Yes, he still needs to talk to a lawyer, but if the income is from a business in his country and goes to an account in his country, and if he spends it there instead of here, then there won't be tax issue, will there?
Okay, so it's not something you can do in America. But if it's a web based business, why not take the steps to form a corporation in your home country, get a relative to help you with the paper work, and run it from here? That way you're running a business in that country and not here. Have the money go to an account in a bank there. That way if you can't stay, you don't lose anything and in the meantime, might make some good contacts that can help you when you're no longer in the USA.
I'm not familiar with the H-1B, so it's also possible the terms restrict you from holding positions in your country while working here. I don't know and I'm not sure, but I thought I'd make the suggestion.
Great, now you've done it. He didn't want that released until he could announce it as a member of the board. It's still up in the air who will take George Harrison's slot, but speculation indicates it would be Woz, who wants the reunion to be part of a new and improved US festival.
I forgot to mention they are also the company that got all the notice after Katrina. They're in New Orleans and they kept going through the entire hurricane and aftermath. The guy handling the emergency became well known for his blog, which I think was even mentioned in a story here.
I've had great luck with Directnic. They also offer cheap hosting if all you need for a while is a placeholder or brochure-ware sites. I don't think they do anything with CGI or databases or anything dynamic, though.
Actually, that's close to what I did. I just did "sudo passwd" and created a password for root. From then on, the whole thing worked like I'm used to it working.
This is not getting rid of root, it's making it more restricted in that you still have to have root access to do admin jobs, but you cannot, by default log in as root.
True, it doesn't get rid of root, but it is extremely easy to make it so you can login as root. When I'm setting up a new system, I hate using sudo for a ton of commands and would rather have access to a root shell while I'm first setting up a computer or when I'm setting up a new application.
On the one hand I think it's a good idea because it means a newbie won't end up running as root all the time out of ignorance or laziness, on the other hand, it makes it just as easy to do anything by just typing "sudo" first. There are some of my systems where I don't want sudo enabled at all. I know not everyone likes that, but it's my way.
Can you verify or do you have any strong degree of confidence of the accuracy? I recall reading what I said, but forgot the source, since it was over 20 years ago.
I went with a wider range to further illustrate how far off base calling Yogi Bera a philosopher was. Even in an inclusive list (as opposed to being exclusive), he doesn't fit in.
You may not like Rand or Fuller, but they dealt with appropriate topics. Rand did deal with what she felt was right and wrong and Fuller did write on what he felt the nature of the Universe and mankind were and proposed ideas of how we should handle some aspects of life. You may not classify them at the same level as some, but that doesn't exclude them based on your opinion. I know people that do include them, some that don't. As I said, I was making an inclusive list to indicate even in such a case, Bera doesn't belong.
"He must have made that before he died." (about a movie with Steve McQueen in it)
"If you can't imitate him, don't copy him."
"I take a two hour nap, from one o'clock to four."
"I always thought that record would stand until it was broken."
Yep. The man is definitely up there with John Stuart Mill, Alan Turing, Aristotle, Charles Dodgson, and Rene Descartes.
Quick quote from Wikipedia: Philosophy concerns itself with what is the best way to live (ethics), what sorts of things really exist and what are their true natures (metaphysics), what is to count as genuine knowledge (epistemology), and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).
Did Bera show an interest in ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, or logic? In other words, other than just flubbed quotations, what indications are there that Bera actually spent time thinking about these deeper topics instead of just making mis-statements about them that showed he hadn't thought something out before saying it?
Pop philosopher or pseudo philosopher, but not nearly close to being a true modern philosopher, such as Ayn Rand or Buckminster Fuller. These are names that will be associated with serious thought and focus on science, math, humanity, and theory for centuries. Other than his baseball skills, is there any reason to expect anyone to remember Yogi Bera in 100 years?
Yes, in some cases, copyrights are counter productive. Mickey Mouse, I think, would be out of copyright now if the law was not changed. Walt Disney, his heirs, and Disney, Inc. have made millions and, honestly, in some ways it is time to let such an icon move into public domain.
On the other hand, as a small business person, even though I haven't had to use this fact yet (and hope I never do!), I am quite thankful that my work is copyrighted when I write it, and not when I submit it for copyright. When I was dealing with a TV show and started with sending in a spec script, it helped that I could send it in after registering it with the Writer's Guild and not have to wait for the forms to come back from the Library of Congress.
If there were not copyrights, I would not be able to make a living creating the work I do. I'd still be working 24/7 over a keyboard on program code instead of other work I want to do.
If by that you mean that, when somebody quite clearly says something in unambiguous language in a license vetted by top lawyers, I believe them to actually mean it, then yes, I'm a literalist.
No. I mean someone who is so focused on the exact words that they think real life works the same way. In other words, someone that thinks saying something a certain way makes it so, as opposed to someone who uses words and language to describe the world as it is. Contracts and licenses are one thing, discussing human behavior is another. If you have trouble separating this, read a dozen Sherlock Holmes stories for a bit of insight. While the great detective thought and behaved very logically, a major part of his brilliance was the understanding of how illogically and passionately people behaved.
Oh, I totally know that. But how is getting an additional something in writing prevents this. You can be sued for anything without cause, remember?
Ah, here's a great example of the above point: the difference between the nice, neat world that exists in theory and the diverse and sometimes messy one that exists in the world that contains humans. If you've gone through the effort of contacting a person, even with just a letter that took less than 3 minutes to type up, then they are much more likely to "warm up" to you and keep a positive opinion of you. By contacting them, even though their work is licensed under CC, you are showing a level of respect for them. Yes, they can still file a suit, but 1) they have had a personal communication with me at that point, and I'm no longer just a faceless name. 2) They will likely remember specifically giving me permission to use their work and not want to take action. 3) They also remember that I have signed papers they sent me, and are aware they don't have a leg to stand on.
Humans are emotional beings first, and logical only 2nd or 3rd. For example, I knew a friend in Amway who was sure she'd get rich. I showed her a set of numbers that proved a large part of the profit was not in selling the products, but in selling the CDs to people like her. She had the IQ of a genius (literally) and knew Math well, but didn't want to believe that what they were telling her was not true. What's the point and why am I saying this? People do not always behave logically, but if one takes time to understand people and their passions and what drives different types of people, one can reduce one's problems quite significantly.
One time I needed to use shots of a state building in a project I was producing. I could have easily shot from the street and used all the footage without ever talking to the state. Instead I took some time to find out who the person was in charge of that building and talked with him. It took less than 20 minutes to track him down and talk with him. This was, btw, not long after 9/11, and people were still paranoid. I told him what I was doing, why I wanted the shot, and let the conversation digress into how our state is encouraging more commercial video and film production. He started to see it from the point of view that agreeing to what I was doing was helping a small business in the state and ultimately helping the state itself in terms of commerce. It may not seem like much, but then was I was shooting, I noticed the state troopers in the area (yes, I was near the state capitol, where troopers would come through from time to time) watching me, then eventually coming up to me. I gave him the name of the man I talked to and his office number. He checked, and walked away within less than 3 minutes, which was valuable time I needed for shooting, since it was during magic hour.
I didn't have to call for permission. I would likely have been able to talk the trooper into letting me keep shooting, but I can't be sure, especially since that was so soon after 9/11. A few minutes ahead of time, talking to an amiable bureaucrat, saved me the time I needed when I needed it (magic hour, btw, is about 45 minutes during sunse
Too bad the real world doesn't always work that way. I've been lucky enough to work with a number of lawyers (they're my clients, fortunately I'm not their client!). One thing I've learned is that you can be sued for almost anything. They don't have to have good firm grounds. You can be sued and be completely innocent and still spend tens of thousands to prove you're innocent.
It's much easier, as I said, in the long run, to do a little work up front. 95% of the time it's not necessary, but doing it in every case saves so much work, money, and time the one or two times something does go wrong that it makes up for it a thousand fold. People are not always predictable, but if you've contacted them and they've sent you a signed paper saying they're okay, the chances of them trying to sue later, even if they don't have solid grounds, is reduced to almost nothing.
Sure, you don't have to CYA. There are times I did not -- and it was a few of those times that taught me to always CYA. A little extra effort keeps one safe. Why take the risk?
Spoken like someone who uses copyrighted material, but certainly not like someone who creates it.
There are advantages to something automatically being considered copyrighted once it is created. Granted, those advantages are only for the creator, but without help like that, there is less motivation to create.
I'll embellish. If I were going to use photos published under CC in a work where they could not easily be replaced or which was going to be sold or used professionally, I would contact the author. Yes, they're under CC, but I'd like to be sure the author put them there himself, and someone wasn't "getting back" at him or something similar and I'd want to make sure he's not vacillating about it. If I use a photo as an establishing shot and later the CC license is revoked, and the video ends up doing well in the DVD market, it can be a mess dealing with the person about it. It's easier, in the long run, to double check and make sure what I'm using is intentionally under CC and that I can expect it to remain there. It also does a great job of the old "CYA" because if I contact them in writing, with a SASE enclosed, I get something back in writing, signed by them, that goes into my files and which I can use as proof if questions arise.
Once you've bumped into a few glitches on things that are supposed to be obvious but aren't, you realize it is much easier to CYA now than to SYA (Save YA) later. An ounce of prevention and such...
For me, as a writer, director, producer, and someone who sometimes does some amateur photography and other types of image creation, I think there's a bigger issue.
I, personally, don't want to be using someone's work as part of mine if they don't want it involved. When Kubrick used music from György Ligeti, his favorite composer, he was later sued for misuse of the composer's work. (I hear the composer won, but I don't remember the details.)
If someone has made photos licensed under CC, if I were going to use them, I'd be sure to obtain permission and verification first. I know there are some people who don't care about such things, but I feel it can detract from my work or my later editing of that work if there are issues involving arguments or fights over whether or not I had the right to use something in what I was doing.
In other words, do you really want to put in all the effort to use something against the will of the creator/author instead of finding something else that will do?
The simplest form of rebuttal I found was simple: Most (not all) of the reasons to get it were reasons I use Linux. For example, even though I don't use an "image based" install, in a way, Debian, with.deb files, is based on images and I've been able to use the Debian Net install to install it in less than 25 minutes on a system -- and I can use data from one install to install on other systems. I can encrypt on laptops or desktops fairly easily and there are ways of setting up the kind of undelete rollbacks that they talk about.
Once again MS has copied everyone else out there but thinks they have done something new and has succeeded in convincing a lot of people that their rehash of old ideas is new and worth paying for even when other systems that have been able to do most of those things for years are free.
You're missing the point entirely and taking a side track. The point is that your statement was based on ignorance in the first place. The space program was about more than just some snide comment or just having one person (actually several people) in space or on the moon. Because of the space program, we have advanced in weather forecasting, understanding this planet and disasters like earthquakes, developing medications and electronics, learning new fabrication techniques, and learning more about the human body.
Your statement shows you did not know this or actually understand it, and I provided one direct example of how that technology has helped us. The point isn't the specific, but that you're speaking out of ignorance. Maybe it's because I grew up during part of the space race and learned about it as it went on that I saw what happened along the way and how it impacted the rest of the world, and perhaps many people who have grown up enjoying benefits created during the space race don't realize that they are benefiting from what people like you are bashing.
The point is you were spewing out an opinion based more on ignorance than fact.
My Father is alive today because of medicine that is based on medicine that came from the space program. It may not have been developed otherwise. To me, that's a good result showing a good use of money.
We get a lot more from NASA than "Beep Beep - I'm a spaceman!" and that you think and state, essentially, that it is all we get indicates you might want to learn more, rather than speaking again in a subject where your comments show your ignorance.
You say, several times, "The youth of today know..."
I was a kid in the 1960s, and I don't mean a teen or in my 20s. I mean a kid. The kids of the 1960s, during the bulk of the space race, the youth of then knew all that as well.
So do you have a better excuse for apathy in "the youth of today"
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, he still needs to talk to a lawyer, but if the income is from a business in his country and goes to an account in his country, and if he spends it there instead of here, then there won't be tax issue, will there?
Okay, so it's not something you can do in America. But if it's a web based business, why not take the steps to form a corporation in your home country, get a relative to help you with the paper work, and run it from here? That way you're running a business in that country and not here. Have the money go to an account in a bank there. That way if you can't stay, you don't lose anything and in the meantime, might make some good contacts that can help you when you're no longer in the USA.
I'm not familiar with the H-1B, so it's also possible the terms restrict you from holding positions in your country while working here. I don't know and I'm not sure, but I thought I'd make the suggestion.
Great, now you've done it. He didn't want that released until he could announce it as a member of the board. It's still up in the air who will take George Harrison's slot, but speculation indicates it would be Woz, who wants the reunion to be part of a new and improved US festival.
It's not just the money. But they're going to wait a few weeks before announcing that Steve Jobs is on the Apple Corp. board.
Didn't you know his goal is to be on the board of every company in the world that produces entertainment that can be digitized?
Hey, my teek can beat up your teek!
I forgot to mention they are also the company that got all the notice after Katrina. They're in New Orleans and they kept going through the entire hurricane and aftermath. The guy handling the emergency became well known for his blog, which I think was even mentioned in a story here.
I've had great luck with Directnic. They also offer cheap hosting if all you need for a while is a placeholder or brochure-ware sites. I don't think they do anything with CGI or databases or anything dynamic, though.
Haven't you just figured out what it really is? Daddy. Mommy. They're both the same. Don't you remember:
The Corps is Mother. The Corps is Father.
You gotta keep a sharp eye out -- but then again, the teeps already know you've got a sharp eye out, don't they? And Bester is on his way.
Actually, that's close to what I did. I just did "sudo passwd" and created a password for root. From then on, the whole thing worked like I'm used to it working.
This is not getting rid of root, it's making it more restricted in that you still have to have root access to do admin jobs, but you cannot, by default log in as root.
True, it doesn't get rid of root, but it is extremely easy to make it so you can login as root. When I'm setting up a new system, I hate using sudo for a ton of commands and would rather have access to a root shell while I'm first setting up a computer or when I'm setting up a new application.
On the one hand I think it's a good idea because it means a newbie won't end up running as root all the time out of ignorance or laziness, on the other hand, it makes it just as easy to do anything by just typing "sudo" first. There are some of my systems where I don't want sudo enabled at all. I know not everyone likes that, but it's my way.
Thanks for clarification.
Can you verify or do you have any strong degree of confidence of the accuracy? I recall reading what I said, but forgot the source, since it was over 20 years ago.
Let me guess. You find "Friends" a literate and amazingly deep TV show, right?
Enjoy your bland, pseudo-intellectual pap.
I went with a wider range to further illustrate how far off base calling Yogi Bera a philosopher was. Even in an inclusive list (as opposed to being exclusive), he doesn't fit in.
You may not like Rand or Fuller, but they dealt with appropriate topics. Rand did deal with what she felt was right and wrong and Fuller did write on what he felt the nature of the Universe and mankind were and proposed ideas of how we should handle some aspects of life. You may not classify them at the same level as some, but that doesn't exclude them based on your opinion. I know people that do include them, some that don't. As I said, I was making an inclusive list to indicate even in such a case, Bera doesn't belong.
Oh, yes. Definitely.
Some quotes:
"He must have made that before he died." (about a movie with Steve McQueen in it)
"If you can't imitate him, don't copy him."
"I take a two hour nap, from one o'clock to four."
"I always thought that record would stand until it was broken."
Yep. The man is definitely up there with John Stuart Mill, Alan Turing, Aristotle, Charles Dodgson, and Rene Descartes.
Quick quote from Wikipedia: Philosophy concerns itself with what is the best way to live (ethics), what sorts of things really exist and what are their true natures (metaphysics), what is to count as genuine knowledge (epistemology), and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).
Did Bera show an interest in ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, or logic? In other words, other than just flubbed quotations, what indications are there that Bera actually spent time thinking about these deeper topics instead of just making mis-statements about them that showed he hadn't thought something out before saying it?
Pop philosopher or pseudo philosopher, but not nearly close to being a true modern philosopher, such as Ayn Rand or Buckminster Fuller. These are names that will be associated with serious thought and focus on science, math, humanity, and theory for centuries. Other than his baseball skills, is there any reason to expect anyone to remember Yogi Bera in 100 years?
Funny -- after reading that, and getting a few ideas, I checked and you can see Area 51 on Google Maps quite clearly. Wonder why that isn't pixelated?
