Nonsense. The time of naked chess has finally arrived.

You know, just like the TSA will soon make naked flying mandatory.

Also under suspicion: The intelligence of his opponents in those tournaments, because they apparently didn't notice the most obvious strange behaviour ever.

i see what you're saying, but i have a different perspective

compare to music

if i listen to an album alot, eventually my friends/family will hear it...if they like it, that's one more listener/customer/concergoer for the band

same with FOSS, imho

if i use GIMP and Audacity to make pixel/art for an Instagram to promote my graphic design side job, that's the same thing

"all images made by GIMP"

now, if you want to be over-litteral, i guess you could say that it's not *the act of using* but the "evangelism" that happens *when it is used*

so in that sense i guess we could agree

care to elaborate?

No they can't, the law also states a deadline by which they have to answer and he made sure the deadline is ahead of the exam.

Which AFAIK they also can't do.

He found a valid loophole in the law, the combination of different unrelated government actions. Firstly they created a transparency law (good!) which applies to certain government institutions. Also, they centralized the exams - when I wrote my Abitur many years ago, questions were made locally, by the school you took it, mostly by the teacher who had given the course, so it was based on the material that had actually been taught. There are advantages and disadvantages to that. For whatever reasons, some time between my Abitur and now they centralized everything, which brought the exam questions into one of the government institutions covered by the transparency law. Whoops.

Yes, this is actually a good standard, mod the AC up.

If you can't re-write your policy change or other "equality" demand in a way that doesn't mention gender at all, then it's not actually an equality demand.

On the contrary, I'm working with OpenCV right now in a project, I've read up on a couple very recent papers regarding foreground/background segmentation, and the results are quite astonishing if you compare them to a decade ago. And in some edge cases (especially low visibility, low contrast, slow movement), the computer can beat the human eye.

But in the vast majority of cases, especially when the machine was not prepared for this precise task, there's still way too much crazy shit happening to entrust human lives to it, and machines still make many mistakes that humans look at for a split second and say wtf?

Yes, but not having the door locked makes even more sense form that perspective. Plus there's been at least one case (that I know of) where a passenger (who was also a commercial pilot) landed a plane after something happened to the pilot/s.

Because you can't see that poster from Japan. Both the writing and the reading happens in the USA, due to physical restrictions.

The Internet is not bound by these restrictions.

Here's the realistic options that Google has:

1.) file an appeal
2.) comply with the court decision
3.) stop doing business in Japan, effective immediately

For some rea$$$on, I'm pretty sure that contrary to the usual USA-supremecists big talk here, #3 will not even be seriously considered within the Google HQ.

Because of a bad analogy. A poster put up in California is not visible from Japan.

When you pull your head out of your ass, you can see the rest of the world more clearly. Try it.

Thankfully, Google is not a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum, like you'd like them to be.

including? What are the other options? Simply ignoring a court decision? Of course, they're a big american company with a big american attitude including the "our laws are the laws of the world" approach (we can sue everyone everywhere for everything that's illegal in the USA, but we don't accept other countries laws as valid to us, even when we're doing our business there).

I'm split on the court decision, adding more information to something is generally the better approach over removing information, but other than some fanatics I don't think free speech trumps absolutely every other right and consideration on the planet, and when someone knowingly spreads false factual information about you, the line has been crossed.

I think just using the software counts as "participating in the community"

GIMP is a good example...

Winamp spread this way