-
Posts
-
By Copernic · Posted
Hasleo Disk Clone 5.8.2.1 by Razvan Serea Hasleo Disk Clone is a free and all-in-one disk cloning software for Windows 11/10/8/7/Vista and Windows Server that can help you migrate Windows OS to another disk, clone one disk to another disk or clone one partition to another location quickly and efficiently. Completely Free Windows Migration and Disk/Partition Cloning Software Migrate Windows from one disk to another without reinstalling Windows, apps. Clone one disk to another and makes the data on 2 disks are exactly the same. Clone a partition to another location without losing any data. Easily adjust the size and location of the destination partition. Convert MBR to GPT or convert GPT to MBR by cloning. Creation of Windows PE emergency disk. Extremely fast cloning speed and multi-language support. Supported OS: Windows Vista/Server 2008 or later, fully compatible with GPT and UEFI. Hasleo Disk Clone 5.8.2.1 changelog: Fixed an issue that caused disk enumeration to fail Fixed an issue where WinPE created under Windows ARM64 26H1 did not work properly Download: Hasleo Disk Clone 5.8.2.1 | 32.3 MB (Freeware) Link: Hasleo Disk Clone Home Page | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware -
By ExecutiveFunction404 · Posted
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. -
By excalpius · Posted
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. -
By wingliston · Posted
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. -
By LiLmEgZ · Posted
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
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Tell a friend
.thumb.png.b7089ebbdf00d96b3b92dddbd04bac02.png)
Recommended Posts