In other news, today, Knowledge was drug out in the street and shot in the best interest of revisionist history.
I would build an x/y tram and mount a hd digital camera to it. Using a couple of hacks on the camera should be able to remotely trigger it from a computer program. Given stepper motors on the x/y you could control the position of the camera. This setup could be mounted over a table and the map could just lay there. Then do as others have suggested and use stitching software to put the images together.
As part of my job I work with GIS information on a daily basis. I would say the largest issue you are going to run into is getting the map to line up with reality. I know cartographers of old did not have the tools to create accurate maps like we do today. My point being scale may not be constant over the entire map compared to reality. While you may line up one or two points you might find yourself quite off on the others. You might just have to accept it as good enough for government work. I would suggest you look into technologies like geoserver or mapserver. Consequently geoserver has openmaps built into it.
Nothing in your post contradicts what I said. I said they had no obligation to give them to you. Seeing as how you did not address any other examples it's obvious you have no argument.
Personally I'd like to know how he thinks he's going to stop it. Nothing like telling someone 'no' to challenge them.
If you ask your dentist for your x-ray negatives they will not give them to you. It is because you hired them to produce the negatives. You didn't actually buy the x-ray, but the service to produce and interpret them. If you want to change dentists they are under no obligation to give you the originals and they can charge you for copies. Same thing goes with a photographer or even a professor at a university in regards to his curriculum.
Basically the reason I believe dentists do it is to give you a reason not to switch dentists, but it's your dental insurer paying for the negatives anyways. Unless of course my dentist was just being a dick.
The only thing correct about your post is the title.
As a programmer I own all the of the code I write until I sign away that right. It is my companies fault that they did not require me to sign a contract giving up those rights. In fact I brought the issue up to them they still haven't done anything about it.
Try asking your dentist some time if you can have the x-rays they take of your teeth.
Wow talk about anti-microsoft spin. They are campaigning against delaying the rebuilding process.
That's what you get for reading the fucking article.
Are you trying to say Google is afraid their trademark on youtube will run out and come out with NewYouTube in response?
Because otherwise you epically fail at analogies.
Basically what this is about is choice. The companies in question have been notified of the security flaws in their product. They have as of yet fixed said flaws. They have instead prioritized other projects above fixing the bugs. The choice was given to the companies in question. The choice is now being removed due to their inaction.
I will take irresponsible disclosure any day over people not fixing known bugs. This is forcing their hand and that is why they don't like it.
All in all, tough shit for the companies involved.
In an ideal world security flaws would be fixed when they are discovered. I think we can all agree this is not an ideal world.
Regardless of whether a mission expands or contracts, administrative overhead continues to grow at a steady rate.