Linux succeeded because of the license.
No, Linux succeeded because BSD was held up in court. Users overwhelmingly wanted *nix on commodity PC hardware.
And you are seeing a similar disregard for the license here. Demonstrating the viability of Rust being more important than the GPL.
At some point we may have a human writer an a human director, and they prompt an AI. Is that still art?
If your argument is going to be boiled down to whether or not AI is considerd "art" then you have a very long road ahead of you.
My point is that if we have human writers and directors providing the creativity, and the AIs providing implementations, could it be art? I think that is the core of what we have to figure out.
However, it's because I believe many great consumer technology leaps were driven by porn: photography, home video, the internet, the smart phone, etc.
The smartphone??
I mean it was convincingly invented, if not widely used by IBM in 1993. It was made to look very impressive (albeit wired) in the late 90s by Olivetti. And of course PDAs approaching from the other end being more computer and less data. J2ME phones came out which were a pile of shit. Maybe you could get a shit game on them. I don't really know if Blackberries count: they were messaging first but did they have any generality beyond that? There was of course the legendary N900, and some impressive (for the time) yet deeply wonky Symbian devices.Then in 2007, Apple came out with a rather good dumbphone which was turned into a smartphone by Cydia, which Apple then got in on the game a year later (which is a bit weird if you think about it).
None of those were porn. It was all about connectivity and messaging and nerdy shit especially businessnerd shit (except the N900 which was real nerd shit). Then fashion, then just plain old usefulness.
I mean that's not to say people don't watch porn on a phone on a plane (shit head in 23A knows what I'm talking about you utter wanker, but not in that case literally thank god), but I don't there's a convincing case that porn had a significant role. Pocket computers were obviously useful, even more so with a data connection, and people had been trying to get them working for years before it finally took off.
Nope, it was the employees claim of "getting followed"
yet the point the officer made was "bringing out the camera", not "following". i know, i know, that's probably standard interview technique, right?
You are starting to understand. The officer wants to get the whole story from the followers side. The more he talks the better. If you start off with the serious issue that is your central concern that could spook him into silence. So start with the harmless stuff that will not tip him off.
anyway, merely "following" doesn't seem a crime to me either. but it's probably also a red flag that escalates
Its a public safety concern, its why the officer wants to hear the followers side of the story from the beginning.
my spider sense tells me that there is a tacit understanding between flock folks and police folks. not a conspiracy, mind, but they work together after all
And the officer is certainly aware of the wave of attacks on flock equipment. Hence concern over a flock employee being followed.
have a cordial conversation with him for 15 minutes to take him off yer back, errr, to gather information. standard procedure! happy flocking! as i said: incompetent or biased. or both.
Separating people about to fight is also a standard technique. Preventing the violence from breaking out. But truthfully, 15 minutes of getting the guy talking to describe the events so far is not really much.
Is this true for animated films too?
Yes.
What about hybrid live action and animated?
Yes.
Animated films that are CGI based rather than hand drawn/painted?
Yes.
Hand drawn that are computer "painted"?
Yes.
Broadcasting regulations say that the major political parties must be given equal time on the public broadcast frequencies.
That's not what it says, and there's no evidence that an equal opportunity on the network (note "network", not show) was not afforded to the other candidates.
"The equal-time rule (47 U.S. Code 315 - Candidates for public office[1]) specifies that American radio and television broadcast stations must provide equivalent access to competing political candidates. This means, for example, that if a station broadcasts a message by a candidate, it must offer the same amount of time on the same terms (in, say, prime time) to an opposing candidate."
Thanks for proving me correct... That doesn't mention "major political parties" at all.
Nope, you are still mistaken. "Candidates" represent the political parties.
And you completely ignored the latter part of my claim - that there is no evidence that other candidates for this office were not offered an equal opportunity.
They were offered the same as Kimmel, non-broadcast venues where FCC fairness rules would not apply. Venues were Kimmel could be as partisan as he wanted to be.
Like punches are a foot away from making contact and things are just really really off.
I wonder how much of that is based on human actor motion capture used for the animations?
In a movie, we appreciate the craft in bring words to life and it does require a high level of skill.
Is this true for animated films too? What about hybrid live action and animated? Animated films that are CGI based rather than hand drawn/painted? Hand drawn that are computer "painted"?
At some point we may have a human writer an a human director, and they prompt an AI. Is that still art? Aren't human words still being brought to life?
While AI will certainly lead to a lot of slop, hollywood is hardly without a lot of slop already.
I also expect that some currently unknown indie writer and director will create something very artistic and enjoyable. As we have had artistic and enjoyable animated films in the past.
But the purpose of the stop was not enforcement of the vehicle code.
You are mistaken. The vehicle code refers to a driver being a traffic safety hazard. As a driver distracted by following someone else would be.
Since the vehicle was not involved, the stop would not require a license to of produced. Of course, the cop would lie and make up a reason.
You are mistaken, the vehicle and public roads were used by the activist to follow the worker.
You are conflating a consensual encounter with a detention.
Nope, a public safety only requires suspicious behavior. Not a specific crime. For example a stranger following you.
"You'll pay to know what you really think." -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
