Range anxiety is going from one Podunkville to the next with long stretches of nothing in between.

My driving pattern still leaves me vulnerable to range anxiety.

Sure, that's improving every year, but if I had to buy a replacement vehicle today, it would not be pure-electric.

Hopefully things will change by the time I need to replace my current vehicle.

>but today the left/democrats are absolutely fucking bonkers.
>What's a woman? Really? jfc

I see your point, but please tell me you know about people who are biologically intersex, neither wholly male nor wholly female. Conservative estimates suggest about 1 in 5000 people are interesex.

Only 1425 out of presumably over 100 million Americans who identify as Republican? That's a very low number. Maybe it's just the high-profile ones.

To get anything close to a "real" list will take a lot of work and probably a lot of money.

If you are up to the challenge, you can compare public sex-offender lists with those who have voted in party primaries or registered with a political party. You will probably have to pay a copying fee to get the voting data though.

Even this will paint only a partial picture, since some people with partisan leanings can't or don't vote in primaries, and some convicted sex offenders aren't on public sex-offender lists.

It's a sad day when things like this happen.

I'm glad they prevented him from killing himself.

I'm even more glad he didn't intend to murder anyone.

Hopefully, after some psychiatric care, he will send the people who tackled him a thank-you letter and send the people running the conference an apology for what he put them through.

Give me a car that can do all my normal driving from the batteries, then attach a generator (or in my dreams, a fuel cell) that runs on gasoline or deisel so I'm not at the mercy of charging stations.

Wasn't the original Intellivision in the $150-$200 ballpark?

>Aren't actual rents readily available on sites like realtor.com?
Not necessarily.

Those may be the offered rents available today before any discounts, but they may not be the rents existing tenants are paying.

while it still includes two controllers featuring dials and number pads instead of joysticks, they're both wireless and charge when docked to the console.

Wireless, no matter how good, still has delays or blips which interrupt the signal. You need the consistent signal of a wired connection.

I know people will give me reasons why I'm wrong, but this is no different than having touchscreens for basic operations in a car. You need the analog touch for simplicity and reliability.

Grace Slick said the music of "White Rabbit" was inspired by Miles Davis' "Sketches of Spain." Ergo, not art. Copyright denied.

art is made by artists, not robots

Can a cyborg be an artist? Can photography be art, or does using a camera disqualify it?

As someone already pointed out, the "you can't copyright it if AI generated it, full stop" is about the only feasible interpretation that won't result in either an "everything generated by AI is copyright-eligible" scenario or every single application having to be decided on some criteria that will itself be challenged by those on the losing side.

On the other hand, the very act of prompting and re-prompting an AI until you get something that looks, subjectively to you, like a thing of beauty and IMHO is deserving of legal protection. Whether or not it should be treated as a wholly new work or as a derivative work depends on the same thing an existing "work based on other works" does - things like "is the other work recognizable" - "does the new work impact the commercial value of the previous works" and so on.

It is analogous to me hiring you (a human doing work for hire) to go search all the images of people in 10 magazines (all images presumably under copyright), find 10 with green eyes, 10 with red lipstick, and 10 with noses that are relatively narrow, then create combinations thereof using a blending technique (blend eyes from "green eyes set picture #1" with mouth from "red lipstick picture #1" with nose from "narrow nose picture #1") but change the eye color to blue and the lipstick to green and widen the nose. This will give you 1000 combinations to create. Then I will remove any generated faces that are "so close to the original that the result might be considered a derivative work under copyright law." I will then print out the rest, pick the 10 that I think have the most commercial value, then register my company's copyright on them.

You, my employee, may be doing the drawing, but I'm the one directing the scene (plus I hired you).

I very much doubt the copyright office would reject my application. I MIGHT have to face lawsuits from anyone who claimed I was infringing, but if I did my "reject close calls" filtering right, then by definition I would win every challenge when it got in front of a judge (if I lost, then I didn't do it right).

This is analogous to using an AI: I'm starting with many existing works, but I'm using a tool to selectively blend them in ways that will, hopefully, allow me to claim a completely new work. Even failing that, my creative use of the AI tool should allow me to claim copyright on this new work that contains, as a part of it, other works.

The key here is that I am using the AI tool creatively, not slavishly or trivially.

I don't consider myself an artist, but I suppose I could be. Like a lot of other computer dorks my age, back in the day I played around with ray-tracing and the classical mirrored sphere floating above a checkboard plane. (You too, huh?)

Then I tilted camera a little bit, changed the checkboard into a colorful 'Brot. Then multiple mirrored spheres, and a sun-like light source floating above it all (actually many light sources, slightly offset, to give the shadow edges more of a diffusion), a gradually shaded the sky to look like a winter sunset (I remember many January evenings walking home and looking at Albuquerque's evening western horizon, and thinking about parametric functions based on the angle, to recreate that blue-to-green-to-red look), then added more complex solids as I got a little better at the math, sent 4 or 9 rays through each pixel and anti-aliased, and ..

.. then focus moved away from the composition to performance, where I had a whole Netware network of machines at my workplace (shh, sneaking in there at night) to draw in parallel, using record-locks to control which y values were done/undone. And some of the machines were 486s with floating point hardware(!!) (OMG so fast!), and then ..

.. ok, and by the time I got bored and moved onto the next thing, I'll admit that what I had was still a cliche pastiche that few people would call art. It was crap, but it was damn fun to make, and that was the whole point. And so ends my story (but not my rant!).

But what if I had stuck with it? What if I had something to say? (Which I didn't.) I didn't draw those pictures, but I "drew" the thing that drew them. I specified them, and there was no limit to the complexity that could have been taken on. If had kept with it and had made something good (which I didn't), but then someone said I hadn't been the creator of my images, or that they were unfit for copyright whereas someone's freehand-drawn picture was fit, I think I would have resented that!

Wouldn't you?

The guy in the story didn't write Midjourney, but if he had, I would totally support his claim.

And waitaminute, so what if I wrote the program? That part of my work was just in getting it to work, and then getting it to work faster, and that's when I got bored because Dammit Jim, I'm a programmer, not an artist. But the other part of the work was the composition, the arrays of "objects" (this was straight C and nothing about the program was OO) and their positions and properties. What if someone else took my program but then modified the arrays to model the scene to their specification? Would their work be unfit for copyright?

> At what point does analyzing the market and trends to determine pricing become illegal?

It SHOULD become illegal when it uses information that is not easily available to renters.

In this case, the software has access to actual rents that are not widely available (at almost no cost or effort to obtain) to renters.

[pendantic]
As to when it actually becomes illegal? Same as with anything else: When lawmakers declare something is illegal, it's illegal until or unless a court invalidates the law making it illegal.
[/pendantic]

I think he meant no footprint as to exactly what articles you choose to read, or when you choose to read them.