We've talked, and it definitely seems like there's a medical issue here, so it leaves us with having to just compensate the customer for any billable time where he has fallen asleep.
I do wonder what proportion of the respondents are due to some medical issue or other. There's a broad range of problems that could be responsible, from narcolepsy (unsual, but highly problematic) down to depression (suffered by a vast number of people, but can usually be controlled with appropriate drugs... unless, of course, you're a scientologist). Other things that may contribute are medications that cause drowsiness.
Then, of course, there's the simple fact that staring at a computer screen for too long is likely to cause drowsiness, anyway. Particularly if the display isn't changing much and doesn't contain anything that's particularly engaging. Why does that sound like my job?
Listening to music can help, although many workplaces have rules against that. As can turning the temperature on your air con down a little, although again that might not be under control of the worker with the problem.
Autodesk was probably just sending DMCA's for any eBay ad that sounded like warez being offered.
Even in that case, Autodesk is in the wrong. The DMCA requires them to declare that they "a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials [...] is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." To have such a belief, I'd say they need to do more research than just bulk sending takedown notices without checking if there's anything to imply the belief. "Good faith" requires them to make reasonable efforts here.
I guess you think scientists should not use the term cybernetics, etc. either, since some 14yo kids use the base word as a euphemism. No one thinks that way except you. That just goes to show your maturity level...
No. As I said, it has a valid meaning which is what the scientists use it for - control of physical processes via electronics (e.g. robotics). We should stop using it in immitation of those 14yo kids, as their use of it is destroying the validity of the word in serious usage.
Can people please stop abusing the term "cyber". I mean, it once had a useful meaning (electronic control of physical processes) that is now on the verge of being lost.
to roast a turkey and cook on top of the stove as well we look at 40 amps @ 240 volts (check your main panel folks) [...] To roast the turkey say takes 4 hours at a draw of say 30% of 40 * 240 which is about 11,250 watt hours.
Don't confuse maximum supply with actual usage. Most electric ovens I've worked with draw about 10-15 amps while heating, which they'll typically only do about 25% of the time over a long cooking period. In reality, your 4 hour turkey's going to use about a quarter of what you just estimated.
Perhaps because the model in this case is an American citizen, and a minor at that.
OK. I made a comment on another site earlier discussing Chinese politics. Perhaps I should go back and censor it, because you know, they are Chinese politics, and what I said might have been illegal in China...?
See, in the article it mentions briefly before getting to the feather part that the Veliciraptor may be smaller than originally thought.
Read it again. It doesn't actually say this. It says that it's smaller than they were in Jurassic Park. This is because Crichton screwed up his research and used the description of Utahraptor and called it Velociraptor. We've always known that Velociraptor were that size.
Your other comments certainly apply, though, and this is likely (I guess) to prompt a reevaluation of the existing remains, and perhaps a reclassification with this being a new species.
If some stranger takes a picture of me on the street without my explicit knowledge and posts it to Flickr with a Creative Commons license, would Virgin be allowed to use that image in an ad?
Yes. Or at least Virgin UK would, and Virgin Australia would too, because in both of these countries it is held that a person on the street has no reasonable expectation of privacy so pictures of them can be published. I'm not sure about the position for any US branches of Virgin, but I believe it would be similar for them too. Only when a picture is taken in private situations is a model release required, and (I understand) only then if it is taken in the USA.
Basically, although my initial response was to blame the photographer, on more consideration I think the majority of the blame lies with Virgin, for treating Flickr like a stock-photo gallery, when in reality it's anything but. Flickr has a lot of images on which the photographers have put very permissive licenses on their own copyrights, but that doesn't necessarily imply anything else.
I find it hard to blame Virgin Australia for this, as their action is not illegal in Australia. They quite possibly did not know that the person whose picture they were using was American, and also probably did not know that using the picture would require additional releases if they were to do so in America.
Further, the lawsuit is seeking damages for libel (written defamation). One of the elements of that cause of action is some sort of false or damaging statement.
