Oh Dear - that isn't what actually happens at all!
Here Come The AIs To Make Office Workers Superfluous
Sorry - that isn't what happens - for 2 reasons:
1) Alongside the plan to use a new technology to replace workers come another plan to use the technology to DO MORE than the previous workers did. (The quoted piece more or less admits that.) In the end that tendency will not quite restore all the jobs - BUT - it will do more than that when combined with
2) Empire building. New departments will be created to manage and procure the AI and because humans will still be in charge and their prestige depends on "having people working for them" these departments will not stay small long and will spawn subdepartments where the same processes will happen.
My old schoolteacher used to say that no machine had ever been invented that had actually reduced the amount of work that needed to be done - and nothing I've seen so far will change that.
So - AI will not cut jobs until it takes over the CEO's job and reason prevails in the company structure.
(Unless of course the AI is such a good impersonation of a human that it carries all the human flaws too!)
Why not take - some advice - in the spirit of VIZ topical tips http://www.fishtank.org.uk/humour/humour.php3?articleid=61 Avoid the bad publicity using the followinng tip: Have some plastic surgery so the selfie no longer looks like you and change your name by deed pole - it'll be cheaper than the lawsuit!
o put it bluntly the trademark should obviously not have been granted in the first place on a set of words that are the title of a book that has long been in the public domain.
The public domain is a copyright/patent concept. It has no meaning in Trademark law. The nearest equivalent in Trademark is the concept of a generic term.
Of course you can Trademark many things that you cannot copyright - they are quite different concepts.
For example "Amazon". How can you possibly trademark that when it has been the name of a major river for hundreds of years?
But of course they could and I could trademark it again - provided I did it for anopther type of business.
The world is awash with overlapping trademarks - eg Lotus Cars - Lotus Software- Lotus Watches.
Please don't conflate Trademark and copyright together - copyright maximalists just love it when you do - it gives them a power -up.
Just remember trademark is there to protect the consumer from being deceived - anyu other use of the law is abuse.
It should be illegal to even try to get a trademark on something that belongs to everyone already, especially with no room for uncertainty.
That translates to:
"It should be illegal to even try to get a trademark on anything"
Since all individual words and short phrases and specifically titles don't qualify for copyright and are hence in the public domain. (How come there are so many in copyright songs called "The Power of Love" otherwise.)
However the real crux of the matter is that this is trademark - and the concept of the public domain is rather different here - if it exists at all.
The problem is not in trademarking "Through the looking glass" it is in conflating together several different legal things and creating legal theories that have no foundation in the law. Disney does this all the time so there is some poetic justice here.
The point is this. If Disney creates a line of shirts called "Through the Looking Glass" then Alice Looking have a case - but so long as Disney sticks to movies there is no problem.
Actually I have some sympathy with Alice Looking here. They are getting their retaliation in first. I suspect that they are worried that Disney will create some merchandise around the film and then sue them. That is perfectly consistent with Disney's past behaviour. Getting their own lawsuit in at an early stage may be a good way to forestall a legal attack from Disney.
Twitter is free to remove anyone from the service who breaks the site's terms and conditions.
Fact is that both FB and twitter seem to be rather better at removing innocuous things (like pictures of statues and girls eating ice cream), or even people arguing against Islamism than they are at removing the propaganda of actual terrorists.
It would be better for them if they removed rather less - thus avoiding giving the impression that they are better able to remove stuff than they actually are. I'm sure that this impression is one of the things that motivates these lawsuits.
_ You may have heard that the UN Security Council passed a resolution recently, officially declaring that Israel’s settlements in Palestinian lands are illegal (something most of us knew already). The US normally vetoes this kind of thing, but this time it let it pass, with an abstention.
This has put Israel in a panic. It is lashing out at everybody, even accusing the US, its closest ally, of “abandoning” it. There have been countless General Assembly resolutions along similar lines before, but it has always managed to laugh them off. But the Security Council is different.
