So next time you go into a restaurant and see that little sign that says "Employees must wash hands before returning to work", just hope that they aren't a big a fan of "personal liberty" as you are. 'Cause I don't know about you, but I don't want my special sauce getting seasoned with a big helping of "you can't tell me what to do".
I'm not sure what's going to force Netflix or any other streaming service to do anything. Why should they participate in some ratings scheme? They know if a show or movie is worth it to them, and that information is worth money. Making it public is giving their content providers leverage to shop around and raise their prices.
There's a whole industry of thumb twiddlers who might be out of a job without box office numbers to treat like barometers of future audience appetite or other prognostications, but I'm sure they can go on to find gainful employment in other fields.
I'm a US union employee, and I get paid above union minimum. My union contract sets a floor, if you get more than that, the union is happy for you. In fact, my employer gives their union employees more than the union required vacation days and other perks that aren't required by contract.
I'm also an at-will employee, so if I goof off, slack on the job, etc, they can get rid of me. (At most, there's some paperwork and procedures because of corporate reasons more than union rules)
I see you are citing the case of "Making vs Stuff Up". Unless you'd like to cite another basis for your belief? Mine is over here in CDA 230: "(1) No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." and "(2) No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)"
It actually came in 1996. CDA 230 was a reaction against the court decision Cubby, Inc. vs CompuServe and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy where CompuServe and Prodigy were found liable for user content because they tried to moderate their forums at all. Good times. I, for one, am looking forward to endless spam on every comment-enabled website I visit if CDA 230 goes away.
Of course, if it were possible to take control of a plane like this, the government would immediately ground all those planes until the security flaw could be fixed, right? Funny, haven't heard that they've done that.
The Slashdot article has a typo:
I was hoping I could get the non-retina version and swap out the hard drive for a slightly more reasonably priced SSD, but it looks like that won't work.
There's nothing "mere" about the mathematics of music or the fractal beauty of the shape of landscapes or the sound of the great outdoors. Humans are wired to appreciate all that, and it's the patterns at their core that both make them appealing and tractable to generate artificially.
A computer program that can generate music doesn't scare me.
A program that can enjoy music
Trust me, anything like this has been carefully been gone over by quite a few lawyers. Disney uses software that comes under a variety of licenses and looks at each one carefully, and they're even more careful when it comes to releasing something.
In this case, they want the ptex file format to be used and support to become wider among apps. Releasing the libraries (especially under BSD) will make it easier for 3rd party applications to incorporate it.
From fox.com/robots.txt:
User-agent: *
Allow: /
Disallow:
Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.
