Sure they do. You may have noticed face detection and auto white balance on cameras. On the production side, using smart filters to do things like background removal means that we can get pretty good results without having to pay someone to rotoscope every frame by hand.
These sorts of things reduce the barrier to entry and mean that one person can do what once took a team months. They're invaluable tools, especially for anyone who isn't a blockbuster movie.
As an example, if the face detector doesn't recognize a skin color or face shape then it doesn't work with some actors. Can you imagine that conversation?
"We can't cast you, our tools don't work with your skin color." "Prepare to loose a major lawsuit."
Ideally the cell phone would not support some of this functionality. Alternately, it can spoof results to this call. Cell carriers should start to be worried about these things. It's their technology that's being used by the government. Traditionally this hasn't been a PR nightmare, but it could easily turn into one.
Remember that IP laws themselves are a "temporary" monopoly granted by the government. They are, fundamentally, a government authorized restriction of speech.
We don't normally consider IP laws as an exception to the First Amendment, but there's no other way to look at it. Which means any sort of overly broad claim runs smack dab into the issue of free speech.
While it's important to talk about Latinos, there's another major segment that won't respond well if they have to do something online, or even just print something from the internet. That's the older generation.
My grandmother doesn't own a computer, and I suspect that is the case for many of her neighbors as well. Areas with higher retirement age populations would be under represented by a shift to digital. Which should have some interesting consequences.
How much of that evidence is admissible. Much of it was obtained without a warrant, and in an illegal manner.
The problem is that every step of the way the NZ and US governments have done so many shady and illegal things to obtain a guilty verdict. Most of the reason this trail has gone on so long has purely been because it seems like the governments assumed that they would never be called out.
My current phone (Moto G5 Plus) requires a password every 72? hours. That's pretty secure. Also, simply being able to lower that number to say 24 hours would help tremendously.
It also has the (now standard) 10 bad tries and wipes the phone feature.
A consequence of all these actions are that phone manufacturers are actively working on ways of making the devices more secure against coercion.
Here's another good idea. I have a smart watch, what if every time the phone looses connection to it for a few minutes it requires a password. That's something that's easily doable, and would mean that any time I'm separated from my phone it goes into a more secure state.
Serious question. Is this legal? I mean the US has trade deals with China.
It's pretty normal to say anything the government buys has to be made in America. It's not normal to say if you use any Chinese products the US government refuses to do business with you.
Even the threat letters sent by congresspeople sound like an easy win for China at the WTO.
Hmm, I wonder if they can file for declaratory judgement. Sure, they wouldn't get any money, but it could be a way to say, "go through discovery or be legally barred from suing us over this."
Usage: "Americans wanted to "drain the swamp" so they appled Trump and his Wall Street and oil industry friends into the White House."
This kills me. If only because after a day of coding I see:
"Americans wanted to " <value error> <value error> <value error> " so they appled Trump and his Wall Street and oil industry friends into the White House."
Who broke it? Certainly not the media. There are a few specific limits on free speech in the US. Showing a picture of people fired for being racist doesn't come near to violating any of them.
The hardest part about writing rangeCheck is deciding what to do when an error occurs. It's the try/catch block that's tricky, not the function itself.
Side note, but most modern languages do this sort of check all the time. Python arrays, C++ std::vectors, and plenty more do the check on every access.
including, but not limited to, cookies. Consent to tracking "must be freely given and unambiguous" -- it cannot be assumed by default or hidden away on a Web page that no one ever reads. Cookie walls, which only grant access to a site if the visitor agrees to be tracked online, will be forbidden under the new ePrivacy rules.
I actually have a problem with this part. the last time the EU did something like this we got all those useless, "This site uses cookies" banners everywhere. Now they're saying that sites must be able to operate without cookies.
First, every site that does any sort of sign on will now require a new warning banner on that page. It's useless, since the site must use cookies to make sure logged in users are who they say they are.
Second, goodbye any sort of site that does things based on sessions. Since it must work without cookies, it must work without sessions. Since that's not possible, they can't comply with the EU regulation. Things like shopping carts that don't require login run into the same issues as sing ons. They don't work without at least a session cookie.
Third, is the annoyance factor. Some sites tried doing this when the banner requirement was first introduced. The problem is since it didn't store a cookie, it assumed the user was a new visitor on every page, and constantly popped up. Sure, that can be mitigated by looking at the referrer, but every new visit will be greeted with a banner.
