We also have an ombudsman in the USA, the Federal Communications Commission. It helps protect the little guy in a similar way, looking out for the consumer who doesn't want big business trying to push Janet Jackson's nipple at him.
All of painting wasn't obsoleted, but photography did greatly reduce the size of the portrait-painting market, which used to be important and lucrative. Rich people paying to have their portraits painted used to be the main way a lot of artists made a living, but that occupation took a real nose-dive in the early 20th century.
He's also released a good portion of the underlying algorithms (though not the actual tools) in the open-source bundler library, which is quite helpful in terms of having a base to build other applications on, or to do research in this area.
Here is a pretty good analysis from one of Duke University's legal advisors (posting in his role as blogger rather than formal legal advice, of course). Generally a win for libraries, but there are some oddities. For example, the specific rules on proportionality that the judge set forth are a bit odd and potentially gameable: 10% by page count of a work fewer than 10 chapters, or up to one full chapter for a work with 10 or more chapters. Does this still hold if presses start deliberately putting out books with a ton of really short chapters? Are there cases where >10% by page count should still be fair use? Copyright law doesn't actually set a strict percentage limit, though there might be some advantages in clarity if it did.
Another interesting aspect, which I got from this also-interesting analysis of the decision, is that many of the claims never even got to a legal analysis stage, because the publishers couldn't produce sufficient evidence of having a registered copyright: either they couldn't find a signed copyright transfer from the author showing that the publisher actually had copyright properly assigned to them, or they couldn't produce evidence that they had registered the copyright (a prerequisite under U.S. law for suing).
If I'm understanding the article correctly, it sounds like they sent the raw data to "an educator named James Drake" on request. Presumably he's the one who did the overlay, but possibly doesn't have any specialist background in this area, so did it the quick-and-dirty way.
One reason the NASA global-coverage image sets that were released in 2002 (with updates starting in 2005) have become the de-facto standard source is that: 1) anyone can download them; and 2) they're in the public domain, so anyone can use them for any purpose. You can get a bunch of versions here and from the Visible Earth site linked at the bottom of that page.
This one looks cool, but further use will be limited if the only thing I can do with it is look at it in this online zooming browser.
This is why, from 1996 to approximately 1999, Slashdot, with its feared cyberterror weapon "the Slashdotting", was widely considered the most powerful organization on earth.
Facebook might not of once been a soulless corporation but it is now.
It's scary to think that one day people might look on the past years of Facebook as the good days of Facebook, when they really cared about their users and weren't just about extracting revenue from them...
That's probably why they're based in Russia, which is notoriously lax in enforcing any sort of internet-related laws (unless they involve websites making fun of Putin, of course).
I don't see them as inherently different, but more of a continuum depending on how easy it is to exclude myself. The U.S. government is among the hardest to exclude myself from, so I agree on that. But when we get to lower levels of government, many of them are considerably easier to avoid than many large corporations are. For example, it is quite easy to avoid the Pittsburgh city government; just don't move to or work in Pittsburgh.
The Olympics was supposed to be an event promoting amateur sports competition to solidify friendship and peace between nations.
Now we have:
1. Increasingly, highly paid professional athletes, not amateurs; and even the "amateurs" are often exceptionally well-funded and de-facto full-time athletes.
2. National pride of the host nation, where the Olympics is supposed to show off their greatness at least as much as promote any sort of friendship between nations (admittedly, this is an old trend, at least dating back to the 1936 Berlin Olympics).
3. Extensive commercialization of the entire event, with whole shady networks of construction/sponsorship/etc. deals, even extending to weird brand-exclusivity rules that would make it illegal for you to wear a shirt with the wrong logo.
4. Extensive security procedures and apparatus, which makes the event as a promotion of international friendship and peace fall a bit flat... peace under the watch of heavily militarized police is a pretty empty kind of peace.
Sometimes true, but I would wager that technological issues might actually be even more insurmountable than political ones when it comes to building warp engines.
Jonathan Adler agrees, and thinks Hansen's proposal is a viable market-based approach, and better than the cap-and-trade approaches that have been getting more press.
Indeed, and that's a good reason not to naturalize in those European countries if you care about your kids' freedom, as well. Though no European country has the extent of mandatory military service than Singapore does.
No. The only possible circumstance I can think of is if I were in some kind of desperate position where I absolutely needed that money to feed my family or something, and by some weird twist of circumstances renouncing my citizenship was the only way to get it.
If I were a billionaire with all the money I could ever need, though, I wouldn't renounce my nation just to get even more money. There's a certain level of avarice past which it becomes ridiculous.
I'm not saying they're evil, just wondering why they aren't setting a good example of "voting with your feet" to advocate their principles. Why stay in the U.S. when there are so many lower-tax countries they could move to?
In general, rich people don't leave. This is news because it's so unusual for a wealthy American to leave the country. It's more common for wealthy non-Americans to try to move to the US than the reverse.
All that's true if you never had U.S. citizenship. If you renounced your U.S. citizenship and then show up again wanting it back, those paths are all closed.
There's a difference between opposing the actions of your country, playing corporate tax games, trying to change things, and a whole range of other activity, and--- explicitly renouncing your nation. Bill Gates has never held up his right hand and under oath renounced America. Most Americans wouldn't either, not even very wealthy, very libertarian ones.
I suspect Saverin had no such compunctions because he never really considered himself American in the first place. So to him being in the U.S. for a few years was just a bit of a game, a chance to make a quick buck; he had no loyalty to the country, despite the oath he took. So it was just as easy to recite an empty renunciation as to recite his empty oath of citizenship, all just an accounting game.
So up from approximately 0% to approximately 0%? I don't see any of the Forbes 400 on that list, either, not even the ultra-libertarian ones.
It's equivalent, proportionally, to approximately 34 Danes getting so angry at their country's high taxes that they renounce citizenship. I think Denmark would probably survive that devastating blow. Now if that were 178,000, we might have an actual phenomenon worth talking about.
But maybe this is a trend worth encouraging anyway. Is there some sort of campaign we can start to convince the Koch brothers to live up to their ideals and "go Galt"?
Slashdot Mirror
We also have an ombudsman in the USA, the Federal Communications Commission. It helps protect the little guy in a similar way, looking out for the consumer who doesn't want big business trying to push Janet Jackson's nipple at him.
You might be interested in PhotoCity, then (a research project at the same university PhotoSynth came from).
All of painting wasn't obsoleted, but photography did greatly reduce the size of the portrait-painting market, which used to be important and lucrative. Rich people paying to have their portraits painted used to be the main way a lot of artists made a living, but that occupation took a real nose-dive in the early 20th century.
He's also released a good portion of the underlying algorithms (though not the actual tools) in the open-source bundler library, which is quite helpful in terms of having a base to build other applications on, or to do research in this area.
Here is a pretty good analysis from one of Duke University's legal advisors (posting in his role as blogger rather than formal legal advice, of course). Generally a win for libraries, but there are some oddities. For example, the specific rules on proportionality that the judge set forth are a bit odd and potentially gameable: 10% by page count of a work fewer than 10 chapters, or up to one full chapter for a work with 10 or more chapters. Does this still hold if presses start deliberately putting out books with a ton of really short chapters? Are there cases where >10% by page count should still be fair use? Copyright law doesn't actually set a strict percentage limit, though there might be some advantages in clarity if it did.
Another interesting aspect, which I got from this also-interesting analysis of the decision, is that many of the claims never even got to a legal analysis stage, because the publishers couldn't produce sufficient evidence of having a registered copyright: either they couldn't find a signed copyright transfer from the author showing that the publisher actually had copyright properly assigned to them, or they couldn't produce evidence that they had registered the copyright (a prerequisite under U.S. law for suing).
If I'm understanding the article correctly, it sounds like they sent the raw data to "an educator named James Drake" on request. Presumably he's the one who did the overlay, but possibly doesn't have any specialist background in this area, so did it the quick-and-dirty way.
One reason the NASA global-coverage image sets that were released in 2002 (with updates starting in 2005) have become the de-facto standard source is that: 1) anyone can download them; and 2) they're in the public domain, so anyone can use them for any purpose. You can get a bunch of versions here and from the Visible Earth site linked at the bottom of that page.
This one looks cool, but further use will be limited if the only thing I can do with it is look at it in this online zooming browser.
This is why, from 1996 to approximately 1999, Slashdot, with its feared cyberterror weapon "the Slashdotting", was widely considered the most powerful organization on earth.
It's scary to think that one day people might look on the past years of Facebook as the good days of Facebook, when they really cared about their users and weren't just about extracting revenue from them...
That's probably why they're based in Russia, which is notoriously lax in enforcing any sort of internet-related laws (unless they involve websites making fun of Putin, of course).
Maybe the people who wrote LOIC for Anonymous should've set up a front organization to sell a rebranded version of the same thing to the RIAA.
I don't see them as inherently different, but more of a continuum depending on how easy it is to exclude myself. The U.S. government is among the hardest to exclude myself from, so I agree on that. But when we get to lower levels of government, many of them are considerably easier to avoid than many large corporations are. For example, it is quite easy to avoid the Pittsburgh city government; just don't move to or work in Pittsburgh.
I believe ReFS is only going to be included in the Server version of Windows 8, not the regular one, which will stick with NTFS.
The Olympics was supposed to be an event promoting amateur sports competition to solidify friendship and peace between nations.
Now we have:
1. Increasingly, highly paid professional athletes, not amateurs; and even the "amateurs" are often exceptionally well-funded and de-facto full-time athletes.
2. National pride of the host nation, where the Olympics is supposed to show off their greatness at least as much as promote any sort of friendship between nations (admittedly, this is an old trend, at least dating back to the 1936 Berlin Olympics).
3. Extensive commercialization of the entire event, with whole shady networks of construction/sponsorship/etc. deals, even extending to weird brand-exclusivity rules that would make it illegal for you to wear a shirt with the wrong logo.
4. Extensive security procedures and apparatus, which makes the event as a promotion of international friendship and peace fall a bit flat... peace under the watch of heavily militarized police is a pretty empty kind of peace.
Sometimes true, but I would wager that technological issues might actually be even more insurmountable than political ones when it comes to building warp engines.
Jonathan Adler agrees, and thinks Hansen's proposal is a viable market-based approach, and better than the cap-and-trade approaches that have been getting more press.
Indeed, and that's a good reason not to naturalize in those European countries if you care about your kids' freedom, as well. Though no European country has the extent of mandatory military service than Singapore does.
Yes, I'm quite aware of law on Americans living abroad, since I do so. :) I do indeed file a tax return.
No. The only possible circumstance I can think of is if I were in some kind of desperate position where I absolutely needed that money to feed my family or something, and by some weird twist of circumstances renouncing my citizenship was the only way to get it.
If I were a billionaire with all the money I could ever need, though, I wouldn't renounce my nation just to get even more money. There's a certain level of avarice past which it becomes ridiculous.
I'm not saying they're evil, just wondering why they aren't setting a good example of "voting with your feet" to advocate their principles. Why stay in the U.S. when there are so many lower-tax countries they could move to?
I live abroad too, in a lot more enlightened place than Singapore, and yet I haven't renounced my American citizenship for a quick buck.
If he had changed his citizenship for some kind of moral reasons, that's legitimate. If it's just for money, that's beneath contempt.
In general, rich people don't leave. This is news because it's so unusual for a wealthy American to leave the country. It's more common for wealthy non-Americans to try to move to the US than the reverse.
All that's true if you never had U.S. citizenship. If you renounced your U.S. citizenship and then show up again wanting it back, those paths are all closed.
There's a difference between opposing the actions of your country, playing corporate tax games, trying to change things, and a whole range of other activity, and--- explicitly renouncing your nation. Bill Gates has never held up his right hand and under oath renounced America. Most Americans wouldn't either, not even very wealthy, very libertarian ones.
I suspect Saverin had no such compunctions because he never really considered himself American in the first place. So to him being in the U.S. for a few years was just a bit of a game, a chance to make a quick buck; he had no loyalty to the country, despite the oath he took. So it was just as easy to recite an empty renunciation as to recite his empty oath of citizenship, all just an accounting game.
So up from approximately 0% to approximately 0%? I don't see any of the Forbes 400 on that list, either, not even the ultra-libertarian ones.
It's equivalent, proportionally, to approximately 34 Danes getting so angry at their country's high taxes that they renounce citizenship. I think Denmark would probably survive that devastating blow. Now if that were 178,000, we might have an actual phenomenon worth talking about.
But maybe this is a trend worth encouraging anyway. Is there some sort of campaign we can start to convince the Koch brothers to live up to their ideals and "go Galt"?