Slashdot Mirror

Are you happy now?

Hello?
Sigh, lost another one...

In the future, hell it is hard to find Cable Management and plastic covers nowadays.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sprokop/3536023955/

the cost of components on hot-swap is very low.

$100 for 4 drive spaces (in the pc space of 3 bays) is a good density factor.

I've been running 2 stacks of these (for 8 drives) in my e6400 dualcore system and an intel x975 motherboard. that mobo has 2 sata controllers, ich7r (r for ahci, hot swap) and a marvell controller that also has 4 sata ports on the mobo (also ahci). I get all 8 drives in my software md0 raid with NO pci cards needed (no cards = more reliability; less mechanical contacts to worry about (pcie)).

a large tower (antec 900) holds them:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works/1523567231/

for home use, its really great!

These are not gay at all either.

Yep, Mac users are as straight as Richard Simmons.

These are not gay at all either.

Yep, Mac users are as straight as Richard Simmons.

These are not gay at all either.

Yep, Mac users are as straight as Richard Simmons.

I would bet you are right, but there are big masses out there as well. I have personal experience with this. My wife and I were sitting on the beach of the big island of Hawaii and this mass drifted in. I was told it wasn't the first time. Some guys had to cut the thing in half and then use a tractor to drag it away in pieces. I also noticed that it was something of a mini-ecosystem with crabs and flies and such crawling all over it.

In my opinion, Agile is a great tool for managers, not developers.
Every manager in the end wants to ask for status reports every day.
But they can't do so, because people working for them will be upset.
Agile is an excellent way for Managers to ask for status reports
everyday.

In my opinion, TDD (test driven developement) is the only good thing
about Agile.

Here is Scott Adams about Agile.
http://www.globalnerdy.com/2007/11/28/dilbert-on-extreme-and-agile-programming/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cote/63914774/

The pic, here, with the foil on the microscope made me smile. The whole damn thing is cool but that there is foil too I felt like if I just could get a glimpse of some duct tape somewhere we could even show this to non-geeks and make them smile too.

Not sure about that. Do diesel locomotives have wiring like this?

The pictures of the SAGE doesn't do it justice. It had some really cutting edge features for the 1950s, including a GUI accessed via a light gun and an ashtray (both built in).

The pictures of the SAGE doesn't do it justice. It had some really cutting edge features for the 1950s, including a GUI accessed via a light gun and an ashtray (both built in).

And if anyone wants to see more images from the IBM team, they have a flickr photostream. It's really impressive.

Here was an interesting one, an old PC with a monitor in portrait format. It asks why they didn't catch on, and I'm not sure I know the answer. It seems like it WOULD be better, especially because you could look at an entire page on the thing.

Some contemporary monitors can be rotated between landscape and portrait orientations; the Lenovo L220x, for example. It's a feature that's more popular in pre-press organisations.

Their full name is "Powerbocking Stilts" actually, and they use a bow-spring as well, they've been around since 2004. I think CMU needs to move with the times. The claims about 9-foot jumps seems about right, the world record for a bock-assisted jump is just over 7 feet. I was at a bocking event in London last weekend, actually. (Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/w3bbo/sets/72157622131665912/ )

I didn't put in the time to look for particularly good pictures, but there clearly are many Obama-critical pictures there. Lots of copies of the joker image, too.

I didn't put in the time to look for particularly good pictures, but there clearly are many Obama-critical pictures there. Lots of copies of the joker image, too.

I didn't put in the time to look for particularly good pictures, but there clearly are many Obama-critical pictures there. Lots of copies of the joker image, too.

I didn't put in the time to look for particularly good pictures, but there clearly are many Obama-critical pictures there. Lots of copies of the joker image, too.

I didn't put in the time to look for particularly good pictures, but there clearly are many Obama-critical pictures there. Lots of copies of the joker image, too.

This article latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-joker-a... with the originator of the Joker image contains this paragraph:

"Flickr had removed the Joker image due to copyright-infringement concerns, Alkhateeb says the company told him in an e-mail. A Flickr spokeswoman declined to comment due to a company policy that bars discussing inquiries about individual users."

(note that comment references a story that nobody from slashdot read last week...)

