Um, how is it weighted by relevent statics if the insurance company currently doesn't know the miles driven?
I don't follow you. My insurer knows how many miles I drive per annum (well, within a bracket) because I fill in the details on my insurance renewal every year. I imagine they perform at least some checking up on at least some people who get in accidents so as to make sure that the information is at least broadly true.
Except that we do know this to be true... its been proven in scientific studies. Do you have a study that shows driving more increases your risk for an accident?
I guess this is appeal to authority, but actuaries aren't generally known for their wild flights of fantasy. If Insurance companies are offering lower premiums for people who drive shorter distances then it's almost certainly because statistically they pay out less in claims to those drivers. Is there really some reason to suppose otherwise?
Not better at driving. Less of an insurance risk. At one extreme end of the scale you have the person who doesn't drive at all - just leaves his car in the driveway. Almost zero risk. At the opposite extreme end you have people who spend most of their lives driving - almost certainly higher risk of being in an accident even if it's a freak accident that you can't really blame them for. I don't have the stats so maybe I'm wrong but it does seem likely that you can identify a class of low freqency drivers that are unlikely to have an accident because they spend little time driving.
While I agree with your sentiment that a court's decision does not decide what I can or can not debate, your statement that his quote was gratuitously offensive strikes me as a bit melodramatic.
It was the announcement that (what I suspect is) his country's courts had spoken on the subject so there was nothing more for anyone else to say on the matter that irritated me. Maybe I'm just thin skinned.
If I wanted to get these images on Wikipedia, even though they're public domain works, it would be impossible, unless I smuggled in a camera and surreptitiously took photographs of each work of art
Not quite impossible. An alternative (and I know this is going to sound like a really radical sggestion) would be to take NPG up on their offer to supply medium resolution images that they would be happy for Wikipedia to use. Or at least to discuss that with them.
I think you may have found my phrasing uncleear (if not then I've misinterpreted, sorry) - if you want to go into the Louvre and view the actual painting "the Mona Lisa" then you'll have to pay an entrance fee. If you want to go into the National Portrait Gallery and see the actual originals of their paintings then they don't charge a fee. However, they do sell photographs of them. This naturally affects their perspective on people who want to copy their photos for free too.
They can't charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US.
You certainly can charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US but that's not really relevant here since it's a civil, not criminal, matter. You can also sue someone in the UK for something they did in the US (which is relevant here) - whether you'll win is another matter and whether you'll ever be able to enforce judgment is another again - I doubt the NPG's case ever really will get off the ground.
That becomes an international law issue.
Uh... sort of I guess. Normally "international law" by itself would refer to public international law - which isn't really relevant here - but I guess you could say it's a matter of "private international law" i.e. Conflict of laws. Private international law of course is determined by the local domestic courts according to what the rules of their own country. The UK courts have their own rules on which cases they're willing to hear and which laws they'll apply to them. Those are the rules that matter in any case brought before the UK courts. The US courts likewise have their own rules. Those are the rules that matter in any case brought before the US courts.
But US courts have already concluded that photographic reproductions of a public domain painting do not count - so tough, it's legal, and not up for debate.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether there's any artistry in photographing a painting, but the bit quoted above is just gratuitously offensive. The US courts don't have any say in what's 'up for debate' by me.
Agreed that the gallery's attempts to pursue under UK law an American for uploading to an American website are unlikely to get anywhere but it's still correct to point out that emphasising that the photos are uncopyrightable under US law is irrelevant - the NPG acknowledge that they're not copyrighted under US law anyway.
Yes, and if you want to see it you'll have to pay the Louvre. The NPG, however, doesn't charge admittance to see its paintings, but does sell photographs of them. That doesn't mean they're right in law of course, (as you say, the position is unclear) but it does perhaps help to explain the NPG's concerns.
Likewise, while it may not be easy to photograph one of these works, you are certainly not adding anything to the actual content of the image; indeed, you are actively trying not to. Technical expertise went into creating them, yes. Artistry, no.
That's like claiming that you're not adding anything when photographing a person. Realistically, we know that in either situation the photographer is applying their creative skill and making choices and judgments about what aspects to capture. The photograph will NOT be exactly the same as the original - it's a representation. Capturing the texture and the qualities of the canvas, deciding what lighting to use (and let's face it that affects the colour, the perception of the texture, everything), the angle to use... there is every bit as much creativity in applying these choices to photogrsphing a painting as in photographing anything else. Pretending that it's eqivalent to chucking something on the photocopier and pressing a button is silly.
Yo may "try not to" make any artistic choices in photographing a painting just as you may "try not to" when photographing a person but realistically you have to. And in either case the photographers are exercising artistic skills.
Someone on the plaintiffs side who pays the check of said lawyer could fire him for doing so. We have no idea how this would affect said lawyer. Maybe he is on the hook for $2M in medical bills because his 6 year old daughter is dying of leukemia, therefore he can't afford to lose his job, even when he knows what the right actions would be.
I don't believe for a moment your theory that anyone would face imprisonment over this, even a "single person with no real power of any kind" but if we grant that premise then saying that what amounts to "I broke the law but it's okay because I was being paid for it" is any sort of defense is both absurd and offensive. If we grant the premise that the lawyer was acting criminally then of course he should be punished for it. Lots of criminals make their living from their criminal acts - that is not a defense.
I think you're saying that there's a 'legal' definition of the word 'illegal' which restricts it to applying to criminal acts. Have I understood that correctly? If so then can you say where you get that from and which jurisdiction you feel it applies to (from context it looks like you must be referring to Australia)? I'm not saying you're wrong, though I am a little sceptical.
Honestly, this seems like another human rights abuse... people should have the right to choose if they want to go through shock therapy!
The right to an informed choice. But can someone in the throes of internet addiction really be said to be making a choice? This is why we keep shocking 'em until they consent to it. That's the begining of the path to recovery.
/. puts the best bits all in one neat package regardless where its from.
Plus, I'd just feel stupid buying a newspaper in order to NOT read any of the articles and just get on with discussing them anyway - what a waste of money. Slashdot makes it feel natural.
Once you receive money for edits you've made, you're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice.
You sound like you've encountered Wikipedia before so - open your eyes and look at it. Do you really think all those articles about Star Trek were written by people who are uninterested in it? Someone below mentioned the Scientology article - suprise it's already dominated by a mixture of pro-scientologists and anti-scientologists. Who else would you expect to devote time to it? This is less extreme of an effect for some articles than for others but it still applies throughout - any argument premised on the idea that non-paid Wikipedians are 'uninterested third parties' is not merely wrong but completely absurd. People do not spend their time writing about things they're 'uninterested' in. Unless, of course, they're paid to.
Same with Wikipedia, the market (Wikipedia) is opposed to paid editing of articles.
That doesn't appear to be true. There has been a majority in favor of allowing paid editing since a fairly early stage in the process (and no it doesn't seem to consist of paid shills but I suppose it's hard to tell for certain). It's running at about 60% suporting the idea that whether someone's paid is irrelevant as long as content is neutral, verificable etc. and 40% against.
Were the people technically defrauded? They did agree to the service via EULA after all...
That's the nature of fraud. Theft is when you take something that belongs to someone else without their permission. Fraud is when you trick someone into agreeing that you can have something. Some cases are very clear cut when the poor frail old lady is tricked into signing away everything she had, some are more mundane like this. There are a LOT of grey areas but getting someone to 'agree' to terms they haven't read or haven't understood is a common tool of fraud.
That's nothing, I used to stay connected, downloading movies and Linux distros, following all the news, exchanging emails with a journalist friend, using a Commodore 64 that had been buried for years - in a war ravaged country with no communications infrastructure worth speaking of. Kids these days have it easy.
For the best of the series atmosphere, look to the Shaleridge Cradle section in Thief 3.
Absolutely. My experience with Thief three was roughly: First couple of levels seemed, minor thinks I didn't quite like but there always are. Next few levels... ah, shouldn't the levels be getting bigger by now? Clock Tower, this is STUPID, the top of the tower has people living in comfortable accomodations and as you go down it gets rougher and rougher - in order for them to get up there (and to get their beds etc. up there) they have to climb up pylons and things then rough service elevators before finally reaching better elevators and stairs - nobody builds like this. Next few levels, still playing but not impressed. Then the Cradle - magnificent. I enjoyed the game after that but it's the Cradle that made it.
Someone else said that the levels were limited in size due to the Xbox's capability. I'm sure that was part of it BUT the Cradle wasn't massive and had to fit in those limits too. Granted it had a lot more going for it than just a feeling of scale but even on that basis it was well written to feel like there was more to it than there was. You had branching corridors early on that you planned to come back to later and then you made plot discoveries (what's her name's photo in the attic) with places you were still thinking "I must go back and check that way out" - it made good use of the resources available. The rest didn't.
While I'm complaining about Thief 3, the other thing that really annoyed me was the Rune Wardens or whatever they were called. The Keeper enforcers. When the ordinary guards and such like saw them they ran to attack them. But they should never have seen them. Fine, Garrett with his skills, training and all-round prophesied nature gets to see them and avoid them but these are KEEPERS. They pass unseen. Everyone else should have been oblivious to them.
Okay, so I sound a little obsessive. I liked the games:)
Slashdot Mirror
Um, how is it weighted by relevent statics if the insurance company currently doesn't know the miles driven?
I don't follow you. My insurer knows how many miles I drive per annum (well, within a bracket) because I fill in the details on my insurance renewal every year. I imagine they perform at least some checking up on at least some people who get in accidents so as to make sure that the information is at least broadly true.
Except that we do know this to be true... its been proven in scientific studies. Do you have a study that shows driving more increases your risk for an accident?
I guess this is appeal to authority, but actuaries aren't generally known for their wild flights of fantasy. If Insurance companies are offering lower premiums for people who drive shorter distances then it's almost certainly because statistically they pay out less in claims to those drivers. Is there really some reason to suppose otherwise?
Shouldn't this at least be weighted by some sort of driving test that evaluated real-world conditions?
No. It should be (and almost certainly is) weighted by statistical analysis of actual insurance payouts.
How is someone who drives less better at driving?
Not better at driving. Less of an insurance risk. At one extreme end of the scale you have the person who doesn't drive at all - just leaves his car in the driveway. Almost zero risk. At the opposite extreme end you have people who spend most of their lives driving - almost certainly higher risk of being in an accident even if it's a freak accident that you can't really blame them for. I don't have the stats so maybe I'm wrong but it does seem likely that you can identify a class of low freqency drivers that are unlikely to have an accident because they spend little time driving.
Wow. Maybe thin skinned but not as thin skinned as you. That's quite an impressive little rant.
While I agree with your sentiment that a court's decision does not decide what I can or can not debate, your statement that his quote was gratuitously offensive strikes me as a bit melodramatic.
It was the announcement that (what I suspect is) his country's courts had spoken on the subject so there was nothing more for anyone else to say on the matter that irritated me. Maybe I'm just thin skinned.
If I wanted to get these images on Wikipedia, even though they're public domain works, it would be impossible, unless I smuggled in a camera and surreptitiously took photographs of each work of art
Not quite impossible. An alternative (and I know this is going to sound like a really radical sggestion) would be to take NPG up on their offer to supply medium resolution images that they would be happy for Wikipedia to use. Or at least to discuss that with them.
I think you may have found my phrasing uncleear (if not then I've misinterpreted, sorry) - if you want to go into the Louvre and view the actual painting "the Mona Lisa" then you'll have to pay an entrance fee. If you want to go into the National Portrait Gallery and see the actual originals of their paintings then they don't charge a fee. However, they do sell photographs of them. This naturally affects their perspective on people who want to copy their photos for free too.
They can't charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US.
You certainly can charge someone in the UK for something they did in the US but that's not really relevant here since it's a civil, not criminal, matter. You can also sue someone in the UK for something they did in the US (which is relevant here) - whether you'll win is another matter and whether you'll ever be able to enforce judgment is another again - I doubt the NPG's case ever really will get off the ground.
That becomes an international law issue.
Uh... sort of I guess. Normally "international law" by itself would refer to public international law - which isn't really relevant here - but I guess you could say it's a matter of "private international law" i.e. Conflict of laws. Private international law of course is determined by the local domestic courts according to what the rules of their own country. The UK courts have their own rules on which cases they're willing to hear and which laws they'll apply to them. Those are the rules that matter in any case brought before the UK courts. The US courts likewise have their own rules. Those are the rules that matter in any case brought before the US courts.
But US courts have already concluded that photographic reproductions of a public domain painting do not count - so tough, it's legal, and not up for debate.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether there's any artistry in photographing a painting, but the bit quoted above is just gratuitously offensive. The US courts don't have any say in what's 'up for debate' by me.
Agreed that the gallery's attempts to pursue under UK law an American for uploading to an American website are unlikely to get anywhere but it's still correct to point out that emphasising that the photos are uncopyrightable under US law is irrelevant - the NPG acknowledge that they're not copyrighted under US law anyway.
It's in the Louvre isn't it?
Yes, and if you want to see it you'll have to pay the Louvre. The NPG, however, doesn't charge admittance to see its paintings, but does sell photographs of them. That doesn't mean they're right in law of course, (as you say, the position is unclear) but it does perhaps help to explain the NPG's concerns.
Likewise, while it may not be easy to photograph one of these works, you are certainly not adding anything to the actual content of the image; indeed, you are actively trying not to. Technical expertise went into creating them, yes. Artistry, no.
That's like claiming that you're not adding anything when photographing a person. Realistically, we know that in either situation the photographer is applying their creative skill and making choices and judgments about what aspects to capture. The photograph will NOT be exactly the same as the original - it's a representation. Capturing the texture and the qualities of the canvas, deciding what lighting to use (and let's face it that affects the colour, the perception of the texture, everything), the angle to use... there is every bit as much creativity in applying these choices to photogrsphing a painting as in photographing anything else. Pretending that it's eqivalent to chucking something on the photocopier and pressing a button is silly.
Yo may "try not to" make any artistic choices in photographing a painting just as you may "try not to" when photographing a person but realistically you have to. And in either case the photographers are exercising artistic skills.
Someone on the plaintiffs side who pays the check of said lawyer could fire him for doing so. We have no idea how this would affect said lawyer. Maybe he is on the hook for $2M in medical bills because his 6 year old daughter is dying of leukemia, therefore he can't afford to lose his job, even when he knows what the right actions would be.
I don't believe for a moment your theory that anyone would face imprisonment over this, even a "single person with no real power of any kind" but if we grant that premise then saying that what amounts to "I broke the law but it's okay because I was being paid for it" is any sort of defense is both absurd and offensive. If we grant the premise that the lawyer was acting criminally then of course he should be punished for it. Lots of criminals make their living from their criminal acts - that is not a defense.
Ya, the legal definition disagrees with you
I think you're saying that there's a 'legal' definition of the word 'illegal' which restricts it to applying to criminal acts. Have I understood that correctly? If so then can you say where you get that from and which jurisdiction you feel it applies to (from context it looks like you must be referring to Australia)? I'm not saying you're wrong, though I am a little sceptical.
Honestly, this seems like another human rights abuse... people should have the right to choose if they want to go through shock therapy!