In theory tracking protection is a good idea. I can get behind things like banning browser fingerprinting or supercookies. Heck, I even agree with trying to regulate tracking pixels. However, the EUs track record with cookies is bad at best. I'm concerned that in their attempt to regulate the internet, they're just going to break it.
Are you really surprised? Consider the EU's stance seems to be that Spain's News Tax is a great idea. Consider the number of EU countries which have considered a Link Tax. Or how Germany has issues with most of Youtube.
In many ways the EU is much more protectionist than the US. They just tend to be protectionist of entire industries full of small players rather than one or two big companies.
In practice, this means that it's nearly impossible to create an internet startup in the EU.
Consider what's happened in the past when the US was found to be in breach. We basically said, "No," and that was the end. It's actually one reason I'm amazed countries constantly want ISDS agreements with the United States.
The UK is moving along with an isolationist platform. All the politicians know that explicitly punishing them for this move will only encourage them. Theses lawsuits sure as heck look like punishment.
I could easily see the UK either saying that those ISDS treaties are EU specific matters, and since they're no longer a member don't apply. For non EU treaties, I could easily see the UK following the US approach and just dare the companies to follow through.
In the worst case, structuring a company to be based in the UK would be a horrid idea, since they could end up seizing it.
These micro grids are explicitly designed to deal with situations where the main grid is down. Situations exactly like those caused by Hurricanes.
Of course, if you're a power company, the idea of losing 25% of revenue because of local production is terrifying. Which is why Florida Light and Power would never let that happen.
the person with 51% can tell the minority owners to pound sand.
That's not how it works at all. On one level it does, but on another minority shareholders do have legal rights. If the 51% does something too horrendous, they can sue and win.
So... Lawsuit incoming. Actually there could be one regardless, but anything where speech affects his education from anywhere that takes government money is asking for it.
I don't know about that. Security guards are able to remove hecklers, even from public events, city council meetings, etc.
Actually they can't legally make content-based removals of people. Doing so anyway is a criminal act
Yet this does happen. Even in congress, cheering observers are significantly less likely to be thrown out than those shouting vulgarities. That's not a bad thing, but it's a known and accepted part of the first amendment.
I wonder if the defendant would have had better luck by phrasing her ban as an action to ensure the space is available to all audiences. That by temporarily curtailing his speech she was allowing others to speak that would otherwise be intimidated.
In general, the answer to these things is clear community guidelines, and have the moderators follow them. While allowing some flexibility is important,* it's also important for moderators to be as impartial and consistent as possible. Regardless of the topic and speaker.
Not really, because the ratings aren't all bad. Nightly News probably has reasonable ratings, but they wanted it just a bit higher. So, they used the intentional misspelling to not have a weekend that they knew would have bad ratings counted.
Of course, as has been mentioned this screws anyone with a DVR, since the show doesn't get recorded. It's also relatively easy for Nielsen to fix. Just add a step where the data is cleaned up. Possibly have someone set up a mapping by hand to re-name the shows.
Re: Re:
Sure they do. You may have noticed face detection and auto white balance on cameras. On the production side, using smart filters to do things like background removal means that we can get pretty good results without having to pay someone to rotoscope every frame by hand.
These sorts of things reduce the barrier to entry and mean that one person can do what once took a team months. They're invaluable tools, especially for anyone who isn't a blockbuster movie.
As an example, if the face detector doesn't recognize a skin color or face shape then it doesn't work with some actors. Can you imagine that conversation?
"We can't cast you, our tools don't work with your skin color." "Prepare to loose a major lawsuit."
Re: Librem 5
Ideally the cell phone would not support some of this functionality. Alternately, it can spoof results to this call. Cell carriers should start to be worried about these things. It's their technology that's being used by the government. Traditionally this hasn't been a PR nightmare, but it could easily turn into one.
Re: but they're both commercial entities?
Remember that IP laws themselves are a "temporary" monopoly granted by the government. They are, fundamentally, a government authorized restriction of speech.
We don't normally consider IP laws as an exception to the First Amendment, but there's no other way to look at it. Which means any sort of overly broad claim runs smack dab into the issue of free speech.
Florida won't be happy
While it's important to talk about Latinos, there's another major segment that won't respond well if they have to do something online, or even just print something from the internet. That's the older generation.
My grandmother doesn't own a computer, and I suspect that is the case for many of her neighbors as well. Areas with higher retirement age populations would be under represented by a shift to digital. Which should have some interesting consequences.
Re:
The problem is that every step of the way the NZ and US governments have done so many shady and illegal things to obtain a guilty verdict. Most of the reason this trail has gone on so long has purely been because it seems like the governments assumed that they would never be called out.
Re: Killswitch
It also has the (now standard) 10 bad tries and wipes the phone feature.
A consequence of all these actions are that phone manufacturers are actively working on ways of making the devices more secure against coercion.
Here's another good idea. I have a smart watch, what if every time the phone looses connection to it for a few minutes it requires a password. That's something that's easily doable, and would mean that any time I'm separated from my phone it goes into a more secure state.
Against Trade Deals?
It's pretty normal to say anything the government buys has to be made in America. It's not normal to say if you use any Chinese products the US government refuses to do business with you.
Even the threat letters sent by congresspeople sound like an easy win for China at the WTO.
Declaratory Judgement
Re:
Seriously, this might be one of those privacy violations the EU only seems to care about when it's Facebook or some other US company.
Quotes...
This kills me. If only because after a day of coding I see:
"Americans wanted to " <value error> <value error> <value error> " so they appled Trump and his Wall Street and oil industry friends into the White House."
Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Re: Re:
Side note, but most modern languages do this sort of check all the time. Python arrays, C++ std::vectors, and plenty more do the check on every access.
Breaking the internet
I actually have a problem with this part. the last time the EU did something like this we got all those useless, "This site uses cookies" banners everywhere. Now they're saying that sites must be able to operate without cookies.
First, every site that does any sort of sign on will now require a new warning banner on that page. It's useless, since the site must use cookies to make sure logged in users are who they say they are.
Second, goodbye any sort of site that does things based on sessions. Since it must work without cookies, it must work without sessions. Since that's not possible, they can't comply with the EU regulation. Things like shopping carts that don't require login run into the same issues as sing ons. They don't work without at least a session cookie.
Third, is the annoyance factor. Some sites tried doing this when the banner requirement was first introduced. The problem is since it didn't store a cookie, it assumed the user was a new visitor on every page, and constantly popped up. Sure, that can be mitigated by looking at the referrer, but every new visit will be greeted with a banner.
In theory tracking protection is a good idea. I can get behind things like banning browser fingerprinting or supercookies. Heck, I even agree with trying to regulate tracking pixels. However, the EUs track record with cookies is bad at best. I'm concerned that in their attempt to regulate the internet, they're just going to break it.
Re: Re: Re:
Are you really surprised? Consider the EU's stance seems to be that Spain's News Tax is a great idea. Consider the number of EU countries which have considered a Link Tax. Or how Germany has issues with most of Youtube.
In many ways the EU is much more protectionist than the US. They just tend to be protectionist of entire industries full of small players rather than one or two big companies.
In practice, this means that it's nearly impossible to create an internet startup in the EU.
Will the UK pay out?
The UK is moving along with an isolationist platform. All the politicians know that explicitly punishing them for this move will only encourage them. Theses lawsuits sure as heck look like punishment.
I could easily see the UK either saying that those ISDS treaties are EU specific matters, and since they're no longer a member don't apply. For non EU treaties, I could easily see the UK following the US approach and just dare the companies to follow through.
In the worst case, structuring a company to be based in the UK would be a horrid idea, since they could end up seizing it.
Re: Meanwhile, in Japan...
These micro grids are explicitly designed to deal with situations where the main grid is down. Situations exactly like those caused by Hurricanes.
Of course, if you're a power company, the idea of losing 25% of revenue because of local production is terrifying. Which is why Florida Light and Power would never let that happen.
Re: Re:
That's not how it works at all. On one level it does, but on another minority shareholders do have legal rights. If the 51% does something too horrendous, they can sue and win.
Re: And lost his scholarship
Re: Re: Re:
Yet this does happen. Even in congress, cheering observers are significantly less likely to be thrown out than those shouting vulgarities. That's not a bad thing, but it's a known and accepted part of the first amendment.
I wonder if the defendant would have had better luck by phrasing her ban as an action to ensure the space is available to all audiences. That by temporarily curtailing his speech she was allowing others to speak that would otherwise be intimidated.
In general, the answer to these things is clear community guidelines, and have the moderators follow them. While allowing some flexibility is important,* it's also important for moderators to be as impartial and consistent as possible. Regardless of the topic and speaker.
* Zero tolerance policies end badly.
Re: A Better Mousetrap
Of course, as has been mentioned this screws anyone with a DVR, since the show doesn't get recorded. It's also relatively easy for Nielsen to fix. Just add a step where the data is cleaned up. Possibly have someone set up a mapping by hand to re-name the shows.
More comments from Arthur Moore >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Arthur Moore.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt