FOI is for administrative documents to increase transparency in government. Detailed 3D scans a museum does for research or preservation isn't an administrative document.
If you want a 3d scan of these statues, there's a lot of them around in scannable places like parks etc. If you just want to win, you're wasting everyone's time for no good reason.
I hope La Quadrature and company appeal this refusal to the EU.
Also even without the context above, a museum preventing people from experiencing and studying items from its collection (since the point clouds were apparently ruled such) is enough of a grounds for activist action against them.
The museum's own internal request for clarification said they are administrative documents.
...According to the advice of February 7, 2019 issued by the Commission d'accès aux documents administratifs (CADA)1, engaged by you, the files in question would constitute communicable administrative documents, insofar as they are developed and held by the Rodin Museum as part of its public service mission. In addition, CADA rejected various arguments in favor of of their non-communicability2. It also indicates that these documents are reusable, including commercially, but that the museum can establish a pricing for the reuse of its three-dimensional scans.
Quoted from the 20190627 English version of the letter.
Page 19:
"Before 2005 the reuse for commercial purposes of documents disclosed under the FOIA was restricted. Since 2005 and the implementation of Directive 2003/98/EC a right to reuse public information contained in administrative documents for purposes other than those for which the documents were initially prepared or received by the authority has been established under the conditions currently set out in book III of the CRPA. This right to reuse is made more effective by the fact that, whenever public information is electronically disclosed, it must be disclosed in an open standard that can easily be reused and automatically processed. This is important as inadequate standards significantly limit the possibilities for reusing administrative documents … The reuse of public information is normally free of charge. This principle is one of the main measures adopted in recent years in France to encourage the reuse of public information as part of the French policy of open data within the public sector. Public bodies are therefore compelled to allow economic operators to reuse valuable data generated in the public sector freely."
Page 39:
"The FOIA has failed to trigger a revolution in how citizens request access to administrative documents. There is a fair number of requests. Sometimes these requests touch highly sensistive political matters (e.g. access to financial information related to President Sarkozy’s electoral campaing, Areva’s security failure etc.). However, all in all, the FOIA seems to be only used in marginal cases. The FDRA sought to bring a deep shake-up here. It sought to develop a stronger market logic with a clear demand-side and a clear offer-side to administrative data and documents. The pioneering idea that France seeks to put forward is that administrative information is economically valuable and that putting this information on the web will spur actors to use it, analyse it, dig into databases and eventually make valuable use of this newly acquired knowledge (i.e. because of economic uses or thanks to calling public bodies into account)."
Given the education literally does not matter anymore for white collar work, I'm inclined to agree with you.
I'd rather a MUCH larger amount of professors and teachers come to class to find their classes deserted (by their own hand), and indeed, their own justification for existing gone. The world would be a lot better off. Gatekeepers are anti-human.
No. My take is that test scores are a lousy measure of education. Maybe students are indeed learning less, and that would be worrying, but while we measure that using test score we simply cannot control for test taking ability.
I am not a teacher, nor even an expert in the pedagogical sciences, as a layperson I can point out what looks wrong, but I need not know what is better.
Maybe asking teachers is better. Maybe a robust metric across generations and across population simply does not exist, and cannot exist, and we just have to accept that we cannot compare the education of kids in America today with the education of kids in Guatemala a decade ago.
It sounds like the title should be "the potential of audio AR", as nothing has really risen yet, and hasn't in the two years since the article was written
I've generally started to treat use of SELECT DISTINCT as a warning flag, as it's very common that it indicates bad code
Some use it because they don't understand uniqueness constraints and try to fix it in post so to say. Some use it because they forgot a join condition and are absolute amateurs. Some use it because it fixed a problem for them once and now they add it everywhere
These people seem to outnumber the people who use SELECT DISTINCT in a well thought out manner
Sometimes the root cause is poor table design (or in analytic/OLAP use cases poor ETL design without proper data validation checks or handling) where uniqueness is not enforced and that is the root cause that should be fixed if at all possible. A "first normal form" violation in the database design so to speak.
If that root cause is not addressed, then SELECT DISTINCT is more often necessary and the SELECT DISTINCT disease to be safe culture and behavior in the code base on top of the database just spreads.
If you want a 3d scan of these statues, there's a lot of them around in scannable places like parks etc. If you just want to win, you're wasting everyone's time for no good reason.
reply