Yes, in some cases, copyrights are counter productive. Mickey Mouse, I think, would be out of copyright now if the law was not changed. Walt Disney, his heirs, and Disney, Inc. have made millions and, honestly, in some ways it is time to let such an icon move into public domain.
On the other hand, as a small business person, even though I haven't had to use this fact yet (and hope I never do!), I am quite thankful that my work is copyrighted when I write it, and not when I submit it for copyright. When I was dealing with a TV show and started with sending in a spec script, it helped that I could send it in after registering it with the Writer's Guild and not have to wait for the forms to come back from the Library of Congress.
If there were not copyrights, I would not be able to make a living creating the work I do. I'd still be working 24/7 over a keyboard on program code instead of other work I want to do.
If by that you mean that, when somebody quite clearly says something in unambiguous language in a license vetted by top lawyers, I believe them to actually mean it, then yes, I'm a literalist.
No. I mean someone who is so focused on the exact words that they think real life works the same way. In other words, someone that thinks saying something a certain way makes it so, as opposed to someone who uses words and language to describe the world as it is. Contracts and licenses are one thing, discussing human behavior is another. If you have trouble separating this, read a dozen Sherlock Holmes stories for a bit of insight. While the great detective thought and behaved very logically, a major part of his brilliance was the understanding of how illogically and passionately people behaved.
Oh, I totally know that. But how is getting an additional something in writing prevents this. You can be sued for anything without cause, remember?
Ah, here's a great example of the above point: the difference between the nice, neat world that exists in theory and the diverse and sometimes messy one that exists in the world that contains humans. If you've gone through the effort of contacting a person, even with just a letter that took less than 3 minutes to type up, then they are much more likely to "warm up" to you and keep a positive opinion of you. By contacting them, even though their work is licensed under CC, you are showing a level of respect for them. Yes, they can still file a suit, but 1) they have had a personal communication with me at that point, and I'm no longer just a faceless name. 2) They will likely remember specifically giving me permission to use their work and not want to take action. 3) They also remember that I have signed papers they sent me, and are aware they don't have a leg to stand on.
Humans are emotional beings first, and logical only 2nd or 3rd. For example, I knew a friend in Amway who was sure she'd get rich. I showed her a set of numbers that proved a large part of the profit was not in selling the products, but in selling the CDs to people like her. She had the IQ of a genius (literally) and knew Math well, but didn't want to believe that what they were telling her was not true. What's the point and why am I saying this? People do not always behave logically, but if one takes time to understand people and their passions and what drives different types of people, one can reduce one's problems quite significantly.
One time I needed to use shots of a state building in a project I was producing. I could have easily shot from the street and used all the footage without ever talking to the state. Instead I took some time to find out who the person was in charge of that building and talked with him. It took less than 20 minutes to track him down and talk with him. This was, btw, not long after 9/11, and people were still paranoid. I told him what I was doing, why I wanted the shot, and let the conversation digress into how our state is encouraging more commercial video and film production. He started to see it from the point of view that agreeing to what I was doing was helping a small business in the state and ultimately helping the state itself in terms of commerce. It may not seem like much, but then was I was shooting, I noticed the state troopers in the area (yes, I was near the state capitol, where troopers would come through from time to time) watching me, then eventually coming up to me. I gave him the name of the man I talked to and his office number. He checked, and walked away within less than 3 minutes, which was valuable time I needed for shooting, since it was during magic hour.
I didn't have to call for permission. I would likely have been able to talk the trooper into letting me keep shooting, but I can't be sure, especially since that was so soon after 9/11. A few minutes ahead of time, talking to an amiable bureaucrat, saved me the time I needed when I needed it (magic hour, btw, is about 45 minutes during sunse
Ah, I see. You're a literalist.
Too bad the real world doesn't always work that way. I've been lucky enough to work with a number of lawyers (they're my clients, fortunately I'm not their client!). One thing I've learned is that you can be sued for almost anything. They don't have to have good firm grounds. You can be sued and be completely innocent and still spend tens of thousands to prove you're innocent.
