Slashdot Mirror

The first thought I had was how could such a stupid question like this get accepted. What a completely ridiculous idea :-)

The second thought I had was how truly frightening the impact would be. A regionalized internet would be devastating to the evolution of ideas like the social web.

Sites like Flickr would lose their power if users were not allowed to explore outside of their home region. I am constantly amazed by how well people communicate across social and language barriers on sites like these. I can't count the number of times I have toured a distant city through the eyes of the people who live there.

Many more examples were listed in previous posts, so I will not dupe.

Kudos to the editors for letting this one through ;-)

While I do love sites like flickr, I had a bit of a change of heart when they made it possible for others to buy prints of my photos. While I always knew that flickr made money off of my work through their advertising, selling physical copies of my photos made it a bit too real and a bit too obvious. I think that in the future of Web 2.0 the companies should recognize that their users generate their profits and share some of the wealth.

-CGP

Flickr is profitable. So are you saying they won't be microsoft? That's probably true. Are you saying craigslist will? That's probably not.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=179294&cid=148 52866

http://www.flickr.com/forums/help/9191/?search=pro fitable

Opera does.

There is so much more you can do with a Treo

Here is one link:
http://urbanist.typepad.com/photos/41114_books_by_ color/p1010010.html

And another:
http://flickr.com/photos/vsgoliath/54335788/

I'm seriously considering organising my books by colour when we move into our new flat shortly. It's not hard to work out where any book is (and I'm used to having a rough idea of where any book is despite not organising them in any particular way in the past) and it can look fantastic.

I would have been much more interested in the tabbed mail view for Thunderbird.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/69903184@N00/70869729 /

My robotics class here at school used a few Vex kits and accessories to build robots. We came out with three cool robots that all were quite successful in 3 weeks. Check out pictures here:

http://flickr.com/photos/yellowbkpk/tags/vex/

Also, we spent a lot of time making custom sensors and modifying the ones that Vex gave us. They are all very easy to get in to and examine (like this one) and interface with (like the switch debouncer that I made). Although the metal parts are just a little "different" then everything else, meaning you have to machine or buy new pieces, some Lego pieces will mesh with the Vex pieces quite nicely (as in this home-made shaft encoder).

My robotics class here at school used a few Vex kits and accessories to build robots. We came out with three cool robots that all were quite successful in 3 weeks. Check out pictures here:

http://flickr.com/photos/yellowbkpk/tags/vex/

Also, we spent a lot of time making custom sensors and modifying the ones that Vex gave us. They are all very easy to get in to and examine (like this one) and interface with (like the switch debouncer that I made). Although the metal parts are just a little "different" then everything else, meaning you have to machine or buy new pieces, some Lego pieces will mesh with the Vex pieces quite nicely (as in this home-made shaft encoder).

My robotics class here at school used a few Vex kits and accessories to build robots. We came out with three cool robots that all were quite successful in 3 weeks. Check out pictures here:

http://flickr.com/photos/yellowbkpk/tags/vex/

Also, we spent a lot of time making custom sensors and modifying the ones that Vex gave us. They are all very easy to get in to and examine (like this one) and interface with (like the switch debouncer that I made). Although the metal parts are just a little "different" then everything else, meaning you have to machine or buy new pieces, some Lego pieces will mesh with the Vex pieces quite nicely (as in this home-made shaft encoder).

My robotics class here at school used a few Vex kits and accessories to build robots. We came out with three cool robots that all were quite successful in 3 weeks. Check out pictures here:

http://flickr.com/photos/yellowbkpk/tags/vex/

Also, we spent a lot of time making custom sensors and modifying the ones that Vex gave us. They are all very easy to get in to and examine (like this one) and interface with (like the switch debouncer that I made). Although the metal parts are just a little "different" then everything else, meaning you have to machine or buy new pieces, some Lego pieces will mesh with the Vex pieces quite nicely (as in this home-made shaft encoder).

They were not taking pictures of his Daughter. They had sent some creep fron the Netherlands to the UK to follow her. FFS she is 16! What would you think of someone who follows a girl (with well off parents) to school and then puts in the paper details of her daily route etc?