Speaking as someone who lives in one of the countries that sponsored the resolution, and who previously came from another one, I feel quite pleased at this. Some say it has purely symbolic value, nothing more. But Israel’s own reaction says otherwise._
I used to think like this.
I also used to think that a one state solution (as in South Africa) was the most sensible - since the people have to live together and if they can't live in one state then two states will most likely fight each other.
I used to think that all that was needed was a state which was secular - and belonged equally to whoever lived there and didn't privilege immigration fro one particular religious group.
However - I looked at the reality of the surrounding Arab countries and realised that this is a pipe dream.
It is clear that the dominant (if not majority) opinion in the Islamic world rejects the existence of Israel - in fact if anything it goes even further than that. So Israel is probably right to see no solution that way. But then there is no solution their way either.
Face it there is no solution.
And for the remaining minorities in the region, who are neither Muslim nor Jewish the result of being in the crossfire between the two will be inevitable slow annihilation.
So I am not pleased at this resolution - because it will only act as a catalyst for further conflict. Israel will reject/ignore it and the terrorists will use it as an excuse for murder.
I'm also kinda against the government giving money to people that keep having children. We need to do something about population growth. Perhaps we should do something like China.
Overpopulation isn't the problem we thought it was.China's experiment hasn't worked out as expected and is now being reversed. It was never really necessary and was quite inhumane.
The most humane method to reduce overpopulation is to educate women. Most western countries are operating below replacement rates largely as a result of providing education for women.
Since the guy responsible for the Berlin attack went to France and the Netherlands before he was shot in Italy, he might have been captured sooner if he had to provide documents and/or was not be able to buy new tickets at the last minute.
But "being captured sooner" doesn't prevent anything - and since a large proportion of these attacks are suicide missions anyway it is often irrelevant.
The problem with our anti-terror forces is that (as usually happens) they are fighting the last war. This is not like the IRA/Red Brigades or even earlier rounds of Palestinian (as opposed to Islamic) terrorism.
That most recent terror attacks are only loosely connected to mass transit?
Are they going to demand information about who shows up at the terminal building but never gets on a flight, or who goes to a nightclub or concert, or who walks along the seafront?
After all that is where the most recent attacks have happened.
On the post: Here Come The AIs To Make Office Workers Superfluous
Oh Dear - that isn't what actually happens at all!
Here Come The AIs To Make Office Workers Superfluous
Sorry - that isn't what happens - for 2 reasons:
1) Alongside the plan to use a new technology to replace workers come another plan to use the technology to DO MORE than the previous workers did. (The quoted piece more or less admits that.) In the end that tendency will not quite restore all the jobs - BUT - it will do more than that when combined with
2) Empire building. New departments will be created to manage and procure the AI and because humans will still be in charge and their prestige depends on "having people working for them" these departments will not stay small long and will spawn subdepartments where the same processes will happen.
My old schoolteacher used to say that no machine had ever been invented that had actually reduced the amount of work that needed to be done - and nothing I've seen so far will change that.
So - AI will not cut jobs until it takes over the CEO's job and reason prevails in the company structure.
(Unless of course the AI is such a good impersonation of a human that it carries all the human flaws too!)
On the post: Syrian Migrant Says He's Tired Of Being The Subject Of 'Fake News,' Sues Facebook For Posts Linking Him To Terrorism
Re:
Avoid the bad publicity using the followinng tip:
Have some plastic surgery so the selfie no longer looks like you and change your name by deed pole - it'll be cheaper than the lawsuit!
On the post: UK Company Sues Disney Over Its Use Of The Same Public Domain Book Title
Re: Re: Re: Re:
o put it bluntly the trademark should obviously not have been granted in the first place on a set of words that are the title of a book that has long been in the public domain.
The public domain is a copyright/patent concept. It has no meaning in Trademark law. The nearest equivalent in Trademark is the concept of a generic term.
Of course you can Trademark many things that you cannot copyright - they are quite different concepts.
