NightHawkInLight Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 That is the most incredible program I have ever seen. Be sure to watch to the end, that's where the good stuff is. If it preforms as well in real application as the demo shows it's even a little scary how much information could be made accessible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 A truly breathtaking and frightening leap forward in technology. I watched this about 2 years ago. Did the military / government step in and confiscate this or is it in use by the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightHawkInLight Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 I didn't realize this was such old news. I wonder what went wrong that prevented a public launch. Perhaps some sort of privacy laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Does anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBluePyro Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 It couldn't be privacy laws... well if google can get away with taking a photos of everyone's house, I don't see how it could be that, but than again I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 So Windows media player will stop me playing a pirate CD or video then Micro... want to take ANY web based image and "adopt" it as theirs to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightHawkInLight Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 So Windows media player will stop me playing a pirate CD or video then Micro... want to take ANY web based image and "adopt" it as theirs to change.Yeah that sure seems so be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peret Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I didn't realize this was such old news. I wonder what went wrong that prevented a public launch. Perhaps some sort of privacy laws.I imagine it's aground on the rock of copyright law - some of those images will be copies of copies of copies of images owned by the likes of Associated Press and Getty Images, to name two notoriously litigious companies. That will change. When we can access every online picture in the world, we're going to have to give up the concept of individual ownership sooner or later. That's bad news for AP and Getty, but it will happen eventually whether they like it or not. They cannot prevent copying and redistribution, and they don't have the resources to police it in the face of massive civil disobedience. Intellectual property is a dead man walking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightHawkInLight Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 I imagine it's aground on the rock of copyright law - some of those images will be copies of copies of copies of images owned by the likes of Associated Press and Getty Images, to name two notoriously litigious companies. That will change. When we can access every online picture in the world, we're going to have to give up the concept of individual ownership sooner or later. That's bad news for AP and Getty, but it will happen eventually whether they like it or not. They cannot prevent copying and redistribution, and they don't have the resources to police it in the face of massive civil disobedience. Intellectual property is a dead man walking.Yeah that is probably the case. While I don't like how things have been moving in that respect you're probably right. I don't know what it is in people that makes them think that when a company does the work to take quality photos, or whatever their digital product may be, that by wanting to take a paycheck for that work rather than distributing it freely is greedy. The same goes for music. Though iTunes and big record labels may not make any of the music themselves, they get a cut of the income because in one way or another the artists chose to use them to gain exposure and distribution. I could go on and on about how those companies are operating in ways opposite of how they should be to benefit themselves and their customers, but regardless it is still taking something that is not yours when you download any digital product illegally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peret Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Yeah that is probably the case. While I don't like how things have been moving in that respect you're probably right. I don't know what it is in people that makes them think that when a company does the work to take quality photos, or whatever their digital product may be, that by wanting to take a paycheck for that work rather than distributing it freely is greedy. The same goes for music. Though iTunes and big record labels may not make any of the music themselves, they get a cut of the income because in one way or another the artists chose to use them to gain exposure and distribution. I could go on and on about how those companies are operating in ways opposite of how they should be to benefit themselves and their customers, but regardless it is still taking something that is not yours when you download any digital product illegally.I'm looking at your avatar. Did you take the picture yourself, or did you track down the copyright holder and get permission to use it? Did you pay a fee? What about the avatars posted in Random Discussion by killforfood - you adopted one briefly yourself. Would you have taken the trouble to track down the copyright holder and ask for permission? Coz you know killforfood didn't. I didn't advocate downloading digital products illegally. I just pointed out that eventually we will have to give up the concept of individual ownership for things like pictures posted online. I'd have more sympathy for copyright holders if copyright wasn't effectively in perpetuity, retrospectively extended every decade or so. This year, not one single work of any kind expired copyright and became public domain. It used to be just seven years, with a seven year extension on application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightHawkInLight Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 I'm looking at your avatar. Did you take the picture yourself, or did you track down the copyright holder and get permission to use it? Did you pay a fee? What about the avatars posted in Random Discussion by killforfood - you adopted one briefly yourself. Would you have taken the trouble to track down the copyright holder and ask for permission? Coz you know killforfood didn't. I didn't advocate downloading digital products illegally. I just pointed out that eventually we will have to give up the concept of individual ownership for things like pictures posted online. I'd have more sympathy for copyright holders if copyright wasn't effectively in perpetuity, retrospectively extended every decade or so. This year, not one single work of any kind expired copyright and became public domain. It used to be just seven years, with a seven year extension on application.Fair enough. I suppose I do hold a double standard with things that don't explicitly say I may not copy them for non commercial use. I am however very careful not to ever use copyrighted content of any kind in anything that brings me a penny. I wasn't accusing you of anything, just voicing my opinion on the subject. No offense intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peret Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I wasn't offended, nor being critical. I was just pointing out how much the world has changed. In fact, since Mai Systems v. Peak Computer (9th circuit 1992), it's been impossible to turn on your computer without infringing copyright, since the court in that case ruled that the transient copy of a work that exists in a computer's memory when it opens a file is a protected work, and makes you liable for penalties. That is one of the worst judicial decisions ever made (right up there with the "saccharin doctrine" on patent law). It makes every computer user in the USA automatically an infringer every time they open a web page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 That's chilling and deeply depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest no6 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Speaking of crazy leaps forward in technology... If a hummingbird is staring at you for any length of time, you may want to make a break for it. Beware the crazy hummingbird... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts