In other news today...
-
@acrow said in In other news today...:
Legal time:
Knowing that the video was being broadcasted (streamed live, but I assume that they're legally equivalent if the stream is freely available and/or the cop did not know the breadth of the audience), the cop set music playing at volume loud enough to be picked up on the stream. I.e. he knowingly caused the piece of music to be broadcast, without having a license to do so.To the best of my knowledge, @boomzilla is right.
For there to be a legal case against the cop, the cop would have to have engaged in a specifically infringing activity. Closest I can find is public performance (that is: playing the song in public), but that has nothing to do with the stream, because the cop has no control over what, if anything, is being streamed.
-
@GOG said in In other news today...:
but that has nothing to do with the stream, because the cop has no control over what, if anything, is being streamed
Debatable. He's been informed that the camera is streaming. And, based this information, he activates music. I see it as analogous to playing the song in front of a CNN camera that's flashing "LIVE - IN AIR". That is, it's attempted broadcasting. But, again, IANAL, so I don't know how it'd fly in court.
-
@GOG I think the livestream is a red herring.
Based on the first random search result (and IANAL and to search more), I think it's actually pretty clear that the cop is doing an (unlicensed) public performance since he's "perform[ing] or display[ing] [the copyrighted work] at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered."
So regardless of the livestream, IMO the cop is technically infringing.
(and yes, on the strict basis of this law someone walking down the street with a loudspeaker is infringing... I am guessing that an actual judge would likely search for intent of "performing" (i.e. being heard by others), even though it's not specifically laid out in the law, but even accounting for that there is no discussion here that the cop intended for his music to be heard by the person recording it -- this is probably where the livestream is relevant as it proves the intent of the cop, even though again strictly speaking that's not required for a performance to be public)
(I believe that the person livestreaming would also be infringing by doing so, and thus in that regard Instagram's filter would be correct in taking the video down, but doing so would only stop the infringement by the second person, not by the cop)
-
Fuck off bloomberg I am not a robot citi-can-t-have-its-900-million-back
Last August, Citigroup Inc. wired $900 million to some hedge funds by accident. Then it sent a note to the hedge funds saying, oops, sorry about that, please send us the money back. Some did. Others preferred to keep the money. Citi sued them. Yesterday Citi lost...
There, have a fake one-box.
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Citi sued them. Yesterday Citi lost...
Couldn't happen to a more deserving .
-
@acrow said in In other news today...:
@GOG said in In other news today...:
but that has nothing to do with the stream, because the cop has no control over what, if anything, is being streamed
Debatable. He's been informed that the camera is streaming. And, based this information, he activates music. I see it as analogous to playing the song in front of a CNN camera that's flashing "LIVE - IN AIR". That is, it's attempted broadcasting. But, again, IANAL, so I don't know how it'd fly in court.
I'd say it all comes down to: Who does RIAA support, BLM or the police?
-
Live, right now:
-
@HardwareGeek Only 2+ million people watching...
-
@HardwareGeek Someone at work just commented they were watching on a smart TV and it allowed you to pan around the room!
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Fuck off bloomberg I am not a robot citi-can-t-have-its-900-million-back
Last August, Citigroup Inc. wired $900 million to some hedge funds by accident. Then it sent a note to the hedge funds saying, oops, sorry about that, please send us the money back. Some did. Others preferred to keep the money. Citi sued them. Yesterday Citi lost...
There, have a fake one-box.
That’s a completely bait-y story, though. The headlines1 sound like they just kept $900 million that wasn’t theirs, to which everyone’s reasonable reaction is “that’s outrageous, how could they lose that?!” But really it’s just money they owed and paid back too early, so they wanted to undo the transaction to keep the money a bit longer. Which suddenly makes the story go from “outrageous” to “well, sure”.
1 I read the story somewhere else as linked from slashdot, because Bloomberg’s looks like this and I can’t find the “fuck off” button.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
because Bloomberg’s looks like this and I can’t find the “fuck off” button.
That's called "clear all 'bloom' cookies".
-
For @Karla
-
-
-
@dcon said in In other news today...:
@HardwareGeek Someone at work just commented they were watching on a smart TV and it allowed you to pan around the room!
Oh, very cool. I went on a tour of the place and you can stand above the deep space monitoring room (the control room is just off that) and look down on it from windows. There's a plaque on the floor that designates the Official Center of the Universe that they use for all of their calculations.
-
One of the first images transmitted by the rover:
-
-
@dcon said in In other news today...:
For @Karla
Props! Muh, sista!
Though I don't have the gene (as per ancestry.com), it doesn't taste like soap to me. I don't like the actual flavor and am picky as hell.
-
@dcon said in In other news today...:
For @Karla
You people are freaks. I've tasted soap, and cilantro tastes nothing like it.
-
@da-Doctah said in In other news today...:
@dcon said in In other news today...:
For @Karla
You people are freaks. I've tasted soap, and cilantro tastes nothing like it.
Business idea: cilantro soap.
-
@acrow Regardless of whether he is informed or not, I don't believe that he could be shown to have sufficient control over what is being streamed to be found liable for infringing. That particular aspect is totally on the streamer, which was the whole point of the exercise.
@remi Yes, that's why I mentioned public performance. I am, however, not sufficiently familiar with local jurisprudence to know whether he could be successfully sued for it under the circumstances.
-
@GOG said in In other news today...:
@acrow Regardless of whether he is informed or not, I don't believe that he could be shown to have sufficient control over what is being streamed to be found liable for infringing.
Not really. After all, he starts after he becomes aware of someone recording him. Intent does play a rather huge role in such proceedings.
-
@da-Doctah said in In other news today...:
@dcon said in In other news today...:
For @Karla
You people are freaks. I've tasted soap, and cilantro tastes nothing like it.
It tastes like garbage, though, so there's that.
-
@Rhywden The cop may have intended it, but what if the streamer switches the sound off, or stops streaming?
The point is that the choice of secondary reproduction - that is: via stream - rests solely with the streamer (who, funnily enough, would probably have a pretty solid fair use case under the circumstances).
-
@GOG said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden The cop may have intended it, but what if the streamer switches the sound off, or stops streaming?
Then it becomes a no-matter. But your "what-if" does not apply. We're specifically not talking about your "what-if" case here.
The point is that he did do this and that it was streamed. As such, your other hypothetical scenarios are simply not applicable. We might as well ask what happened if a chicken crossed the street at the same time. Doesn't matter. What matters is the actual scenario which happened.
-
-
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
These lawyers are getting
steamed uprich, and everybody who buys games is paying for it.
-
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Six years of complete sales records from a non-party to the case in dispute???
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
Six years of complete sales records from a non-party to the case in dispute???
-
@Dragoon Hm, clearly written for a lay audience.
Transistors are often made up of semiconductors, materials that conduct electricity but not quite as well as metals.
Transistors are made up of semiconductors about 99.9999999999999% of the time, so yes, often is indeed true. And they do conduct electricity not quite as well as metals, but that's not really the point. To a first approximation, their conductivity can be changed by applying an electric field, and this is what makes them useful.
the popular semiconductor zinc oxide
Calling ZnO a "popular" semiconductor is misleading, at best. (I didn't even know ZnO is a semiconductor, and I work in the semiconductor industry.) 99% of semiconductor devices are made of silicon, and almost all the rest (mostly LEDs) are of some variation of gallium/indium/aluminum arsenide/phosphide/nitride. TIL there has been a lot of research on the semiconductor properties of ZnO in the last couple of decades, but so far it's still a lab curiosity. A patent for making a ZnO-based transistor was applied for in 2006 and granted in 2012; I don't know how the transistor works (I didn't give the patent more than a cursory glance; patents are written in an opaque style that makes sendmail documentation look as easy to read as a preschooler's picture book), but at least as recently as 2009, researchers didn't even understand the properties of ZnO itself, much less how to make practical devices from it.
(Conventional transistors depend on having two types of semiconductor materials, one with a carefully controlled addition of atoms of another element (commonly arsenic for silicon semiconductors) that has an "excess" electron compared to the pure semiconductor material (n-type), and one (commonly boron) that has one electron fewer than the pure material (p-type). The interesting properties of the semiconductor happen at the junction between the types, where the "excess" electrons of the n-type interact with the "holes" left by the "missing" electrons in the p-type. Apparently, ZnO is inherently n-type, for reasons not clearly understood (at least as of the time of the articles I looked at), and it's almost impossible to add impurities to transform it into the p-type material needed for conventional transistors.)
