Harbor Association Of Industry & Commerce 36th: Fill & Download for Free

“Architects are able to unleash their creativity “ unquote: ArchDaily | Broadcasting Architecture WorldwideThis is one of the reasons that many are falling in love with the building industry and want to become an architect.Your question: What buildings have an unintended strong resemblance to something, imaginable?Those buildings are not ‘Novelty Architecture ‘ but the works of conscientious architects. They obviously take the assignment as conferred by the clients seriously and you can tell that it has improved the lives of countless people significantly and it makes one’s imagination runs wild.Let me take you across the world, from the Far East, China, Europe to North America to see what they have contributed to the world from ‘ God- Given Creativity- and that making you go bananas!King’s power tower, Bangkok Thailand.Credit: Architect - Ole ScheerenA Dragon temple in Samut Prakarn, Thailand.Architect: Anonymous.Esplanade -Theatres on the Bay Singapore .Credit: Michael Wilford & Partners.Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Credit: Heatherwick Studio.The Interlace Condominium, Singapore.Credit:?Architect Olé ScheerenJewel Changi Airport, Singapore.Credit: Safdie Architects.Micro homes, Hong Kong.Credit : James Law Cybertecture Studio.Habitat 67 Montreal, Canada.Credit : Architect- Moshe SafdieWonderWorks Museum, Orlando, Florida.Credit: Nicholson Design International.Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles, U.S.A.Credit:Architect - Frank Gehry.Düsseldorf Harbor, Germany .Credit: Architect - Frank Gehry.Düsseldorf Harbor, Germany.Credit: Architect - Frank Gehry.56 Leonard Street , New York , U.S.A.Credit: Herzog & de Meuron.Unknown.Credit: Architect is unknown.People’s Daily HQ , Beijing, China.Credit: Architect & Engineer Associates of Southeast University.Architects are a fun-loving individual just like you and me. Perhaps they are ‘bottled up’ at times, from some frustrations. But they coped with stresses well, with a little aggression but full of passions thus enabling them to create what appears to be bizarre but innovative, fun buildings imaginable.

Probably nothing at first. Let's follow the steps:1. President Barack Obama (politician) could veto it. Having seen broad unpopularity with the public displayed in the SOPA/PIPA Blackout Protest (Jan 18, 2012), he could insist that the bill at least be reworked before signing it, and that we not "rush into" an ill-considered law. If he and the other elected officials are smart, they'll at least stall until after the 2012 U.S. Elections.2. If Obama signs it into law, we can expect the leading civil liberties and technology advocacy public interest groups — financed by donations from a broad base of tech entrepreneurs and civil libertarians, and represented pro bono by the nation's foremost constitutional law experts — to immediately sue to enjoin enforcement, challenging the whole damn thing as unconstitutional for all the reasons Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe set forth in his 23-page letter to Congress (see http://www.net-coalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tribe-legis-memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1.pdf).Usually in that kind of situation, the court hearing the case will issue an injunction preventing the executive branch of government from enforcing the law until judicial review has run its course. (That would mean no prosecutions by the Justice Department, but civil lawsuits might still be brought by private parties.) The process would involve an initial lawsuit in U.S. District Court, followed by an appeal to the relevant circuit court, and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can expect either side would appeal if it lost at any stage.One good historical example to review is the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Most informed observers were fairly certain it was unconstitutional and would get thrown out before it was even passed, yet Congress proceeded to pass it and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. (Shockingly, 1996 was an election year — as is 2012.) Sure enough, the Supreme Court declared almost every provision to be unconstitutional, with the exception of the much-beloved Section 230 safe harbor that keeps most User-Generated Content websites from being sued out of existence on non-copyright grounds (defamation, etc.).3. Assuming things get this far, the well-funded litigation Clone Armies of the likes of Motion Picture Association of America and Recording Industry Association of America will begin issuing take-down demands by the thousands and seek to sue everyone in sight, trying to bully, intimidate and shame (1) the masses, and (2) key online service providers into submission as quickly as possible. If my faith in humanity is at all warranted, we'll see a massive public-interest defense project take shape in which the same sort of coalition behind Fight for the Future, and many elite law