For example "Amazon". How can you possibly trademark that when it has been the name of a major river for hundreds of years?
But of course they could and I could trademark it again - provided I did it for anopther type of business.
The world is awash with overlapping trademarks - eg Lotus Cars - Lotus Software- Lotus Watches.
Please don't conflate Trademark and copyright together - copyright maximalists just love it when you do - it gives them a power -up.
Just remember trademark is there to protect the consumer from being deceived - anyu other use of the law is abuse.
On the post: UK Company Sues Disney Over Its Use Of The Same Public Domain Book Title
It should be illegal to even try to get a trademark on something that belongs to everyone already, especially with no room for uncertainty.
That translates to:
"It should be illegal to even try to get a trademark on anything"
Since all individual words and short phrases and specifically titles don't qualify for copyright and are hence in the public domain. (How come there are so many in copyright songs called "The Power of Love" otherwise.)
However the real crux of the matter is that this is trademark - and the concept of the public domain is rather different here - if it exists at all.
The problem is not in trademarking "Through the looking glass" it is in conflating together several different legal things and creating legal theories that have no foundation in the law. Disney does this all the time so there is some poetic justice here.
The point is this. If Disney creates a line of shirts called "Through the Looking Glass" then Alice Looking have a case - but so long as Disney sticks to movies there is no problem.
Actually I have some sympathy with Alice Looking here. They are getting their retaliation in first. I suspect that they are worried that Disney will create some merchandise around the film and then sue them. That is perfectly consistent with Disney's past behaviour. Getting their own lawsuit in at an early stage may be a good way to forestall a legal attack from Disney.
On the post: Yet Another Lawsuit Hopes A Court Will Hold Twitter Responsible For Terrorists' Actions
Re: Re: death to white supremacists
and just how many of these terrorists groups have been spawned by the US and it's allies?
Exactly none of them.
What the US did do was to finance them (mostly by buying oil from Saudi etc) and remove the secular dictators that stood in their way.
But spawning them - no - that goes back to well before the US was even thought of - nearly 1400 years to be more precise.
On the post: Yet Another Lawsuit Hopes A Court Will Hold Twitter Responsible For Terrorists' Actions
Re: Re: Go for it
Twitter is free to remove anyone from the service who breaks the site's terms and conditions.
Fact is that both FB and twitter seem to be rather better at removing innocuous things (like pictures of statues and girls eating ice cream), or even people arguing against Islamism than they are at removing the propaganda of actual terrorists.
It would be better for them if they removed rather less - thus avoiding giving the impression that they are better able to remove stuff than they actually are. I'm sure that this impression is one of the things that motivates these lawsuits.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
Don Quixote, Swan Lake and Le Corsaire.
http://www.roh.org.uk/news/bolshoi-ballet-to-return-to-the-royal-opera-house-in-summer-2016
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: So, What Are Your Thoughts On SC 2334?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: So, What Are Your Thoughts On SC 2334?
_ You may have heard that the UN Security Council passed a resolution recently, officially declaring that Israel’s settlements in Palestinian lands are illegal (something most of us knew already). The US normally vetoes this kind of thing, but this time it let it pass, with an abstention.
This has put Israel in a panic. It is lashing out at everybody, even accusing the US, its closest ally, of “abandoning” it. There have been countless General Assembly resolutions along similar lines before, but it has always managed to laugh them off. But the Security Council is different.
Speaking as someone who lives in one of the countries that sponsored the resolution, and who previously came from another one, I feel quite pleased at this. Some say it has purely symbolic value, nothing more. But Israel’s own reaction says otherwise._
I used to think like this.
I also used to think that a one state solution (as in South Africa) was the most sensible - since the people have to live together and if they can't live in one state then two states will most likely fight each other.
I used to think that all that was needed was a state which was secular - and belonged equally to whoever lived there and didn't privilege immigration fro one particular religious group.
However - I looked at the reality of the surrounding Arab countries and realised that this is a pipe dream.
