It's a collection of public data, kind of like you know, a dictionary. Each individual picture is copyrighted. The collection has an editorial copyright much like encyclopedias.
And he does actually own the collection. Do you really think databases of public data can't be "owned" (in the non haxorz way)? Better tell Google to stop wasting all that money on street view, which is merely taking pictures of public streets.
This question comes from my wife, a doctor of evolutionary biology: "Considering that many people cannot be convinced of evolution for whatever reason they invent, how does your aggressive questioning and condescending disdain of them do us any good? Does it cause others who might be convinced to just think we're a bunch of obnoxious god-hating atheists?"
BTW, she does think you're brilliant, although you've become the poster boy for atheism instead of evolutionary biology. And since religion has nothing to do with biology (except perhaps dispersal via natural arks), being an atheist first and scientist second presents a simple, if simpleminded, defense against any of your arguments by religious people.
She was charged with invasion of privacy, among other things.
Sounds like the cops would be guilty of the same. If the Johns had an expectation of privacy, they still have that expectation. The videotapes she made will undoubtedly be used against the Johns, as the cops would have to prove their cases.
In any case, I agree with the article. If misdemeanors are regularly published, then publish it. If not, they should not. However, the list will be published one way or another, in full or piecemeal, unless they decline to charge the Johns because those charges will be public record.
Throwing bureaucracy at it is an incentive? Sounds like a disincentive to do projects that are either researchy or slow. Who the hell wants to do the disassembly of the magic bootstrap code that can take weeks of stepping through Roms, when you can be quickly coding a brainless API implementation?
When the chick fil'a dude said stuff about gays and his religion, it's the same thing. Because he mixed his (known) politics with his business, he lost my business.
If torvalds posted this in a blog unrelated to Linux and was relatively unknown, no problem. If there's an association to Linux, it will be taken poorly. The problem is that torvalds can't say anything without it being associated with Linux. Welcome to celebrity status.
It would still have to be before it was published.
While performances and demos are not considered publishing unless you're offering to sell (or something like that... might be in the FAQ or circular 40a), it's arguable that posting on YouTube is an act of publishing.
But because you didn't register it, you probably can't get punitive damages.
This is exactly what you want. having done my own pv system I was going to go find this link. A coward beat me to it.
Don't waste your time with anything else. This low tech solution can even be plugged into a program that can compute the integral, essentially telling you how much sun you will get over a year.
Because the choice of where to start has infinite possibility and how to assign the digits is a creative choice, it makes sense to allow copyrights on pi-based. The judge correctly limited his ruling. I would treat any such copyrights as a performance of public domain works.
RF emissions like that are illegal... the FCC will be happy to confiscate your equipment, especially when the last thing seen is you aiming an EMP cannon at them. They'd probably somehow pin a terrorist plot on you for protecting privacy, too. Where I live, I could legally use the shotgun suggestion, however.
But actually, it's not that difficult to blind a camera. A high power laser would also do it but would be obvious where it originated. While visible light cameras have IR/UV shields, an IR laser could probably destroy the camera with heat.
I see worries in the comments about "the police using them to spy on civilians". They already can.
The only thing a new law like this does is to fix a loophole. UAS and UAV systems can already be used by cops and state govs, by universities (limited), by companies developing experimental aircraft (limited), and for hobby purposes (unregulated, but there are some clear limitations such as flying within range of an airport or above buildings). But you cannot be legally paid to do aerial photography from a UAV/UAS! In other words, you have to pay a pilot to fly a photographer around to legally get aerial pictures. The only other option was using blimps (tethered) and cranes. An entire industry has evolved for erecting collapsible poles to attach cameras because of this rule.
Here are the rules. In it you'll find a letter with the common sense approach for hobbyists, and statements that the FAA will not grant companies any licenses to fly UAS except for experimental aircraft.
Lastly, SHAME ON THE NYT for that last sentence. They just had to jump on the idiot bandwagon and imply a connection between terrorists and photography.
That was not the case for linux and isn't the case now. Linux binaries are still compiled for 386 processors which is what many of us first ran it on when we upgraded out gaming machine.
The lust for faster machines was driven games, not by development.
Names of system calls is a method of access and cannot be copyrighted. The order someone does the calls may involve creativity and be copyrightable, but the names themselves are not.
I had to look at similar options. I might take 50,000 pictures in a year, all raw, and I needed to find a good solution. Losing images means I could be sued (and I actually carry malpractice insurance for photography).
My conclusion: using only local storage or only remote storage is dangerous. Use both.
Using only local storage, no matter how many backups you have and how often you refresh them, is vulnerable to your house burning down or burglary. Even ignoring refreshing the data, storage media are vulnerable to obsolescence. Try reading a 9-track tape nowadays -- even if the tape is good, it'll be tough to get the data.
Using only remote storage is highly vulnerable to sites simply going out of business or deleting your images. And if a site goes down, they don't care if you sue them -- you still lost your images. Flickr has, in the past, simply deleted someone's archives and was unable to restore them.
Initially, my backups consisted of a USB HD stored in a fire safe. Nowadays, I use a combination of both local and remote storage. I purchased a "pro" account on an image hosting service (smugmug, in this case) which has unlimited image storage (and the option for backups of any file types), and I also have a 10TB NAS. The local NAS holds the raw image backups, and after they're processed, I upload them to hidden galleries on my pro account as JPGs. If my house burns, I might need to do a reshoot of the past week, but everything processed is backed up offsite in some usable format.
I highly recommend Synology NAS solutions for local storage, which are open source and actively encourage ports and enhancements to their systems, and they have an excellent admin panel. This is unlike Drobo, who has their system fairly locked down...
Slashdot Mirror
It's a collection of public data, kind of like you know, a dictionary.
Each individual picture is copyrighted. The collection has an editorial copyright much like encyclopedias.
And he does actually own the collection. Do you really think databases of public data can't be "owned" (in the non haxorz way)? Better tell Google to stop wasting all that money on street view, which is merely taking pictures of public streets.
So if you have a Chinese accent don't repost the title.
Obviously it's the capture that's copyrighted. Certainly it's ambiguously stated, but did you really not understand it?
And facts can be copyrighted. The sun rising over a meadow is a fact, but a picture or drawing or recorded description of it is copyrighted.
Your DNA isn't going to change based on an accident. That would be quite LeMarkian.
This question comes from my wife, a doctor of evolutionary biology:
"Considering that many people cannot be convinced of evolution for whatever reason they invent, how does your aggressive questioning and condescending disdain of them do us any good? Does it cause others who might be convinced to just think we're a bunch of obnoxious god-hating atheists?"
BTW, she does think you're brilliant, although you've become the poster boy for atheism instead of evolutionary biology. And since religion has nothing to do with biology (except perhaps dispersal via natural arks), being an atheist first and scientist second presents a simple, if simpleminded, defense against any of your arguments by religious people.
She was charged with invasion of privacy, among other things.
Sounds like the cops would be guilty of the same. If the Johns had an expectation of privacy, they still have that expectation. The videotapes she made will undoubtedly be used against the Johns, as the cops would have to prove their cases.
In any case, I agree with the article. If misdemeanors are regularly published, then publish it. If not, they should not. However, the list will be published one way or another, in full or piecemeal, unless they decline to charge the Johns because those charges will be public record.
Throwing bureaucracy at it is an incentive? Sounds like a disincentive to do projects that are either researchy or slow. Who the hell wants to do the disassembly of the magic bootstrap code that can take weeks of stepping through Roms, when you can be quickly coding a brainless API implementation?
When the chick fil'a dude said stuff about gays and his religion, it's the same thing. Because he mixed his (known) politics with his business, he lost my business.
If torvalds posted this in a blog unrelated to Linux and was relatively unknown, no problem. If there's an association to Linux, it will be taken poorly. The problem is that torvalds can't say anything without it being associated with Linux. Welcome to celebrity status.
It would still have to be before it was published.
While performances and demos are not considered publishing unless you're offering to sell (or something like that... might be in the FAQ or circular 40a), it's arguable that posting on YouTube is an act of publishing.
But because you didn't register it, you probably can't get punitive damages.
Too bad it was such a horrible piece of legislation.
I liked the illeart/covenant series.
But I could not get through the Gap series. It was brilliantly horrible.
In a footnote he comments that he draws from his own psyche. Donaldson might be a very scary man deep down.
Once this particle is examined, and let's assume it's the elusive Higgs, is there a continuing reason for large particle accellerators?
Basically, I'm asking in ignorance. If this confirms the standard model, what do you see for discoveries of this nature in the.future?
Why not teach them to carry people across minefields? :)
Good job of quoting her. Now she's going.to send godaddy a takedown on slashdot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M7dt80zMYc
i always liked this commercial despite not liking the product.
This is exactly what you want. having done my own pv system I was going to go find this link. A coward beat me to it.
Don't waste your time with anything else. This low tech solution can even be plugged into a program that can compute the integral, essentially telling you how much sun you will get over a year.
I'd respond in-depth, but the springs on my type M have become tiresome.
Because the choice of where to start has infinite possibility and how to assign the digits is a creative choice, it makes sense to allow copyrights on pi-based. The judge correctly limited his ruling. I would treat any such copyrights as a performance of public domain works.
RF emissions like that are illegal... the FCC will be happy to confiscate your equipment, especially when the last thing seen is you aiming an EMP cannon at them. They'd probably somehow pin a terrorist plot on you for protecting privacy, too. Where I live, I could legally use the shotgun suggestion, however.
But actually, it's not that difficult to blind a camera. A high power laser would also do it but would be obvious where it originated. While visible light cameras have IR/UV shields, an IR laser could probably destroy the camera with heat.
I see worries in the comments about "the police using them to spy on civilians". They already can.
The only thing a new law like this does is to fix a loophole. UAS and UAV systems can already be used by cops and state govs, by universities (limited), by companies developing experimental aircraft (limited), and for hobby purposes (unregulated, but there are some clear limitations such as flying within range of an airport or above buildings). But you cannot be legally paid to do aerial photography from a UAV/UAS! In other words, you have to pay a pilot to fly a photographer around to legally get aerial pictures. The only other option was using blimps (tethered) and cranes. An entire industry has evolved for erecting collapsible poles to attach cameras because of this rule.
Here are the rules. In it you'll find a letter with the common sense approach for hobbyists, and statements that the FAA will not grant companies any licenses to fly UAS except for experimental aircraft.
Lastly, SHAME ON THE NYT for that last sentence. They just had to jump on the idiot bandwagon and imply a connection between terrorists and photography.
That was not the case for linux and isn't the case now. Linux binaries are still compiled for 386 processors which is what many of us first ran it on when we upgraded out gaming machine.
The lust for faster machines was driven games, not by development.
Names of system calls is a method of access and cannot be copyrighted. The order someone does the calls may involve creativity and be copyrightable, but the names themselves are not.
"sequence" is a noun and verb.
Biologist use that all the time when ordering grad students around. "You! Sequence those 500 tissue samples!"
It is, but it's spelled "Gate One".
The arbitrary version is 0.9.
I had to look at similar options. I might take 50,000 pictures in a year, all raw, and I needed to find a good solution. Losing images means I could be sued (and I actually carry malpractice insurance for photography).
My conclusion: using only local storage or only remote storage is dangerous. Use both.
Using only local storage, no matter how many backups you have and how often you refresh them, is vulnerable to your house burning down or burglary. Even ignoring refreshing the data, storage media are vulnerable to obsolescence. Try reading a 9-track tape nowadays -- even if the tape is good, it'll be tough to get the data.
Using only remote storage is highly vulnerable to sites simply going out of business or deleting your images. And if a site goes down, they don't care if you sue them -- you still lost your images. Flickr has, in the past, simply deleted someone's archives and was unable to restore them.
Initially, my backups consisted of a USB HD stored in a fire safe. Nowadays, I use a combination of both local and remote storage. I purchased a "pro" account on an image hosting service (smugmug, in this case) which has unlimited image storage (and the option for backups of any file types), and I also have a 10TB NAS. The local NAS holds the raw image backups, and after they're processed, I upload them to hidden galleries on my pro account as JPGs. If my house burns, I might need to do a reshoot of the past week, but everything processed is backed up offsite in some usable format.
I highly recommend Synology NAS solutions for local storage, which are open source and actively encourage ports and enhancements to their systems, and they have an excellent admin panel. This is unlike Drobo, who has their system fairly locked down...