Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Standing. (Score 3, Insightful) 99

As soon as person A releases the work to the public domain they no longer own copyright on it. They have standing to sue when B tries to license it back to them or restrict there own use of it.

But they can't sue B for the 'general misuse of that public domain image' in terms of their attempts to license it to others.

Now personally, I see a wedge of reason for there to be a cause of action there,

I've been mulling that over too since posting. By releasing it into the public domain, one interpretation is that their are no copyright holders; but another is that the 'public' is the copyright holder and the copyrights have been transferred to "the public". And by that interpretation any member of the public could sue over misuse... but also by that interpretation Getty images is also a legitimate copyright holder attempting to sell licensing. (admittedly they are attempting to sell licensing to people who are already themselves copyrigth owners... but im not sure that is illegal.

For example... Michael Jackson owned the Beatles catalog at one time, but there was nothing illegal or even shady about the prospect of say a record store wanting to sell him a Beatles CD and effectively get him to pay for a licensed copy of music he already owned the copyright on.

On the other hand, the whole thing smacks of abuse here with getty images ... and if its not illegal it certainly should be. But the courts function is to adjudicate the law, not make it. So as is often the case, it falls to a dysfunctional congress to fix it.

Comment Re:Standing. (Score 1) 99

Pretty sure the legal system just said it is okay to send out extortion letters for public domain images.

In precisely the same way that if you camp on my cousins front yard and I sue you for the tort of tresspass; the courts will dismiss the case because I don't have standing.

The courts aren't saying you can can camp on my cousins front yard. they are just saying *I* can't sue them for it. My cousin, on the other hand...

Or perhaps if it rises to the level of criminal trespass the police and state can prosecute directly.

But in any case, *I* can't bring a lawsuit over it.

In this particular case, I'd suggest that any one extorted by getty should be suing them. And further, that in this case it should rise to the level of criminal copyright infringment and that it would be in the publics best interest for the state to prosecute the case on behalf of the public.

Comment Re:HAHAHAH (Score 1) 667

It's not Trump and his followers that people need to worry about, it's the disgruntled liberals and their extreme anger and intolerance which is a path to dictatorship.

If a "disgruntled populace and extreme anger and intolerance" is a path to dictatorship. Then "Trump and his followers" represent that demographic to a tee.

I'm not saying that there isn't plenty of harmful extremism on the left too. Because we both know there is. But to pretend "Trump and his supporters" aren't disgruntled, aren't extremely angry, and aren't intolerant undermines any credibility you might have.


This debate really has NOTHING to do with Clinton. Why even bring her up? We should be evaluating Trump on his own merit, his own words, and his own actions now.

But fine... if you want to talk about clinton... let's do that...

would have never had the guts to pull the plug on this

A treaty needs 2/3rds of the Senate before it can be ratified. If the TPP ever became law, blame the Senate. Slightly over half of it is republican. If 2/3rds of senate approve the TPP, the problem is not Hillary.

she would have happily sold the country to foreign interests

The US, as in most treaties it signs, would be the primary benefactor of the TPP. Not regular US citizens perhaps, but US "interests" nonetheless. Sold the country to domestic corporate interests. Sold the country to the domestic 1% interests would be more accurate if you want to be critical of what she would have done.

On the other hand Trump is the 1% of the 1%. And he doesn't have the shame or ethics to even comprehend a need to separate his business interests from his presidency. He said what he said to get elected. He might be well be willing to turf the TPP (to thunderous applause); but only because he thinks he can get himself a better deal.

just like she changed her stance on bankruptcy to please her Wall Street backers.

Indeed. Hillary was 'bought and paid for' by the so called elite 1%. Trump on the other hand IS the elite 1%. He's not beholden to corporate backers to serve their business he's free to do his own thing. But the only thing Trump has ever done is "serve himself". You might as well have elected "Goldman Sachs" as president; that's not beholden to corporate interests either... at least not to OTHER corporate interests.

Comment Re:HAHAHAH (Score 1) 667

You aren't wrong.

But, to play devils advocate, when exactly in Germany did it go from being "severely disturbed" to talk about Hitler creating a dictatorship... to it being a defacto reality?

Also, bear in mind, that once it is done, it's way too late to start warning people about it.

I personally, don't see Trump creating a dictator ship... ... but he's seems on the road to make a series of catastrophically ignorant decisions coupled with almost no shame or ethics with respect to maintaining any separation between his presidency and his business interests.

Comment Re:No, this seems wrong (Score 1) 69

That would be nice if translating sentences was the same as looking up words in a dictionary. It's not.

