Also this list of countries by income equality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
2,160 karma · joined June 25, 2014
I'm sure you are aware of Nitrokey. If not, here you go: https://www.nitrokey.com/
Looks like it's an online map editor/map viewer that supports both vector an raster images.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/the-largest-fines-dished-out...
They list Google as one of their customers.
Also if you're a Linux kernel developer you get one for free: https://www.nitrokey.com/news/2018/nitrokey-partners-linux-f...
Since you like Macallan (I assume sherry oak?) you might like one of the older Glenfarclas (for the example the 25yo).
I don't know how whiskies are priced in the US but the "cheapest" whisky I like is Tullibardine 228 (burgundy finish). I think I payed 30€ for it. Glenmorangie Quinta Ruban (port finish) is also very affordable.
Aberlour doesn't really fit in here but the 15yo and 18yo are worth checking out if you haven't already.
You don't have to publish any contact information on non-commercial websites.
Apparently the authors use a Riseup email account.
That's actually true. I don't know why both the CCC and Riseup feel the need to exclude that the website explicitly asked for violent protests. It doesn't change the fact that the raids were pointless and to some extend disproportionate. It sure is a good way to give up the moral high ground though.
"(4b) ‘online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service one of the main purposes of which is to store and give access to the public to copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users, which the service optimises. Services acting in a non-commercial purpose capacity such as online encyclopaedia, and providers of online services where the content is uploaded with the authorisation of all rightholders concerned, such as educational or scientific repositories, should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive. Providers of cloud services for individual use which do not provide direct access to the public, open source software developing platforms, and online market places whose main activity is online retail of physical goods, should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive;"
That's a bit of an understatement especially if you consider how bad the law looks from a PR standpoint, how unlikely it is to actually benefit any of the big content producers and so on. I've actually been on the record saying the law will never happen because of how stupid and useless it is but obviously I've been wrong.
Anyway as far as ambiguity goes I think they do that on purpose to ensure a judge has the last word. I'm pretty sure this is supposed to stop trolls from suing little companies into oblivion rather than the other way around.
No, of course not. Like I said above, the "link tax" part (article 11) has nothing to do with linking. But even if it would, it still wouldn't have anything to do with the content filter law part (article 13). They're two completely separate things.
The law clearly states that the size of the company and the costs of the "measures" should be taken into account, so that shouldn't be an issue.
> if you make any mistake, you'll be sued out of a company?
If you can prove that you've tried that you're not liable anymore and therefore can't be sued.
> what makes this website not a "content sharing service provider"? All the site does is share links to content.
You kind of answered your own question there.
> And since linking to content will now obligate paying the person you link to
No idea where this linking myth comes from. Commercial websites now have to pay a license fee when they publish substantial portions of press publications.
Source: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf
That's not true. The law only applies to "content sharing service providers" (sites like YouTube, SoundCloud, Instagram, Megaupload and so on).
You seem to think that both articles are somehow connected. Article 13 only applies to sites that are upload services like YouTube and SoundCloud for example. They now have to implement content filters in order to avoid liability. Hacker News doesn't have to do anything.
No it isn't. Just read the damn thing.
The law explicitly states that the size of the company, the amount of data that is uploaded and the availability, cost and effectiveness of the measures should be taken into account.
I don't understand how you call call this completely absurd considering that sites like Twitch and YouTube are already doing it.
> Link Tax: publishers want to be compensated if you link to their content.
The "link tax" has nothing whatsoever to do with linking. If you run a commercial site that publishes snippets of press publications you now have to obtain a license to do so. That's all there is to it.