schools' public interest projects, take on pro bono cases to defend people or sites who seem to be targeted unfairly (i.e., not The Pirate Bay).4. This is one situation where I'm grateful for the mountains of wealth that have been amassed by Google (company) and Facebook (product). As operators of the largest scale UGC sites and services in the world, they will shoulder tremendous responsibility for the practical, day-to-day impact of these laws on end users. Google has historically taken a strong libertarian view of online IP and fair use issues (in its own self-interest). It chose to fight Viacom Products and Services rather than settle the YouTube litigation, and I wouldn't be shocked to see it invest enormous sums of money in litigation resisting overreaching take-down demands of content owners. SOPA threatens the core value proposition of Google and other search engines by jeopardizing the relevance and ranking of search results. It might well be a rational (albeit tragic) course of action for Google to invest a billion dollars or more in legal battles to protect its investment.4. Expect circumvention galore as every technological measure imaginable will be invoked, propelled by the incredible profit motive associated with the world's largest Internet market, to move things offshore, behind anonymous proxies and otherwise beyond the reach of the corporate sponsors of SOPA. This is where it could really get interesting. If the likes of Tor (The Onion Router) are declared illegal, will people use alternatives or be too scared to? This is where I hit the limits of my technical knowledge, but it seems like someone could run a good business in another country allowing Americans to tunnel in via VPN to get around the US version of the Great Firewall (my skin crawls even typing this).5. To the extent the law isn't invalidated by the Supreme Court or circumvented through clever hacks, the Stanford Law Review article cited in Nathan Ketsdever's answer is an excellent summary of what could happen in a new Orwellian dystopia as America regresses into a 21st-century plutocracy ruled not by industrialists or banks, as in centuries past, but by corporate IP owners.

The ShortWhat is SOPA: a bill designed to stop online piracy, seen by many in the tech world as taking a sledgehammer to internet infrastructure and breaking our way of life, seen by many in the Hollywood world as being the only tool to stop sales from continuing to bleed out and saving their way of life.Who are the sides: The bill is seen as Hollywood vs. Silicon ValleyWhy is it controversial: Charitably speaking, both sides feel that the passage or lack of passage of the bill represents an existential threat to their business models.As the bill is written by people with little experience, except negative, in what they're trying to change, those with a lifetime of experience working with the Internet find Hollywood's incompetence in drafting this bill unsurprising but awful.The Background - RIAA/MPAA impetusThe Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261), the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (S.968) were created this year based on years of fears by content creators, led by Hollywood music and movie executives, as their revenue streams have been disrupted by the rise of internet music sharing beginning in the late '90s.Beginning with the rise of Napster, the music industry tried again and again to respond to illegal file sharing, led by their lobbying group, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Increasingly in past years, the movie industry's lobbyist Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) saw the RIAA's past experience as their future, as bandwidth limitations fell away. The two are now fully aligned allies, meaning the efforts of one in DC are supported by the other.One result of the RIAA struggles in the early 2000s was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which fostered the development of 'user-generated content' (UGC) sites by allowing sites to act as platforms and passing through liability for copyright infringement to their users rather than being taken on by the sites themselves, as was traditional for early internet copyright lawsuits. The provision in the DMCA that allowed this pass-through is known as the 'safe harbors' provision.However, even with the massive rise of legal pay structures for buying music on the internet, there is a nearly decade-long gap in which the music industry was being disrupted by online file-sharing software with no response. The fall-off in CD sales is not yet matched by the rise of online sales, so the RIAA is seeing a decline in overall revenues, with the MPAA afraid of similar trends.Some unknown amount of sales are lost to online piracy. Numbers being put forth by the RIAA/MPAA or the FBI as quoted by the former are not seen as rigorously tested, as mentioned by Stephen Colbert: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111202/09361816954/colbert-takes-sopa.shtmlBut the awesomest part? He quotes the famous $200 to $250 billion in losses claim that always gets thrown around... but then immediately says:That is a shocking number. Especially when you realize the FBI admits it has "no record of source data or methodology for generating the estimates and that it cannot be corroborated." Now folks, that's what happens when the FBI buys bootleg reports off a card table in Chinatown.All the same, the RIAA/MPAA believe that stricter punishments than those allowed by the DMCA are needed to deal with the problem. Additionally, they feel that the balance of the law is tilted too much against speedy action with regards to internet actors.Legislative HistoryThe result: COICA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act COICA is the intellectual immediate predecessor to first PIPA and then SOPA. It was introduced too late in 2010, around the time of the elections, to pass through Congress, but it is notable for the speed in which it made progress through the Senate before running out of time.Similarly, others have begun mentioning the Pro-IP Act of 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRO-IP_Act Which is the law underlying the ability of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) department to seize domains: http://www.dotweekly.com/list-of-government-ice-seized-domain-names/ Those seizures and the process by which they are done are the basis of much opposition on the part of the tech community. Ian explains the technical opposition very well in his answer.Growing OppositionFrom the time COICA was introduced, Mike Masnick of TechDirt and a few technically savvy politicos like Patrick Ruffini began trying to rouse the tech world to see the threat these bills posed. In time, PIPA was introduced and rushed through committee, with Sen. Ron Wyden, solely responsible for preventing it from moving forward from April until just recently, when Sen. Harry Reid pressed to move forward with PIPA.It wasn't until the stacked hearing on SOPA in which Google was the sole opposition testimony and compelled to testify to serve as the target of blame by the other five supportive testifiers as well as many of the lawmakers on the committee. That hearing woke the tech world up, and since then, the world has been changing.Traditionally, the tech world doesn't pay attention to politics, except to express disgust. The political world operates incredibly slowly in comparison and is 10x larger than the largest corporate dinosaur that the tech world hopes to disrupt. The two worlds are generally diametrically opposed on anything from temperament to life philosophies.In the case of both PIPA and SOPA, the bills are seen as existential threats to the tech world's way of life. As it's been said, startups should be two folks in a garage, not two folks and four lawyers, which is the world SOPA/PIPA presages.And so the tech world is acting, organizing as it has never done before. Reddit raised $15k for Rep. Paul Ryan's opponent based on his supposed support for SOPA and his confirmed support for the indefinite detention bill/NDAA. Notably, Ryan came out against SOPA a few days later. Tumblr delivered 90,000 phone calls to DC based on SOPA, and other actors cumulatively are approaching or have already passed 1,000,000 contacts with DC.HOWEVER, recent discussion has indicated another twist on the SOPA/PIPA debate: the bill specifically targets medicine resellers, with additional detail focusing on Canadian sales of generic prescription drugs used by seniors to save money. This aspect of the bill seems to have quietly slipped by until the past two days, at which point word began trickling in. It's unclear what impact this legislative front will have on the debate, but the implications of the medicine reselling provisions are certainly being actively discussed as a way to broaden the opposition front.The Current State of PlayThe Internet has won the Internet: activists are fully mobilized on this issue, from the non-political tech world, to the online right (RedState), to the online left (DailyKos). Alliances are being forged, and for the first time, a primarily online culture is translating their energy on an issue into offline political activism.DC is increasingly realizing how controversial the bill is and how serious a threat the bill is seen as by Silicon Valley and the startup and tech communities. Their traditional heuristic on a bill like this was to note that big business (US Chamber of Commerce) and big labor (AFL-CIO) both support the bill, making it a common sense, non-partisan obvious thing to pass. The divide here is unusual, so DC was slow to react, but they're realigning on this issue, which completely cuts across party lines.Hollywood has gone inside game at this point, moving on both the House and Senate to get the bill through as quickly as possible at this point. The key upcoming dates are Jan 18th (Congressman Issa's OPEN hearing, blackout day as led by Reddit, and possibly a resumption of the Judiciary Committee markup on the bill) and Jan 24th (last chance to stop PIPA in the Senate).