I literally acknowledged that in my post.

Languages have a fuzzy haze of concepts and ways to parse them.

Yeah, I called that "(to effectively build a weighted mapping of language equivalences)"

  weighting implies fuzzy and i deliberately said language equivalencies instead of word equivalencies because yes -- word groups, structures, even contexts etc have meaning beyond the individual words etc. chat = cat = gato is trivial but it's still illustrative of what is going on here.

Comment Re:No, this seems wrong (Score 2) 69

On the other hand TFS is basically gibberish.

There is no 'secret' language, or even deeper understanding. The notion that they aren't using english as a bridge language just means that they aren't translating Japanese-to-English-to-Korean.

But for example... if I train you that cat = gato in italian, and that cat = chat in french. And then ask you to spit out the french if give you the "gato" that's not exactly magic. It looks up 'gato' in italian and sees a reference to "chat". And it can do this without explicitly looking up the english "cat" and then feeding "cat" back in to look up the french.

English is still the bridge language that was used to train it.

Now this neural network is a lot more complex because lanaguage is a lot more complex than simple word substitutions but the neural network is still basically encoding that chat (french) = cat (english); and cat (english) = gato (italian) and the way this information is mapped into the neural network -- that it can now retrieve equivalencies between french and italian without being EXPLICITLY trained on them.

Its neat... but whoo... the neural network structure inherently models the transitive property of equivalence. That's kind of the whole point of the thing (to effectively build a weighted mapping of language equivalences) so it would almost be more surprising if it couldn't do some reasonable transalations between languages it wasn't explicitly trained on -- because english is the bridge between them in how the knowledge was built even if they aren't explicitly using english now.

I mean... train it on english to french, and train it on japanese to korean, and see if it can go from korean to english. It won't. Because it won't have ANYTHING to bridging those two sets of knowledge.

Comment Re: Karma (Score 3, Informative) 40

I'm not even sure why you would want to. Run a dumb HDMI cable into it from something that is competent, turn off any lag inducing image processing, and then other than on and off...I pretty much forget it even has any other capabilities.

I'm buying a TV for the screen. That's it. I don't care what else it does, and I certainly don't expect some piece of shit embedded apps to be worth anything new out of the box, let alone 5-10-15 years later.

Comment Re:Sigh. (Score 4, Informative) 196

"Canaccord Genuity analyst Michael Walkley said in a research report Sunday that Apple captured 75% of smartphone industry profits in the second quarter. But that's down from 84% in Q1 and 91% in Q2 2015, he said.

Apple's share of smartphone profits fell because of Samsung's improving profitability driven by streamlining its product lines along with strong demand for the Galaxy S7, Walkley said. Samsung's strong results are expected to continue in the third quarter ahead of the September launch of Apple's iPhone 7, he said."

"Samsung's share of smartphone industry profits improved to 31% in Q2, up from 22% in the first quarter and 19% in Q2 2015."

Apple's profit share of the smartphone market was in steady decline, and Samsung and others were in ascension. The ONLY reason Apple is back up to 90%+ in Q3 is that Samsung's profit share evaporated in Q3 due to the recall expense. It's that simple.

"Sorry, yes."

Comment Re:Sigh. (Score 4, Informative) 196

If 2 companies are splitting the profits taken in a market 50/50 and one does a recall that wipes out their profit for a quarter, then the other company is making the same amount of money... but now has "100%" of the profit.

This news is just a reflection of Samsung taking a giant loss on the Note7.

Comment Re:Read the Paper (Score 1) 477

Spending all this effort to accurately measure the thrust is an utter waste of time if the moment you start to investigate the cause you find it is simply due to electron emission.

It seems to me they ARE looking into causes. I mean, if it were something obvious that we already knew about they'd have found it already.

Comment Re:What if you're offline? (Score 1) 32

If your cellular connection isn't strong, a nearby Wi-Fi location can be a big help

Meh. I was travelling in Melbourne a while ago without a data roaming package, so i was relying on 'wifi' and it was a PITA.

A bunch of the free wifi spots I connected to weren't even routed to the internet; just an intranet advertising site for various stores around me.

A bunch more had various 'registration' processes to deal with; that needed to fill out forms and enter phone numbers etc to receive codes... and promos etc. Or i needed codes from inside the store... this last wasn't too bad but in theory, but in practice was more hassle than i wanted. I didn't want to be 'that guy' that goes in, gets in line, and then just asks for the wifi password...

A bunch more got me onto the basic web, but I guess various services and ports were blocked and, for example, I couldn't get a chat message out via skype etc.

A bunch more I was able to connect to but signal strength was too poor to do anything remotely useful, or they'd show up in my list but i wasn't able to connect at all.

A couple were usable. But it was an exercise in frustration. I guess once you know the lay of the land a bit better and know which companies run useful spots maybe.

I was right downtown and the number to sort through was overwhelming. A database of free wifi isn't a bad thing, but a database of useful free wifi sorted by how useless it is would be better -- but I'm not going to use a service from facebook anyway so ... meh.

Comment Re:Here's a thought (Score 1) 161

Now, if you want to make the argument that the electric cars are not worth it without the subsidy you might have a case,

I think it goes without saying that the "smart money" doesn't buy new cars at all. My last car was $7500. I've paid about $1100 in maintenance (the bulk of that was in the first 2 weeks just catching some work that needed to be done). And at 10 cents a mile for gas its double to triple the cost of an EV... but I'm starting several thousand dollars ahead of your purchase price, and the car isn't really depreciating. I'll lose 1500k in depreciation over the next 3-4 years. You lost that driving it off the lot; and will likely be down 30% after 3-4 years. ($4200). That buys me quite a bit of gas.

So for 1.5 years & 33,000 miles I'm out less than $330 in energy...[...] My other number prove themselves.

33,000 miles on $330, works out to 1 cent per mile. That's pretty suspect unless you are not paying for 3/4s of your electricty. You've already admitted you charge it at work. This is fine -- but you aren't paying for the electrity you are using and you've got to know that gravy train is going to end at some point. It might be valid right now but once the electric 'revolution' hits, you'll have to pay, and it'll probably be retail (e.g. marked up to cover the billing infrastructure and profit for impark or whatever outfit takes over running and maintaining the infrastructure).

Meanwhile, operating EVs in most of the country is closer to 3.5 to 6 cents a mile. An additional wrinkle, where I live at least is that my residential electricity pricing is tiered -- I get the first 1350kWH at 0.083 cents but then it jumps to 0.123. (And even the higher rate is cheap compared to major regions of the USA.) I generally sit within the threshold but there's not a lot of room, and adding an EV would be pretty much entirely at the higher rate. And again with the 'electric revolution' that is coming, I fully expect the price of electrity to go up, while the price of gasoline might actually even fall due to reduced demand... i don't really predict a fall, but i do think the negative pressure on demand may stop it from rising much.

ADDITIONALLY, electrics are currently exempt from fuel taxes, by virtue of not using fuel -- this is fine -- as it acts as an incentive to buy electrics which aligns with most urban planning -- BUT again, once the electric vehicle revolution hits, the need for the incentive will stop, and the tax authorities will be seeking to recover those taxes -- likely either via a tax on electrity itself, or a tax per mile driven from your odometer. In other words, that 'advantage' is going to disappear at some point.

but I'm counting on the price of the battery coming down in 5 years and there possibly being aftermarket choices. The is the only part that is a gamble. My other number prove themselves.

Maybe. It's hard to say. Maybe the current electrics are still early adopter vehicles and will not get the sort of mass market economies of scale in terms of replacement support (for example 'oh... you've got a '22; that was before the battery retrofit kits got standardized between manufacturers...yeah, we can service it, but we have to do a custom repack... so it'll cost more; your probably better off just scrapping it and getting a '29 that's had a recent retrofit; then you get the autonomous driving sensor kit upgrades too after the bugs were worked out in '27...). I do think as the electric revolution hits its stride the battery maintenance problem will largely take care of itself. But your "other numbers that prove themselves" are only valid today, and looking out with a 5-10 and longer you don't really account for the way the market is going to shift, as the majority of vehicles shift from gas to electricity, and the tax base shifts from gas to electricity.

There are quite a few gambles being made going electric, and while there is no question the cost to operate one is less, and will remain less even after the taxes and so forth made, that will close the gap a bit. A new electric vs an older used car still favors the older used car considerably.

One final option is an older electric (2010... etc) but now you are running right up against the battery pack issues and don't have several years for the market to solve the problem before you are likely to need one. So that is not a gamble I would take.

Comment Re:Ideally a manifest/profile from IoT makers... (Score 1) 230

Actually, It could be like antivirus or an adblocker where you subscribe to a service of your choice to provide you your device profiles from a database of devices... seeded by manufacturers, by volunteers, etc, etc... and not just IoT -- i think a system like this could work for mobile phone permissions and even desktop application firewalls.

Slashdot Top Deals

"...a most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!" -- _Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure_