Queen Elizabeth is not a politician, and her image is on the stamps in the same way and for the same reasons as it appears on coins and banknotes, as a symbol of the State. for the same reason decorative UK stamps do not have the country name (unlike stamps from other countries) just a small profile of the Queen.
That's because Britain invented stamps. Britain invented most things, of course. Pretty much everything apart from aircraft.
Unfortunately the Statue of Liberty is long out of copyright.
I would have said it is fortunate. Such an important cultural and politicalicon of that age should be out of copyright to allow people to freely use it in cultural and political ways.
the value of the picture on the stamp is decorative; So a few pennies worth of the stamp's price can be attributed to its aesthetic value, and then 5% of that few pennies' worth per stamp is a reasonable royalty: not 5% of the total postage.
Even a few pennies is vastly overstated.
Approximately ZERO percent of the value of the stamp, ignoring the statistically insignificant philatelist community, is the picture on it.
As a rule, nobody buys the stamp for the picture, or even looks at it before purchasing a book. At the most, if there are multiple options they might chose one over the other, but not a single additional sale would be made or not made regardless.
Except these were stamps primarily intended for collectors to have, and look at. I have a collection of ones from Princess Diana's wedding in 1981 in a presentation book. I expect only a small proportion ended up on letters.
Getty should be paying the entire judgement, since they falsely represented that they had the rights to sell, and the US Government accepted that claim in good faith. But...
I can't see how Getty could be liable for anything after the initial error was noted, as the USPS should have been aware that the sculptor would have rights over his creation.
That after the error being pointed out the USPS continued to use the image. I don't see that Getty could be on the hook for anything after the error was pointed out.
Actually if you look at the PISA website [oecd.org] they only provide data for about ten years,
I'm surprised that it is only 10 years, as it's been going since 2000, and I've looked at data from 2000 before. Well, officially 2000 wasn't a full set of results.
People get a bit to obsessed about the ordering of the PISA scores. In the UK people complained when the UK dropped down a bit, but that was more due to countries that were likely to do better submitting scores. It's like Murray being more likely to win Wimbledon if Federer and Nadal are ill, although this year it's the other way round.
I have no idea where you get 30 years of PISA data from.
I don't, as PISA hasn't been going for 30 years, but it's the most objective information available external to the local education systems. Despite contentions people make of declining standards, PISA doesn't show any clear trend that would confirm that.
The tests are clearly designed to have minimal reliance on knowledge so that they can be administered across multiple countries with different curricula. They appear to test basic intelligence without much reliance on knowledge and basic intelligence should not change much over time regardless of education. The final nail in their coffin though is that one of their test questions is wrong: it suggests that the size of an impact crater only depends on the size of the object causing it when it actually depends on the mass and velocity.
They test things like reading comprehension in the native language, which does rely on education, and the mathematical elements also. So the idea that they are just "basic intelligence tests" is false.
On the counter side, there is plenty of evidence of declining school standards. Employers are requiring degrees for jobs that never used to require them
Employers wish to have the best candidates. Many more people go to university. Thus a simple way to sift out weaker candidates (those that did not go to university), is to ask for degrees. This doesn't mean a degree is required to do the job, it's just a filtering mechanism.
The UK has extended some undergrad science degrees, particularly physics, from 3 years to 4 years because of declining school standards
You have two sets of numbers: {10, 9, 8, 7} and {11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4}. The average of the first set is 8.5, the second is 7.5. Yet we see that the highest number in the second set is 11. So you can see that there can be a requirement for longer degrees even as school standards improve if the intake size doubles. The other trend is that those wishing to study physics at degree level may decide to have a more broadly based education at A level. I faced a dilemma at A level, as I would have loved to have taken maths, two sciences (ideally three) and a language, but that wasn't a supported option. But if I had wanted to be more broadly based I might have ended up not doing pure physics at A level.
and their intake requirements have gone from B's and C's at A-level to A's and A*'s.
Which would be a natural response to rising standards too.
The GP said 'income tax'. This is demonstrably not the case. If it was 'total tax' then it might be a different argument.
As an example, assuming a couple with two typical jobs, in the UK on median wages your take home is about £1800 on a monthly wage of £2250, so income tax and national insurance of about £450. Add another £80 for property takes and you are at £530. Assume £200 for food (generally 0% VAT rated) and £50 for diesel/petrol (about 60% tax), and we are at £560. 8% tax on natural gas and electricity of around £100 gets us to £568. Assume £400 in mortgage costs (no tax). Insurance is probably another £100, at 8% (It might have risen to 12%, but it doesn't affect the overall much), so now at £572. If we assume all the rest of the income is spent on VAT rated goods, that comes to £174 more tax, so a total of £746 on £2250, so 33% tax. That's well short of 50%. I can't imagine it's so different in Canada.