Pictures were apparently stolen off the Flickr site at http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamc1999/sets/ where you can get pictures of his family, friends, plane, car and even the table he does his podcasts on. It's his family photo album.

Actually, I have even better sources for that information than Major Nelson's blogcast. :)

A contemporary implementation of the Framework on a PC includes a CSM for supplying services to operating systems that do not boot using EFI and for supporting legacy option ROMs on add-in cards. For legacy boot the Framework initializes the platform's silicon and executes EFI drivers.

A contemporary implementation of the Framework on a PC includes a CSM for supplying services to operating systems that do not boot using EFI and for supporting legacy option ROMs on add-in cards. For legacy boot the Framework initializes the platform's silicon and executes EFI drivers.

A contemporary implementation of the Framework on a PC includes a CSM for supplying services to operating systems that do not boot using EFI and for supporting legacy option ROMs on add-in cards. For legacy boot the Framework initializes the platform's silicon and executes EFI drivers.

A contemporary implementation of the Framework on a PC includes a CSM for supplying services to operating systems that do not boot using EFI and for supporting legacy option ROMs on add-in cards. For legacy boot the Framework initializes the platform's silicon and executes EFI drivers.

So this guy hasn't proved that this is not a PowerPC iMac G5 running Virtual PC with Windows XP full-screen (including the some of the installation process).

He hasn't taken a screen shot of the Device Manager to show us how the hardware components appear.

Not to be dismissive, but it would be nice to see more proof. I know there are screen shots with the installation appearing to occur with some feedback in an EFI shell, but that doesn't mean it actually finished. He could have had the installation appear, but used Virtual PC on a PowerPC iMac G5 to make it appear as if it finished.

Without posting or responding to messages about how he has done this or when he will give more details about the CSM that he programmed, it makes people more skeptical.

I mean, I could just do something similar like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/superrcat/sets/720575 94082389573/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/10273565 5/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/10273566 0/in/photostream/ What's all that read DCHS stuff? That happens normally when you install XP? Sorry, I haven't in a while, and I don't remember that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/10273565 5/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/10273566 0/in/photostream/ What's all that read DCHS stuff? That happens normally when you install XP? Sorry, I haven't in a while, and I don't remember that.

Pretty good job on most of the photos but http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=110650771& context=photostream&size=o is without a question a fake. The viewer would not be any farther away from the top right hand corner of the monitor than you are from the bottom right hand corner but image extends beyond bottom right hand corner. Porportions of the screen are all out of whack. If it where real, why would you not move the monitor that is facing the Imac out of the way of the picture. Unless of course if you were projecting an image from one monitor to the other?????

Im all for this happening but... has anyone looked at the photos? The screen is on top of the bottom right cornner of the machine.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/11097774 4/in/photostream/

Interesting thought there - VGA drivers arent installed now if it was a fresh install right?

"
PowerMacChris says:

oh-oh-owned!

Windows XP has a 640x480 resoulition on GUI install :P
Posted 3 days ago.

Paul Stamatiou Pro User says:

^ No. I've installed XP with 1280x1024.
Posted 2 days ago.

digitalpiracy says:

No he's right - you can set an option in the unattend.sif file so the resolution jumps to whatever you like once its installed the VGA drivers, but this section always runs at 640x480
Posted 2 days ago. "

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/11065077 1/ There's no way for that one to be real. The screen is overlapping the edge of the machine itself. He definitely needs some hard proof (or better pictures).

...Amit Singh from IBM and kernelthread.com (slashdotted 16 times for excellent technical articles on various bits of internals of Apple hardware and Mac OS X) has his own legacy boot solution as well. From a rejected submission:

It appears that Amit Singh of IBM Almaden Research Center, of kernelthread.com and author of Mac OS X Internals, has devised a method to allow legacy, or BIOS-based, booting on Intel-based Macs, which they're calling "BAMBIOS". This means operating systems that currently only support legacy booting, such as many Linux distributions that don't yet support EFI, or things like Windows XP and the forthcoming Windows Vista (the 32-bit version of which will lack EFI support), will now be able to run on Intel-based Macs without modification (and completely legally). There is also another solution from "narf2006", described here and shown in this flickr set of photos. narf2006's solution is awaiting verification by Colin for the $12,000 pot. Time to get that MacBook Pro you've been waiting on for the best of both worlds, everyone...

