The GGI itself has built into it a education metric so that an element of education improves along with it isn't very shocking. However, there is also the matter of whether this is an actual improvement or not. This is a gap closing, not an overall improvement. That article is careful to add in the 'relative to boys' all the time, which could also happen by the boys getting worse scores, not the girls going up. Same with the GGI, it a gap measurement, not static comparison (and only a one way comparison at that, not even attempting to measuring disparities in the other direction). Impossible really to tell unfortunately as testing methodology and such is obvious quite different between countries.
COD trailer is most dislike videogame trailer.
GB trailer is most disliked movie trailer.
Both don't even come remotely close to Bieber though (over 6 MILLION dislikes, over 10X either of these light weights).
Unfortunately for this guy, the 5th has been established to NOT apply in this circumstance, as it is not the suspect's testimony they are seeking, but instead to access something he possesses. It has been likened to if a person has a safe the police have a warrant to search, the person in charge of said safe must provide access to it. I believe the most a lawyer could do for him, given the case law, is get him to enter the password in private so as to not be seen, but that's about it. Now that doesn't mean it is just, but that's what the rules of the system are currently.
Yeah, not only is that a massive error level, it is very close to random guessing's expected error level. You would expect them to be wrong 50% of the time on purely random guesses, so really this is only a deviation of 6% from expectation. And given they only used a small sample to do this test, probably within expecting sampling error. Since so much of this report relies on this being BUYER bias, they really did a poor job justifying that it could even be a bias. Despite them looking at auctions they do note differences in posting behavior so unfortunately, as small as those differences are, given the core of the whole thing is very weak, they may easily account for the bulk of the difference just as easily as buyer sexism.
I think it is you who needs to watch the video's again, or read the transcripts. It's not hard to find her accusing games of having real life impact.
Damsel in distress part 1:
"Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it’s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women."
Damsel in distress part 2:
"Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it’s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to “save them”."
Neither of these are simple opinions. They are implications or outright accusations of real life impact, which she has to prove. Even ignoring that, the implication it puts women off these games needs to be proven as well. Even though that is a relatively minor accusation, it is still a real life impact accusation. I think she could pull this one off, but she hasn't even tried to. Being a bit silly here, but truthfully she hasn't even shown that she herself has been put off the games as she claims to have played them. If you really want to show the game makers that they are missing out on a market, actually doing so instead of simply claiming it will go much further.
The crucial value he is using how often do conspiracies fail, but then uses failed ones to measure the length of time. Isn't that kinda like asking how long until your car explodes, and only looking at cars that explode as your data. On top of that, looks like he is using only a same size of 3 to determine this metric making it even more questionable. While I applaud the effort, this doesn't seem to convincing.
You have to actually do something more than just talking about doing a crime, for being guilty of conspiracy.
E.g. in Valle's case, fabricate chloroform, finding ropes, weapons and such in your car or house, a data collection for a potential victim he stalked.
You also need more than 1 person. Just to be specific:
18 U.S. Code 1117 - Conspiracy to murder
If two or more persons conspire to violate section 1111, 1114, 1116, or 1119 of this title, and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
For one, this is a private entity, and they are censoring on a fair grounds. But, probably more importantly, cinema is different that most other media in this regard in that you have a pseudo captive audience. You, as a movie watcher, can't change the channel, can't mute it, and even walking away is going to take you probably more time than the ad runs for. With religion being one of those things that can REALLY upset people, I think the chains are doing the only intelligent thing they can in the situation, avoid it entirely.
...But if it is anything like my home town, a concurrent campaign of 'hey, you there walking, actually exercise a little caution' would be probably a good idea too. A few too many people on both sides of this equation acting like they are the only thing moving out there.
Indeed. While this might be interesting in the future, as is it is kinda a 'so what' kind of thing. Human drivers are even more easy to disorient and in generally far more seriously, and the car is just slowing down or coming to a halt, something you can also accomplish with putting a cheap obstacle in its path. Now, if they can get it to speed up or ignore obstacles then that would be concerning.
No, but having people vote overwhelming for NOTHING because they don't like the candidate IS ideological block voting. I would say the same damn thing if sad puppies won overwhelmingly. Instead of the qualities of the books being what sets the bar, this clearly shows that it was politics that set the show. Sorry, you can't hide behind it's all personal choice when there was such campaigns pushing these outcomes at play here.
The terribly slanted summary aside, I think ultimately this has shown that the process is borked to high heaven. Even if I give every point the No Award crowd seems to be pushing, which I certainly would not, they have shown that they will vote as an ideological block themselves to a degree that completely eclipsed the 'problem' group. All you have proven is your system is woefully broke and subject to ideological influence over all else. It is rather sad. It has proven to me that unless the Hugos completely overhaul there methodology, they are worthless, and just a matter of who can rally the biggest crowd of supporters, rather than anything to do with actual worth of the work.
Get it right man, it isn't Zero Tolerance, it is Zero Intelligence. Come on now.
Seriously though, that is really what Zero Tolerance is about, removing any form of intelligence from the decision making process and assuming that one solution fits all situations. It truly Zero Intelligence. As you say it just doesn't make sense.
Does that mean those upload are now legal since they actually uploaded them? Or are they still illegal due to some loophole? Or, as I recall, is it that Prenda didn't have the rights in the first place so they actually committed copyright infringement too in uploading them?
Actually, they are without value. If you can't test something, then that thing fits all the observable possibilities. If it fits all the observable possibilities, then it is useless as it gives us no insight. If you could test it, it would at least exclude some of those observable possibilities so if they happen, you know it is false, if they don't, it so far continues to hold. The only value it might have is in the future if you find something that can finally be tested about it, but until then it is worthless.
Actually, if you generated the exact same picture yourself, it is not copyright infringement, but still copyrighted. It's one of those weird differences between copyright and patents. If you can show you produced the work independent of the other work, you are free of infringement claim. Same defense will not work in a patent case (although knowing infringement will usually get you a harsher penalty). Now of course, that's just theory, in practice that's an uphill battle to prove.
And also, you can copyright something that is a production of something that isn't copyrightable. For instance, individual words in the English language that are not copyrightable can end up copyrighted merely by being expressed in a set order (aka a work of literature). Same here. While every individual element of that nature shot isn't copyrightable, the picture itself is as it a particular arrangement of time, place and setting that is deemed artistic.
Yeah, I think the big sticking point in these types of things is who's work is it. You can use the name in trademark, but you have to be sure you don't confuse consumers about the true origins of the product in question, in this case the film. So long as they put the 'unauthorized' somewhere prominent, I think they'll be in the clear.
No, you don't understand. The big lobbies are actually the big corporations and they want it as it is annoying for them too. It is just that they want it in a very specific way that lets them still leverage their patents but not the little annoying bugs that keep suing them. It is just a matter of which big company's version we'll end up getting and with other big company gets screwed in the process.
That just simply wouldn't work. As another poster already pointed out, if you deny them the patent, then they have no reason to involve themselves in researching such, or standardizing. It would also simply encourage even MORE patent trolling as any patent holder can now say their patent isn't FRAND/RAND. The whole point of FRAND/RAND patents is to encourage companies to cooperate, make standards, and not patent troll each other.
Slashdot Mirror
The GGI itself has built into it a education metric so that an element of education improves along with it isn't very shocking. However, there is also the matter of whether this is an actual improvement or not. This is a gap closing, not an overall improvement. That article is careful to add in the 'relative to boys' all the time, which could also happen by the boys getting worse scores, not the girls going up. Same with the GGI, it a gap measurement, not static comparison (and only a one way comparison at that, not even attempting to measuring disparities in the other direction). Impossible really to tell unfortunately as testing methodology and such is obvious quite different between countries.
COD trailer is most dislike videogame trailer. GB trailer is most disliked movie trailer. Both don't even come remotely close to Bieber though (over 6 MILLION dislikes, over 10X either of these light weights).
Unfortunately for this guy, the 5th has been established to NOT apply in this circumstance, as it is not the suspect's testimony they are seeking, but instead to access something he possesses. It has been likened to if a person has a safe the police have a warrant to search, the person in charge of said safe must provide access to it. I believe the most a lawyer could do for him, given the case law, is get him to enter the password in private so as to not be seen, but that's about it. Now that doesn't mean it is just, but that's what the rules of the system are currently.
Yeah, not only is that a massive error level, it is very close to random guessing's expected error level. You would expect them to be wrong 50% of the time on purely random guesses, so really this is only a deviation of 6% from expectation. And given they only used a small sample to do this test, probably within expecting sampling error. Since so much of this report relies on this being BUYER bias, they really did a poor job justifying that it could even be a bias. Despite them looking at auctions they do note differences in posting behavior so unfortunately, as small as those differences are, given the core of the whole thing is very weak, they may easily account for the bulk of the difference just as easily as buyer sexism.
Damsel in distress part 1:
"Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it’s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women."
Damsel in distress part 2:
"Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it’s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to “save them”."
Neither of these are simple opinions. They are implications or outright accusations of real life impact, which she has to prove. Even ignoring that, the implication it puts women off these games needs to be proven as well. Even though that is a relatively minor accusation, it is still a real life impact accusation. I think she could pull this one off, but she hasn't even tried to. Being a bit silly here, but truthfully she hasn't even shown that she herself has been put off the games as she claims to have played them. If you really want to show the game makers that they are missing out on a market, actually doing so instead of simply claiming it will go much further.
The crucial value he is using how often do conspiracies fail, but then uses failed ones to measure the length of time. Isn't that kinda like asking how long until your car explodes, and only looking at cars that explode as your data. On top of that, looks like he is using only a same size of 3 to determine this metric making it even more questionable. While I applaud the effort, this doesn't seem to convincing.
Nonono, you're getting it wrong. It is "Honest, I didn't screw up. It was just lagging!"
You have to actually do something more than just talking about doing a crime, for being guilty of conspiracy. E.g. in Valle's case, fabricate chloroform, finding ropes, weapons and such in your car or house, a data collection for a potential victim he stalked.
You also need more than 1 person. Just to be specific: 18 U.S. Code 1117 - Conspiracy to murder If two or more persons conspire to violate section 1111, 1114, 1116, or 1119 of this title, and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
For one, this is a private entity, and they are censoring on a fair grounds. But, probably more importantly, cinema is different that most other media in this regard in that you have a pseudo captive audience. You, as a movie watcher, can't change the channel, can't mute it, and even walking away is going to take you probably more time than the ad runs for. With religion being one of those things that can REALLY upset people, I think the chains are doing the only intelligent thing they can in the situation, avoid it entirely.
Won't someone please think of the trees!
I haven't had cause to even install Quicktime in... years. Where are these people going that quicktime is so popular?
Come on now, we all know they just replaced them with under cover officers...
...But if it is anything like my home town, a concurrent campaign of 'hey, you there walking, actually exercise a little caution' would be probably a good idea too. A few too many people on both sides of this equation acting like they are the only thing moving out there.
Nah, it just means zero intelligence, and continues to be proven to be exactly that, both by intent and the realities we keep seeing.
Indeed. While this might be interesting in the future, as is it is kinda a 'so what' kind of thing. Human drivers are even more easy to disorient and in generally far more seriously, and the car is just slowing down or coming to a halt, something you can also accomplish with putting a cheap obstacle in its path. Now, if they can get it to speed up or ignore obstacles then that would be concerning.
No, but having people vote overwhelming for NOTHING because they don't like the candidate IS ideological block voting. I would say the same damn thing if sad puppies won overwhelmingly. Instead of the qualities of the books being what sets the bar, this clearly shows that it was politics that set the show. Sorry, you can't hide behind it's all personal choice when there was such campaigns pushing these outcomes at play here.
The terribly slanted summary aside, I think ultimately this has shown that the process is borked to high heaven. Even if I give every point the No Award crowd seems to be pushing, which I certainly would not, they have shown that they will vote as an ideological block themselves to a degree that completely eclipsed the 'problem' group. All you have proven is your system is woefully broke and subject to ideological influence over all else. It is rather sad. It has proven to me that unless the Hugos completely overhaul there methodology, they are worthless, and just a matter of who can rally the biggest crowd of supporters, rather than anything to do with actual worth of the work.
Get it right man, it isn't Zero Tolerance, it is Zero Intelligence. Come on now. Seriously though, that is really what Zero Tolerance is about, removing any form of intelligence from the decision making process and assuming that one solution fits all situations. It truly Zero Intelligence. As you say it just doesn't make sense.
Does that mean those upload are now legal since they actually uploaded them? Or are they still illegal due to some loophole? Or, as I recall, is it that Prenda didn't have the rights in the first place so they actually committed copyright infringement too in uploading them?
Actually, they are without value. If you can't test something, then that thing fits all the observable possibilities. If it fits all the observable possibilities, then it is useless as it gives us no insight. If you could test it, it would at least exclude some of those observable possibilities so if they happen, you know it is false, if they don't, it so far continues to hold. The only value it might have is in the future if you find something that can finally be tested about it, but until then it is worthless.
Actually, if you generated the exact same picture yourself, it is not copyright infringement, but still copyrighted. It's one of those weird differences between copyright and patents. If you can show you produced the work independent of the other work, you are free of infringement claim. Same defense will not work in a patent case (although knowing infringement will usually get you a harsher penalty). Now of course, that's just theory, in practice that's an uphill battle to prove. And also, you can copyright something that is a production of something that isn't copyrightable. For instance, individual words in the English language that are not copyrightable can end up copyrighted merely by being expressed in a set order (aka a work of literature). Same here. While every individual element of that nature shot isn't copyrightable, the picture itself is as it a particular arrangement of time, place and setting that is deemed artistic.
Yeah, I think the big sticking point in these types of things is who's work is it. You can use the name in trademark, but you have to be sure you don't confuse consumers about the true origins of the product in question, in this case the film. So long as they put the 'unauthorized' somewhere prominent, I think they'll be in the clear.
No, you don't understand. The big lobbies are actually the big corporations and they want it as it is annoying for them too. It is just that they want it in a very specific way that lets them still leverage their patents but not the little annoying bugs that keep suing them. It is just a matter of which big company's version we'll end up getting and with other big company gets screwed in the process.
Give this kick a commendation for original thinking.
That just simply wouldn't work. As another poster already pointed out, if you deny them the patent, then they have no reason to involve themselves in researching such, or standardizing. It would also simply encourage even MORE patent trolling as any patent holder can now say their patent isn't FRAND/RAND. The whole point of FRAND/RAND patents is to encourage companies to cooperate, make standards, and not patent troll each other.