Motherboard says that the laws of the universe, outside of black holes, are supposedly deterministic. That's news to me, I thought quantum mechanics dealt with probabilities and there was no way to predict what part a particle will take. The universe plays dice all the time, it only appears to be deterministic on a large scale when the probabilities of the individual particles average out to a largely predictable macroscopic result.
It looks like the article conflates determinism and deterministic. Determinism is roughly synonymous with causality, which is what I assume the paper is talking about.
However, once you've got the renewable energy sources in place and harvested, the cost will die out, quickly. It's called ROI, and the smart people have obtained almost insane ROI (on the order of 3 months in some related techs like LEDs powered by renewable resources up to 5 years for full solar+wind-powered farms) so they really don't have to worry about this.
Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about, since all returns must happen by the end of the next quarter.
Yeah, the results of these studies are not surprising at all. "Unregulated taxis cause same problems that forced taxi regulations 100 years ago." Gee, I'm totally shocked.
That's actually an interesting idea to charge for carry on but not for checked luggage. I imagine the cost of checked luggage would be an issue in the long run.
One airline that I've flown on charges for both, but a carry-on is more expensive than a checked bag.
Annnnd, what happens when I'm trying to back away from danger into some tall grass; is it going to let me, or is it going to overrule the human? I'm sick to death of engineers, etc., thinking they've thought of everything, to the detriment of the unsuspecting users, decades later.
I doubt there are many people who are arguing that we shouldn't try to automate more work because people will lose their jobs. The debate is about what to do with the people who will lose their jobs. We as a society can either leave them to their own devices, in which case a few will find new jobs and the rest will fall into poverty, or use the money saved by automation to pay for their new training and support those who can't be retrained.
It isn't an issue of whether or not progress is good for society as a whole, but of what society does to support those that are harmed in the interim.
Let's face it. You can blame guns for the violence but guns have been part of America's fabric for as long as it has existed. There's something unique to this era happening with the massive uptick in mass shootings.
I'm fairly certain that very few people in 1800 owned firearms that could be used to kill 20 or more people in 5 minutes.
Getting a gun should be at least as hard as getting a car.
Getting a gun is harder than getting a car. Even in America. Even in a red state.
I honestly don't remember, do you usually need to show a driver's license to purchase a car? If so, it's debatable, since getting a driver's license at least requires a basic test of your competency.
I also assume that the parent post meant getting a driver's license, not going to a dealership and purchasing a car.
So if your employees' productivity doubles, and they become twice as profitable to employ, your response would be to fire them?
If all of your employees' productivity doubles, the only way they all become twice as profitable is if your sales also double or you fire half of them. Assuming that your sales will double if you double productivity is called Supply-Side (or Voodoo) Economics, and we've learned during my lifetime (and I'd like to think that I'm not that old) that it fails pretty miserably.
That's a description of a very dysfunctional place to work. Rarely do we see such a dichotomy between a "software engineer" and a "programmer". That might have been the case when programming was more of a cowboy activity. A software engineer is expected to do programming, and we expect the act of programming to follow some basic principles of software engineering, starting at the most junior positions (entry level software engineer or software engineer associate, or intern.)
More senior positions provide high level guidance, but the software engineering process is carried out from the grounds up. When this is not the case, shit ensues.
I thought I had written something about how many companies have the "software engineer" and the "programmer" be the same person, but I guess I removed it while editing. I strongly disagree that having them be separate people makes the team "very dysfunctional". In some companies, every person on the team is both a good software engineer and a good programmer. If that's what your team is like and it works for you, that's great. But having different people that are better at different parts of software development can also work perfectly fine. They're different ways of organizing the team, and either one can work if you have people that do well in that type of organization.
And therein lies the problem I had with that book (I'm a father of two girls.) Sure Barbie is the lead, but where did she start? How did she start? The book still harks to certain stereotypes where a woman still has to dictate how to do things without showing that she can actually roll her sleeves and get shit done.
This a reason why I keep showing my kids pictures of factory women during WWII or lady mathematicians working ballistic trajectories or programming vacuum tubes back in the day.
I haven't looked at the book myself, but I'm not at all surprised that it's as bad as you say. Even if someone involved in creating the book was thinking of what I described (which they probably weren't), I'm sure the group would find plenty of ways to screw it up.
Thank the Democrat's Super Delegate system which all but forced the "Entitled" candidate to win the primaries, denying the Democrat voters their preferred choice in the 2016 Election, Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Clinton still ended up with more "regular" delegates than Sanders. There's plenty that you can blame the Democratic Party for during the 2016 campaign, but "super delegates" are not the reason that Clinton won the primary.
If you replace "computer engineer" with "software engineer", the premise isn't quite as stupid as it seems at first. The software engineer's role is to make high-level technical decisions and tell the programmers what to write. In many companies, though, programmers are given the title "software engineer" and the people doing the high-level engineering are given titles like "software architect".
In that book, Barbie is the manager or lead engineer and the boys are the programmers. Whether or not Barbie is portrayed as a competent manager is a separate matter.
Well no, you're mixing up two things. What you're talking about protects Twitter from liability for copyright violation in cases where a Twitter user posts something that violates copyright. If a user uploads pirated material, for example, Twitter is not liable as long as they take the content down when notified of the violation. That's one thing.
Then, on a separate subject, there's the question of why Twitter isn't liable for copyright violations when a copyright holder tweets his own material. The answer is, Twitter's terms of service provides a wide license for Twitter to redistribute that content.
I wasn't mixing up those things, it's just that the topic of this thread has drifted enough that it isn't clear anymore exactly what we're talking about. Both of your statements here are true, and I didn't mean to disagree with either of them. I was just trying to say that, as in the case of the article, if a user posts someone else's protected material to Twitter, Twitter doesn't technically have a license for that material, because the user doesn't have the right to grant a license. As you pointed out, though, Twitter is probably still protected by the safe harbor provision.
No, they're purposefully embedding a tweet that they have no reason to believe is a copyright violation. Whoever posted to Twitter gave Twitter a license to distribute the photo, including allowing Twitter to allow others to distribute the photo. Twitter gives license to others to embed tweets, under certain conditions (e.g. tweets can't be modified). So here's a general question: Given that the poster licenses Twitter's distribution, and Twitter licenses the tweet's embedding, what is the responsibility of the person embedding a tweet to ensure that the tweet is not a copyright violation?
The issue is that none of these licenses actually exist, since the user that posted the photograph to Twitter never had the right to grant a license. As far as I know, a publisher is responsible for verifying that they have a proper license for everything that they publish. If a newspaper publishes a photograph that was posted on Twitter, it's reasonable that they could be found negligent for not checking on the copyright license for the photograph, since professional journalists should know that people can and do post images on Twitter that they don't own the copyright for and don't have permission to post. If the newspaper did do something like ask the user about the photograph, and the user said that they do own the copyright for it, then I'm not entirely certain. I had thought that the newspaper could still be held liable, and then the newspaper would have to sue the user for fraud. My experience with that aspect of copyright law is pretty limited, though, so I could be wrong.
That's all part of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. Yes, you are right, if a service like Twitter is found to be covered under the Safe Harbor provisions, then they aren't liable for any infringement that is caused solely by users of the service.
So I should clarify my earlier statements. Twitter isn't liable if a user posts protected material and other people view it; Twitter still doesn't have "a wide license to distribute that material", they just aren't liable for damages. That is also different from the case in this article, though, where web sites are purposefully using a photograph that they don't have a license to use. In particular, it isn't a user of the web site that posted the protected material, but the owner/administrator/whatever of the web site that posted it.
Nope, it doesn't. You're liable for infringement even if you don't know that you're infringing. Twitter would have to sue the person that posted the image to recover the money that they pay in damages.
This will probably be labelled flamebait because I'm hurting some Linux users feelings.
I don't know where you people buy your hardware, but it must be located in fairy tale land.
My laptop is a Dell, and everything works fine. Only hardware change I've made is to replace the hard drive that came with it with an SSD.
For my desktop, I think everything in it came from Microcenter.
Words are also protected by copyright. However, you can still quote people.
Words are only protected by copyright when they are put in a fixed, tangible medium. Something a person says during an interview can not be protected.
Movies are protected by copyright, but the news can still show clips.
If it's a small percentage of the work shown for the purpose of criticism or analysis, then yes, there would be a fair use exemption. A news agency still can't post the entire work, which is what posting a photograph would be. The press is granted more leeway when it comes to copyright, but it has been settled for a long time that that doesn't include reproducing photographs, and every news agency knows this.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, posting material on Twitter already gives Twitter a wide license to distribute that material.
That doesn't matter if the person posting the material doesn't own the copyright and therefore doesn't have the right to grant Twitter that license.
Should User C be held liable for the copyright violation, but not User B?
There's no reason that both User B and User C can't be liable for their separate acts of infringement.
Should User B be held liable for User C's violation?
It is possible that User C could successfully sue User B to recover the damages that User C had to pay. It would probably depend on a lot of the details of the case.
The last decade has seen an amazing number of cases of judges exceeding their authority... and ignoring the laws as written (that is the part that is most troubling).
Can you point to a not-insignificant number of cases where a judge simply ignored a law, as opposed to ruling that a law contradicts some other law or the Constitution?
regardless of how you feel about the travel ban, there is practically no question at all the executive gets to decide who enters the country and who gets kept out based on current immigration law and judges acting the way they did subverted both the legislature and the executive
Obviously there's a question, because numerous judges ruled that the travel ban was not legal. I don't know the specific details of the immigration laws, but in general, the executive branch cannot change policies on a whim. As was made clear in cases last year, such as with certain changes made by the EPA, the law dictates the exact procedures that must be followed in order for executive agencies to change policies. There's also the fact that once a person is allowed to enter the country, that person gains certain Constitutional protections, including due process and equal protection. Thanks to the First Amendment, organizations that were harmed by people being banned from entry also have the right to sue the government for monetary damages and an injunction.
Never mind making the term shorter because the speed of distribution has gone up so much. It would be enough to just restore the term to exactly what it was when copying was hard and distribution was slow.
The answer to your subject line is yes. It's unlikely to rise to the level of criminal infringement, though, so someone copying your comment would only be driven into bankruptcy.
Slashdot Mirror
Motherboard says that the laws of the universe, outside of black holes, are supposedly deterministic. That's news to me, I thought quantum mechanics dealt with probabilities and there was no way to predict what part a particle will take. The universe plays dice all the time, it only appears to be deterministic on a large scale when the probabilities of the individual particles average out to a largely predictable macroscopic result.
It looks like the article conflates determinism and deterministic. Determinism is roughly synonymous with causality, which is what I assume the paper is talking about.
However, once you've got the renewable energy sources in place and harvested, the cost will die out, quickly. It's called ROI, and the smart people have obtained almost insane ROI (on the order of 3 months in some related techs like LEDs powered by renewable resources up to 5 years for full solar+wind-powered farms) so they really don't have to worry about this.
Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about, since all returns must happen by the end of the next quarter.
we, as modern societies, have agreed on.
Speak for yourself, schmuck.
If you don't like it, move somewhere else. That's the correct free-market capitalist response, right?
Yeah, the results of these studies are not surprising at all. "Unregulated taxis cause same problems that forced taxi regulations 100 years ago." Gee, I'm totally shocked.
That's actually an interesting idea to charge for carry on but not for checked luggage. I imagine the cost of checked luggage would be an issue in the long run.
One airline that I've flown on charges for both, but a carry-on is more expensive than a checked bag.
Annnnd, what happens when I'm trying to back away from danger into some tall grass; is it going to let me, or is it going to overrule the human? I'm sick to death of engineers, etc., thinking they've thought of everything, to the detriment of the unsuspecting users, decades later.
This was you, wasn't it?
I doubt there are many people who are arguing that we shouldn't try to automate more work because people will lose their jobs. The debate is about what to do with the people who will lose their jobs. We as a society can either leave them to their own devices, in which case a few will find new jobs and the rest will fall into poverty, or use the money saved by automation to pay for their new training and support those who can't be retrained.
It isn't an issue of whether or not progress is good for society as a whole, but of what society does to support those that are harmed in the interim.
... to an anti-Hollywood story (that Democrats hate).
You mean Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore?
Let's face it. You can blame guns for the violence but guns have been part of America's fabric for as long as it has existed. There's something unique to this era happening with the massive uptick in mass shootings.
I'm fairly certain that very few people in 1800 owned firearms that could be used to kill 20 or more people in 5 minutes.
Getting a gun is harder than getting a car. Even in America. Even in a red state.
I honestly don't remember, do you usually need to show a driver's license to purchase a car? If so, it's debatable, since getting a driver's license at least requires a basic test of your competency.
I also assume that the parent post meant getting a driver's license, not going to a dealership and purchasing a car.
So if your employees' productivity doubles, and they become twice as profitable to employ, your response would be to fire them?
If all of your employees' productivity doubles, the only way they all become twice as profitable is if your sales also double or you fire half of them. Assuming that your sales will double if you double productivity is called Supply-Side (or Voodoo) Economics, and we've learned during my lifetime (and I'd like to think that I'm not that old) that it fails pretty miserably.
That's a description of a very dysfunctional place to work. Rarely do we see such a dichotomy between a "software engineer" and a "programmer". That might have been the case when programming was more of a cowboy activity. A software engineer is expected to do programming, and we expect the act of programming to follow some basic principles of software engineering, starting at the most junior positions (entry level software engineer or software engineer associate, or intern.)
More senior positions provide high level guidance, but the software engineering process is carried out from the grounds up. When this is not the case, shit ensues.
I thought I had written something about how many companies have the "software engineer" and the "programmer" be the same person, but I guess I removed it while editing. I strongly disagree that having them be separate people makes the team "very dysfunctional". In some companies, every person on the team is both a good software engineer and a good programmer. If that's what your team is like and it works for you, that's great. But having different people that are better at different parts of software development can also work perfectly fine. They're different ways of organizing the team, and either one can work if you have people that do well in that type of organization.
And therein lies the problem I had with that book (I'm a father of two girls.) Sure Barbie is the lead, but where did she start? How did she start? The book still harks to certain stereotypes where a woman still has to dictate how to do things without showing that she can actually roll her sleeves and get shit done.
This a reason why I keep showing my kids pictures of factory women during WWII or lady mathematicians working ballistic trajectories or programming vacuum tubes back in the day.
I haven't looked at the book myself, but I'm not at all surprised that it's as bad as you say. Even if someone involved in creating the book was thinking of what I described (which they probably weren't), I'm sure the group would find plenty of ways to screw it up.
Thank the Democrat's Super Delegate system which all but forced the "Entitled" candidate to win the primaries, denying the Democrat voters their preferred choice in the 2016 Election, Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Clinton still ended up with more "regular" delegates than Sanders. There's plenty that you can blame the Democratic Party for during the 2016 campaign, but "super delegates" are not the reason that Clinton won the primary.
If you replace "computer engineer" with "software engineer", the premise isn't quite as stupid as it seems at first. The software engineer's role is to make high-level technical decisions and tell the programmers what to write. In many companies, though, programmers are given the title "software engineer" and the people doing the high-level engineering are given titles like "software architect".
In that book, Barbie is the manager or lead engineer and the boys are the programmers. Whether or not Barbie is portrayed as a competent manager is a separate matter.
Well no, you're mixing up two things. What you're talking about protects Twitter from liability for copyright violation in cases where a Twitter user posts something that violates copyright. If a user uploads pirated material, for example, Twitter is not liable as long as they take the content down when notified of the violation. That's one thing.
Then, on a separate subject, there's the question of why Twitter isn't liable for copyright violations when a copyright holder tweets his own material. The answer is, Twitter's terms of service provides a wide license for Twitter to redistribute that content.
I wasn't mixing up those things, it's just that the topic of this thread has drifted enough that it isn't clear anymore exactly what we're talking about. Both of your statements here are true, and I didn't mean to disagree with either of them. I was just trying to say that, as in the case of the article, if a user posts someone else's protected material to Twitter, Twitter doesn't technically have a license for that material, because the user doesn't have the right to grant a license. As you pointed out, though, Twitter is probably still protected by the safe harbor provision.
No, they're purposefully embedding a tweet that they have no reason to believe is a copyright violation. Whoever posted to Twitter gave Twitter a license to distribute the photo, including allowing Twitter to allow others to distribute the photo. Twitter gives license to others to embed tweets, under certain conditions (e.g. tweets can't be modified). So here's a general question: Given that the poster licenses Twitter's distribution, and Twitter licenses the tweet's embedding, what is the responsibility of the person embedding a tweet to ensure that the tweet is not a copyright violation?
The issue is that none of these licenses actually exist, since the user that posted the photograph to Twitter never had the right to grant a license. As far as I know, a publisher is responsible for verifying that they have a proper license for everything that they publish. If a newspaper publishes a photograph that was posted on Twitter, it's reasonable that they could be found negligent for not checking on the copyright license for the photograph, since professional journalists should know that people can and do post images on Twitter that they don't own the copyright for and don't have permission to post. If the newspaper did do something like ask the user about the photograph, and the user said that they do own the copyright for it, then I'm not entirely certain. I had thought that the newspaper could still be held liable, and then the newspaper would have to sue the user for fraud. My experience with that aspect of copyright law is pretty limited, though, so I could be wrong.
That's all part of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. Yes, you are right, if a service like Twitter is found to be covered under the Safe Harbor provisions, then they aren't liable for any infringement that is caused solely by users of the service.
So I should clarify my earlier statements. Twitter isn't liable if a user posts protected material and other people view it; Twitter still doesn't have "a wide license to distribute that material", they just aren't liable for damages. That is also different from the case in this article, though, where web sites are purposefully using a photograph that they don't have a license to use. In particular, it isn't a user of the web site that posted the protected material, but the owner/administrator/whatever of the web site that posted it.
[W]hen defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff's exclusive display right;
The pages were showing the message, including the photograph, not just a link to Twitter's web site.
Nope, it doesn't. You're liable for infringement even if you don't know that you're infringing. Twitter would have to sue the person that posted the image to recover the money that they pay in damages.
This will probably be labelled flamebait because I'm hurting some Linux users feelings. I don't know where you people buy your hardware, but it must be located in fairy tale land.
My laptop is a Dell, and everything works fine. Only hardware change I've made is to replace the hard drive that came with it with an SSD.
For my desktop, I think everything in it came from Microcenter.
Words are also protected by copyright. However, you can still quote people.
Words are only protected by copyright when they are put in a fixed, tangible medium. Something a person says during an interview can not be protected.
Movies are protected by copyright, but the news can still show clips.
If it's a small percentage of the work shown for the purpose of criticism or analysis, then yes, there would be a fair use exemption. A news agency still can't post the entire work, which is what posting a photograph would be. The press is granted more leeway when it comes to copyright, but it has been settled for a long time that that doesn't include reproducing photographs, and every news agency knows this.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, posting material on Twitter already gives Twitter a wide license to distribute that material.
That doesn't matter if the person posting the material doesn't own the copyright and therefore doesn't have the right to grant Twitter that license.
Should User C be held liable for the copyright violation, but not User B?
There's no reason that both User B and User C can't be liable for their separate acts of infringement.
Should User B be held liable for User C's violation?
It is possible that User C could successfully sue User B to recover the damages that User C had to pay. It would probably depend on a lot of the details of the case.
2) Someone else links to the posting.
Linking to a page is not the same as including a copy of it in your own page.
The last decade has seen an amazing number of cases of judges exceeding their authority... and ignoring the laws as written (that is the part that is most troubling).
Can you point to a not-insignificant number of cases where a judge simply ignored a law, as opposed to ruling that a law contradicts some other law or the Constitution?
regardless of how you feel about the travel ban, there is practically no question at all the executive gets to decide who enters the country and who gets kept out based on current immigration law and judges acting the way they did subverted both the legislature and the executive
Obviously there's a question, because numerous judges ruled that the travel ban was not legal. I don't know the specific details of the immigration laws, but in general, the executive branch cannot change policies on a whim. As was made clear in cases last year, such as with certain changes made by the EPA, the law dictates the exact procedures that must be followed in order for executive agencies to change policies. There's also the fact that once a person is allowed to enter the country, that person gains certain Constitutional protections, including due process and equal protection. Thanks to the First Amendment, organizations that were harmed by people being banned from entry also have the right to sue the government for monetary damages and an injunction.
Never mind making the term shorter because the speed of distribution has gone up so much. It would be enough to just restore the term to exactly what it was when copying was hard and distribution was slow.
The answer to your subject line is yes. It's unlikely to rise to the level of criminal infringement, though, so someone copying your comment would only be driven into bankruptcy.