http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/SES1206.php
"If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person."
I think the point being'identifiable person'... peviously little heard of astronaut in full space suit takin up 1% of screen... hardly identifiable, but no doubt there's some slavering lawyer willing to take this crap on.
Arguably the action of the bosses have brought this to a much wider audience. Far more people are now aware of the company's actions and (looking at the posts here) the majority of people seem to think it was them overstepping their authority. They have therefore brought themselves into disrepute, can we expect the bosses to be sacking themselves anytime soon? Nah, I didn't think so either. I just hope the person was in a union.
No it doesn't, taxing something to the point it becomes unaffordable simply drives it back into the criminal world. In the UK Red Diesel (agricultural non taxed fuel), cigarettes and alcohol all have their own black-markets because tax rates have increased them beyond what some people are capable of paying. Taxation at point of consumption/purchase as a means of prohibition or social control is fundamentally unfair as it penalises those on lower/normal incomes. The best way to ameliorate harm is to EDUCATE people about the real harm a specific activity or substance may have and provide counselling/help for them if they need/want to quit such activities.
I'm in agreement here with AdZ. Further, gambling here is a simple addition to other everyday activities. You go down the pub to meet your mates and watch the football, you quickly pop into the bookmakers next door and place a bet on. Most seaside resorts have slot machines for 1-5[p per go which jkids use, these same resorts will often have racing simulation games that kids and adults can play together. In the UK you are exposed to gambling in all it's various guises at an early age, it's not swept under the carpet, it's there in most high-streets, openly on display.
People aren't stupid, they know that in gambling the house/bookies invariably win in the long run BUT to ignore the excitement, fun and social interaction that comes from that a £10 bet on the Grand National or a fiver on your team beating your mates team in the FA Cup final is simply burying your head in the sand. I gamble approx £20-£30 a month, I expect to lose it, if I win it's a bonus, if I lose... hey, it was a good laugh trying.
Gambling isn't a problem in the UK in the same way that cannabis consumption is not a problem in the Netherlands. They often say prostitution is the oldest profession, but I think it all started with two cavemen, one turns to the other and says 'I bet you this fur-rug I can get her to have sex with me for these glass beads".
The way it used to work was this. You'd go in and place your bet, say £5 on a horse/dog at whatever event it was you wanted to bet on. If you opted to pay tax there and then you'd be levied a 45p (9%) charge, so you would hand over £5.45. If the dog/horse/driver won (say at 10:1) then you'd get your stake back (£5) plus your winnings (£50), but the tax was kept by the Govt. If you opted to not pay tax on the initial bet then you'd still get your £5 stake back and your winnings minus 9% of the value of your winnings (so £45.50). The initial tax almost acted as a type of insurance policy against greater tax if the bet came in. You always had a choice on paying the tax though.
Even professional gamblers (probably) do not have to pay tax on their winnings
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/BIM22017.htm This shows that having expertise or being systematic (‘studying form’) is not enough to create a trade of being a ‘professional gambler’.
Some ‘professional gamblers’ do carry on a trade, for example, where they receive appearance money for appearing on television programmes. They are providing a service to a customer (the television production company) for reward. Whether their gambling winnings are proceeds of that trade would depend upon the facts.
If natural global warming was deemed a threat to us we would have to look for ways to offset it. We are not children you know. It doesn't matter who "did it".
I'd agree, it's not a case of who 'did' it, rather more a case of who's continuing to do it.
I've been driving for about 25 years without a seatbelt. I'm still doing fine, thank you very much. Haven't got any kids, don't intend to have any -- Darwin fails.
As my financial advisor often tells me. "Past performance is no indication of future returns". You may be a fine driver for all I know, but that idiot about to plough into you and send you flying out of the front windscreen isn't.
There's another side to this isn't there? Hong Kong tax rates are notoriously low. And knowing how Google avoids paying tax at any costs in some countries (they paid no tax in the UK last year on UK ad revenues of almost $2bn - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/20/google-uk-tax-avoidance) what's to say they aren't doing exactly the same here, still milking the Chinese market whilst enjoying the tax breaks of locating/serving from Hong Kong. This has never been about ethics or morals and has always been only about 'business'.
If Apple are the Nazi's, that must make Google the Brits (co-operated with the Nazi's for a time, appeased them), Microsoft must be Soviet Russia (I'm sure Vista can be considered a purge). So this raises the question, who are the Yanks?
Well, if the Yank in question was Walt Disney that'd be Mussolini or Franco wouldn't it? Does this also mean that O'racle is Ireland.... sorry, it is almost St Patrick's day.
Your question is almost exactly akin to the sad reality that you have to buy separate CD's to install into multiple PC's, and technically, are somewhat forced to under DRM'ed MP3's. Besides destroying all their neatly calculated estimates for "regular network usage," it is just double dipping
To make an analogy with landline/ADSL pricing, it's like your ISP charging you a separate fee for each computer behind your router that accesses the internet.
And the haters would come out and say "I don't want to throw babies into a shredder, I want to to shred kittens. Why won't Apple let me do this, WRYYYY ? OMG Apple is teh suxxorz."
Surely whether you want to shred kittens and/or babies it's fundamentally the same process? What you're saying is that Apple doesn't understand Object Oriented Programming.
To me this is a natural culmination of larger traditional media outlets who are still on the whole managed and run by people who simply don't understand what the internet is, or how it works, nor how people engage with and use theis ifnormation. I'm increasingly surrounded by people who have little or no background in media or internet publishing (they call themselves professional managers) who are telling us how things will work in the future without so much as a weeks worth of shop-floor experience (I've worked for a large UK media owner for 11+ years).
Look at Murdoch's utter inability to understand what the web represents and his reactionary walled garden approach to media delivery and consumption. What you've got are senior managers all desperately trying to create mechanisms to restrict access to their content because they believe that scarcity will somehow shore-up revenues. What they've failed to understand is that the fundamental rules of engagement have changed. It's time they stood aside/down and let those people with the understanding and foresight to get on with building their company's future.
if publisher's want to build a future for themselves then listen up. Open up your content to developers, engage with your audience & readership, partner with well selected commercial entities to extend your markets, limit the amount of advertising you provide but make that advertising relevant and engaging for you and your audience (because otherwise everyone will start using Adblock), offer unique content, know where your content is being consumed and what revenues you're generating on the back of it and crucially understand that as a publisher you are no-longer able to call the shots as you once did on how people access your content. Technological innovation is something they should be embracing in all it's scary, unfettered raw glory, not something to hide away from and build walls to defend against.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be interested in seeing XKCD's take on Being John Malkovic though.
http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/SES1206.php "If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person." I think the point being'identifiable person'... peviously little heard of astronaut in full space suit takin up 1% of screen... hardly identifiable, but no doubt there's some slavering lawyer willing to take this crap on.
The City of London Corporation (the local authority for the City of London's business district) allows companies to put forward people to vote in local elections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation More info on who & how. http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/scripts/htm_hl.pl?DB=col&STEMMER=en&WORDS=compani%20vote&ALL=&ANY=&EXACTB=0&PHRASE=&EXACTP=0&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=company%20votes&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Council_and_democracy/Councillors_democracy_and_elections/Voting_and_Registration/Voting+FAQ.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match
Arguably the action of the bosses have brought this to a much wider audience. Far more people are now aware of the company's actions and (looking at the posts here) the majority of people seem to think it was them overstepping their authority. They have therefore brought themselves into disrepute, can we expect the bosses to be sacking themselves anytime soon? Nah, I didn't think so either. I just hope the person was in a union.
They're not doing it ironically.
Which in itself makes it ironic.
Apart from spell 'ever' properly... bugger, perfectly decent gag knackered by my itchy posting finger.
What have the Mayans every done for us?
No it doesn't, taxing something to the point it becomes unaffordable simply drives it back into the criminal world. In the UK Red Diesel (agricultural non taxed fuel), cigarettes and alcohol all have their own black-markets because tax rates have increased them beyond what some people are capable of paying. Taxation at point of consumption/purchase as a means of prohibition or social control is fundamentally unfair as it penalises those on lower/normal incomes. The best way to ameliorate harm is to EDUCATE people about the real harm a specific activity or substance may have and provide counselling/help for them if they need/want to quit such activities.
I'm in agreement here with AdZ. Further, gambling here is a simple addition to other everyday activities. You go down the pub to meet your mates and watch the football, you quickly pop into the bookmakers next door and place a bet on. Most seaside resorts have slot machines for 1-5[p per go which jkids use, these same resorts will often have racing simulation games that kids and adults can play together. In the UK you are exposed to gambling in all it's various guises at an early age, it's not swept under the carpet, it's there in most high-streets, openly on display.
People aren't stupid, they know that in gambling the house/bookies invariably win in the long run BUT to ignore the excitement, fun and social interaction that comes from that a £10 bet on the Grand National or a fiver on your team beating your mates team in the FA Cup final is simply burying your head in the sand. I gamble approx £20-£30 a month, I expect to lose it, if I win it's a bonus, if I lose... hey, it was a good laugh trying.
Gambling isn't a problem in the UK in the same way that cannabis consumption is not a problem in the Netherlands. They often say prostitution is the oldest profession, but I think it all started with two cavemen, one turns to the other and says 'I bet you this fur-rug I can get her to have sex with me for these glass beads".
Who's morals? Governments with morals go authoritarian.
So do Governments without morals.
888 Holdings is not a UK company, to avoid paying Corporation and Gambling Tax they are registered in Gibraltar (Gibraltar != UK) http://www.888holdingsplc.com/Contact_Us.asp
The way it used to work was this. You'd go in and place your bet, say £5 on a horse/dog at whatever event it was you wanted to bet on. If you opted to pay tax there and then you'd be levied a 45p (9%) charge, so you would hand over £5.45. If the dog/horse/driver won (say at 10:1) then you'd get your stake back (£5) plus your winnings (£50), but the tax was kept by the Govt. If you opted to not pay tax on the initial bet then you'd still get your £5 stake back and your winnings minus 9% of the value of your winnings (so £45.50). The initial tax almost acted as a type of insurance policy against greater tax if the bet came in. You always had a choice on paying the tax though.
The law changed in 2001 in a (successful) bid to attract gambling business to the UK the 9% tax was dropped (you no longer pay tax on the bet or the winnings) in favour of a direct corporation tax (and later a specific Gambling Tax which I believe is 15%) on profits. Additional sources on UK betting history regulation: http://www.betasia.com/features/how-to-win/business-life/89/uk-gambling-laws.html VAT (our Sales Tax) is levied on Bingo companies as well whereas it is not levied at bookmakers http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/5195359/Budget-2009-Treasury-must-come-clean-on-bingo-tax-say-operators.html
Even professional gamblers (probably) do not have to pay tax on their winnings http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/BIM22017.htm
This shows that having expertise or being systematic (‘studying form’) is not enough to create a trade of being a ‘professional gambler’. Some ‘professional gamblers’ do carry on a trade, for example, where they receive appearance money for appearing on television programmes. They are providing a service to a customer (the television production company) for reward. Whether their gambling winnings are proceeds of that trade would depend upon the facts.
If natural global warming was deemed a threat to us we would have to look for ways to offset it. We are not children you know. It doesn't matter who "did it".
I'd agree, it's not a case of who 'did' it, rather more a case of who's continuing to do it.
It still counts as losing your virginity even if they're the same sex as you and under the age of consent.
Oh come on, someone mod this up :-)
Leninium... it sounds like something you'd cover your kicthen floor in.
Turn all truck cabs into Faraday cages?
It's the difference between reading a book and writing a book.
Which makes Avery, MacLeod & McCarty the creators of the language the book was written in then.
Or alternatively giving you greater control over the vehicle you are driving rather than relying on it to decide which gear to take.
I've been driving for about 25 years without a seatbelt. I'm still doing fine, thank you very much. Haven't got any kids, don't intend to have any -- Darwin fails.
As my financial advisor often tells me. "Past performance is no indication of future returns". You may be a fine driver for all I know, but that idiot about to plough into you and send you flying out of the front windscreen isn't.
There's another side to this isn't there? Hong Kong tax rates are notoriously low. And knowing how Google avoids paying tax at any costs in some countries (they paid no tax in the UK last year on UK ad revenues of almost $2bn - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/20/google-uk-tax-avoidance) what's to say they aren't doing exactly the same here, still milking the Chinese market whilst enjoying the tax breaks of locating/serving from Hong Kong. This has never been about ethics or morals and has always been only about 'business'.
If Apple are the Nazi's, that must make Google the Brits (co-operated with the Nazi's for a time, appeased them), Microsoft must be Soviet Russia (I'm sure Vista can be considered a purge). So this raises the question, who are the Yanks?
Well, if the Yank in question was Walt Disney that'd be Mussolini or Franco wouldn't it? Does this also mean that O'racle is Ireland.... sorry, it is almost St Patrick's day.
Your question is almost exactly akin to the sad reality that you have to buy separate CD's to install into multiple PC's, and technically, are somewhat forced to under DRM'ed MP3's. Besides destroying all their neatly calculated estimates for "regular network usage," it is just double dipping
To make an analogy with landline/ADSL pricing, it's like your ISP charging you a separate fee for each computer behind your router that accesses the internet.
And the haters would come out and say "I don't want to throw babies into a shredder, I want to to shred kittens. Why won't Apple let me do this, WRYYYY ? OMG Apple is teh suxxorz."
Surely whether you want to shred kittens and/or babies it's fundamentally the same process? What you're saying is that Apple doesn't understand Object Oriented Programming.
Ars sells campaigns where in they agree to meet a certain view count. So they are not payed directly per view, but for meeting specific targets.
OK, so it's obviously too early in the morning, but how does 'meet a certain view count' NOT equate to being not paid 'per view'.
To me this is a natural culmination of larger traditional media outlets who are still on the whole managed and run by people who simply don't understand what the internet is, or how it works, nor how people engage with and use theis ifnormation. I'm increasingly surrounded by people who have little or no background in media or internet publishing (they call themselves professional managers) who are telling us how things will work in the future without so much as a weeks worth of shop-floor experience (I've worked for a large UK media owner for 11+ years).
Look at Murdoch's utter inability to understand what the web represents and his reactionary walled garden approach to media delivery and consumption. What you've got are senior managers all desperately trying to create mechanisms to restrict access to their content because they believe that scarcity will somehow shore-up revenues. What they've failed to understand is that the fundamental rules of engagement have changed. It's time they stood aside/down and let those people with the understanding and foresight to get on with building their company's future.
if publisher's want to build a future for themselves then listen up. Open up your content to developers, engage with your audience & readership, partner with well selected commercial entities to extend your markets, limit the amount of advertising you provide but make that advertising relevant and engaging for you and your audience (because otherwise everyone will start using Adblock), offer unique content, know where your content is being consumed and what revenues you're generating on the back of it and crucially understand that as a publisher you are no-longer able to call the shots as you once did on how people access your content. Technological innovation is something they should be embracing in all it's scary, unfettered raw glory, not something to hide away from and build walls to defend against.