It is clear that the dominant (if not majority) opinion in the Islamic world rejects the existence of Israel - in fact if anything it goes even further than that. So Israel is probably right to see no solution that way. But then there is no solution their way either.
Face it there is no solution.
And for the remaining minorities in the region, who are neither Muslim nor Jewish the result of being in the crossfire between the two will be inevitable slow annihilation.
So I am not pleased at this resolution - because it will only act as a catalyst for further conflict. Israel will reject/ignore it and the terrorists will use it as an excuse for murder.
On the post: Finland Will Give 2000 Unemployed People $590 Every Month, No Strings Attached, Even After They Get A Job
Re:
I'm also kinda against the government giving money to people that keep having children. We need to do something about population growth. Perhaps we should do something like China.
Overpopulation isn't the problem we thought it was.China's experiment hasn't worked out as expected and is now being reversed. It was never really necessary and was quite inhumane.
The most humane method to reduce overpopulation is to educate women. Most western countries are operating below replacement rates largely as a result of providing education for women.
On the post: Finland Will Give 2000 Unemployed People $590 Every Month, No Strings Attached, Even After They Get A Job
Re: Who pays for a universal income?
I have a practical doubt about a universal income: Who pays for it?
A land tax.
http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm
On the post: Belgium Wants EU Nations To Collect And Store Personal Data Of Train, Bus And Boat Passengers
Re:
Not a bit like the station announcement my mother heard in ww2.
"ladies and gentlemen - it appears that platform 5 has been bombed the next train will therefore leave from platform 3."
On the post: Belgium Wants EU Nations To Collect And Store Personal Data Of Train, Bus And Boat Passengers
Re: Re: Have the Belgians noticed
Since the guy responsible for the Berlin attack went to France and the Netherlands before he was shot in Italy, he might have been captured sooner if he had to provide documents and/or was not be able to buy new tickets at the last minute.
But "being captured sooner" doesn't prevent anything - and since a large proportion of these attacks are suicide missions anyway it is often irrelevant.
The problem with our anti-terror forces is that (as usually happens) they are fighting the last war. This is not like the IRA/Red Brigades or even earlier rounds of Palestinian (as opposed to Islamic) terrorism.
On the post: Belgium Wants EU Nations To Collect And Store Personal Data Of Train, Bus And Boat Passengers
Have the Belgians noticed
Are they going to demand information about who shows up at the terminal building but never gets on a flight, or who goes to a nightclub or concert, or who walks along the seafront?
After all that is where the most recent attacks have happened.
On the post: Facebook Censors Art Historian's Photo Of Neptune's Statue-Penis
Not Automatic
And that's likely because Facebook is relying on some kind of algorithm to automatically generate these notices.
No it isn't automatic - it's done by low paid workers in the 3rd world where ideas about "art" and "decency" are somewhat different from ours.
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9118778/The-dark-side-of-Facebook.html or many other examples of this story - for those who never believe the Telegraph.
Moderators in Islamic countries in particular are likely to censor all kinds of things that we would accept without a blink.
Remeber what happened when the Iranian leader visited the Vatican..
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/26/rome-spares-iranian-presidents-blushes-cover ing-nude-statues
When the
On the post: Facebook Censors Art Historian's Photo Of Neptune's Statue-Penis
Not Automatic
On the post: Great: Now Wall Street Is Funding Speculative Corporate Sovereignty Claims For A Share Of The Spoils
Re: privilege on the nation-scale
On the post: Great: Now Wall Street Is Funding Speculative Corporate Sovereignty Claims For A Share Of The Spoils
Re: Re:
Winning against the US is one thing, getting them to pay when they have the bigger army and nukes is a very different thing.
As Antigua found out! www.antiguawto.com
On the post: Tesla Gave Up Its Patents, But People Are Freaked Out That Faraday Future Put Its Own Into A Separate Company
Re: Re: Patents vs Intellectual Property
Next >>