For instance the ThisNovember5th site was setup by Trevor Lyman using a video created by James Sugra without even consulting the campaign. That site brought in $4.3M from 37,000 donors in 24 hours. Mr. Paul estimated that the one-day haul had brought $10 million worth of free publicity. Ron said he hadn't even gotten around to thanking them yet. THANKS Guys!! There is a new money bomb web site being prepared now in celebration of the Boston Tea Party
The article goes on to cover the wide variety of supporters that the Paul campaign has attracted. In reality Dr. Paul didn't create these groups; he simply gave them a focal point to rally behind. And he used the Internet to unite them, or more accurately, the users of the Internet found his message and united themselves behind it. I guess that is why the author titled the article 'The Web Finds Ron Paul, and Takes Him for a Ride'."
" Cold fusion, the ability to generate nuclear power at room temperatures, has proven to be a highly elusive feat. In fact, it is considered by many experts to be a mere pipe dream — a potentially unlimited source of clean energy that remains tantalizing, but so far unattainable.
However, a recently published academic paper from the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (Spawar) in San Diego throws cold water on skeptics of cold fusion. Appearing in the respected journal Naturwissenschaften, which counts Albert Einstein among its distinguished authors, the article claims that Spawar scientists Stanislaw Szpak and Pamela Mosier-Boss have achieved a low energy nuclear reaction (LERN) that can be replicated and verified by the scientific community."
NewScientist is also running an article on this subject, but that article is only available for subscribers."
It is now more than seven weeks since Alan Johnson, a BBC correspondent stationed in Gaza City, was abducted. I thought it would be good for Slashdotters who own websites and/or weblogs to put a simple button on their sites to remind everyone that Alan is still in captivity for reasons unknown, and to show support for all journalists in dangerous places who are brave enough to be there reporting for us.
The code for the button is on this page on the BBC website. The link on the button goes back to the BBC weblog chronicling Alan's story."
It should be useful to anyone who needs to know what these databases are good at (and more importantly what they are not so good at). Unlike TPC, this benchmark focuses on simplicity ("non-real" setups), so that individual performance characteristics can be analyzed.
All the code is released under the GPL so that anyone can reproduce the results or generate their own benchmark data and reports."
Claiming continued possession of the copyright to a statue that was paid for with public funds and displayed in a public commons is absurd. (Though the politicians who commission such public works should be charged with the task of securing the artist's transmition of his work to the public domain.) Likewise, trying to enforce a recent copyright on a dance that has been around for many years, and was incorporated into a number of films long ago is closing the barn door after the horse is out.
But creating an original work of art, either a statue that you place in your yard, or a painting on the outside walls of your house, and, keeping these works on your private property, and posting copyright notices where they can be plainly seen, should constitute a reasonable and legally enforcible copyright. Which means, that by deploying enough works about your property, it should be possible to make it effectively impossible to legally photograph it.
Imagine a house surrounded with one to two dozen such statues, and the following license posted at reasonable intervales about the property's perimeter.
This property, its buildings, artwork, landscaping, and signs are copyright _date_ by _property_owner_. Further, the motions, or lack there of (in the case of lying, sitting, or standing around) by the owner, the owner's family, and the owner's guests while on this property, constitute a dance copyrighted by the above named owner. By photographing, drawing, filming or otherwise capturing image(s) still or moving, of any or all of the above listed copyrighted works, or by receiving modified, or unmodified originals or copies or other derivatives of these images created under this license, you agree to the following terms:
A) This license applies to all PROTECTED WORKS derived from the above listed copyrighted works. These PROTECTED WORKS include all original, still image(s) of any or all of the above listed copyrighted works, created using any technique, media, or technology. These PROTECTED WORKS also include a seconds worth of a moving image, created using any technique, media, or technology. When more or less than a second of moving image is captured as part of a shot, then the total amount of time of the shot shall be rounded up to the nearest second, and each such second shall count as one PROTECTED WORK. These PROTECTED WORKS also include any modified, or unmodified copies or other derivatives of one or more of the PROTECTED WORKS. In the case where a modified, or unmodified copy or derived work is a moving image, then the total amount of time of the shot shall be rounded up to the nearest second, and each such second shall count as one PROTECTED WORK.
B) You agree to pay the owner the sum of 1,000,000 USD for each of the events listed below, when payment is made in advance of the event. Should you inadvertently, or intentionally fail to pay for an event in advance of it's occurrence, then you agree to pay the owner the sum of 10,000,000 USD for each of the events listed below that is payed for after the event and without prompting by the owner. Should your delay in making a payment extend to the point that the owner is obliged to advise you of the need to make a payment, then you agree to pay the owner the sum of 100,000,000 USD for each of the events listed below that is payed for after the event and that the owner is forced to request payment for. Should you refuse to make a payment, even after having been advised of the need to make a payment, then you agree to pay the owner the sum of 1,000,000,000 USD plus the owner's costs for litigation, for each of the events listed below, when the event's payment is made only in responce to litigation.
C) The events, each of which requires an individual payment as listed above, are:
- Any initial capture of a PROTECTED WORK.
- Creating a PROTECTED WORK by making an identical copy, a modified copy, or a derived work either using the original technique(s), media(s), or technology(ies), or using one or more different technique(s), media(s), or technology(ies).
- Any transfer of a PROTECTED WORK over an electronic network, either wired or unwired.
- Any transfer of a PROTECTED WORK to another individual, company, or organization either for compensation or gratis.
D) When, one or more PROTECTED WORK(S) is/are transfered to another individual, company, or organization you agree to present a copy of this license to that individual, or a responsible representative of the company, or organization prior to the transfer of the PROTECTED WORK(S) so that they may accept the terms of this license before receiving the PROTECTED WORK(S).
E) Should you fail to present the license before transferring the protected work then you agree:
- to work to inform the recipient of the PROTECTED WORK(S) of their obligations under this license as soon as possible; and likewise (if the recipient transfered PROTECTED WORK(S) to others) to inform any subsequent recipients of the PROTECTED WORK(S) of this license and their obligations under it as soon as possible.
- to pay for any events effected by the recipient and any subsequent recipients of the PROTECTED WORK(S) prior to your notification to them of this license and their obligations under it.
F) Those who receive notification or otherwise become aware of the applicability of this license, after receiving one or more PROTECTED WORK(S), may comply with this license by operating under its terms from the time of notification onward, or they may immediately destroy all of the PROTECTED WORKS(S) in their possession. Delay in the destruction of the PROTECTED WORKS, or performance of one of the above defined events after notification of the existence and applicability of this license constitutes, acceptance of the terms of this license.
G) You agree to keep scrupulous, and auditable accounting of the time and nature of each of the above defined events which occur to any and all of the PROTECTED WORK(S). You agree to present to the owner, upon his request, this accounting in its entirety so that it may be reviewed. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to how many events have occurred, then you agree to accept and pay for the copyright owner's best estimate as to the correct number of events.
H) You agree upon the owner's request to transmit a copy of all PROTECTED WORK(S) currently in your possession. No payments will be required to support the events needed to fullfill these requests.
I) You agree upon the owner's request to transmit to the owner a list of all of the individuals, companies, and organizations to which you have transmitted PROTECTED WORK(S).
J) Terms differing from the above may be granted upon request, contact _phone_number_and/or_address_ for more information.
NB: If the posted notices are implemented as black letters over an original work of art done in pastels, then even photographing the notices will constitute an event that will trigger the license.
Obviously, this is not a contract designed to encourage acceptance by the sentient^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsapient, but that is the point. For a variety of reasons, unless you are in public office, they should have no right to photograph you or your property without first securing your permition (hence the last paragraph of the license) or a warrent.
The main problem with this, is that I can forsee the companies wiggling to make sure it affects the employees more than the company or its directors. So the company will deny wanting or using the photo, while leaving you to bankrupt the employee. Considering that the latter are lying about their authority to take the pictures, the second half of this does not bother me as much as it might, but the problem will not be even minimally solved until the company directs its employees to avoid protected houses.
IANAL, so I must ask some questions of those who are:
Would writing to the CEO and the Board of Directors with a license similar to the above but stating that if they send an employee to photograph your house, (or maintain a photograph already obtained) that they agree to be responsible for the proper execution of the license both personally and corporately be effective?
And regarding Google, would painting © _year_ _uri_ on my roof, where _uri_ is a web address containing the above license and an explanation that said license applies to the house and the property on which it is situated serve to keep me off of their maps? Or would it be better to write to their incorruptible founders?
Perhaps some lawyer can clean up the above license and post it and instructions to its proper use on a website and then post the site here.
Let me apologize for the length of this post. By way of explanation, let me point out that it is difficult for us ACs to post things to our own websites. Besides, if I had, someone would complain that I was just trying to get more hits."
Another example of corporate greed.
Link to original article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap