Recommended Posts

That was rude! What if he doesn't like all the women posted in the thread. Does he complain?

I'm not being rude, I'm just saying what I know everyone else wants to say but don't want to get involved with.

And for the record, yes, he does, and then proceeds to post another half naked guy to get back at us.

PS: this is what part of the alphabet would look like if the letters Q and R were eliminated

rofl, just stfu traxx. No one wants to hear your homophobic remarks. If you think you are smart and like to hear yourself talk, I'm sure there is a wall in your room.

Yes, and everyone wants to hear your talk. Right. I will guarantee you at least 100 people agree with me on this, so get over yourself. ROFL STFU LMAO G2G - lose the acronyms and type full words, you can't be that lazy

Yes, and everyone wants to hear your talk. Right. I will guarantee you at least 100 people agree with me on this, so get over yourself. ROFL STFU LMAO G2G - lose the acronyms and type full words, you can't be that lazy

Not to be mean, but at least he has the time to put periods at the end of his sentences.

And just for you, I have no men in my desktop.

post-7-1070472919.jpg

The PC at work.....

It takes me till around 10:00am to get used to the widgets on the right....and till 8:00pm to get used to the widgets on the left at home...

Reluna by Bant

Ximian YzTool Bar

Ximian Icons

Transparent Rainlendar

Photomanip wall by me from Apple and Gfxartist.com (unreleased)

workboxth.jpg

1600x1200

Yes, and everyone wants to hear your talk. Right. I will guarantee you at least 100 people agree with me on this, so get over yourself. ROFL STFU LMAO G2G - lose the acronyms and type full words, you can't be that lazy

Yeah, so that leaves 37,431 registered members who probably would take more offense to your remarks than DSN's choice of desktop subject matter.

The point here is that it is unacceptable to slanderize someone else's taste or lifestyle just because you don't like it. Just move on. If he and/or his desktop offends you that much, scroll to the next post. No one is forcing you or anyone else here to see questionable material and in fact its the moderator's job to remove those items. Do you write to ESPN when a half naked picture of Jeremy Shockey or some other athlete appears in ESPN the Magazine, etc. Probably not.

Yeah, and I know that opinions are like @$$holes, everyone has one.

This is just MY opinion.

Visual Style: Classix 10k2.0 (i always come back to this, thanks c10k guys)

Wallpaper: just quickly modified a pic i believe i found in the forums somewhere to suit the deep blue sea scheme

Icons: gant

Winamp skin: c10k2.0

http://members.rogers.com/jorenm/pics/fidg_december.png

post-7-1070500488.jpg

Edited by FidgetyMo
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • This got me thinking, would you rather a self driving car prioritise protecting its passengers or everyone else? I'd choose the one that keeps me and my kids safest. At some point, these cars have to make those choices already, don't they? Wonder if we have a way to find out what way they lean.
    • The proportion (or number of iterations) has nothing to with this aspect of Copyright I am describing. In short, it doesn't matter how many times the manager tells you to change something or how. Your work product is always YOURS until and unless you then assign that to the person representing the client/company, usually for financial compensation -- either in salary or as a subcontract work for hire payment. if iterations determined copyright, then businesses would have learned to just keep making changes until they could claim they owned the copyright, without having to compensate the artist for their work. And that would be BAD. The only place where the amount of changes does have a role is in how much does a human modify a previous public domain work (from any source) before it is considered fair use or their own work, etc. For example, if a human makes substantial changes to a public domain (re: AI, by definition) work, then they can then claim that derivative work as their own...but NEVER the original version, of course. That's why anyone can make a movie about Dracula, for example, as long as it is based on the public domain novel, but not if they take new ideas from copyrighted movies made afterwards. As one of the people who personally advised the US Copyright Office on their recent ruling on these very issues, be assured that I specifically used the terminology precisely -- though I made it simple enough for laymen to understand it. If I made this confusing by doing so, I apologize. But, to be clear regarding your assumption that I would agree to your second statement that I quoted above -- the answer is NO. If AI does the work, no matter how much "direction" you give it, it cannot be copyrighted. All AI generated content is in the Public Domain and therefore the copyright cannot be assigned to ANYONE, even you -- until and unless substantial modifications are made to it BY A HUMAN BEING (yourself or a contracted artist/writer/etc.) and then that copyright on the derivative work is legally (in writing) transferred to you. This is a critical distinction. And it is important that people, especially AI sloppers, understand this. For example, YouTube is not paying AI slop generators for the copyright, etc. of their AI slop. What YouTube is doing is sharing AD REVENUE for permission to publish your AI slop. Copyright/ownership/rights never come into it. Importantly, that means that anyone can copy any AI slopware on YouTube, etc. and rehost it anywhere they want, even back on YouTube, and there is nothing legal that YouTube can do about it with regards to copyright protections, ownership, DMCA, etc. Anyone is legally free to use any AI slopware in any way they want. When this ruling was pending, I warned Disney legal of all of this before they did their OpenAI deal -- that it would literally dilute their entire IP portfolio forever. They ignored that warning for the PR and stock bump. But that is why, when the ruling came down last year, Disney quickly extricated themselves from that OpenAI deal, even eating the initial upfront fees -- followed closely by OpenAI ending their entire AI video generating business model. They adjusted their PR release dates to make this less obvious to shareholders, of course. Phew. I hope that this clears up the key distinctions for you and anyone reading. If you have any additional questions or even hypotheticals about AI and Copyright, please feel free to ask.
    • Each of the devices displayed on this page now has a little volume meter next to it to show if there is audio actively playing. About time.
    • Owing to the nature of Windows feature enablement updates, it was distributed over Windows Update services as a complete system upgrade rather than as an ordinary cumulative update
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Skeet Campbell earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Sharbel earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      561
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      78
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    5. 5
      neufuse
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!