So in short, before people start shouting "ZOMG! Teh POTUS iz teh fashcist!", it would be wise to read up on what is going on here.

As was pointed out here (and previously), the original artist was told that his images were removed due to copyright concerns. It is to be expected that the ownership of any piece of art - derivative or otherwise - could become a matter of suspect when it becomes as widespread as the "joker-ized" Obama piece.

if you smile to the girl at the counter in a Russian supermarket, we'll know straight away that you're a foreigner. ~

Because Russians know that she would smile back the Russian way?

This happened right in front of me on the way home one night. The guy behind him reported that he was paying a lot of attention to a little box in his hand...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28154298@N05/sets/72157605928214101/detail/

Most of that will probably buff right out..

This happened right in front of me on the way home one night. The guy behind him reported that he was paying a lot of attention to a little box in his hand...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28154298@N05/sets/72157605928214101/detail/

In Ann Arbor, the "smart" meters are susceptible to an exploit where if you add 5 cents of time to a meter, you remove all the existing time on that meter. For $1, a prankster can reset 20 parking spots and watch everyone get parking tickets. More info at this screenshot of a now-deleted comment on AnnArbor.com.

You might be OK with the concept and execution of Google Street View. However, a lot of people most certainly are not happy. We don't want our houses plastered up on an easily indexed, location linked, photography database.

And it's going to happen anyway, with or without Google. I've posted hundreds of geolocated photos in Earthscape and Picasa. More will come. In 5 or 10 years, perhaps every photographable thing on earth will have at least one geolocated, maps-searchable photo pointing at it.

You're worried about photos of your house. Have you bothered to check Picasa, Flickr, Imageshack, Photobucket, Bayimg? TerraServer? Real estate comparison sites? What of the hundreds of other image and geographic services I have not named?

If not, can you claim with a straight face that this issue is important enough to warrant government involvement in private photography? It is unclear to me that there should be an a priori restraint on publication simply because "a lot of people are not happy". If that's a problem, toddle on down your Congressman's office and see if you can get enough people interested to pass a law. If you don't care enough to bother, fine, but don't tell me it's important to you.

I'm a veteran of these wars. I fought Lotus Marketplace, I wrote letters to my legislators and to Lotus and to Mitch Kapor. That success was utterly irrelevant. What I have learned is that you need to pick your battles, and pick them only when there is real harm being done. Otherwise you risk creating an unwieldly, overbearing enforcement environment that hurts everybody.

Oh, well, I'm not stupid. Tons of things in the SW universe make absolutely no sense. The storm trooper uniforms are stupid, kind of remind me of French Legionnaire uniforms that always made me laugh when I saw someone dressed like that in the desert. The red flags on your shoulders make you stick out like a sore thumb regardless of where you are.

Um, that's the dress-uniform. Or are US Marines fighting dressed like this. I can see that sword being handy in modern battlefield....

The actual combat uniform of the Legionnaires is the same as regular French military uses. You can see some pics of those here

OK, I see what you were saying now.

Let me ask you something about the reasoning though. If they cited copyright "concerns" for the removal as the account holder as author of the photo claimed, what are those concerns if not over Obama being the subject. Keep in mind that Flickr is protected from lawsuits and prosecution for the actions of third party members using their service by an exemption in the law created by the DMCA. Also keep in mind that Flickr is not concerned with images of the cover of time magazine or images of the Joker being on their site as is shown by the sheer number of other images present.

I can't buy the story of copyright concerns. If the law didn't insulate them from action, I might. There was no DMCA notice filed as the author would have received a copy of it by law. Given the number of other copyright concerns directly relating to Time or the joker which they seem to be unconcerned with, I don't see how anyone can find that as a legitimate reasoning. This also isn't the first time Flickr has deleted content critical of Obama. Keep in mind, they were completely fine with that last idiot as long as he was critical of Bush.

Maybe I am attempting to put 2 and 2 together. But after looking around, it seems to be the only obvious solution.

OK, I see what you were saying now.

Let me ask you something about the reasoning though. If they cited copyright "concerns" for the removal as the account holder as author of the photo claimed, what are those concerns if not over Obama being the subject. Keep in mind that Flickr is protected from lawsuits and prosecution for the actions of third party members using their service by an exemption in the law created by the DMCA. Also keep in mind that Flickr is not concerned with images of the cover of time magazine or images of the Joker being on their site as is shown by the sheer number of other images present.

I can't buy the story of copyright concerns. If the law didn't insulate them from action, I might. There was no DMCA notice filed as the author would have received a copy of it by law. Given the number of other copyright concerns directly relating to Time or the joker which they seem to be unconcerned with, I don't see how anyone can find that as a legitimate reasoning. This also isn't the first time Flickr has deleted content critical of Obama. Keep in mind, they were completely fine with that last idiot as long as he was critical of Bush.

Maybe I am attempting to put 2 and 2 together. But after looking around, it seems to be the only obvious solution.

OK, I see what you were saying now.

Let me ask you something about the reasoning though. If they cited copyright "concerns" for the removal as the account holder as author of the photo claimed, what are those concerns if not over Obama being the subject. Keep in mind that Flickr is protected from lawsuits and prosecution for the actions of third party members using their service by an exemption in the law created by the DMCA. Also keep in mind that Flickr is not concerned with images of the cover of time magazine or images of the Joker being on their site as is shown by the sheer number of other images present.

I can't buy the story of copyright concerns. If the law didn't insulate them from action, I might. There was no DMCA notice filed as the author would have received a copy of it by law. Given the number of other copyright concerns directly relating to Time or the joker which they seem to be unconcerned with, I don't see how anyone can find that as a legitimate reasoning. This also isn't the first time Flickr has deleted content critical of Obama. Keep in mind, they were completely fine with that last idiot as long as he was critical of Bush.

Maybe I am attempting to put 2 and 2 together. But after looking around, it seems to be the only obvious solution.

OK, I see what you were saying now.

Let me ask you something about the reasoning though. If they cited copyright "concerns" for the removal as the account holder as author of the photo claimed, what are those concerns if not over Obama being the subject. Keep in mind that Flickr is protected from lawsuits and prosecution for the actions of third party members using their service by an exemption in the law created by the DMCA. Also keep in mind that Flickr is not concerned with images of the cover of time magazine or images of the Joker being on their site as is shown by the sheer number of other images present.

I can't buy the story of copyright concerns. If the law didn't insulate them from action, I might. There was no DMCA notice filed as the author would have received a copy of it by law. Given the number of other copyright concerns directly relating to Time or the joker which they seem to be unconcerned with, I don't see how anyone can find that as a legitimate reasoning. This also isn't the first time Flickr has deleted content critical of Obama. Keep in mind, they were completely fine with that last idiot as long as he was critical of Bush.

Maybe I am attempting to put 2 and 2 together. But after looking around, it seems to be the only obvious solution.

Of course Flickr has the right. But, just like everything else in the media, what's okay to do to conservatives is not okay to do to liberals.

Consider this image from flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24917549@N04/2709323478/

I would think this should be taken down. Also comments like "Bushtard is an utterly worthless waste of oxygen, DNA, and a desk. " should be removed with the offending poster's photstream deleted.

Doesn't that make sense? It's okay to do the whole "Bush is a murderer, idiot, liar and fascist", but it's not okay to say "This joker Obama is a socialist". Wake the fuck up people, which of these is more fascist thought?

The worse part about it is that no one owning the copyright has made any complaints on it. The email from Flickr would have mentioned a DMCA take down notice as it's a law to forward it to the user so they can object to it and state they have standing.

Flickr simply asserted copyright concerns as the reasoning but if you search their site, Time covers produces a shit load of results of the use of the cover of time while Joker does too

Those are the only two issues with copyright I can find with the image, and Flickr doesn't seem to be concerned with them in the least.

The worse part about it is that no one owning the copyright has made any complaints on it. The email from Flickr would have mentioned a DMCA take down notice as it's a law to forward it to the user so they can object to it and state they have standing.

Flickr simply asserted copyright concerns as the reasoning but if you search their site, Time covers produces a shit load of results of the use of the cover of time while Joker does too

Those are the only two issues with copyright I can find with the image, and Flickr doesn't seem to be concerned with them in the least.

