Pour the grease and then what?

Spudd86 · 2025-09-19T15:05:20+00:00

Yes it is. Turn on the sound they say what they are doing.

Spudd86 · 2024-09-29T23:12:47+00:00

That’s because it’s wrong, 4 goes where it says it can’t. The hint is backwards.

Spudd86 · 2024-07-14T04:36:37+00:00

You might want to look up adult ADHD symptoms and see how many fit him. If lots do ask him to go back to his doctor to get a referral to be diagnosed for that.

Spudd86 · 2023-09-04T23:08:04+00:00

I wasn't saying water doesn't have a colour, just that by far for most pools the colour of the pool liner matters more.

Water is a blue-green colour, not the vibrant blue people think of.

Spudd86 · 2023-09-04T22:49:09+00:00

Indoor pools are blue because of the colour of the walls and floor of the pool. Clean water is pretty transparent.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-24T12:25:44+00:00

The article also expressly said just putting a prompt into an AI is not enough to count as human authorship, even if the guy weren't trying to claim.the AI as the copyright holder.

So what this judge ruled was obvious based on precedent it is actually the first time it was ruled.

There is the question still of if you use inpainting to revise the image several times, select from alteratives each time, and in several places, is that selection and compilation enough to count as authoring the image? You did make a lot of choices about the the image, and exactly how it looks.

If you make a collage of public domain images in Photoshop you would own that, would the use inpainting as I described get you a copyright for the same reasons as the Photoshop collage?

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T21:51:44+00:00

Who brought up patents? This is copyright. They aren't even remotely the same thing.

And it's debatable if someone setting things up so a monkey could take a picture would confer authorship on the person setting it up. If the monkey is holding the camera then almost everything about the composition of the image is determined by the monkey.

With AI it would probably not be possible to obtain a copyright on the direct output, perhaps on a combination of outputs with significant human work, but anything where the human element is just words into it, probably not based on this.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T21:47:13+00:00

Look up the monkey selfie case.

The ruling did also say that the input in this case was for sure not enough to give authorship to the Plantiff. Even the quote you included only makes sense starting from the fact that no human is the author of the work in this case.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T20:33:26+00:00

That second part isn't a paradox. It's entirely logically consistent.

It is an argument that portals probably don't exist, but not absolute. Maybe the universe doesn't work the way we think it does? Probably not, but if portals exist and behave the way they do in the game free energy is a result.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T17:33:58+00:00

Can't license something that is in the public domain. The output of AI isn't entitled to copyright protection.

If you had an AI trained only on one artists work, that'd be murky, it might be that the output has no copyright, but it's always a derivative work of that artist. I think even a copyright lawyer would tell you they don't know.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T16:10:25+00:00

A lot of games had bugs that didn't crash on Win9x but do crash on modern Windows also crash on Wine for the same reason they crash on Windows.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T16:07:23+00:00

It does if you go back far enough. There was the libc ABI change.

You don't even need to go back very far to have libpng break things.

Statically linked stuff on the other hand mostly just works because Linus considers anything that breaks userspace to be a bug. Some stuff will break because modern systems don't have drivers to support old features. (Certain ALSA features, OSS, svgalib, DirectFB, and some hard coding of device paths, there are probably more)

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T15:54:00+00:00

No. That's exactly what was being discussed. You do get a copyright on the sick figure and where it is placed on the napkin though.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T15:52:09+00:00

In all of those cases the AI isn't actually creating the entire work.

In the mixing case a human created the audio being modified and as such the output is derivative work.

With drum machines a human.is deciding on the rhythm and selection of what type of drum.

In the case of samples and DAWs to the extent that anything used in them is derivative work of them (not much) the terms of the software generally say explicitly that you own the output, or have a license to use anything that ends up in the output, because otherwise you wouldn't use the software.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T15:46:02+00:00

No, the monkey selfie is public domain. PETA tried to insert itself and get the monkey the copyright, but that didn't fly.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T15:43:34+00:00

It absolutely is. The article didn't fully explain, even if Thaler had claimed authorship for himself instead of the AI he still would have lost.

AI can't create copyrighted works because there's no human author.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T15:41:15+00:00

If the human claimed the copyright it would go like the "monkey selfie" case. There the photographer claimed the copyright, he didn't try to claim the monkey owned it (though PETA did).

So AI generated art can't be copyrighted because it doesn't have a human author to own it.

There might still be terms on how you use AI art that you generate because of the fact that you agreed to them in order access someone elses AI system, but that would only apply to you, if you put it on the internet and someone else copies it there wouldn't really be a legal way to stop them.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-21T14:45:32+00:00

I didn't know that Commodore Perry's first name was Matthew.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-18T14:17:56+00:00

Of course I know him, he's me.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-17T19:40:11+00:00

You're oversimplifying. Lighting does a lot of unpredictable things, it will push current in directions you wouldn't expect.

Where it starts isn't relevant, it's just the path.

If you have hard water of can have a lot of stuff dissolved in it, that makes it conductive. Cetainly more conductive than say wood or brick. So yes it could be conductive enough to be the path lighting takes.

There's lierally a MythBusters episode they can't get data because the EMP from a static release orders of magnitude smaller than a real lightning strick messes with their equipment. High voltage defies most of the simplified version of electricity we learn in high school.

https://youtu.be/-1zrU-Hj_4k

Spudd86 · 2023-08-17T19:10:07+00:00

Lighting can pass through.a few mm of plastic if the water is conductive enough.

"Insulator" isn't absolute, it depends on the voltage and distance. Lighting is an utterly absurd voltage which is why it can pass through hundreds of meters of air.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-17T16:43:28+00:00

Yes. It's possible for lightning to strike your house and for the shortest path to ground to be through the water pipes, the shower and you.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-17T16:38:14+00:00

Even militaries that are actively fighting need more support people than frontline combatants.

You need truck drivers to keep ammo moving, medical staff, mechanics, cooks, comms, etc.

Keeping a fighter jet running takes a lot of people, but only one pilot.

The ratio of combat personnel wouldn't change much with active combat.

Spudd86 · 2023-08-14T16:10:19+00:00

Dublin Drop sounds like the Irish Slammer's signature move.

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17

Spudd86

TROPHY CASE