It seems the advert implied (although did not actually state) that the person pictured was a virgin. I don't see whether or not this is true mattering at all, as I find it hard to see how describing a minor as a virgin is defamatory. Describing them as _not_ a virgin (i.e., guilty of a criminal offence) would be substantially worse. Also, in context, the statement was clearly not intended to be interpreted as literal truth, but was, rather, a joke.
I think we all accept that owning the copyright to an image does not grant you the automatic right to (e.g.) use a person's likeness for advertising (and so on). If the permissions had no model release, Virgin were extremely negligent. Period.
Do we? Probably not. You see, that's an American law you're basing that on. Virgin Australia's lawyers are probably, well, Australian, and probably didn't know that American law prohibits this when it is perfectly legal under Australian law.
And even if they did, I don't see why they should care.
Maybe they think that by using American photos in an Australian campaign, they can avoid problems because, (a) the subjects are less likely to discover that their likeness has been used in another country, and (b) if they do discover it, they will have to sue Virgin Mobile in Australia, since VM's Australian corporate entity probably has no presence in the US.
And, of course, (c) if they do sue in an Australian court, they'll be laughed out of it, because Australia doesn't have a law that requires model releases.
Because it's not the photographer's fault the item was used in a commercial way. That's entirely the fault of Virgin Mobile, who should have asked if the photographer had gotten a model release.
As a word of advice to make sure you don't fall into the same trap: model releases are not required in all countries. Virgin Australia did not break the law here, as they are not required to follow US laws. If you give a photograph to somebody who is in one of these countries and license them to publish it, you may be liable for not having the model release. They aren't going to care.
Any third-year law student could tell you that you can't just pull a photo off somebody's personal, non-commercial web page without finding out who was in the photo and getting a name and likeness release. That has nothing to do with the copyright on the photo itself... it could have been released into the public domain and you would still need that release from the subject in the photo.
Why are you assuming that US laws apply to British companies that are doing business in Australia? Neither Britain nor (AFAICT) Australia have laws that require model releases prior to commercial use.
Model releases are not required in all countries. This is an American law, and why it should bind a British company operating in Australia is beyond me.
This 'duty' doesn't exist for the photographer. It's always the responsibility of the final client to ensure that a model release exists. Just because the photograph in this case was free does not mean that Virgin / their advertising agency can suddenly forget about that.
Model releases aren't required in all countries. For instance, they are *not* required in the UK (see here), and according to this discussion board thread are not required in Australia either.
I believe said farmer would have to urinate on their hands after handling fertilizer
Urea is present in sweat, almost certainly in enough quantity to trigger this test. Besides, urea nitrate _is_ a fertilizer. See here.
not wash,
You're likely to accumulate a similar quantity of buildup of nitrates on your hands handling an explosive compared to handling fertilizers. The test is almost certainly designed to catch people who have washed their hands after handling the explosives, so is likely to be very sensitive.
and actually probably need to vigorously rub their hands together until they were hot to generate a positive on this test.
Like most ionic molecules, I suspect impure urea nitrate can be formed merely by dissolving a nitrate in water in which other urea salts already exist. Purification is the trick, and probably difficult enough that this approach isn't used in real production of the chemical, but I'm sure trace quantities will be formed if you dissolve _any_ nitrate in sweat. In order to be useful, this test will need to detect trace quantities, because that's all that will be left after your bombmaker has thoroughly scrubbed his hands after making his device.
Slashdot Mirror
Python scripting was possible for a long time for Openoffice users ...
Yeah, but much as I love OO.o calc, I can't declare a Python class and then put a value of that type into one of its cells.
Can your ordinary spreadsheet do that on multiple operating systems?
What do operating systems have to do with this?
I've always wanted to devise a replacement to arabic numerals that would be (barely) readable by humans and trivial for OCR. This would be it.
You mean other than barcodes?
I don't know what a slide rule is for.... but I know that one and one is two.
And if this one could be with you, what a wonderful world this would be.
Informative!? I mean, seriously...?
We've talked, and it definitely seems like there's a medical issue here, so it leaves us with having to just compensate the customer for any billable time where he has fallen asleep.
I do wonder what proportion of the respondents are due to some medical issue or other. There's a broad range of problems that could be responsible, from narcolepsy (unsual, but highly problematic) down to depression (suffered by a vast number of people, but can usually be controlled with appropriate drugs... unless, of course, you're a scientologist). Other things that may contribute are medications that cause drowsiness.
Then, of course, there's the simple fact that staring at a computer screen for too long is likely to cause drowsiness, anyway. Particularly if the display isn't changing much and doesn't contain anything that's particularly engaging. Why does that sound like my job?
Listening to music can help, although many workplaces have rules against that. As can turning the temperature on your air con down a little, although again that might not be under control of the worker with the problem.
Autodesk was probably just sending DMCA's for any eBay ad that sounded like warez being offered.
Even in that case, Autodesk is in the wrong. The DMCA requires them to declare that they "a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials [...] is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." To have such a belief, I'd say they need to do more research than just bulk sending takedown notices without checking if there's anything to imply the belief. "Good faith" requires them to make reasonable efforts here.
I guess you think scientists should not use the term cybernetics, etc. either, since some 14yo kids use the base word as a euphemism. No one thinks that way except you. That just goes to show your maturity level...
No. As I said, it has a valid meaning which is what the scientists use it for - control of physical processes via electronics (e.g. robotics). We should stop using it in immitation of those 14yo kids, as their use of it is destroying the validity of the word in serious usage.
Doesn't it simply mean 'network[ed]'?
No. It refers primarily to the field of robotic engineering.
Can people please stop abusing the term "cyber". I mean, it once had a useful meaning (electronic control of physical processes) that is now on the verge of being lost.
to roast a turkey and cook on top of the stove as well we look at 40 amps @ 240 volts (check your main panel folks) [...] To roast the turkey say takes 4 hours at a draw of say 30% of 40 * 240 which is about 11,250 watt hours.
Don't confuse maximum supply with actual usage. Most electric ovens I've worked with draw about 10-15 amps while heating, which they'll typically only do about 25% of the time over a long cooking period. In reality, your 4 hour turkey's going to use about a quarter of what you just estimated.
Also, if you stare at "attorney" too long, the word just looks funny.
That's because it is funny. It's a 15th century misspelling of a french word, what do you expect it to look like?
Perhaps because the model in this case is an American citizen, and a minor at that.
OK. I made a comment on another site earlier discussing Chinese politics. Perhaps I should go back and censor it, because you know, they are Chinese politics, and what I said might have been illegal in China...?
how much of a 'vicious carnivore' can a 13 kg creature really be?
If you're a 30kg placid herbivore, probably enough.
And looking at the talons on those things, I wouldn't want to have to fight one off, either.
See, in the article it mentions briefly before getting to the feather part that the Veliciraptor may be smaller than originally thought.
Read it again. It doesn't actually say this. It says that it's smaller than they were in Jurassic Park. This is because Crichton screwed up his research and used the description of Utahraptor and called it Velociraptor. We've always known that Velociraptor were that size.
Your other comments certainly apply, though, and this is likely (I guess) to prompt a reevaluation of the existing remains, and perhaps a reclassification with this being a new species.
If some stranger takes a picture of me on the street without my explicit knowledge and posts it to Flickr with a Creative Commons license, would Virgin be allowed to use that image in an ad?
Yes. Or at least Virgin UK would, and Virgin Australia would too, because in both of these countries it is held that a person on the street has no reasonable expectation of privacy so pictures of them can be published. I'm not sure about the position for any US branches of Virgin, but I believe it would be similar for them too. Only when a picture is taken in private situations is a model release required, and (I understand) only then if it is taken in the USA.
IANAL. This is not legal advice.
Basically, although my initial response was to blame the photographer, on more consideration I think the majority of the blame lies with Virgin, for treating Flickr like a stock-photo gallery, when in reality it's anything but. Flickr has a lot of images on which the photographers have put very permissive licenses on their own copyrights, but that doesn't necessarily imply anything else.