(1) fails if you have something serious happen in those 90 to 180 days. You could trip over, badly break your leg and need surgery, and be $50k out of pocket.
(2) May or may not be allowable, and assumes that your spouse works for somewhere that has a health plan.
(3) is most likely leaving money on the table.
Perhaps an option would be saving up enough for option (4), which would be 6 months of additional insurance, plus deductables and copays, but that might not be cheap either.
There is not much our American overlords can do about wage inflation in this country.
If you look at median wage growth, though, it's pretty weak - not much wage inflation. In a tight employment market (4% unemployment), and a period of GDP growth, you'd expect more wage inflation.
We need to fix this by raising school standards to the point where employers can use them for a wide range of jobs. While this will cost money it will also save a lot of money by making these pseudo-universities unnecessary.
There seems to be the presumption that school standards are falling, but if you look at PISA results, there isn't any evidence for it, and if anything, standards are gradually rising. People say "30 years ago, when I was at school, it was much better, and now employers can't trust a school leaver", but 30 years ago they said exactly the same thing. Even 2000 years ago they said the same thing.
the government will not confiscate some of that company's money
If companies want roads, etc., someone has to pay for it. If you have a limited resource (land to build roads on) then unconstrained development by private entities does not necessarily result in an efficient network, as it is not in the interests of any individual player to build an efficient network. In some markets competitive pressures will ultimately result in optimal solutions for people, but it's not a given, as optimal solutions are only a byproduct of the process, and in some markets the competitive pressures do not necessarily lead to a solution that is optimal for people, as opposed to the companies.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that was the Romans.
Same for Africans. They were both savage and disorganized and ripe for the pickings by more organized eastern powers.
I suggest you read about various great African civilisations, such as Nubia, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, etc.
Apart from:
Can I remove all the sound from modern pop 'music'?
one of the nicest and most civil bondage sites, run literally by a husband and wife, had to cut back because of these laws.
Since the laws haven't even been debated in parliament, that would be odd.
Queen Elizabeth is not a politician, and her image is on the stamps in the same way and for the same reasons as it appears on coins and banknotes, as a symbol of the State. for the same reason decorative UK stamps do not have the country name (unlike stamps from other countries) just a small profile of the Queen.
That's because Britain invented stamps. Britain invented most things, of course. Pretty much everything apart from aircraft.
:)
Unfortunately the Statue of Liberty is long out of copyright.
I would have said it is fortunate. Such an important cultural and politicalicon of that age should be out of copyright to allow people to freely use it in cultural and political ways.
the value of the picture on the stamp is decorative; So a few pennies worth of the stamp's price can be attributed to its aesthetic value, and then 5% of that few pennies' worth per stamp is a reasonable royalty: not 5% of the total postage.
Even a few pennies is vastly overstated.
Approximately ZERO percent of the value of the stamp, ignoring the statistically insignificant philatelist community, is the picture on it.
As a rule, nobody buys the stamp for the picture, or even looks at it before purchasing a book. At the most, if there are multiple options they might chose one over the other, but not a single additional sale would be made or not made regardless.
Except these were stamps primarily intended for collectors to have, and look at. I have a collection of ones from Princess Diana's wedding in 1981 in a presentation book. I expect only a small proportion ended up on letters.
Getty should be paying the entire judgement, since they falsely represented that they had the rights to sell, and the US Government accepted that claim in good faith. But...
I can't see how Getty could be liable for anything after the initial error was noted, as the USPS should have been aware that the sculptor would have rights over his creation.
But USPS continued to use the image after the error was discovered. Getty can't reasonably be held responsible for anything after that point.
Why is the sculptor allowed to make a copy of the statue of liberty, but the USPS is not allowed to make a copy of a picture of that statue?
Because his version is different, and the original is no longer under any form of copyright.
So what am I misunderstanding?
That after the error being pointed out the USPS continued to use the image. I don't see that Getty could be on the hook for anything after the error was pointed out.
jaywalking and carving out beating hearts
Hardly equivalent. Erasing an entire village and inhabitants in revenge for someone being shot and carving out beating hearts is another matter.
P.S. cutting out hearts, and the brutal events WW2 - both deplorable.
And WW2 was some sort of picnic?
Actually if you look at the PISA website [oecd.org] they only provide data for about ten years,
I'm surprised that it is only 10 years, as it's been going since 2000, and I've looked at data from 2000 before. Well, officially 2000 wasn't a full set of results.
