Watching the video, this seems pretty impressive. It's also neat to see them use the same technology to remove items (people in this case) from an image with only about 10 seconds of work. The real-time removal by manual resizing is only after a long image analysis phase beforehand to find the paths of least energy and index them. Once those numbers are crunched, it becomes a very simple operation to remove/insert along the paths of pixels.
But ranting about hypothetical situations that are completely nonsensical in their origin is not going to help the cause.
Also, your thought that its amazing that copiers don't require a thumbprint or some such shit is ridiculous. So my example extrapolation to the ridiculous didn't strike you as humorous in any way? Maybe I should have tagged it HHOS: it was not to be taken too lightly or too seriously.
I'm not anti-copyright. I just think it needs to be more flexible, more reasonable, and more in tune to the will of living people than the it is with the dead and their immortal corporations.
As for resetting them in the Gutenburg press, illegal. So they gave a little in allowing the fair-use backup copy be made by a photocopier. (How about a mimeograph machine?)
It's amazing that photocopiers today aren't mandated to be connected to the Internet and pop up a legal challenge whenever more than one copy is attempted for any original, requiring an assertion that you have the right to make multiple copies, signed with a thumbprint, and sending a copy of whatever it is and the print to the home office to be checked by an automaton for possible prosecution afterwards. Maybe even an authenticated seal to be placed on the glass with the copy tracking the number of authenticated copies, with an embedded LCD with the remaining copy count displayed. Every page with an RFID tag tracking the provenance of the information on each generation of copy.
The advertiser's actual return on investment has never been the content provider's concern.
Of course it has. If, as an advertiser, I get better ROI from one publication than another, guess where my dollars are going?
But ROI has always been unmeasurable and unreliable. Whatever hard numbers you get from people actively informing you of where they heard of your product still leaves as a guess how many aren't reporting, or how many are lying. ("This guy says he first read about our product on the inside of his ex-girlfriend's chest cavity." (*)) Everyone in the advertising business has a vested interest in not knowing exactly how ineffective their ads are. Well, everyone except the company paying the advertising executive to construct an effective ad.
If I were a content provider with advertisers, I'd be wary of those who use codes to track ROI. Such advertisers are too flighty. And as a consumer, I don't like them either. Reminds me too much of spam with unique strings of garbage attached to the URLs (especially on embedded img tags) to verify your e-mail address as valid.
Meanwhile I doubt they care very much let alone record when I visit Best Buy and tell an employee, "By the way, I really appreciated your company's sponsorship of last night's episode of Doctor Who on The Sci-Fi Channel."
(*) Is that any more bizarre than seeing ads for the same model of Sawzall sponsoring CSI: Miami that the husband used to dismember his wife's corpse in the episode's story?
Uh, one question, how many employees can actually use one physical copy of a newspaper a day? You mean use any section for any part of the day, such as the comics?
Depends how long it takes to get to the person who tears out what he/she wants.
Anyway, these days it isn't about how many actually use a work, it's about how many could potentially use a work, and what compensation is due. The papers aren't selling articles; they sell access to articles on temporary, disposable media (paper). If you want back issues available on another media (microfiche), pay up.
See Bruce Springsteen pays 56 times too much for his cable to watch one channel withing nothing on on his TV. Or see the RIAA charging people for "making available" music without proving actual sharing (and seeking to codify "making available" as a crime under new law).
And what if these packets were distributed electronically by an e-mail that embedded the web-sourced stories inside framesets or iframes? And what if the employees read them behind a proxy server that cached the remote articles?
Would it have been legal if they bought enough physical newspapers with the stories in them and clipped them for each packet? What if they clipped them, made a single copy of each for better presentation in the packet, and retained the original clipping as a backup, having one secured original for every copy (i.e. fair-use copying for archival purpose)? Would each copy truly have to be made from a unique albeit identical original, or is that just an artificial restriction to make copying more onerous, and if so, why not require all copies be made by re-typesetting them in an original Gutenburg printing press?
For God's sake, it's not "more restrictive than paper", and trying this sort of thing with paper would also get you in trouble.
The idea that this is the legal equivalent of sharing a newspaper is ridiculous. Well it sure seems like they want sharing one copy and making multiple copies to be equivalently illegal, and making it so that in a workplace there isn't one newspaper subscription shared by everyone but instead there are some 50 copies of each paper delivered to the company each day, one for each employee. Or charge higher rates for "business delivery" than individuals pay.
I seem to remember reading a story (sorry, no cite) where a newspaper was upset with the local library for making the current edition of the paper available for people to walk in and read without paying.
What's wrong with squeezing every penny out of the reporter's work? Don't you want every penny of salary you're entitled to get? That presumes they're entitled to any and all money they can get.
Let's make something very clear: the content providers don't give a damn that you aren't seeing the ads; they only give a damn when you can't be counted. They're not concerned about the advertisers being paid attention; they are only concerned about how much money they can get out of the advertisers to sell to them your attention based on their content's page views.
The advertiser's actual return on investment has never been the content provider's concern.
I can't help but wonder what these antagonists think... do they want as few people reading their material as possible? They just want complete and total tracking over who reads the articles so they can measure their worth in ad dollars. Much like music, except they pretend that it is so the artists can be compensated for every person who hears the music.
Copyright becomes trackingright to squeeze every possible cent out of the work. If you dare come up with a new way to derive enjoyment from a work, they'll seek ways to ensure they get paid for that too.
If I use email I have a written record of what I said to them and what they said to me. Check your local laws to see if they only require one party to a phone conversation (i.e. one of the speaking people) to know it is being recorded in order to record a conversation. Usually that means you can record any conversation you are a party to without informing the other party verbally or with periodic beeps on the line.
And if they start with an automated message saying they may be recording, you're free and clear to record without any further notice as well.(*)
IANAL.
Now if only they'd build recording capabilities into cell phones with real-time marking so when the other side says something like "0.01 cents per kilobyte" you can mark it and tell it to replay that while still recording.
(*) It would be nice if the same was true for video surveillance. Businesses tend to bar you from the premises if you attempt to use a video recorder even as they use their own to record you.
"Guys!! I just heard that they came up with a way to project images directly in to your brain! Awesome, think of the *commercials*!! " But not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
I've found that some web players' performance is improved by holding down the mouse button, especially on a machine that appears to be struggling to keep up with the framerate but the audio comes through anyway. It worked for me with ABC's player last season. It does make it feel like you're watching video on a dead man's switch, though you could wedge a paperclip between the button and the mouse housing on most mice to hold it down.(*)
My theory is that the system can more quickly handle an unwanted mouse-click event faster than it can check all possible events, giving more processor time to the video player.
(*) And now that I mention this, I expect they'll build-in technology where you do have a dead man's switch to watch video so they can get more accurate viewership numbers, perhaps with requiring releasing the button at random times to make sure you're not wedging it down.
Even so, if you're looking for really complex life (such as intelligent life), you'd be better served to find planets that comets crashed into rather than the comets themselves. That would depend on whether or not you're looking for space vampires.
And what are the odds of those concentrations being high enough to keep things warm and toasty without being high enough to fry the potentially developing life? I think it's safe to say the theory is we evolved from cometary extremophiles that could adapt to less extreme environments.
I'd expect that the smaller you are (the lower your mass), the more likely you can survive such an impact.
Someone should conduct an experiment with a known quantity of live flies in a jar dropped from a skyscraper (first clearing the impact zone of bystanders) and count the number of survivors.
Typical emails are automated messages: whenever someone checks in a modified header file, a source file in one of my areas of responsibility, or a source file I monitor because I have a customized version in my workarea that needs to be kept in sync (a system enhancement I like that another programmer won't tolerate being in his area of responsibility); messages tracking the status of bugs and change requests that I've filed or which have been assigned to me; messages reporting to me what files I have locked and what files are in the source tree but not registered with the revision control system.
Non-automated messages include when someone has brought in bagels for a dollar or other free food, when a package for me has arrived, when the code tree is being frozen or unfrozen, when a high-dependency header file is going to be touched at noon or 5PM, when a superior will be gone for a vacation, when a friend is out sick, when customers will be here for a week of software training (and usually what will be served for lunch on Thursday), release schedules, and discussions of bugs.
I run xbiff on my mail ever since a system update removed the regular biff daemon.
I used to keep a presence on the company's IRC channel, but it was generally a waste of my time. I only connect now when there's a serious problem or someone asks me to join.
I find I still have time to run a tail on the ~/.procmail/log of my home e-mail to monitor the effectiveness of the filtering, tuning it as something unwanted gets through.
There's a difference between me saying typing "fuck" on slashdot and me saying "fuck" in a job interview. In converse to the thread, I was working at a computer with several other people in the same room working on computers. No cubicle walls. The boss was in the next room, and something prompted him to ask me, "Don't you ever swear?"
I stopped typing, looked up at the space above the monitor, and I swear I had a mental image of a scene out of Terminator, seeing a list of possible responses (Yes, No, Or what, Fuck you, Fuck you asshole, etc.) and decided to loudly blurt out, "Fuck yes!" and went back to my typing.
"Okay, and speaking of impossible, Jane from Cedar Grove is on the line, and she wants to talk about how difficult it is being a parent today. Hello Jane."
"Hi Lazlow, I love the show, I'm a first time caller. I wanted to say something about these videogames, they are warping our kids minds. My sons dog, Bugle, got hit by a truck, and he says, 'Mummy, mummy, where's the reset button?' Kids these days, they think life is a game. Well it's not a game Lazlow. It is very, very serious. I let my kid play video games, and now, he runs around the house looking for gold coins. This is teaching our children to go chase money. My eldest has been playing this new videogame, called Pogo the Monkey."
"Yeah, I've heard of that one."
"The shop teacher called me today, and Sam made a home-made banana cannon in shop class, and was lobbing them across the street at a fast-food restaurant. And it's all because of videogames. Lazlow, life does not have a reset button."
"Computer games don't affect kids. I mean if Pac-man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in a darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music."
I'd post more, but I've gotta go to a rave tonight. Just don't go around trying to eat the cops afterward.
schools going batshit loco over a 6 year old **drawing a picture of a gun** They should be suing Warner Bros. The kid obviously learned that from watching Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that they're Skypegoating Microsoft?
Too bad the patents on chewing gum have expired by now.
Also, your thought that its amazing that copiers don't require a thumbprint or some such shit is ridiculous. So my example extrapolation to the ridiculous didn't strike you as humorous in any way? Maybe I should have tagged it HHOS: it was not to be taken too lightly or too seriously.
I'm not anti-copyright. I just think it needs to be more flexible, more reasonable, and more in tune to the will of living people than the it is with the dead and their immortal corporations.
It's amazing that photocopiers today aren't mandated to be connected to the Internet and pop up a legal challenge whenever more than one copy is attempted for any original, requiring an assertion that you have the right to make multiple copies, signed with a thumbprint, and sending a copy of whatever it is and the print to the home office to be checked by an automaton for possible prosecution afterwards. Maybe even an authenticated seal to be placed on the glass with the copy tracking the number of authenticated copies, with an embedded LCD with the remaining copy count displayed. Every page with an RFID tag tracking the provenance of the information on each generation of copy.
But ROI has always been unmeasurable and unreliable. Whatever hard numbers you get from people actively informing you of where they heard of your product still leaves as a guess how many aren't reporting, or how many are lying. ("This guy says he first read about our product on the inside of his ex-girlfriend's chest cavity." (*)) Everyone in the advertising business has a vested interest in not knowing exactly how ineffective their ads are. Well, everyone except the company paying the advertising executive to construct an effective ad.
If I were a content provider with advertisers, I'd be wary of those who use codes to track ROI. Such advertisers are too flighty. And as a consumer, I don't like them either. Reminds me too much of spam with unique strings of garbage attached to the URLs (especially on embedded img tags) to verify your e-mail address as valid.
Meanwhile I doubt they care very much let alone record when I visit Best Buy and tell an employee, "By the way, I really appreciated your company's sponsorship of last night's episode of Doctor Who on The Sci-Fi Channel."
(*) Is that any more bizarre than seeing ads for the same model of Sawzall sponsoring CSI: Miami that the husband used to dismember his wife's corpse in the episode's story?
Depends how long it takes to get to the person who tears out what he/she wants.
Anyway, these days it isn't about how many actually use a work, it's about how many could potentially use a work, and what compensation is due. The papers aren't selling articles; they sell access to articles on temporary, disposable media (paper). If you want back issues available on another media (microfiche), pay up.
See Bruce Springsteen pays 56 times too much for his cable to watch one channel withing nothing on on his TV. Or see the RIAA charging people for "making available" music without proving actual sharing (and seeking to codify "making available" as a crime under new law).
And what if these packets were distributed electronically by an e-mail that embedded the web-sourced stories inside framesets or iframes? And what if the employees read them behind a proxy server that cached the remote articles?
Would it have been legal if they bought enough physical newspapers with the stories in them and clipped them for each packet? What if they clipped them, made a single copy of each for better presentation in the packet, and retained the original clipping as a backup, having one secured original for every copy (i.e. fair-use copying for archival purpose)? Would each copy truly have to be made from a unique albeit identical original, or is that just an artificial restriction to make copying more onerous, and if so, why not require all copies be made by re-typesetting them in an original Gutenburg printing press?
The idea that this is the legal equivalent of sharing a newspaper is ridiculous. Well it sure seems like they want sharing one copy and making multiple copies to be equivalently illegal, and making it so that in a workplace there isn't one newspaper subscription shared by everyone but instead there are some 50 copies of each paper delivered to the company each day, one for each employee. Or charge higher rates for "business delivery" than individuals pay.
I seem to remember reading a story (sorry, no cite) where a newspaper was upset with the local library for making the current edition of the paper available for people to walk in and read without paying.
Let's make something very clear: the content providers don't give a damn that you aren't seeing the ads; they only give a damn when you can't be counted. They're not concerned about the advertisers being paid attention; they are only concerned about how much money they can get out of the advertisers to sell to them your attention based on their content's page views.
The advertiser's actual return on investment has never been the content provider's concern.
Copyright becomes trackingright to squeeze every possible cent out of the work. If you dare come up with a new way to derive enjoyment from a work, they'll seek ways to ensure they get paid for that too.
And if they start with an automated message saying they may be recording, you're free and clear to record without any further notice as well.(*)
IANAL.
Now if only they'd build recording capabilities into cell phones with real-time marking so when the other side says something like "0.01 cents per kilobyte" you can mark it and tell it to replay that while still recording.
(*) It would be nice if the same was true for video surveillance. Businesses tend to bar you from the premises if you attempt to use a video recorder even as they use their own to record you.
I remember it from a skit on Not Necessarily the News on HBO, in reference to Reagan's Star Wars defense system.
I knew I should have copied it to my own site first.
GIS: "Jaws 19"
"Shark still looks fake."
I've found that some web players' performance is improved by holding down the mouse button, especially on a machine that appears to be struggling to keep up with the framerate but the audio comes through anyway. It worked for me with ABC's player last season. It does make it feel like you're watching video on a dead man's switch, though you could wedge a paperclip between the button and the mouse housing on most mice to hold it down.(*)
My theory is that the system can more quickly handle an unwanted mouse-click event faster than it can check all possible events, giving more processor time to the video player.
(*) And now that I mention this, I expect they'll build-in technology where you do have a dead man's switch to watch video so they can get more accurate viewership numbers, perhaps with requiring releasing the button at random times to make sure you're not wedging it down.
I'd expect that the smaller you are (the lower your mass), the more likely you can survive such an impact.
Someone should conduct an experiment with a known quantity of live flies in a jar dropped from a skyscraper (first clearing the impact zone of bystanders) and count the number of survivors.
At my workplace, my e-mail contains no spam.
Typical emails are automated messages: whenever someone checks in a modified header file, a source file in one of my areas of responsibility, or a source file I monitor because I have a customized version in my workarea that needs to be kept in sync (a system enhancement I like that another programmer won't tolerate being in his area of responsibility); messages tracking the status of bugs and change requests that I've filed or which have been assigned to me; messages reporting to me what files I have locked and what files are in the source tree but not registered with the revision control system.
Non-automated messages include when someone has brought in bagels for a dollar or other free food, when a package for me has arrived, when the code tree is being frozen or unfrozen, when a high-dependency header file is going to be touched at noon or 5PM, when a superior will be gone for a vacation, when a friend is out sick, when customers will be here for a week of software training (and usually what will be served for lunch on Thursday), release schedules, and discussions of bugs.
I run xbiff on my mail ever since a system update removed the regular biff daemon.
I used to keep a presence on the company's IRC channel, but it was generally a waste of my time. I only connect now when there's a serious problem or someone asks me to join.
I find I still have time to run a tail on the ~/.procmail/log of my home e-mail to monitor the effectiveness of the filtering, tuning it as something unwanted gets through.
I stopped typing, looked up at the space above the monitor, and I swear I had a mental image of a scene out of Terminator, seeing a list of possible responses (Yes, No, Or what, Fuck you, Fuck you asshole, etc.) and decided to loudly blurt out, " Fuck yes!" and went back to my typing.
"Okay, and speaking of impossible, Jane from Cedar Grove is on the line, and she wants to talk about how difficult it is being a parent today. Hello Jane."
"Hi Lazlow, I love the show, I'm a first time caller. I wanted to say something about these videogames, they are warping our kids minds. My sons dog, Bugle, got hit by a truck, and he says, 'Mummy, mummy, where's the reset button?' Kids these days, they think life is a game. Well it's not a game Lazlow. It is very, very serious. I let my kid play video games, and now, he runs around the house looking for gold coins. This is teaching our children to go chase money. My eldest has been playing this new videogame, called Pogo the Monkey."
"Yeah, I've heard of that one."
"The shop teacher called me today, and Sam made a home-made banana cannon in shop class, and was lobbing them across the street at a fast-food restaurant. And it's all because of videogames. Lazlow, life does not have a reset button."
"Right, but this show does."
[dial tone]
"I love that button."
I'd post more, but I've gotta go to a rave tonight. Just don't go around trying to eat the cops afterward.
Please pass the ketchup, I think I'll go to bed.