teamhappy

Also this list of countries by income equality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...

I'm glad to see as much development in the space as possible.

I'm sure you are aware of Nitrokey. If not, here you go: https://www.nitrokey.com/

It says "Continue to MapTiler Cloud" in the bottom right corner. https://www.maptiler.com/cloud/

Looks like it's an online map editor/map viewer that supports both vector an raster images.

You might like Nitrokey: https://www.nitrokey.com/

The method used to calculate the fines is the same for every company. You can review it here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

They've fined plenty of EU-based companies as well.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/the-largest-fines-dished-out...

Here's the algorithm used to set the fines: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

Nitrokey is open source (hardware and software). They claim the "installed firmware can be exported and verified, preventing attackers from inserting backdoors into products during shipping". (https://www.nitrokey.com/)

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...

Here's a very detailed comparison: https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/wiki/Similar-project...

Same press release but in PDF form: http://europa.eu/newsroom/rapid-failover/ip-18-4581_en.pdf

He has videos on his Instagram that show him starting from scratch, live painting President Macron (no idea when that happened) and more.

Glenfarclas and Glendronach are are both great alternatives to Macallan. Glendronach is a bit too sweet for my taste though and since Glenfarclas is much more affordable (at least here in Germany) I always recommend that one first.

Laphroaig, Ardbeg or maybe the distillers editions from Lagavulin and Talisker. Islay is pretty small so you don't really have that many options.

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.

IIRC Mercedes wasn't caught cheating they just got in trouble because they use the same engine control units which contain the routines that make cheating possible.

You only need to put an email address on your personal websites.

You don't have to publish any contact information on non-commercial websites.

Lobyplag publishes the documents different companies/govs hand out: https://lobbyplag.eu/docs

I don't get it. How is giving more rights to researchers restricting startups?

They're copyright exceptions, not restrictions, meaning you don't need a license to process copyrighted data for scientific research.

The website in question is this one: https://augsburgfuerkrawalltouristen.noblogs.org/

Apparently the authors use a Riseup email account.

The website called for violence.

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.

What else do you think it applies to? The latest version of the law that I've seen says:

"(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;"

What am I wrong about?

This law has definitely added at least friction to competing startups, and a barrier to entry at worst.

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.

otherwise they're liable for all copyright infringement of any linked page?

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.

how will anyone ever be able to oppose them?

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

Any website with a comments section (hey, this one included) would need to extensively monitor all posts

That's not true. The law only applies to "content sharing service providers" (sites like YouTube, SoundCloud, Instagram, Megaupload and so on).

Article 11 is the "link tax" one and article 13 is the upload filter one.

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.

The proposal says "The rights referred to in the first subparagraph shall not apply in respect of uses of insubstantial parts of a press publication". The title is the least substantial part I can think of.

That's what is being proposed

No it isn't. Just read the damn thing.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf

Smaller companies won’t be able sustain an upload functionality. Thanks for killing innovation and supporting large monopolies

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.