Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Low local benefit is key (Score 1) 108

Data centers take up land, power, and water that could be used by local businesses or homes. Even the largest data centers need ~50 employees. This is the same problem with self-storage places, and why some places now restrict building more of them. Just not much benefit to justify them locally.

Comment Obsolete data centers canceled before construction (Score 2) 64

As reported elsewhere, the long lead times have made some data centers obsolete at startup, or sometimes before construction is complete. For example, Oracle and OpenAI abandoned expansion of a data center in Texas, because the expansion as planned would not be ready for new NVidia GPUs. TFA doesn't mention the tremendous water consumption by data centers, a statistic AI companies strive to hide, and which many water-constrained communities rightly use to oppose data center construction.

Comment Re:Why not apply this to code as well? (Score 3, Interesting) 47

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that AI-generated artwork cannot be copyrighted because it lacks human authorship, reaffirming that copyright law requires works to be created by humans. This decision follows a case involving Stephen Thaler's AI-generated artwork, which was denied copyright protection by the U.S. Copyright Office.

*effectively ruled. The SCOTUS declined to take the appeal, leaving in place the lower appeals court ruling.The ruling doesn't specifically include source code, but there's nothing in the ruling (or in copyright law) to suggest an exception for AI-generated source code. It sure sounds like chardet v7 is in the public domain from creation, and cannot be restricted by any license.

Comment Re:Yawn.... (Score 4, Informative) 143

Correct. The long version: The plaintiff in a patent case is usually the patent-holder, who is seeking damages for infringement. In those cases, the patent-holder-plaintiff already had the burden of proof. In this case, the (potentially infringing) plaintiff is seeking protection from patent infringement lawsuits by suing the patent holder, requiring the (patent holder) defendant to prove that the patents are valid and/or that the plaintiff infringes the patents. Normally (and the appeals court found), the plaintiff would have the burden of proof. According to the appellate ruling, the plaintiff (potential infringer, seeking protection) would have to prove that they were not infringing, or prove that the patents were invalid. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court ruling: The patent holder, whether plaintiff or defendant, must prove that the other party (plaintiff or defendant) infringed the patents, and that the patents are valid.

Comment Re:a chemical explosion in a school bathroom is ok (Score 4, Informative) 1078

According to the incident report, "Mr. Durham advised Kiera told him she was conducting a science fair experiment... Wilmot advised she did not know what would happen when she mixed the ingredients. Wilmot advised she thought it would just cause some smoke." There were no injuries, no damage, not even clear intent. Where is the felony crime here? It's only in the mind of Assistant State Attorney Tammy Glotfelty.

Comment Turn a deaf ear to DRM demands (Score 3, Insightful) 394

Netflix is facing some hard choices. With Microsoft abandoning Silverlight on its own sites, the writing is on the wall. I say, let Netflix demand anything it pleases, and ignore all such demands. Eventually, Netflix will have to switch from Silverlight to something, and HTML5 is the obvious choice. If Netflix can't get DRM in the standard, they'll still have to find a way to keep streaming using existing standards.

Slashdot Top Deals

BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing. -- Seymour Papert

Working...