This is the biggest problem with self-driving cars, in the future, once all the driving kinks have been worked out. So far, there have been no networked computers that are safe from hacker attacks. This makes SDCs a convenient tool for killing/injuring people without consequences by using some hacking tools.
Why can't the morons who upload videos to youtube use multiple angles in a single video stream so we don't have to switch? It's simply annoying and unpleasant to watch the same angle for even 5 minutes (eg: see professional music videos, TV shows, movies etc.), let alone the whole video length of 10-50 minutes. How come people are allowed to upload without learning this basic skill of filming?
The rights associated with a monopoly on copies of it are an entirely artificial construct
If copyright law is an artificial construct, what do you suggest the natural construct be? Placing a digital form of currently copyrighted content on the web, and getting paid nothing or some small one-time salary type fee?
The grandkids I don't have yet could be in their 70's by the time copyrights on my work expires. They could be kicked out of their old age home!
If you have any real estate you own, you should put that in the public domain in your will. This way, the public will benefit greatly, because the greater public good should outweigh the benefits to your children and grandchildren.
I don't like the "granted" word here. The book was created by the author and it belongs to him. Copyright only ensures that the work and its benefits are not stolen from the author without legal consequences.
Posing copyright as a grant or a gift is like saying the govt granted you a favor for criminals not dismembering you and stealing your belongings. That's not a gift, it's your right to demand, and the duty of the govt to protect you from harm.
Just as your body and valuable belongings are your cherished possessions, books are the valuable and cherished possessions of copyright owners. It's not a gift to keep them protected from freeloaders, like many on this site, but a right of the copyright owner.
Enforcement is the value they are providing in this case. Otherwise they could just sit back and do nothing while others print, copy, modify, and sell your book.
Indeed. So have you paid your yearly tax for not getting killed or robbed by some gang or mugger? If no, the govt could have just sat back and done nothing while you were being sent to grave in an untimely manner.
The govt has already been paid. What do you think all the sales and income taxes are for? So enough of your mafia protection racket bullshit.
Other artists would be able to use Bond or Mouse in their own works without the consent of, or payment to Ian Fleming Publications or Disney Corporation.
Wrong. Even if Mickey Mouse cartoons and James Bond books enter the public domain, use of their character name to create new fiction is illegal because of trademark laws. Remember, trademarks are for an infinite duration of time.
Rights to characters may exist under federal trademark law as well as under state laws dealing with unfair competition and passing off. The key to federal trademark protection is that marks are protectable only to the extent that they are used to identify the source of certain products and/or services. Thus it is not merely having a description or depiction of a character, whether in text or graphic format, that matters. Instead, trademark rights depend upon having a character that is used in relationship to specific goods and/or services and which character is then deemed to be a âoesource identifier.â The latter term means that the character is considered in the minds of the public as identifying a particular source of the goods and/or services.
Before such rights of trademark in characters can be found to exist, the law requires that the character must have developed what the law refers to as a âoesecondary meaning.â This refers to the legal doctrine that when a consumer sees the particular character, it associates it with a particular source. Of course the best example would be Mickey Mouse. Everyone on the planet knows that that character stems from a particular sourceâ¦Disney. To the same extent would be Bugs Bunny, the source being Warner Bros. This secondary meaning then allows the consumer to know that when he or she sees or relates to that character, that the particular source is behind it, either directly or through some quality-controlled licensing arrangement.
The govt has to provide value for something before demanding a tax. Otherwise start expecting taxes on breathable air, walking on sidewalks, taking vacations and other essential things.
Territorial ownership is a natural right. It is recognized by even primitive human societies. Many mammals, birds, fish, and even many invertebrates, own and defend territory.
You mean land, that is not inherently bound to a person, is somehow naturally theirs. Yet something like a book that comes from within a person, does not belong to its creator after a certain, artificially set, period of time. That's pure bullshit.
You pay real estate taxes annually Until you have to annually pay for copyright it's not comparable.
Do you know how people get to own real estate? They bought it from the govt at the very early stages. And before the govt, the kings conquered other kings, tribes etc to gain control of that land. So I guess, your owned real estate is actually rental property, rented long term from the govt and kings. The govt also spends a lot of money on upkeep of services that help real estate property such as water supply, sewage, electricity, roads etc. And it needs taxes to pay for these things.
Where do books come from? Not from govt or kings, but from within the author, from the writing skills he obtained throughout his life, and from his experiences, real or imagined. I'm not sure how you can tax that.
I doubt it would benefit authors at all. Chances are they've sold their rights to a company.
Exactly, copyright laws were created during a period when authors held the copyrights. Nowadays, authors don't hold copyright to their own work. Instead the publisher holds the copyright to his book. I suspect there is some favoritism between the govt and big business, which is why there is a push to increase the duration of copyright. If ordinary authors had held the copyright, these extensions would not have happened.
I can't fathom how extending the terms after the works have been created is an incentive to create them in the first place.
And I can't understand how the world would benefit from James Bond and Mickey Mouse books becoming public domain? The only benefit I see is a lot of people would be able to read these books for free, but other than that, not much. But they're already cheap or you can borrow them for free from the library.
Despite protestations to the contrary, and US Supreme Court legalism, copyright is now perpetual.
And why would that be wrong? Drawing parallels between copyrighted materials and real estate (since there are many similarities), valuable real estate in big cities is worth millions today. In 150 years, it may be worth 10 to 50 times the current value. So should we apply the copyright model and make that real estate public domain 150 years from now? That is, govt would seize control of that property and turn it into some kind of park, free hostel or something else the public can use. You're gonna say that's ridiculous. But that's what happens to the intellectual property of all copyright owners.
Why are intellectual property owners being screwed of their future income?
So the govt, which did not write a single note, nor sing a tune, makes the same amount as the hard working artists on just the pseudo sales tax. It's ridiculous that the people responsible for the actual work are getting paid peanuts, while the "platform providers and distributors" (govt, labels, web radio companies) make the lion's share of any music created out there.
It's like buying a $500 LCD TV off the web and paying UPS/Fedex $250 of the total price.
I'm not conducting a transaction with those companies, I'm viewing your publicly available website which makes no effort to keep me out.
Agreed, ads should come from the site itself, not the server of some nosy ad company. This problem is probably fixable by having a firefox addon that prevents content/scripts from extraneous sites from loading. But firefox takes tens of millions of $$$ from advertising companies (Yahoo, Google), so that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. Also, blame the designers of HTTP and HTML for allowing this.
Don't want me to block your ads, make your site subscription based and block me out entirely.
LOL, that's like saying you're entitled to mug someone unless they have a gun or a bodyguard. Their site is ad-based because that's the only way they can make money -- don't tell them how to run their business.
But don't act like I'm somehow ripping you off. Since their privacy policy is crap, we're just enacting our own.
You are ripping them off -- they get 0 benefit from you using their commercial service. That's theft.
Scorecard research, doubleclick, quantserve, and literally HUNDREDS of other companies... their product is information about me. But I never signed up for that.
100% agree with you on this. This is blatant spying and tracking breaking many laws in the constitution. It's the govt's job to shut these people down and hopefully, they will, in the future.
Turns out that producing a product worth thousands (a piece of college-level education) is worth more than producing a random app of worth a couple dollars and which might be a flop.
But now that the secret's out, won't Udemy be flooded with lectures by people wanting to make $1,000 a day? Programming a 99 cents app is a lot harder than making a lecture about some easy subject.
It always seemed wrong that out of order execution was more efficient than in order.
Dependency between instructions can temporarily delay execution of some instructions. This can be easily explained with an example:
1) A = A + 1 2) B = A + 2 3) C = D + 3
Above is pseudo code of 3 instructions being executed by a CPU. While instr #1 is being executed, the CPU will also try to execute instr #2, but since instr #2 needs the current value of register A, the CPU waits until instr #1 is complete and value of A can be used to calculate B. This is why in-order CPUs can be simpler to create, but be slightly slow.
Out-of-order CPUs work around this problem by deferring instr #2. Instead, the CPU executes instr #3 which has no dependency to instr #1 or #2. Therefore an OOO CPU can execute two instructions in parallel in this case, whereas the in-order CPU may not be able to execute multiple instructions in some cases.
