Pay for the service, or move on to something else. Whining over a free service not giving you what you want is dumb.
The days of FREE! to build subscriber numbers are past. Companies want paying subscribers and actual income, not just subscribers to sell investors on the idea that someday, maybe, they can turn a profit.
I have more karma than you have accounts with mod points, buddy...
Pay for the service, or move on to something else. Whining over a free service not giving you what you want is dumb.
The days of FREE! to build subscriber numbers are past. Companies want paying subscribers and actual income, not just subscribers to sell investors on the idea that someday, maybe, they can turn a profit.
Can't seem to get sufficient funding from sources in America.
But this is a source in America....
Huawei gives money to a non-profit research foundation in America, and then that American foundation gives the freshly-laundered money to researchers to fund their work.
The problem comes when the research results are shared back to Huawei by the foundation. Depending on the type of research, this could be a serious federal crime.
Otherwise, it is legal.
TLDR: Money in = Good. Research out = Bad.
Some of my employees communicate almost entirely by emoji text messages. They do their jobs well enough, and I get the gist of what they mean so it works -mostly. But when something important comes up, I do feel like I am teaching anger management to a child... "Use your words."
4 months at club fed... billions in profits stashed away safely
They will be required to hand over this information during discovery.
IF this goes to trial, I expect this to be made public. If it is trivial to trigger, the complainants will say so -if it is not, the defense will bring it up on cross.
I mean, if those AI products use copyrighted data in coming up with their responses without citation, that is a copyright violation.
Except that it is not. Using copyrighted data is not a copyright violation (with or without citation).
Republishing copyrighted materials (or a substantial portion thereof) without a license is a copyright violation.
(There can be a fair-use exception if it is "transformative" as opposed to "derivative" -but this would be subject to interpretation.)
I hope that this goes to trial -I want to hear the legal arguments:
According to the law as written, it is not technically a violation. [republishing is not occurring]
But it could be interpreted as a violation of the intent of copyright law... [to allow authors and artists to afford to continue creating works]
but that interpretation would itself be a violation of the stated purpose of copyright law. [to promote the advancement of science and the useful arts]
That is the thing about sovereignty... not being bound by any rules you don't choose to follow.
Any sovereign nation can ignore any treaty it wants to. But your fellow sovereigns may not trust you next time you pinky-swear.
The Soviet Union was.
Russia, as the official successor nation inherited the Soviet Union's treaties and position in the UN.
The UN Outer Space Treaty of 1966 already prohibits "nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner".
Um isn't this nearing a GDPR violation?
I'm pretty sure that the whole "Default to permission granted unless you take action" thing is a direct violation of GDPR in and of itself.
"TikTok owner ByteDance would prefer shutting down its loss-making app rather than sell it"
We would prefer that they shut it down too!
Keep in mind that those are commercial rates, not residential rates. Residential rates are much lower.
Either way, the actual power charges are pretty low. The PG&E fuck-you charges are many times the electricity charges.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
It is only 3-4 items down on the front page...
++Insightful
Eureka! -- Archimedes
