Which is why good two way communications is essential to success. the engineers need to clearly understand what is needed and the managers what it will take to deliver that. All too often both groups make decisions in a vacuum which leads to problems.

True, but they control the purse strings. You can either bang your head against the wall while complaining about the unfairness of it all or adapt, get inside, and begin the make changes. Generational shifts occur, after all hats used to be the norm for men at work, as were suits and ties. However, the reality is those making decisions at the top have a set of norms and you need to adjust to those norms if ou want to be taken seriously. Sure, there is the occasional genius who can do whatever they want because they are so good but there are far more people who think they are that person then there ar etaht person.

I've been on both sides of that equation and the biggest issue I've seen with engineers is they often cannot communicate effectively. They may be great engineers and able to fix a problem but they have trouble explaining why the problem matters in a way to get decision makers to act. They can tell you it's a problem, what the technical details are and what needs to be done to fix it but fail open on why it is a problem and its implications. Those that can do that tend to be the ones listened to and moved into managing roles.

Goals, no. Dives, maybe but that's another story. A performance doesn't have to be choreographed in order to qualify for protection, at least not in the US. If they record it then they have a copyright on the recording at a minimum; the question is the underlying game merely an uncopyrightable set of facts or an expressive interpretation? The EU court clearly says the game play is not subject to copyright. I could see someone, in the US at least, arguing because teams develop their own unique playbooks and then execute the plays they've fixed the performance (the playbook) and now are merely performing it in an impromptu but scripted manner. Personally, in the US at least, I'd guess they'd go after the use of team trademarks and contractual violations since that probably is an easier way to remove a video or prevent its use.

While nothing is impossible to repair I'd go with corroding or breaking the terminals and then epoxying the port closed. That would prevent them from using many of the systems now available for grabbing phone data. the challenge s how do you then get data off the phone and out to the world? You'd still have to leave a path into the phone that can be exploited.

It'll be interesting to see how they do. They started as the AP-600 design but were uprated for China while the US market always had the 1000 as it's target.

They do since the underlying work would be covered by their copyright and thus your work is an unauthorized derivative work, in the US at least. It's no different then me taking a picture of some artist's work and selling the picture or videoing a movie in a theatre. I may own the copyright to my picture but I cannot distribute it because of the underlying copyrighted work. Again, IANAL and realize copyright law is very complex but simply because you created a work doesn't mean you have the rights needed to distribute it.

While all I know about the bear issue is from the news I'd still lay most of the responsibility on the licensee and architect engineer. The regulator is not insisting on perfection but rather on the licensee complying with the COL. The COL was intended to limit delays through litigation so it is important to ensure you meet all the requirements to the letter lest you get sued later on the grounds you are not compliant with the COL. While many deviations truly are trivial, the NRC still must ensure it follows the law to avoid problems later. As a result, engineering analysis is needed to ensure the design provides the same level of safety as the original. Since the licensee failed to meet the COL or take actions to amend it prior to pouring concrete then it is pretty much, IMHO, a self inflicted wound.

The question then becomes, what is a safety related system and at what level of defense in depth do you switch to commercial grade components? I can see an argument being made for systems on the secondary loop but not on the primary side. Of course, many secondary systems do not need an N-stamp anyway under current regulations.

Concurrent with that is what level of testing is sufficient to ensure a safety system will respond when needed?You can test so much the testing degrades reliability and drives up maintenance costs as a result. Since AP-1000 is designed for passive cooling in the event of an accident are annual DG tests appropriate, for example.

True, but the idea behind the combined operation license was to allow construction and operation to continue while license issues are litigated. The delays in plant Vogtle and in SC are from the challenges with actually building the plant since much of the equipment has never been built before so they must building, testing, and constructing while they are trying to create a commercial plant on a tight schedule.

While there are very real concerns about the lack of construction experience as well as longer term engineering and operational support, these delays seem to be self inflicted, from issues with concrete pours to assuming brand new designs can be built on a very tight schedule where many of the components have never been built or used before.

The AP-1000 is a brand new design and apparently they are having troubles building many of the components, as well as with the in place fabrication techniques. In theory, once they fix those problems follow on plants should be able to be built faster because the teething problems would be solved. the reality is it will be hard to convince people to build them because of the delays.

Don't have to sign a contract, in the US at least, for it to be valid. All there needs to be is offer, acceptance, and consideration. You agreed to it by buying the tickets. they offered you an opportunity to see the match, you accepted their offer and bought the tickets and thus agree to the terms of their offer. You may not like the terms, and I personally think the no video rules are dumb, but the course of action then is not to buy a ticket. If you violate the terms of the deal they have a right to a civil action and a court gets to decide if the terms are enforceable.

As for consideration for your copyright you would not be entitled to it since you agreed not to video when you bought the ticket.

I agree 1 is difficult; an alternate fix would be to collect damages; or perhaps since google can forget events they can forget videos. As for 2, I was referring to US copyright law. YMMV.

As I re all, all a contrat requires is an offer, acceptance and consideration. Paying for and using one might be construed as accepting the conditions offered. That's be a good questions to the folks on the south side of the Midway.

Hockey = Life, the Universe and Everything

Football = Sport

I would see two issues:

1. It is a contract violation and thus they could be forced by a court to delete or turnover the recording since it was made in violation of the contract

2. The venue owns the copyright to what was presented and thus even if you own the copyright to your recording you still cannot use it since you do not own rights to the performance.