The right to an informed choice. But can someone in the throes of internet addiction really be said to be making a choice? This is why we keep shocking 'em until they consent to it. That's the begining of the path to recovery.
/. puts the best bits all in one neat package regardless where its from.
Plus, I'd just feel stupid buying a newspaper in order to NOT read any of the articles and just get on with discussing them anyway - what a waste of money. Slashdot makes it feel natural.
Don't bring your propaganda here.
Gentlemen, you can't spread propaganda in here! This is Slashdot.
Once you receive money for edits you've made, you're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice.
You sound like you've encountered Wikipedia before so - open your eyes and look at it. Do you really think all those articles about Star Trek were written by people who are uninterested in it? Someone below mentioned the Scientology article - suprise it's already dominated by a mixture of pro-scientologists and anti-scientologists. Who else would you expect to devote time to it? This is less extreme of an effect for some articles than for others but it still applies throughout - any argument premised on the idea that non-paid Wikipedians are 'uninterested third parties' is not merely wrong but completely absurd. People do not spend their time writing about things they're 'uninterested' in. Unless, of course, they're paid to.
Same with Wikipedia, the market (Wikipedia) is opposed to paid editing of articles.
That doesn't appear to be true. There has been a majority in favor of allowing paid editing since a fairly early stage in the process (and no it doesn't seem to consist of paid shills but I suppose it's hard to tell for certain). It's running at about 60% suporting the idea that whether someone's paid is irrelevant as long as content is neutral, verificable etc. and 40% against.
Were the people technically defrauded? They did agree to the service via EULA after all...
That's the nature of fraud. Theft is when you take something that belongs to someone else without their permission. Fraud is when you trick someone into agreeing that you can have something. Some cases are very clear cut when the poor frail old lady is tricked into signing away everything she had, some are more mundane like this. There are a LOT of grey areas but getting someone to 'agree' to terms they haven't read or haven't understood is a common tool of fraud.
That's nothing, I used to stay connected, downloading movies and Linux distros, following all the news, exchanging emails with a journalist friend, using a Commodore 64 that had been buried for years - in a war ravaged country with no communications infrastructure worth speaking of. Kids these days have it easy.
Juno
I don't mean to be a grammar Nazi
Then don't.
He didn't. The meaning of words is a matter of semantics, not grammar. It's a completely different form of naziism.
For the best of the series atmosphere, look to the Shaleridge Cradle section in Thief 3.
Absolutely. My experience with Thief three was roughly: First couple of levels seemed, minor thinks I didn't quite like but there always are. Next few levels... ah, shouldn't the levels be getting bigger by now? Clock Tower, this is STUPID, the top of the tower has people living in comfortable accomodations and as you go down it gets rougher and rougher - in order for them to get up there (and to get their beds etc. up there) they have to climb up pylons and things then rough service elevators before finally reaching better elevators and stairs - nobody builds like this. Next few levels, still playing but not impressed. Then the Cradle - magnificent. I enjoyed the game after that but it's the Cradle that made it.
Someone else said that the levels were limited in size due to the Xbox's capability. I'm sure that was part of it BUT the Cradle wasn't massive and had to fit in those limits too. Granted it had a lot more going for it than just a feeling of scale but even on that basis it was well written to feel like there was more to it than there was. You had branching corridors early on that you planned to come back to later and then you made plot discoveries (what's her name's photo in the attic) with places you were still thinking "I must go back and check that way out" - it made good use of the resources available. The rest didn't.
While I'm complaining about Thief 3, the other thing that really annoyed me was the Rune Wardens or whatever they were called. The Keeper enforcers. When the ordinary guards and such like saw them they ran to attack them. But they should never have seen them. Fine, Garrett with his skills, training and all-round prophesied nature gets to see them and avoid them but these are KEEPERS. They pass unseen. Everyone else should have been oblivious to them.
Okay, so I sound a little obsessive. I liked the games :)
I think we're at least broadly in agreement then :) Thanks for the discussion.