The way funding for industry tends to work where I am from, the companies being funded are expected to match the government funds in some way (except universities, who do publish). That means that 1mill government funding costs the company 1mill for a total project funding of 2mill. This means that this research would be better described as government subsidised.
I'm not sure if that's how it works in the US, but if it is, then asking the companies to release this stuff would be asking them to give away their investment. The only way you could ask for full release is if the government funds the work completely.
Of course, you could ask to recoup seed funding out of proceeds, or whatever. I suppose you would do that out of tax on the company, eventually.
I figure you can make good arguments for either side of this.
This isn't the kind of thing that New Zealanders usually do. Normally, we'd just laugh it off. Or send a letter to the editor.
When I read your article, I couldn't believe it. When I read the original article, though, it said that they hired a New York PR guy to do it. That makes so much more sense. We recognise our limitiations in the area of being complete bastards, and hire an expert in the field.
This is just the fallacy of the excluded middle. Knowing stuff is important in team work.
These are the tools of teamwork, required by all members of the team. If you lack the ability to reference basic concepts without a dictionary, things become much less effective. I've never seen high school courses or even many university courses that go past this level.
The concern is not that there'll be nothing on TV, it's that there'll be nothing BRITISH on TV. There's a big difference there. This is more like farm subsidies in the US.
I don't really agree with farm subsidies, but I didn't say I agreed with this either.
The key point is that TV programming has a huge impact on the nature of society - kids get their role models from it, that kind of thing. If the Brits want their kids to grow up British, they need to be watching British television.
The argument is that they provide an essential service, but can't compete effectively.
This isn't the same party - there was an election, and this is actually NZ's equivalent of the republicans refusing to repeal a democrat law (I should point out that NZ republicans make US democrats look like right wing extremists).
I just looked up US fair use doctrine -
The most important thing here appears to be the effect on the work's value. Since I haven't seen (but always intended to see) little shop of horrors, I am now inclined to watch it before I look at the ending.
If anything, this increases the value, so I don't see a problem there.
In NZ, where I'm from, you're allowed to photocopy any book that is out of print. If you can't buy it, it's their fault.
I buy technical books for work all the time. I Like them because I can read them more comfortably, refer to them without having to tab between windows while working, and - if I get the ebook bundled with it - copy paste when I need to plagarize a report :)
I know I could just print out an ebook, but that is so rarely worth the effort - the difference between the printed and the bound version is usually worth the cost.
I'm not so sure it's simple to count votes. I'm not from the US, but it seems that you guys have twenty or thirty different resolutions on the voting form, along with the actual vote you're interested in. If you have to contend with simultaneous elections at the county, state and national level it would get harder.
With differing rules according to locality - remember how Florida disqualifies some felons, Texas executes you if you press two boxes, whatever - I'm sure the complexity would increase.
The excuses here are very limited - I mean, it would be possible to just make different systems for each state, with a common interface to allow national tabulation.
But I've learned from my time as a software engineer that nothing involving politicians is simple.