in just 0.00000000000002 seconds
20 femtoseconds. That is fast. I am accustomed to dealing with semiconductor reaction times in picoseconds, but not fs. I get the impression that is how long the laser pulse needs to be, not necessarily how quickly the ZnO reacts, but that's not entirely clear to me. If they can actually make practical transistors using this principle, it could indeed result in dramatic speed improvements, but I see some hurdles, possibly very large. These would be optoelectronic devices (optoelectronics is well outside my field of expertise, so I may be off-base here). To get that speed improvement, you'd need lasers capable of generating those short pulses. Such lasers exist, but AFAIK the only type of laser capable of emitting pulses that short are dye lasers, which are not exactly the sort of thing you can integrate on a chip with your transistors. Even if suitable solid-state lasers can be made and integrated into a chip, I suspect the number of devices that can be integrated into a chip is going to be much lower than more conventional (i.e., silicon) transistors. It's going to be a very long time before you get a ZnO CPU for your desktop.
-
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
but at least as recently as 2009, researchers didn't even understand the properties of ZnO itself, much less how to make practical devices from it.
Was involved in a student project around 2006 or 2007 that involved ZnO wafers for wide-spectrum LEDs (i.e., white light). The wafers did emit light, just not very much of it.
Our first test involved using a bench power supply, applied directly to a small cut of the wafer, less than 1mm^3. We were told not to lose those pieces, due to being ongoing research. Well, if you apply the amount of power necessary to get any amount of light out of those things, they get quite hot. For years there was a table in one of the labs with a piece of "super secret" wafer molten into it -- it was more or less impossible to remove (at least for us as students, and without further destroying the table).
In hindsight, that was quite a fun project. Even if it involved manually bonding wires to a wafer/substrate that preferred not have anything attached to it. The guy doing the research tried to explain some of the details (solid state physics was however never a personal favourite) -- IIRC it was a messy material, at least in term of being a semi-conductor (lots of indirect band gaps at different energy levels).
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Using an unrelated court case to get business data that from an unrelated company in business doing the same thing you are. If the courts force it through its a fucking scandal.
-
@cvi said in In other news today...:
lots of indirect band gaps at different energy levels
Huh. What I remember of solid state physics (which isn't much) said that you need direct band gaps to emit light; indirect band gaps won't work. Something about emitting a photon when a electron drops an energy level being sufficient to account for the transition in a direct band gap, but [mumble and wave hands] has to happen to account for the change in momentum (as well as energy) in an indirect band gap. That's why GaAs and friends (direct band gap) make good LEDs, but Si (indirect band gap) doesn't make LEDs at all.
-
@HardwareGeek Wikipedia seems to agree with you, so not sure what their trick was in the end. I remember that the hope was to have more efficient white LEDs because the LED would emit on different wavelengths in the first place, rather than doing the trick with reemission from something like phosphorous (or whatever material).
What I remember of solid state physics (which isn't much)
Same. I vaguely remember something about phonons which can account for the momentum in the indirect transitions, but that's about as far as my memory goes.
-
Guess we can't use Macs any more... Year Of The Linux Desktop!!!
-
-
article @TimeBandit posted in In other news today...:
what about JavaScript makes it hard to fucking analyze? Am I missing something?!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
what about JavaScript makes it hard to fucking analyze?
There isn't an
npm
package for it?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
what about JavaScript makes it hard to fucking analyze?
The usual approaches used by security “experts” don't work too well with interpreters because the approaches are based on either running things in a sandbox (which only answers “what does it actually do this time?”) or by looking at what capabilities are open to the program (with JS, that's pretty much anything). In particular, it's not at all difficult for code to be delivered to the execution platform that is both encrypted and compressed, making working out what's going on quite difficult indeed. Of course, these are all things that compiled programs can also do. The distinction (compiled vs interpreted vs the complex hybrid space between those two) isn't really all that helpful. (The article mentions that Apple has revoked the developer certificate on the binaries concerned, which is the right thing.)
Of much more interest to me at least would be what the initial infection vector was. The article says nothing about it yet that's where the real problem is. That the malware's developers used an up-to-date version of Xcode to build their code is… well, no, I actually don't feel sorry for them using Xcode, because fuck those guys.
-
-
-
@boomzilla Bonus points for creativity, I suppose.
-
Once more the dangers in automation are shown:
TL;DR
visitors
: Hey, people can just peek into the women's sauna when it's getting dark outside and the lights in the sauna are on
hotel staff
: But we've got automatic blinds...
visitors
: Well, they don't close.
hotel staff
:
-
Apparently this happens once every while...
-
-
@dcon That actually looks quite fun.
-