In the case of GPS though, the system isn't physically anchored to anything. I assume it uses some terrestrial reference point(s) to correct for orbital drift, but I believe the system as a whole is constantly broadcasting all the information to fully define a coordinate system. Anchor those coordinates to Australia, and it's the rest of the world that has apparently drifted 1.5m.
Having the devices themselves translate between canonical GPS coordinates and locally defined ones might be viable, but would require that the device acquire updated translation parameters on a semi-regular basis. Perhaps the GPS system could be extended to periodically broadcast updated translation matrices for the various tectonic plates? You'd still get some problems near the fault lines, but it might beat having to completely update all the maps every few years.
Actually, they're the ones standing still, it's the rest of the world that's moved.
In all seriousness though, does anyone know what the GPS system itself uses as a reference point to correct for system drift?
Quite. GPS is essentially a "cheat system" to make it brain-dead easy to determine your precise location. Without it our robots could still theoretically determine their location via landmarks , street signs, etc, just as we have done since prehistory. It's probably a heck of a lot more difficult to implement though.
Not to mention the bit implying that a compelling *state* interest would justify abridging the First Amendment.
I mean, it's a constitutionally guaranteed right, shouldn't abridging it require a compelling *public* interest? That is, protecting the rights of other citizens, as is the case in the classic example of yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater? If a compelling state interest is sufficient to abridge our constitutional rights, then those rights exist only so long as they don't interfere with the state's accumulation of power.
What is this chat you're speaking of?
I don't see too many people on IRC. Perhaps you mean something as backward as Skype? No thanks.
Anyway, sorry but mail and mailing lists still are very relevant. I'll miss GMane dearly myself and wouldn't mind donating a few grands to keep it alive.
It's still the best format for discussion with people in open-source and other projects.
~Yeah, I can *so* see Edward Snowden getting a confirmation from the U.S. Senate.~ It is only slightly more probable than Jill Stein getting elected to President.
You must be living under a rock.
Games have been getting worse since the mid-2000, now they're all the same uninspired action/press-A-to-be-awesome games targeting a casual audience.
The Japanese are the only ones with any creativity and personality, and among them only Nintendo has mass appeal, in part because their US division is mismanaged and spends all of its money on marketing for kids.
At the latest E3, the biggest video game convention worldwide, Nintendo only had one game while competitors had 20 or 30 each: Zelda for Wii U and NX. Yet they easily got the whole world much more excited than American studios presenting all their rehashes of Call of Duty and Battlefield.
Analogies to property are rather terrible, as copyright law is essentially nothing like property law, nor even patent or trademark law.
Though yes, if GI did not properly credit the artist as required by their license, then that would likely expose them to copyright infringement claims.
I'm not sure that's legally relevant. The only copyright-violation question is, do the terms under which the LoC distributes the images allow for commercial redistribution? If they do, then Getty Images is completely within their rights to sell the images. Just as you would be completely within your rights to sell a Linux distro.
Now, if they're trying to shake down people for licensing fees for images they don't hold the copyright or an enforcement contract on, then that's a completely different issue, and I hope they get nailed to the wall for it. But I'm not sure the artist has any special standing to do so.
That would depend entirely on the specific terms under which she allowed the Library to distribute the images.
If she put them in the public domain, then she is no longer the copyright holder, because they are no longer under copyright, and GI cannot violate a copyright that doesn't exist.
If the terms under which the LoC distributes the images to not prohibit commercial redistribution (vanilla Creative Commons for example), then GI is likewise not violating copyright by selling them.
If either of those is the case, then the only crime GI may be committing is if they are trying to shake down people for licensing fees they're not entitled to. And I suspect that in that case neither the copyright holder nor the artist (if copyright has been transferred or relinquished) have any standing to sue, as only the shakedown victim has been wronged.
Indeed, I was going to say something similar. If she released the images into the public domain, or even retained copyright but licensed them under something like a Creative Commons license with no restrictions on redistribution, then it would seem that Getty Images would be completely within its legal rights to sell them. Just like anyone who wants to can sell a BSD Unix distro if they can find someone gullible enough to buy it.
Now, if they're threatening people in order to collect licensing fees, *then* they're probably committing some sort of crime, but one that has nothing to do with copyright infringement, and probably doesn't give the artist any legal standing to sue unless they themselves were threatened. And even then I doubt the artist would have any special (legal) standing compared to anyone else thus threatened.
And yet, despite all that, in normal clear-sky conditions a distracted pilot that simply sits in the chair and scans the environment every few minutes will be able to utilize it safely. Not because the autopilot is particularly sophisticated, but because the operating environment is extremely forgiving. Away from high-traffic airports airspace, any obstacles will be clearly visible for at many minutes before action is required.
Yes, Tesla's "Autopilot" is leaps and bounds more sophisticated, but it is unable to deliver the same level of reliability simply because the difference in operating environment complexity and urgency is far greater than the increase in sophistication.
A small correction, the 10th Amendment does not GRANT any rights to the states or the people, it RESERVES powers to them.
The distinction is significant - in a democracy all power is presumed to originate with the people, and then trickle upwards, and the 10th Amendment explicitly prohibits those powers not explicitly granted from ever being claimed by the government at all.
Contrast to a grant of rights, which presumes that the government legitimately has the power to carve out such rights for its populace.
"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "FIFTEEN!! YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"