It’s not something they need to know about, and certainly not something that should be specifically disclosed at an interview.
The only reason to disclose is if I need a specific “reasonable accommodation” from them to be able to do the job, and they indicate they are unwilling to make that accommodation without a formal request under the ADA. I won’t be making even an informal request for accommodation prior to actually starting the job.
You can even add a search plugin directly in the client.
Huh. Well, that’ll make things easier.
steam cools back to water
That one. The most common methods of condensing that steam rely on large bodies of water acting as heat sinks. Water in those large reservoirs is lost to evaporation, which is exacerbated by the additional heat.
The water in that reservoir must be reserved for the nuclear plant; a drought that drains the reservoir will knock the plant offline.
Air-cooled condensers are possible, but at significantly reduced efficiency, especially in already hot environments.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Did you know you can just buy shoe polish? You don’t have to find a boot to lick it off.
That is not actually true.
The right to a jury trial is guaranteed to the accused by the constitution. You are empowered by that constitution. You owe a constitutional duty to the accused; not to the court, judge, or government.
The law is not limited to the acts of Congress and the States that the defendant is accused of violating. When the judge asks if you can follow the law, you are free to remember that the "Constitution is part of that law.* Where legislated law is in conflict with your constitutional responsibulity, your responsibility supersedes that legislation entirely.
Then you should be able to cite a case where this has happened.
What actually happens when you are found with a bunch of pirated material is… Nothing. Because it is not illegal to merely receive an unauthorized copy.
The GPS almanac is a table of the exact orbital information of every satellite. Every receiver needs a copy of the almanac to understand where the satellites are supposed to be, so that it can determine where it is in relation to those satellites.
When their clocks all shift one minute simultaneously, the almanac isn’t updated. Every satellite is 60 seconds away from where the almanac says it should be.
If the satellites were geostationary, receivers would still work, they’d just be off by 0.25 degrees of longitude as the entire constellation would be shifted the same amount. But the GPS constellation consists of satellites in a variety of inclined orbits. Nothing is where the almanac thinks it is, and nothing is where it is supposed to be in relation to anything else.
Parent comment is correct: GPS will immediately fail, and remain down until an updated almanac is published and distributed.
nothing about making/distributing copies or uploading or whatever you think you’re talking about
Got it. From the OP article:
Last month, the authors filed an amended complaint which added these BitTorrent-related allegations to their existing claims. The plaintiffs pointed out that BitTorrent users typically upload content to third parties and suggest that Meta did the same here.
The article and conversation is not about the contract law that would apply with licensing. They aren’t about the fair use exemption which has a commercial usage factors. The article and conversation are talking about simple copyright law: copying and distribution.
Your very first comment in this thread was completely off topic. I apologize that it’s taken me this long to figure out where you’re coming from.
5 line keyboard!
Why does the customer/user matter at all here when they’re not party to the lawsuit?
This conversation is about the legality of downloading without uploading.
Anthropic is not accused of downloading without uploading. Anthropic is accused of creating copies and distributing those copies to customers. They are being accused of violating copyright by uploading, not downloading.
The Anthropic lawsuit is completely irrelevant to the issue of “downloading only”. Rather than throw out your example entirely, I showed a relationship within your example that actually does relate to the topic under discussion.
Anthropic is accused of creating and distributing unauthorized copies. (Those are partial copies, rather than complete, but they are still copies, and still infringing.)
There are entities in your scenario who are receiving those copies, without creating additional copies, or distributing the copies they received. They are, effectively, “downloading only”.
So, tell me about those customers: When they ask Anthropic’s AI for an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work, and Anthropic provides them an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work, is the customer infringing on the copyright?
Fuck meta, this isn’t about meta, this is about the legal fact that downloading is not infringement. Just because you don’t like this particular downloader does not mean we have to set the precedent that downloading is infringement.
Anthropic was returning substantial parts of the actual work to users. They were creating additional copies of the work. Creating unauthorized copies is infringement.
You would have to argue that the users who received those substantial parts were also infringing on copyright. My point is made when you acknowledge that those users did not infringe by receiving those substantial parts, even if they specifically requested those substantial parts from Anthropic.
when downloading something, you are making a copy.
No, you are not. The uploader is the only entity capable of making the copy. You can’t make a copy of something you do not possess.
When I send you a file, two copies come to exist. The copy on my computer, and the copy I created and sent to you. I made the copy, and I distributed it. You simply received it.
The copy you received is, indeed, unauthorized, but the infringing party is me, not you. I am the one who created and distributed the copy.
Receiving an unauthorized copy is not a copyright violation. A bootleg DVD is illegal to sell; it is not illegal to buy or to own.
Thomas Paine said that he who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, lest he set a precedent that will reach back to himself.
Your argument here seems to be “fuck meta”. Does you opposition remain when it us an actual pirate bring accused? If so, fuck you. If not, why are you trying to lose this for the rest of us?
Undisputed. And irrelevant. The uploader is making and distributing the copy. The downloaded is merely receiving it.
No, sorry, burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. If you’re suing, you have to prove the defendant’s culpability; you can’t simply assume it.
The question isn’t whether a copy is being made. The question is who is making the copy. That person is the uploaded, not the downloaded.
The missing “usually” was the issue. When that was added, your statement became true… And it became functionally irrelevant to the issue at hand: Fecesbook took special care to leech only.
This argument has been around since the Napster era. Nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted for downloading, and until the law is rewritten to specifically include “receiving” as an offense, nobody ever will.
Of they ever tried to get that law enacted, it would fail unless “personal use” was exempted.
Oh, there is a reason, and it’s the fucking NHTSA. Those absolute fuckrockets mandate proportionally stricter emissions standards on smaller cars than larger cars. They base it on the area of the rectangle formed by where the tires touch the pavement.
If your car can’t quite pass emission standards, just make it a little wider, a little longer, and you get a looser standard.
Repeat the process for a few model years, and now 2025 subcompacts are larger than 1995 sedans.
Fuck the NHTSA with a rusty bayonet.