Suppose you were to use an AI to reproduce a scene from the latest Marvel movie, with you in it. It's not using a single pixel from the original, but other than you in it, most wouldn't notice a difference.
Being AI-generated, you don't get the copyright. But would Marvel or Disney have a claim?
It gets worse once augmented reality becomes popular. Someone's going to point one of these IoT cameras at the spot where they've placed an AR urinal where it doesn't belong.
Who is responsible for the Stormy Daniels scandal?
a) Hillary b) Obama c) The Failing New York Times d) School-age anti gun violence protesters e) President Donald Trump, the most popular President in history
Anyone who votes e), will not be allowed to post. Which will be arguably correct, because it will indeed show that they didn't read the story.
If a business is open to the general public (unlike say, a private club) then there are some reasonable limits to that freedom. Like not being allowed to refuse service based on skin color, etc.
Waymo cars were able to drive almost 5,600 miles last year without driver intervention. Uber’s cars weren’t able to meet a target goal of 13 miles per intervention.
So the safety driver wasn't the redundant "last line of defense." The goal was that some day he might be, but for now he was the non-redundant FIRST line of defense.
The problem of keeping safety drivers attentive in driverless or Tesla Autopilot cars isn't new either. Or even before that: Driver Attention Monitoring Systems - using eye tracking and more - have been in production cars for over a decade.
This wasn't a 9.2 earthquake hitting. It wasn't a perfect storm. It was shoddily designed system, not ready for using an unsuspecting public as test subjects.
I know the police initially used the word, but there's a lot about what they said that turned out to be - to put it politely - inaccurate.
In most places it's only jaywalking to cross in mid-block when the intersections at both ends of the block have lights. That wasn't the case here.
The eight-lane road the victim was attempting to cross—has only one crosswalk in nearly two miles of road, making jaywalking a requirement of the urban design.
Well. Perhaps it can be labelled jaywalking. But not to imply that it was illegal or even wrong.
It appears this ban affects only Uber. Waymo cars were able to drive almost 5,600 miles last year without driver intervention. Uber’s cars weren’t able to meet a target goal of 13 miles per intervention.
Uber is losing $billions a year, but got $3.5 billion from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.
Arizona didn't ban self-driving cars; they banned a method of extracting money from Saudis.
Customers not only need to navigate all the various silos, they also need to be on "compatible" devices to get the DRM of the day to work.
When I got the Shomi streaming service here in Canada, I had to do some serious research and open holes in my firewall to get it to work. (Shomi shut down immediately after, but it's still included in my cell bill.)
For 10 different streaming services, that'll be 10 different DRM schemes to contend with at once.
Whenever there is a an economic transition, it is important for the business people to try out all of the bad ideas first and complain later when people do not fall in line.
Except that this is very much the opposite. The content creators are going from a good idea where everyone fell in line, to a bad idea that people will bypass with piracy.
As the resolution and quality of spherical image cameras, tools and viewers increases, VR movies will soon move from novelties to award-winning productions.
Given their demand for traditional distribution, I hope that Cannes will publish a list traditional theatres in France with spherical screens.
The claim you highlight is unsubstantiated and unsubstantiABLE.
er, which one?
Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, has publicly confirmed the Stormy Daniels affair and payoff.
So are you talking about the unsubstantiated claim about the threat, or the unsubstantiated claim by Trump's lawyer about the (previous) unsubstantiated claim naming him?
Is that Trump plays the exact same game they do. Make stupid shit up and falsely label stuff.
Granted, the "made up" "falsely labeled" stuff about Trump almost always comes with video or audio of him saying or doing it. Or in this case, his own lawyer confirming the affair and pay-off.
Trump's handlers have a bugger of a time contradicting Trump's video, audio or tweets on TV interviews, especially given that Trump will inevitably contradict them hours later. That's just how diabolical the left is.
Trump is a democrat in faux conservative clothing
The same can be said of the entire alt-right movement and the Tea Party movement before it.
That said, he's 100% Republican. Not just in his support, but in his positions on the issues.
But sure; go ahead. We kept hearing in the 2008 election how Republicans shouldn't get the blame for Bush II, because "he wasn't really a Republican anyway." You'll say it for Trump, and you'll eventually say it for Ted Nugent or whomever the party next declares to be paragon of Republican Conservatism next.
Re: Section 230 used by you to claim "platforms" can control users!
Close but no tinfoil.
The claim is that Facebook and other corporations are private entities, not government. Thus they are not bound by the First Amendment any more than you as a private individual.
The internet itself will remain. If Facebook goes the way of Myspace, a foreign-hosted alternative will appear. Possibly with the same owners and investors.
> Already if one wants to go from the east coast to the west coast it is impossible without your travel being recorded.
That's reality without driver-less cars. Almost all cars sold today have OnStar type systems, collecting information to monetize you even when you don't subscribe.
The local transit system here went to electronic fare cards a year ago. All travels are tracked, and the data has already shown up in a couple court cases.
> In the future with driver-less cars you can then add in that the car, along with it master control system, will be able to decide where you can and can not go.
Again, already a reality. OnStar type systems can disable a stolen car, and police will occasionally have that done in a police chase.
The significant difference won't be totalitarian government. It'll be the ability of driverless car companies to map an area to fine resolution, convince the telecommunications companies to install sufficient wireless infrastructure to connect to cloud computing and convince the taxpayers to pay for new road markings and signs. And either and ban snowfall or convince the taxpayers to increase their snow clearing budget to the point where all road markings are always uncovered during any snowfall.
You'll have coverage maps just like cell phone companies. And as long as there are significant blind spots, cars with the option of letting you drive will always be around.
> ...that will make federalism, Marxism and slavery look tame by comparison
Nonsense, despite what I wrote above. The country is still a democracy, and Americans do tend to react at the polls when they actually encounter consequences. Tracking them or selling their data can go unnoticed, but trying to control them gets noticed quickly.
On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain
Being AI-generated, you don't get the copyright. But would Marvel or Disney have a claim?
On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain
Re:
At least it'll keep the plants watered.
On the post: It Took All Of Three Hours To Code A Plugin That Makes News Comments More Civil
Who is responsible for the Stormy Daniels scandal?
a) Hillary
b) Obama
c) The Failing New York Times
d) School-age anti gun violence protesters
e) President Donald Trump, the most popular President in history
Anyone who votes e), will not be allowed to post. Which will be arguably correct, because it will indeed show that they didn't read the story.
On the post: Court Tosses Dennis Prager's Silly Lawsuit Against YouTube, Refuses His Request For Preliminary Injunction
Re: Public Place
If a business is open to the general public (unlike say, a private club) then there are some reasonable limits to that freedom. Like not being allowed to refuse service based on skin color, etc.
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: Bad faith vs. Perfect Storms
Waymo cars were able to drive almost 5,600 miles last year without driver intervention. Uber’s cars weren’t able to meet a target goal of 13 miles per intervention.
So the safety driver wasn't the redundant "last line of defense." The goal was that some day he might be, but for now he was the non-redundant FIRST line of defense.
The problem of keeping safety drivers attentive in driverless or Tesla Autopilot cars isn't new either. Or even before that: Driver Attention Monitoring Systems - using eye tracking and more - have been in production cars for over a decade.
This wasn't a 9.2 earthquake hitting. It wasn't a perfect storm. It was shoddily designed system, not ready for using an unsuspecting public as test subjects.
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re: Re: Citation needed. -- Not from The GOOGLE, either.
Waymo Via NYT
Beyond that I won't accept that you're skeptical, with the only "evidence" coming from the entity questioning.
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
Re:
She wasn't jaywalking.
I know the police initially used the word, but there's a lot about what they said that turned out to be - to put it politely - inaccurate.
In most places it's only jaywalking to cross in mid-block when the intersections at both ends of the block have lights. That wasn't the case here.
Well. Perhaps it can be labelled jaywalking. But not to imply that it was illegal or even wrong.
On the post: Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed
It appears this ban affects only Uber. Waymo cars were able to drive almost 5,600 miles last year without driver intervention. Uber’s cars weren’t able to meet a target goal of 13 miles per intervention.
Uber is losing $billions a year, but got $3.5 billion from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.
Arizona didn't ban self-driving cars; they banned a method of extracting money from Saudis.
On the post: Dental Care Provider Threatens Parents With State Intervention If They Don't Set Up Appointments For Their Kids
It's nice to know that the dentist who killed that lion will have someone to talk to at trade shows.
On the post: The Rise In Streaming Video Exclusives Could Annoy Consumers, Driving Them Back To Piracy
Re: Another pro-piracy consequence
When I got the Shomi streaming service here in Canada, I had to do some serious research and open holes in my firewall to get it to work. (Shomi shut down immediately after, but it's still included in my cell bill.)
For 10 different streaming services, that'll be 10 different DRM schemes to contend with at once.
On the post: The Rise In Streaming Video Exclusives Could Annoy Consumers, Driving Them Back To Piracy
Re: Why is this a problem?
Except that this is very much the opposite. The content creators are going from a good idea where everyone fell in line, to a bad idea that people will bypass with piracy.
On the post: Bob Murray Sends Judge Whiny Letter Saying That Losing Case To John Oliver Is Making People Say Mean Things To Him
Re:
Maybe he'll act presidential and declare the judge's decision to be invalid based on his ancestry.
On the post: Cannes Bans Netflix Films From Competition Because The Internet Is Bad (Or Something)
Given their demand for traditional distribution, I hope that Cannes will publish a list traditional theatres in France with spherical screens.
/s
On the post: Trump's Lawyer's Lawyer Threatens Defamation Over Claims Stormy Daniels Did Not Make
Re: Re: Re: what pisses leftists off most...
On the post: Trump's Lawyer's Lawyer Threatens Defamation Over Claims Stormy Daniels Did Not Make
Re: Have you no shame, Mike McCarthy?
er, which one?
Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, has publicly confirmed the Stormy Daniels affair and payoff.
So are you talking about the unsubstantiated claim about the threat, or the unsubstantiated claim by Trump's lawyer about the (previous) unsubstantiated claim naming him?
On the post: Trump's Lawyer's Lawyer Threatens Defamation Over Claims Stormy Daniels Did Not Make
Re: what pisses leftists off most...
Granted, the "made up" "falsely labeled" stuff about Trump almost always comes with video or audio of him saying or doing it. Or in this case, his own lawyer confirming the affair and pay-off.
Trump's handlers have a bugger of a time contradicting Trump's video, audio or tweets on TV interviews, especially given that Trump will inevitably contradict them hours later. That's just how diabolical the left is.
The same can be said of the entire alt-right movement and the Tea Party movement before it.
That said, he's 100% Republican. Not just in his support, but in his positions on the issues.
But sure; go ahead. We kept hearing in the 2008 election how Republicans shouldn't get the blame for Bush II, because "he wasn't really a Republican anyway." You'll say it for Trump, and you'll eventually say it for Ted Nugent or whomever the party next declares to be paragon of Republican Conservatism next.
On the post: Wherein Facebook Loses Recess For Everyone
Re: Section 230 used by you to claim "platforms" can control users!
The claim is that Facebook and other corporations are private entities, not government. Thus they are not bound by the First Amendment any more than you as a private individual.
The claim is accurate.
On the post: Wherein Facebook Loses Recess For Everyone
Re:
The internet itself will remain. If Facebook goes the way of Myspace, a foreign-hosted alternative will appear. Possibly with the same owners and investors.
On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry
Re:
That's reality without driver-less cars. Almost all cars sold today have OnStar type systems, collecting information to monetize you even when you don't subscribe.
The local transit system here went to electronic fare cards a year ago. All travels are tracked, and the data has already shown up in a couple court cases.
> In the future with driver-less cars you can then add in that the car, along with it master control system, will be able to decide where you can and can not go.
Again, already a reality. OnStar type systems can disable a stolen car, and police will occasionally have that done in a police chase.
The significant difference won't be totalitarian government. It'll be the ability of driverless car companies to map an area to fine resolution, convince the telecommunications companies to install sufficient wireless infrastructure to connect to cloud computing and convince the taxpayers to pay for new road markings and signs. And either and ban snowfall or convince the taxpayers to increase their snow clearing budget to the point where all road markings are always uncovered during any snowfall.
You'll have coverage maps just like cell phone companies. And as long as there are significant blind spots, cars with the option of letting you drive will always be around.
> ...that will make federalism, Marxism and slavery look tame by comparison
Nonsense, despite what I wrote above. The country is still a democracy, and Americans do tend to react at the polls when they actually encounter consequences. Tracking them or selling their data can go unnoticed, but trying to control them gets noticed quickly.
On the post: Both Facebook And Cambridge Analytica Threatened To Sue Journalists Over Stories On CA's Use Of Facebook Data
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FACEBOOK USER = BRAIN DEAD IDIOT
There's probably a lens for that, but the Oculus Rift doesn't support playback from 35mm.
Next >>