It happened with Kissinger before. If one were cynical, one might assume that the closed Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee, entirely different to the Swedish Nobel Prize committee (started by Alfred Nobel), may have been used as a PR mechanism by outside parties for quite some time.
You don't think the Peace Prize he got for "helping to establish a ceasefire and U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam" (Wikipedia) wasn't earned?
For those of us who are hawks, it was followed by a 150,000 man armored invasion of South Vietnam, employing more tanks than used in any WWII battle. Which the South crushed with the help of US ammo and air support, only 40,000 managed to make it back home sans their equipment.
That worked the 2nd time they tried it due to Watergate denying the South ammo, which I don't believe he had anything to do with. But no matter how grim the outcome in Southeast Asia, including the Cambodian genocide, outfitting the North with three complete armored armies (the first was used up piecemeal) was critical in bankrupting the USSR and the peaceful end of the Cold War, which otherwise could have ended in even more megadeaths. And I think he gets some credit for keeping us alive when the Democrats turned dovish after one of their's was no longer in the Oval Office.
Peace through victory? Maybe they should have a separate Nobel Peace Through Victory prize that you get for killing the most civilians that year in order to create a lasting peace.
At least I'd know where to aim my spit. The mixed-up nature of the current prize is for the birds.
Teddy Roosevelt's 1906 one ratified the Japan defeats of Russia.
No awards during WWI except to the International Red Cross (ICRC).
1927: Ferdinand Buisson, France, Ludwig Quidde, Germany: "[For] contributions to Franco-German popular reconciliation" Well, at least they tried....
Same for WWII; the ICRC did fully earn their prizes to my knowledge.
While he didn't get an award for it, George Marshall was the USArmy Chief of Staff, top dog in uniform along with Admiral Ernest King.
It was rather delayed, but Begin and Sadat's 1978 prize ratified Israel's 1967 Six-Day War victory.
Excepting perhaps Norman Borlaug (Green Revolution), Lech Wałęsa (key role in the peaceful end of the Cold War), and Gorbachev (ditto, not that that was his intent), I don't think any of the awardees, or possibly all of them combined, did as much for "peace" (saving lives) as Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin did in ending WWII (Stalin of course gets a big asterisk because he was instrumental in starting it, and didn't join the other side until a figurative gun was at his head (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa) ).
E.g. the "Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" was killing an estimated quarter million people a month when we terminated with extreme prejudice Imperial Japan 68 years ago this week.
If I am not mistaken you mean "steganography" and not "stenography" as the latter is the person(s) that transcribe in a courtroom. I have never seen a spell check that had the word steganography in it though.
Sure but then Netflix and Universal stealing translated subtitles from these "pirates" and including it on their commercial content is also piracy.
Thing is though, as a civil claim, the monetary incentive is clear on the movie companies side but not the "pirates". I suppose with all things being equal, in the spirit of fair play, we can expect to see headlines stating these people have been awarded a massive sum of money in the future right?
People get confused about copyright because it is confusing. It isn't what it was when it was created and your interpretation of copyright makes no allowance for fair use, and as far as I am aware those precedents set in the 80s still stand to this day. So until they don't, you're only half right.
They would have copyright for the translation if it weren't itself illegal - §103 of the US Copyright Act. But this may be different in other jurisdictions.
Two wrongs does not make a right. Translations are derivate works which means the new author has copyright, but they cannot be distributed without both the author of the original and the author of the derivate allowing it.
> but that does not permit them to distribute it without the original work's copyright holder's permission (and the original work's copyright holder would need the derivative's copyright holder's permission to distribute that.
There are cases (at least in Scandinavia) where the subtitles on a Norwegian subtitle site showed up on the Blueray version (noticeable due to huge cultural mistakes in the translation), when the Norwegian site clearly had subtitles first.
I'll start holding my breath for when the law will be applied equally on both sides.
Before coming to Sweden I would have probably agreed with that, now, however, I am inclined to believe Swedish laws are only applicable to Swedish people where and when America is not involved.
Scripts are copyrighted but the translated subtitles are never straight translations of scripts (as I have found out in recent years being English in a non-English country), there is a level of interpretation (using a similar phrase, or a different cultural reference, perhaps just converting imperial to metric).
Then you have to also consider the fact that many of the subtitles included on DVDs and sometimes even theatrical releases (at least in Sweden and Norway) are very often lifted from online sources the movie companies attack (rather than them hiring actual translators for all the markets they wish to conquer).
Finally... I might be wrong on this but what happened to fair use? There were cases in the 80's that cemented our standard of fair use. Humming a song on the street is fair use, providing translated derivative works when no alternative exists is fair use.
Your expensive vendors sit on security patches for weeks and my free ones shoot them out almost immediately. Why is that not a business concern?
I don't think it's zelotry, there are a lot of advantages to open source software you aren't going to get from Microsoft. If you are an edge case and you happen to stumble on that race condition bug are you going to have your engineers black box test and reverse engineer someone elses product illegally while they wait around for Microsoft support or have them look under the hood, patch the bug and move on?
What the big licenses fees get you is accountability, which is of course a huge thing, but what open source gives you is control.
I think if your business is software, then open source makes perfect business sense, especially if one of your assets is a team of competent engineers.
Fascinating. I find it especially interesting to see the results of gentrification. As someone who watched a million Nathan Barleys take over Shoreditch in the mid to late 00's until the artists left, it is absolutely amazing to see the average salary of Tower Hamlets is now £3400.
I left when they turned up as well and I'm no artist. There was a reasonable tech community around there before it went all trendy as most of us found it pretty cheap and convenient whilst raping the corporations around E1/Docklands as hard as we could on contract work (TBH they deserved it :)
Poor people are still there, stacked up on top of each other in the estates around the top of City Road and around the focal point of Shoreditch.
It's still like Islington (where I was born into abject poverty without even the prospect of an orange lined fluffy anorak or dunlops) in the 1970's around the back of Shoreditch. Total deprivation, but people are getting by somehow, without an iPhone or a power-job. Good luck to them but fuck the hipsters to hell.
Back in ~2009, living on the southern periphery in Whitechapel, we came up with the idea to call 'em ditchies.
There's a decent old-school pub left with some serious artists (aged and incoming) directly opposite the East London Mosque. It's run by an alcoholic former schoolteacher who reckoned it was better public service running a bar (apparently, for artists). Good place.
I live in Tower Hamlets and I have a hard time believing that figure. I guess there are plenty of super-rich in West India Quay, Canary Wharf and Pan Peninsula.
Yes I understand that. What I was suggesting is that the poor people in Tower Hamlets haven't all been displaced, just the people in the Shoreditch triangle, which is tiny in population when you compare to say, Bow, just next door.
So the amount of money brought in from the Shoreditch gentrification and subsequent business tax breaks leading up to the Olympics was so great in that one concentrated area that the ENTIRE Tower Hamlets looks decent statistically but the reality is very different.
Shoreditch Triangle is in Hackney, not Tower Hamlets. The divide is midway down Redchurch Street, I know as I used to live there and Tower Hamlets would manage to send us our council tax bill but then provide no services. Fun times.