I find it hard to blame Virgin Australia for this, as their action is not illegal in Australia. They quite possibly did not know that the person whose picture they were using was American, and also probably did not know that using the picture would require additional releases if they were to do so in America.
Further, the lawsuit is seeking damages for libel (written defamation). One of the elements of that cause of action is some sort of false or damaging statement.
It seems the advert implied (although did not actually state) that the person pictured was a virgin. I don't see whether or not this is true mattering at all, as I find it hard to see how describing a minor as a virgin is defamatory. Describing them as _not_ a virgin (i.e., guilty of a criminal offence) would be substantially worse. Also, in context, the statement was clearly not intended to be interpreted as literal truth, but was, rather, a joke.
I think we all accept that owning the copyright to an image does not grant you the automatic right to (e.g.) use a person's likeness for advertising (and so on). If the permissions had no model release, Virgin were extremely negligent. Period.
Do we? Probably not. You see, that's an American law you're basing that on. Virgin Australia's lawyers are probably, well, Australian, and probably didn't know that American law prohibits this when it is perfectly legal under Australian law.
And even if they did, I don't see why they should care.
Maybe they think that by using American photos in an Australian campaign, they can avoid problems because, (a) the subjects are less likely to discover that their likeness has been used in another country, and (b) if they do discover it, they will have to sue Virgin Mobile in Australia, since VM's Australian corporate entity probably has no presence in the US.
And, of course, (c) if they do sue in an Australian court, they'll be laughed out of it, because Australia doesn't have a law that requires model releases.
speaking as a semi-pro photographer...
Because it's not the photographer's fault the item was used in a commercial way. That's entirely the fault of Virgin Mobile, who should have asked if the photographer had gotten a model release.
As a word of advice to make sure you don't fall into the same trap: model releases are not required in all countries. Virgin Australia did not break the law here, as they are not required to follow US laws. If you give a photograph to somebody who is in one of these countries and license them to publish it, you may be liable for not having the model release. They aren't going to care.
Any third-year law student could tell you that you can't just pull a photo off somebody's personal, non-commercial web page without finding out who was in the photo and getting a name and likeness release. That has nothing to do with the copyright on the photo itself... it could have been released into the public domain and you would still need that release from the subject in the photo.
Why are you assuming that US laws apply to British companies that are doing business in Australia? Neither Britain nor (AFAICT) Australia have laws that require model releases prior to commercial use.
Model releases are not required in all countries. This is an American law, and why it should bind a British company operating in Australia is beyond me.
This 'duty' doesn't exist for the photographer. It's always the responsibility of the final client to ensure that a model release exists. Just because the photograph in this case was free does not mean that Virgin / their advertising agency can suddenly forget about that.
Model releases aren't required in all countries. For instance, they are *not* required in the UK (see here), and according to this discussion board thread are not required in Australia either.
Ahem wrote, "... the ending was a bit anti-climactic for my tastes."
Could it really have ended any other way?
No, it couldn't. For those who missed the significance, the basic structure of the story was copied from 1984.
I believe said farmer would have to urinate on their hands after handling fertilizer
Urea is present in sweat, almost certainly in enough quantity to trigger this test. Besides, urea nitrate _is_ a fertilizer. See here.
not wash,
You're likely to accumulate a similar quantity of buildup of nitrates on your hands handling an explosive compared to handling fertilizers. The test is almost certainly designed to catch people who have washed their hands after handling the explosives, so is likely to be very sensitive.
and actually probably need to vigorously rub their hands together until they were hot to generate a positive on this test.
Like most ionic molecules, I suspect impure urea nitrate can be formed merely by dissolving a nitrate in water in which other urea salts already exist. Purification is the trick, and probably difficult enough that this approach isn't used in real production of the chemical, but I'm sure trace quantities will be formed if you dissolve _any_ nitrate in sweat. In order to be useful, this test will need to detect trace quantities, because that's all that will be left after your bombmaker has thoroughly scrubbed his hands after making his device.