. Artists always worked with inspirations and derivations. Sometimes subconscious, sometimes on purpose. (Like when Dürer drew his self portrait in the style until then reserved for religious icons)
But it shouldn't be considered as a crime with huge fines. It's daily business. So take the usual cut or fee it costs to cover an existing song, double it for the additional work due to "forgetting" or "not realizing", and that's it.
Any machinery only works to a certain precision. The bigger the load (size or whatever) is, the lower is usually the precision. We can shoot electron beams at single atoms and build cranes that lift trucks, but those will never be able to drop those trucks within âengstroms to a target. So not-exactness may be an additional hint for artificial origin.
Or it may be some more random noise with veeery low frequency.
Did that order at least contain instructions on what words to use instead? Or are they supposed to make up their own replacement-words?
Yeah... give the old euphemism-spiral a new spin....
According to TFS, Chrome will use OpenGL (ES). Which is quite a long way to pixel-handle the framebuffer.
Does the daily treadmill at the office also count?
Agree on that. I read another article about that issue today, and that guy indeed had a point. (if you can ignore that facebook and google have been included for attention whoring)
The problem he mentioned was that actual phone operators are for example required to build all kind of gouvernment required bells and whistles into their network (emergency calls, independant power supply, wiretapping access...) while Skype et.al. don't have to spend that money and therefore can undercut them.
That point of view is still up to discussion, but at least not plain wrong as "Deutsche Telekom wants Google to be regulated"
"A spokesman for Clinton defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the "letter and spirit of the rules.""
That alone made me blow my coffee across my desk.
When there are regulations about email retention in place, using your personal email is NEITHER to the letter NOR to the spirit of the rules.
Even more absurd than to "smoke, but not inhale".
RTFA.
That's why they're starting including those charging devices into lamps.
In any case, if something breaks in normal use, email IKEA. They have a customer service that works. At the very least they can mail you broken parts.
And spare parts are available even years after you bought the cabinet. That's what I like about IKEA. Their stuff is custumizable and even after years I can get teh stuff that I need to extend or reconfigure my wardrobe. And about durability.... check the uproar that their announced change in Expedit caused. That thing seems to be the only shelv that could be loaded fully with records (or a fish tank) without bending. (Compared to more expensive and more sturdy looking stuff)
On the other hand, I have to agree with the couches. Great idea again to have a few basic constructions and lots of different covers that can be washed or replaced easily. But I can't remember sitting on anything as uncomfortable as an ikea couch.
And with their habot over the last years of retiring products and moving to shorter lived series, they're giving up that special IKEA-ness that made them popular with geekd. (ikeahacks.com)
Others are just plain unoriginal observations. The one you linked to is a good example of this.
That's why you can quote them on so many occasions.
Of course. debt in percent of GDP is probably a better indicator. But whatever indicator you use, you can't ignore debts. And if you can afford to LOAN more money that you have to borrow yourself (negative debt) that's definitly a sign of being "rich".
>
In the end, its gone anyway. that's just the future and you can't fight it. But pissing off people that can make it happen faster is what a complete fool does. [...] slapping people around that are building the machines that will replace them... is moronic. And that is apparently their little brainchild.
Is it really moronic? If the end of your business line is forseeable within the next few years, it might be the better idea to go all in and grab as much as you can, as long as the "machine that will replace you" has NOT been constructed yet.
Yes, It may speed up the end a year or two, but is that really such a big difference? Grab what you can get as long as you still have the chance.
I think that's called "exit strategy".
As the article points out, this is not a big cost for the companies involved. Unionisation of the buses is not going to make the slightest bit of difference whatsoever to Google's desire to generate a self-driving vehicle.
Please note that Google is not listed among those 5 companies that contracted their busses out to that other company. I don't know about their transportation, but espescially Google has a lot of their service done by their own staff instead of outsourcing to the cheapest bidder:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2014/10/06/google-brings-security-staff-in-house-a-new-trend/
Oh, so you're from Norway?
You have a key that is far larger than the data you are encrypting, you never reuse parts of the key. The key is random garbage not generated by the computer, but sampled, e.g. random video mashes together or random noise audio mashed together. You transfer the private key by trusted method,
If you have a trusted communication method you could use the same method to send the actual message. (Exception being when you have a trusted channel once in a while)
Next is that video and audio are far too regular to count as reliable source of randomness. Have a look what work went into defining the entropy sources for the Linux pseudo random number generator. Things you thought should be more than random over a large stretch of time showed to be surprisingly predictable.
Take 5min to read this short essay by Asimov, you won't be dissapointed. Asimov was more than just the guy who wrote about fictional robot laws, for example, he was also well known skeptic. Not the modern anti-science kind, a real skeptic, spelt the old fashioned way!
None of it is about robot ethics, it's a metaphor about the folly of thinking that a list of rules, such as the ten commandments, could ever encapsulate all the vagaries of human morality.
Well, Kant with his categoric imperative managed that with even a single rule. (But kind of cheated as it was kind of recursive)
Besides, thanks for the hint. I know I should have read more Asimov (as I always liked what I read) but somehoe never could quite adjust to the style somehow.
Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.
But the importantthing is to keep the basic humility and remember that no matter if your current knowledge is incomplete or plain wrong, one day it will be amended or rectified. And by his own logic, the diffrence between remembering that and assuming your current theory is "right" in the simplistic way, is much much larger than between "wrong" or "incomplete"
c.f. Isaac Asimov and his laws of robotics, for example "I, Robot" (not the unrelated movie of the same title) Whatever I read so far by Asimov (not THAT much I admit) centered around such robo-ethical questions and how to circumvent them
So, according to the robot laws:
No, it SHOULD not as it would endanger a human.
Thinking this through to the end would mean that a robot should never serve any drug (down to coffee) to a human.
But yes, it would serve alcohol to an alcoholic as he would be kept from checking the contents of the brown bad it serves to the human and that has been packed by ANOTHER robot. Neither wrapping a beer bottle in a brown bag, nor fetching a brown paper bag is dangerous.
The realistic solution would be (as circumvention is that easy) to serve that drink but log it.
I don't mean that it should be like that, but it would be an alternative to those multi-million development companies that are currently for big construction projects. Rental houses create a constant stream of revenue and a share of that probably would make much a bigger difference for a construction worker who build the house than dumping it on top of the pile of a nameless hedgefund.
Already posted, so please accept this +1 insightfull.
But there is one flaw: How would you measure if we have "enough" people in music creation? Do numbers count at all? What about quality? How many pop idols would be needed to outweigh a Leonard Bernstein? How many for an Elvis Presley?