Actually, those benches are kinda uncomfortable. Still a nice rest after you've been walking for a couple hours, but not suitable for anything else.
Source: grew up going to the Columbus Zoo
Since it specifically says sexual orientation and not romantic orientation, I think asexual would be the correct answer in that situation.
Copyright violations ≠ conversion. Those are two completely different sets of laws. If you're going to argue that legal definitions back you up, at least make sure you know what they are?
I think they mean gamesindustry.biz
On Windows, it's easy! Unfortunately, on Linux, as far as I know, you currently have to use a non-standard client.
Well, you can have a funnel cloud, but it's not a tornado until the condensation funnel touches the ground, and it's not always clear what the case is until proper surveying is done.
As a former 4-Her myself, the 4-H extension office in our region is run by a state university, but the clubs themselves are community-organized. Also, many clubs in our area were general, so you could do any topic covered by the extension office and be a part of the club.
Which comes out to about 1/7 of a person in that room being shot per year.
No, it might help to add a "the" before "perception".
Also, this case does not make AI works uncopyrightable - only those that have no human input.
This is really important. The particular case tried a very difficult argument, that works created by machine have copyright regardless of human input, which no serious copyright experts thought would work because it's been pretty comprehensively litigated that human creativity is required
They also tried to argue the much more plausible theory that the prompt had creativity, and that the copyright flows down from the prompt to the AI-generated work, but the type of suit they brought didn't permit that argument. That theory still needs to be litigated, and while I would be a bit surprised to see it work, it's entirely possible it will. So I'm not ready to say all AI-generated work is PD just yet.
Of course, regardless of if what comes out of the AI is PD, you can make enough modifications to a PD work and create something you can copyright. Many people are doing enough "touch-ups" to AI art that the final product is potentially copyrightable. Amusingly, the better the generator, the less the human has to do here, and the weaker the protection becomes.
Eiim
joined 1 year ago
Error correction helps a scanner account for portions of the code being obscured/unreadable, whereas a bad background can make a code not even recognizable as a code in the first place. (depending on the algorithm used, how bad it is, yadda yadda)