This seems like way too big of a leap... If they could do that they could learn all sort of things besides cooking.
Yep, if they can cook by watching cooking videos, they can also learn about being waiters, auto mechanics and a host of other fixed skill jobs. But let's not put fear into the common masses that their jobs may be obsolete in 10-20 years.
4 out of 5 smartphones in the world bought by consumers is made by Google.
You need to lay off the kool-aid. Apple invented/created the design for iphone and iOS. Samsung copied the iphone and Google copied iOS. So you fandroids are just using Apple's (counterfeit) product, but are sore losers enough not to attribute your Android phone's design to Apple.
What additional regulations would Uber face if they admitted they were a taxi service?
IMO, a ride-sharing service would be something like a stranger, X, would drive another stranger, Y, from point A to B. In return, Y would get a ride from point M to N from yet another stranger, Z. No money would change hands between driver and passenger -- they are sharing rides only.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the biggest problem with self-driving cars, in the future, once all the driving kinks have been worked out. So far, there have been no networked computers that are safe from hacker attacks. This makes SDCs a convenient tool for killing/injuring people without consequences by using some hacking tools.
Why can't the morons who upload videos to youtube use multiple angles in a single video stream so we don't have to switch? It's simply annoying and unpleasant to watch the same angle for even 5 minutes (eg: see professional music videos, TV shows, movies etc.), let alone the whole video length of 10-50 minutes. How come people are allowed to upload without learning this basic skill of filming?
If copyright law is an artificial construct, what do you suggest the natural construct be? Placing a digital form of currently copyrighted content on the web, and getting paid nothing or some small one-time salary type fee?
If you have any real estate you own, you should put that in the public domain in your will. This way, the public will benefit greatly, because the greater public good should outweigh the benefits to your children and grandchildren.
I don't like the "granted" word here. The book was created by the author and it belongs to him. Copyright only ensures that the work and its benefits are not stolen from the author without legal consequences.
Posing copyright as a grant or a gift is like saying the govt granted you a favor for criminals not dismembering you and stealing your belongings. That's not a gift, it's your right to demand, and the duty of the govt to protect you from harm.
Just as your body and valuable belongings are your cherished possessions, books are the valuable and cherished possessions of copyright owners. It's not a gift to keep them protected from freeloaders, like many on this site, but a right of the copyright owner.
Indeed. So have you paid your yearly tax for not getting killed or robbed by some gang or mugger? If no, the govt could have just sat back and done nothing while you were being sent to grave in an untimely manner.
The govt has already been paid. What do you think all the sales and income taxes are for? So enough of your mafia protection racket bullshit.
Wrong. Even if Mickey Mouse cartoons and James Bond books enter the public domain, use of their character name to create new fiction is illegal because of trademark laws. Remember, trademarks are for an infinite duration of time.
Here's some info about trademarks for fictional characters.
Relevant quote:
The govt has to provide value for something before demanding a tax. Otherwise start expecting taxes on breathable air, walking on sidewalks, taking vacations and other essential things.
You mean land, that is not inherently bound to a person, is somehow naturally theirs. Yet something like a book that comes from within a person, does not belong to its creator after a certain, artificially set, period of time. That's pure bullshit.
Do you know how people get to own real estate? They bought it from the govt at the very early stages. And before the govt, the kings conquered other kings, tribes etc to gain control of that land. So I guess, your owned real estate is actually rental property, rented long term from the govt and kings. The govt also spends a lot of money on upkeep of services that help real estate property such as water supply, sewage, electricity, roads etc. And it needs taxes to pay for these things.
Where do books come from? Not from govt or kings, but from within the author, from the writing skills he obtained throughout his life, and from his experiences, real or imagined. I'm not sure how you can tax that.
Exactly, copyright laws were created during a period when authors held the copyrights. Nowadays, authors don't hold copyright to their own work. Instead the publisher holds the copyright to his book. I suspect there is some favoritism between the govt and big business, which is why there is a push to increase the duration of copyright. If ordinary authors had held the copyright, these extensions would not have happened.
And I can't understand how the world would benefit from James Bond and Mickey Mouse books becoming public domain? The only benefit I see is a lot of people would be able to read these books for free, but other than that, not much. But they're already cheap or you can borrow them for free from the library.
And why would that be wrong? Drawing parallels between copyrighted materials and real estate (since there are many similarities), valuable real estate in big cities is worth millions today. In 150 years, it may be worth 10 to 50 times the current value. So should we apply the copyright model and make that real estate public domain 150 years from now? That is, govt would seize control of that property and turn it into some kind of park, free hostel or something else the public can use. You're gonna say that's ridiculous. But that's what happens to the intellectual property of all copyright owners.
Why are intellectual property owners being screwed of their future income?
So the govt, which did not write a single note, nor sing a tune, makes the same amount as the hard working artists on just the pseudo sales tax. It's ridiculous that the people responsible for the actual work are getting paid peanuts, while the "platform providers and distributors" (govt, labels, web radio companies) make the lion's share of any music created out there.
It's like buying a $500 LCD TV off the web and paying UPS/Fedex $250 of the total price.
It's more of a skill, and a little bit of art. Composing the melody and writing the lyrics is majority of the artiness of any song.
Lot of obfuscation in the article... For every 10 euro monthly subscription:
Spotify gets ?
Label gets ?
Aritst gets ?
Writer/publisher gets ?
What are the pre-tax amounts in each of these cases (don't care about the post-tax numbers)?
Agreed, ads should come from the site itself, not the server of some nosy ad company. This problem is probably fixable by having a firefox addon that prevents content/scripts from extraneous sites from loading. But firefox takes tens of millions of $$$ from advertising companies (Yahoo, Google), so that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. Also, blame the designers of HTTP and HTML for allowing this.
LOL, that's like saying you're entitled to mug someone unless they have a gun or a bodyguard. Their site is ad-based because that's the only way they can make money -- don't tell them how to run their business.
You are ripping them off -- they get 0 benefit from you using their commercial service. That's theft.
100% agree with you on this. This is blatant spying and tracking breaking many laws in the constitution. It's the govt's job to shut these people down and hopefully, they will, in the future.
Maybe because flickr and tumblr are easier to search in google than flicker and tumbler. It also sounds hip (or hipsterish :)).
I guess "sharing" sounds a lot better than "low-priced amateur products."
But now that the secret's out, won't Udemy be flooded with lectures by people wanting to make $1,000 a day? Programming a 99 cents app is a lot harder than making a lecture about some easy subject.
Dependency between instructions can temporarily delay execution of some instructions. This can be easily explained with an example:
1) A = A + 1
2) B = A + 2
3) C = D + 3
Above is pseudo code of 3 instructions being executed by a CPU. While instr #1 is being executed, the CPU will also try to execute instr #2, but since instr #2 needs the current value of register A, the CPU waits until instr #1 is complete and value of A can be used to calculate B. This is why in-order CPUs can be simpler to create, but be slightly slow.
Out-of-order CPUs work around this problem by deferring instr #2. Instead, the CPU executes instr #3 which has no dependency to instr #1 or #2. Therefore an OOO CPU can execute two instructions in parallel in this case, whereas the in-order CPU may not be able to execute multiple instructions in some cases.
Yep, if they can cook by watching cooking videos, they can also learn about being waiters, auto mechanics and a host of other fixed skill jobs. But let's not put fear into the common masses that their jobs may be obsolete in 10-20 years.
Not yet, but expect 5-10% protection fees in the future.
You need to lay off the kool-aid. Apple invented/created the design for iphone and iOS. Samsung copied the iphone and Google copied iOS. So you fandroids are just using Apple's (counterfeit) product, but are sore losers enough not to attribute your Android phone's design to Apple.
Without the iPhone, your android phone would look like a crappy blackberry clone.
What additional regulations would Uber face if they admitted they were a taxi service?
IMO, a ride-sharing service would be something like a stranger, X, would drive another stranger, Y, from point A to B. In return, Y would get a ride from point M to N from yet another stranger, Z. No money would change hands between driver and passenger -- they are sharing rides only.
Welcome to the global economy. Uber USA's decision of cost-saving, lax hiring practices in India was indirectly responsible for this rape.