So even if narf2006's solution isn't real, Amit's solution most certainly is, since he has a great deal of credibility. One way or another, we'll all be able to boot Windows directly on our Intel-based Macs.

This will be great news for people interested in Windows gaming on an Intel-based Mac (who really need the direct video access) and/or people who just want to do it NOW; however, a virtualization solution running under Mac OS X, such as VMware or Parallels, will be the real holy grail for most users. Most people don't want/need/care about the highest graphics and I/O performance; just the ability to run Windows side-by-side with Mac OS X at a speed that is more than usable, and to also have some capability to seamlessly share things like clipboards and files between the environments (as a nice VM environment would most certainly do). Not to mention not having to reboot.

In any case, even dual booting will be a welcome capability. It remains to be seen how convoluted the process is...

Also, I just spoke with Colin Nederkoorn (the guy running the contest) moments ago, and narf2006's solution has NOT been submitted to him yet. He said that narf2006 said he's "cleaning it up" and will be submitting it "later this week". So, no one, including Colin, has actually seen this solution working yet. Also, he apparently hasn't been in communication with Amit on the BAMBIOS solution as yet...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tyrannous/sets/720575 94061582249/

I hear what you're saying, I really do, but I disagree.

The published screen size is 7", so at 4:3 aspect ratio, that would put it at around 5.6" x 4.2". I cut out a piece of paper to see just how big that is. Here's a link to a GIF size comparison.

http://static.flickr.com/55/110212782_2d07bb5d21_o .gif

That's a significant size difference. The Origami device looks like it would be a good fit for me. I've printed out a few and played around. It's a pretty good size (for my needs).

Fortunately, someone also posted a link to a great looking Fujitsu LifeBook that's just a little bit larger, but not nearly laptop size. It's $1500, but it's so perfect, I might just spring for it. Since the Origami device won't have instant on capabilities, the difference between the two breaks down to size and price. Not much else.

I've seen LOTS of people using ipod headphones on non-ipod mp3 players and even cd walkmans.

You sure those aren't something like the RetroPod (Walkman modded as iPod case)? You might be less likely to get mugged if they thought you just had an old piece of junk.

Err... I think your missing the point. Taking a photo is about skill, and most real photographers despise photoshop, and only use it to ajust contrast, levels, etc... And then, only grudgingly.

One of my friends is a freelance photographer, and he will spend an hour and a half setting up a shot with his light meter, when most of what he is setting up for could be worked out in photoshop in ten minutes, but he would rather have the feeling of doing art, and not something that any slob could do in 10 minutes. He has skill, they don't.

I happen to agree. Photoshopped pictures does not equal art. Not saying photoshop isn't a valuable tool, I find it handy for what I do with it, collages and colorizations/photocorrection. But in art and professional photography it is best used sparingly.

And the parent is correct, even with photoshop, and filters, photoshop doesn't handle duotone as well as a decent B&W film. Mostly because you frame, and handle your stops/focus different. Photoshop is only as good as the original photo.

http://www.flickr.com/forums/help/9191/?search=pro fitable Flickr is profitable. There goes that theory smart guy.

I was hoping that some slashbot would be able to help me with this question, since no one on flickr seems to be able to.

Is there anyway to sort through flickr by both creative commons license AND by interestingness?

I ask because I spend a huge amount of time on flickr looking for images that I use in my classroom presentations (also CC licensed) and it seems like madness that I have to look at ALL the 'physics' photos to try and find the few good ones.

-CGP314 on Flickr

Or you can do tags within your own photos, so to see my photos of the Toronto International Auto Show recently, you could go to:

http://flickr.com/photos/mikebabcock/tags/autoshow

Those photos are also parts of the "autoshow" groups and one in the "cadillac" group, where others have put together photo albums as a collaboration effort.

Or you can do tags within your own photos, so to see my photos of the Toronto International Auto Show recently, you could go to:

http://flickr.com/photos/mikebabcock/tags/autoshow

Those photos are also parts of the "autoshow" groups and one in the "cadillac" group, where others have put together photo albums as a collaboration effort.

This, however, is wonderful.

Someone hit on the idea of photographing people as they were shown goatse for the first time.

The poor, poor souls........

The name is kind of weird to me because where I live (the Netherlands) 'Flickr' is a harsh synonym for 'Gay' and also is a synonym for 'Bad person'
Apart from the name it is a clever service, especially the tag-thing, like http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/sluts/

It also provides the ability to find scads of free-as-in-speech content, some of which is even pretty good.

I went out and bought a pro account, and now you're telling me I could have gotten one for free? Darn.

Flickr is profitable on its own. Caterina confirmed so in this help forum. They have many pro subscribers and they show a couple of small ads on some pages when you haven't paid for a pro account. It seems that is enough. (disclaimer, I work for Y!)

Flickr also sells "pro account" subscriptions for the ability to upload more, no ads, etc. for $24.95 a year: http://flickr.com/upgrade/

Yahoo are making a right mess of things already, there's a real disprespect for original users who refuse to use a yahoo account, see this flickr group for some examples

Yet the audience isn't trapped in a dark room. People only view Flickr if they want to.

You can put up a photo and sent the URL to your friends. Unlike many other photo sharing sites the viewer doesn't have to join. By default every photo is viewable by anyone, though you can restrict this if you wish.

Flickr is great for photographers. If you're a keen photographer working only in black and white, or in macro or whatever, you'll find photographers to share your work with. Every photo can be given descriptive tags, or joined to public photo groups. You can then search by tag, or browse groups. e.g.

Every Flickr photo tagged with "londoneye":
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/londoneye/

Group for photos of the City of London:
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/cityoflondon/

Flickr is pretty good!

Yet the audience isn't trapped in a dark room. People only view Flickr if they want to.

You can put up a photo and sent the URL to your friends. Unlike many other photo sharing sites the viewer doesn't have to join. By default every photo is viewable by anyone, though you can restrict this if you wish.

Flickr is great for photographers. If you're a keen photographer working only in black and white, or in macro or whatever, you'll find photographers to share your work with. Every photo can be given descriptive tags, or joined to public photo groups. You can then search by tag, or browse groups. e.g.

Every Flickr photo tagged with "londoneye":
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/londoneye/

Group for photos of the City of London:
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/cityoflondon/

Flickr is pretty good!

I've never used Flickr, but I have been using Gallery now for about 6 months. It's Open Source, based on PHP and MySQL. I've had to do two complete machine moves in that time, and it's handled them both flawlessly.

I think of all the image organization programs and services I've used (and there's a whole lotta them!), Gallery has brought me the most pleasure. I had more or less put down my digital camera, because I found sharing, storing and cataloging photos publicly too much of a pain. Being able to share my photos with my friends and family has just been a real joy for me. And no, it's not pr0n. ;-)

I suppose I could use the Flickr API, but I just wanted something I could stick on my own private site. If something bad happened with Flickr it would be far too much of a hassle to have to deal with someone else's system.

they could even encourage people to take "polls" about what products they prefer, allowing for even more targeted ads

Like ads for hair products, emo music and razor blades perhaps.

Mind you if there's money in Emo, that would explain the style choices in digg's flickr photos.

Google this!

Interesting idea, one that borrows a few ideas that have already been suggested by our own government.

Content creators and content consumers are becoming one and the same. You can see this every day on sites like Jamendo and Flickr.

The list:

* Flickr * Vimeo * Del.icio.us * Digg * Bloglines * Netvibes * Writeboard * Google Maps * Google Local * Meebo
--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

128KBit MP3 years ago was horrible. The 128KBit ACC from the iTune store are "okay".

The problem is: A lot depends on the song as well. I know there are many people out there who say they cannot hear a difference between a compressed file and a "pure" file even on expensive equipment. For me it truly depends on the song.

But one thing to keep in mind (in my opinion) is the "feeling" a song produce in the room, if I play it back on a pair of 10K speakers then I am more likely to hear any artifcats or "feel" the missing pieces then when I listen to it on my $50 Boombox.