It's much easier, as I said, in the long run, to do a little work up front. 95% of the time it's not necessary, but doing it in every case saves so much work, money, and time the one or two times something does go wrong that it makes up for it a thousand fold. People are not always predictable, but if you've contacted them and they've sent you a signed paper saying they're okay, the chances of them trying to sue later, even if they don't have solid grounds, is reduced to almost nothing.
Sure, you don't have to CYA. There are times I did not -- and it was a few of those times that taught me to always CYA. A little extra effort keeps one safe. Why take the risk?
Spoken like someone who uses copyrighted material, but certainly not like someone who creates it.
There are advantages to something automatically being considered copyrighted once it is created. Granted, those advantages are only for the creator, but without help like that, there is less motivation to create.
I'll embellish. If I were going to use photos published under CC in a work where they could not easily be replaced or which was going to be sold or used professionally, I would contact the author. Yes, they're under CC, but I'd like to be sure the author put them there himself, and someone wasn't "getting back" at him or something similar and I'd want to make sure he's not vacillating about it. If I use a photo as an establishing shot and later the CC license is revoked, and the video ends up doing well in the DVD market, it can be a mess dealing with the person about it. It's easier, in the long run, to double check and make sure what I'm using is intentionally under CC and that I can expect it to remain there. It also does a great job of the old "CYA" because if I contact them in writing, with a SASE enclosed, I get something back in writing, signed by them, that goes into my files and which I can use as proof if questions arise.
Once you've bumped into a few glitches on things that are supposed to be obvious but aren't, you realize it is much easier to CYA now than to SYA (Save YA) later. An ounce of prevention and such...
For me, as a writer, director, producer, and someone who sometimes does some amateur photography and other types of image creation, I think there's a bigger issue.
I, personally, don't want to be using someone's work as part of mine if they don't want it involved. When Kubrick used music from György Ligeti, his favorite composer, he was later sued for misuse of the composer's work. (I hear the composer won, but I don't remember the details.)
If someone has made photos licensed under CC, if I were going to use them, I'd be sure to obtain permission and verification first. I know there are some people who don't care about such things, but I feel it can detract from my work or my later editing of that work if there are issues involving arguments or fights over whether or not I had the right to use something in what I was doing.
In other words, do you really want to put in all the effort to use something against the will of the creator/author instead of finding something else that will do?
The simplest form of rebuttal I found was simple: Most (not all) of the reasons to get it were reasons I use Linux. For example, even though I don't use an "image based" install, in a way, Debian, with .deb files, is based on images and I've been able to use the Debian Net install to install it in less than 25 minutes on a system -- and I can use data from one install to install on other systems. I can encrypt on laptops or desktops fairly easily and there are ways of setting up the kind of undelete rollbacks that they talk about.
Once again MS has copied everyone else out there but thinks they have done something new and has succeeded in convincing a lot of people that their rehash of old ideas is new and worth paying for even when other systems that have been able to do most of those things for years are free.
You're missing the point entirely and taking a side track. The point is that your statement was based on ignorance in the first place. The space program was about more than just some snide comment or just having one person (actually several people) in space or on the moon. Because of the space program, we have advanced in weather forecasting, understanding this planet and disasters like earthquakes, developing medications and electronics, learning new fabrication techniques, and learning more about the human body.
Your statement shows you did not know this or actually understand it, and I provided one direct example of how that technology has helped us. The point isn't the specific, but that you're speaking out of ignorance. Maybe it's because I grew up during part of the space race and learned about it as it went on that I saw what happened along the way and how it impacted the rest of the world, and perhaps many people who have grown up enjoying benefits created during the space race don't realize that they are benefiting from what people like you are bashing.
The point is you were spewing out an opinion based more on ignorance than fact.
My Father is alive today because of medicine that is based on medicine that came from the space program. It may not have been developed otherwise. To me, that's a good result showing a good use of money.
We get a lot more from NASA than "Beep Beep - I'm a spaceman!" and that you think and state, essentially, that it is all we get indicates you might want to learn more, rather than speaking again in a subject where your comments show your ignorance.
You say, several times, "The youth of today know..."
I was a kid in the 1960s, and I don't mean a teen or in my 20s. I mean a kid. The kids of the 1960s, during the bulk of the space race, the youth of then knew all that as well.
So do you have a better excuse for apathy in "the youth of today"