People get a bit to obsessed about the ordering of the PISA scores. In the UK people complained when the UK dropped down a bit, but that was more due to countries that were likely to do better submitting scores. It's like Murray being more likely to win Wimbledon if Federer and Nadal are ill, although this year it's the other way round.
I have no idea where you get 30 years of PISA data from.
I don't, as PISA hasn't been going for 30 years, but it's the most objective information available external to the local education systems. Despite contentions people make of declining standards, PISA doesn't show any clear trend that would confirm that.
The tests are clearly designed to have minimal reliance on knowledge so that they can be administered across multiple countries with different curricula. They appear to test basic intelligence without much reliance on knowledge and basic intelligence should not change much over time regardless of education. The final nail in their coffin though is that one of their test questions is wrong: it suggests that the size of an impact crater only depends on the size of the object causing it when it actually depends on the mass and velocity.
They test things like reading comprehension in the native language, which does rely on education, and the mathematical elements also. So the idea that they are just "basic intelligence tests" is false.
On the counter side, there is plenty of evidence of declining school standards. Employers are requiring degrees for jobs that never used to require them
Employers wish to have the best candidates. Many more people go to university. Thus a simple way to sift out weaker candidates (those that did not go to university), is to ask for degrees. This doesn't mean a degree is required to do the job, it's just a filtering mechanism.
The UK has extended some undergrad science degrees, particularly physics, from 3 years to 4 years because of declining school standards
You have two sets of numbers: {10, 9, 8, 7} and {11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4}. The average of the first set is 8.5, the second is 7.5. Yet we see that the highest number in the second set is 11. So you can see that there can be a requirement for longer degrees even as school standards improve if the intake size doubles. The other trend is that those wishing to study physics at degree level may decide to have a more broadly based education at A level. I faced a dilemma at A level, as I would have loved to have taken maths, two sciences (ideally three) and a language, but that wasn't a supported option. But if I had wanted to be more broadly based I might have ended up not doing pure physics at A level.
and their intake requirements have gone from B's and C's at A-level to A's and A*'s.
Which would be a natural response to rising standards too.
The GP said 'income tax'. This is demonstrably not the case. If it was 'total tax' then it might be a different argument.
As an example, assuming a couple with two typical jobs, in the UK on median wages your take home is about £1800 on a monthly wage of £2250, so income tax and national insurance of about £450. Add another £80 for property takes and you are at £530. Assume £200 for food (generally 0% VAT rated) and £50 for diesel/petrol (about 60% tax), and we are at £560. 8% tax on natural gas and electricity of around £100 gets us to £568. Assume £400 in mortgage costs (no tax). Insurance is probably another £100, at 8% (It might have risen to 12%, but it doesn't affect the overall much), so now at £572. If we assume all the rest of the income is spent on VAT rated goods, that comes to £174 more tax, so a total of £746 on £2250, so 33% tax. That's well short of 50%. I can't imagine it's so different in Canada.
Waiting 6 months for operation when it is critical to be done right now?
I live in the UK. My wife recently needed an urgent operation. She waited two days.
(1) fails if you have something serious happen in those 90 to 180 days. You could trip over, badly break your leg and need surgery, and be $50k out of pocket.
(2) May or may not be allowable, and assumes that your spouse works for somewhere that has a health plan.
(3) is most likely leaving money on the table.
Perhaps an option would be saving up enough for option (4), which would be 6 months of additional insurance, plus deductables and copays, but that might not be cheap either.
There is not much our American overlords can do about wage inflation in this country.
If you look at median wage growth, though, it's pretty weak - not much wage inflation. In a tight employment market (4% unemployment), and a period of GDP growth, you'd expect more wage inflation.
We need to fix this by raising school standards to the point where employers can use them for a wide range of jobs. While this will cost money it will also save a lot of money by making these pseudo-universities unnecessary.
There seems to be the presumption that school standards are falling, but if you look at PISA results, there isn't any evidence for it, and if anything, standards are gradually rising. People say "30 years ago, when I was at school, it was much better, and now employers can't trust a school leaver", but 30 years ago they said exactly the same thing. Even 2000 years ago they said the same thing.
the government will not confiscate some of that company's money
If companies want roads, etc., someone has to pay for it. If you have a limited resource (land to build roads on) then unconstrained development by private entities does not necessarily result in an efficient network, as it is not in the interests of any individual player to build an efficient network. In some markets competitive pressures will ultimately result in optimal solutions for people, but it's not a given, as optimal solutions are only a byproduct of the process, and in some markets the competitive pressures do not necessarily lead to a solution that is optimal for people, as opposed to the companies .
Those advantages are available to all in that locality, thus it is a level playing field for those in that locality.