The author of the flickr photo didn't put the socialism on it. Someone else removed the "TIME" word and labeled it with socialism. That wasn't the picture on Flickr, the one mentioning time was.

The author said he wasn't really making any political statement, he was learning to use photoshop and followed a tutorial on how to "jokerize" any photo. A couple hours later, he liked what he saw and posted it to his Flickr account. The author also said that he believes he needs to keep low because he lives in Chicago "Alkhateeb says he wasn't actively trying to cover his tracks, but he did want to lay low. He initially had concerns about connecting his name with anything critical of the president -- especially living in Chicago, where people are "very, very liberal," he said." But he also has a photo of Rahm Emanuel with criticisms of him. His lack of willingness to show a point may be because of where he is and how he is now associated to the photo.

The author did state "After Obama was elected, you had all of these people who basically saw him as the second coming of Christ," Alkhateeb said. "From my perspective, there wasn't much substance to him." which might play into your discussion concerning the character of the joker being used. You know, lack of substance "at worst completely insane with no real political views whatsoever".

I suspect there was probably a political motive behind posting the original picture and perhaps the author is afraid to disclose it.

Except for the one that clearly has a logo, you mean. Didn't even look at them did ya? That was a rhetorical question. I know you didn't. Not that it matters because parody is fair game. I bet you wouldn't bitch about this one. You're just pissed because someone is using that image to criticize the current immoral brain dead fuck up, and need something to rationalize it.

Except for the one that clearly has a logo, you mean. Didn't even look at them did ya? That was a rhetorical question. I know you didn't. Not that it matters because parody is fair game. I bet you wouldn't bitch about this one. You're just pissed because someone is using that image to criticize the current immoral brain dead fuck up, and need something to rationalize it.

You've hit the issue it on the head, for the most part This photo was taken down as it displays the cover of Time Magazine.

Oh, well, that makes sense. I mean, it's not like you could find that Time Magazine cover somewhere else on flickr.

Flickr thinks it's cool.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=obamahitler&m=text

Fixed that for you

Actually I don't see your point..

and flickr has plenty of Obama ones.

and flickr has plenty of Obama ones.

and flickr has plenty of Obama ones.

None of the images you linked get to the heart of this issue, which is copyright. We only have evidence of one photoshopped Obama image being pulled, and it also happens to use a TIME magazine cover as its source. Regardless of their political motivations, about which I make no claim (yet!), copyright violation of TIME's image is a valid reason for them to pull the cover. Others including the submitter have mentioned that the image is parody, but not every manipulation is parody and I don't think the case for parody is obvious here--what aspect of TIME are they parodying?

So, figuring I've done nothing worthwhile so far today, I undertook a search of Flickr for TIME covers to see if other copyright violations of TIME's IP were left up. Well I'll be damned, there are tons of them. It does indeed look as if they are selectively enforcing their terms of use, and that one of the things they decided to remove was a controversial piece featuring Obama.

This is, as others have said, perfectly within Flickr's rights, but the Streisand Effect has taken hold and it will probably bite them in the ass now whether the image is infringing or not, especially if the fact that there are tons of other infringing images remaining is spotlighted. It would be interesting to hear comments from Flickr about the takedown, though the article states that they won't respond. Tsk tsk.

I wonder what they'd have done if they were there while Bush was in office if he had been similarly parodied?

I do wonder indeed...

The funny thing is that is an image from Vanity Fair having its copyright infringed upon, and the Obama one is within fair use rights (political satire).

So... This is ok:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21244223@N04/2105170638/

and this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cocktailia/460463335/

and this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wgeis/11346587/

but not this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/3834570613/

Got it...

So... This is ok:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21244223@N04/2105170638/

and this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cocktailia/460463335/

and this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wgeis/11346587/

but not this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/3834570613/

Got it...

So... This is ok:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21244223@N04/2105170638/

and this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cocktailia/460463335/

and this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wgeis/11346587/

but not this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/3834570613/

Got it...

So... This is ok:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21244223@N04/2105170638/

and this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cocktailia/460463335/

and this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wgeis/11346587/

but not this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/3834570613/

Got it...

The very first image that pops up is a modification of a copyrighted image.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/375592641/

And the first page of results includes an image calling Bush the God of Death. You're saying that isn't being critical?