No, that's not it - of the people 20-24 who "don't have a job and aren't looking for them", the number of people who said it was because they were retired doubled. Other answers were "disabled" and "staying at home". That being said, I don't see how anyone can retire at 20-24 - if it was 30-34 it'd make a lot more sense. . .
There's no category for "I believe that the notion of 'lifetime employment until age 65, upon which you get to enjoy the life you've saved up for if you still have the health for it' is outdated, and choose to take my retirement in chunks of a year or two interspersed by periods of productive, lucrative work."
One of the side effects of moving to a fluid labor market is that you can basically get a job whenever you want. Moreover, you're forced to, and you're forced to stay up-to-date with market conditions so you can get a new job at any time. If you have to make this bargain anyway, who's to say that those jobs need to be contiguous? Why not take a job paying $90K for two years, live as if you had a job paying $60K, and then take a year off to travel?
My wife and I both did variants of this (her: bond trader => Peace Corps, me: financial software => startup => Google => startup), but we took our downtime in socially sanctioned, labeled ways and so don't fit into the "retired" statistics. But what about, say, the friend of mine who interned on a salmon fishing boat, took a job in economic consulting, did a multi-year sex tour of Southeast Asia, and now runs a hedge fund there? Or the friend of mine who runs a profitable SaaS remotely and is now doing Hacker Paradise, traveling the world? Where do they fit into the employment statistics? "Retired" is a lot better descriptor than "disabled" or "staying at home".
The numbers in the BLS report were on the order of 1-2%; I could easily believe that 1-2% of 20-24 year olds are doing gap years, or have software businesses that generate passive income, or have worked for a year or two at a lucrative profession and now saved up enough to travel the world.
This sparked a debate in our office - clearly designers look to other sites for inspiration, but at what point does it actually become illegal? If the user didn't copy / paste and instead reverse-engineered the code, would it be legal? (but still immoral, of course).
Even if it was just an interpretation, chances are FB would have a strong case in court. Pretty much every artistic and expressive UI/UX element from the original site has been copied and placed on the nuggets site. There's not really anything being creatively added or remixed by the nuggets creator.
If insane shit like patents on rounded app icons and the iTunes "music note" logo gets regularly brought to court and settled[1], then copying the entire L&F of a site is definitely infringing.
You're balancing a couple factors here. First, there's the question of whether it's derivative at all. That requires the work be substantively new and different, which the OP probably doesn't meet. See the Batlin standard:
>However, his appeal was denied and the injunction against Snyder's copyright upheld (six members of the court voted to deny, the other three filing a dissenting opinion). Much of this decision focused on the fact that nearly all of the alterations in Snyder's version were made solely to allow the object to be more easily manufactured in plastic rather than metal, and therefore were functional, not artistic or creative... The issue was not whether or not Batlin's bank was a copy of Snyder's— it undoubtedly was— but whether or not Snyder could claim copyright protection, which the court decided he could not.
The OP really only makes changes to make it their company's product, so it's probably just copying, not deriving. But let's assume it passes that standard. We'd still need to justify fair use, which sets 3 standards: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
This is a commercial project copying another company. Won't get much sympathy here.
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
>Although the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the availability of copyright protection should not depend on the artistic quality or merit of a work, fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant, such as whether it is fictional or non-fictional.
This one doesn't seem to apply much here, it's more for works of 'importance.' For example, the Zapruder film's copyright was invalidated on these grounds when Time tried to enforce it. Maybe you could argue that Facebook is so iconic that its designs have become a part of the artistic zeitgeist, but probably not for some random spinoff.
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
>The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ex: a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use.
Looks like just about all of it...
4. and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Probably some good news here. Nuggets copying the Rooms design probably doesn't hurt Facebook much. Arguably it even helps them, since we're talking about it here.
Overall, not a very good case for these guys, but I assume you're thinking about more ambiguous hypotheticals. Fair use is a spectrum, aimed at protecting people against spurious or unfair copyright claims. Chances are if a use seems reasonable, it can be defended on fair use grounds in court. If it's blatant and unfair, it'll probably be shot down. But it's altogether unclear until litigation happens, because only courts decide.
One issue with this scenario - once Uber is no longer paying drivers, it should become a lot cheaper, making it viable for a lot more people to get rid of their cars and just rely on Uber. So that'd decrease the pool of people to loan their cars to Hypercar. Effectively everyone would be "ride-sharing", but through Uber.
And then Uber, owning this fleet of cars, would be disrupted by a company that sells/leases self-driving car kits to people who then convert their own vehicles into robo-taxis.
Just curious - what do you usually use Chromecast for? I got it specifically to stream Youtube on my TV, and found that there was usually a > 1 second lag between the image on the TV and the sound on the TV. This has given me a pretty negative view of Chromecast - basically that it's just good for streaming visual-only things like slideshows etc. Have you found this not to be the case?
I think you're missing the Chromecast button on the YouTube page. You shouldn't have to mirror the tab to fling YouTube to the TV.
Mostly I use it for Netflix, Google Play Movies & TV, and Plex.
Also if you have an Android or iPhone the native application on either device will have the Chromecast icon to fling the video. It's the same icon in Chrome (and maybe other browsers? I'm not sure) to fling from your computer.
Definitely not. Since Chromecast is sending audio and video over the same connection (HDMI), this is likely a problem with your TV or the like. Do you have a complicated Home Theater setup?
The most frustrating thing for me with Hulu Plus is that even when you're paying for it, it still shows you commercials. So my solution was to get Chromecast and just stream normal Hulu via a Chrome tab. At least that way I'm not paying them to watch commercials. . .
You mean, like cable TV? Hulu Plus is payment for access to a back catalog, like expanding the video-on-demand library of your TV service. It's not payment for eliminating commercials, and they never advertise it as one.
If you're looking to cut cable now, I'd highly recommend Roku. It has Hulu+, Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. (Aereo is also awesome for showing broadcast TV, although that only works in a few markets). The only thing Roku doesn't do well is Youtube, which is why I also got the Chromecast. As an aside, is anyone else noticing synching issues on Chromecast? When I play a Youtube tab the sound and picture aren't quite synched up, which is really frustrating.
you can decide, you just have to train gmail a little. When you drag an email into a new tab it'll ask if you want all email in the future to go into that tab.
I think this is a really cool concept, but it seems to be a mish-mash of two ideas: 1) incentivize users to do a bunch of other tasks by identifying an even more daunting one. 2) help users tackle the biggest thing on their list by adding extra motivation (a time-sensitive security deposit). Personally, I like the latter more - I've tried similar things by adding pointification to my todo list, assigning notably more points to tasks that are the most important, but I think adding actual $$$ and a deadline would be even more motivating. I think the product here needs a bit more clarification, but it's a neat idea! I'd also think it's a good idea to drop the actual price of the tasks, but keep the deposits large - I doubt someone would pay $50 for motivation on a huge task, but they might pay $5 and risk $500.
the site actually is mostly about "idea 1" (by using 2) to make people actually do the tasks) but I think switching more towards "idea 2" could actually be more useful
Really cool idea - definitely like the idea of using it during a talk / presentation as a way to answer the most popular questions, rather than randomly picking people who are raising their hands.
