Well indeed, the latter part of the tag would have to be kept to a pre-canned list with carefully explained meanings, or you'd effectively be promoting contract disputes.
I suggested the noads one because I can see people not wanting their likeness abused for whatever type of product advertisement they find to be most annoying.
Why it was implemented as all-or-nothing, I'm inclined to go with your second suggestion. This idea I outlined wasn't particularly hard to arrive at.
If what they effectively want to say to downstream clients who would buy a license via Getty is, 'You only have to deal with one party: us', that still doesn't explain why they're not allowing an artist to specify a minimum fee, or indeed what images are released this way.
Technology wise it's hardly that much more work to adding just images with a certain tag to Getty's pool vs. adding a user's entire cache of images. One would imagine this to be trivial, in fact.
Why don't they just introduce a new tag, 'gettylicense', with everything after the colon being the minimum amount owed.
e.g. 'gettylicense:$5.00'
And maybe another colon for specifiers: 'gettylicense:$5.00:noads' for something that can be licensed for $5.00, isn't available to be used in ads.
Put a set of standard tags together like this, link to them on an FAQ page about the whole scheme, and let people decide on a per photo basis whether or not they want to allow commercial reuse like this.
Doing this with tags instead of something new and separate would expose the ability to upload these permissions along with the photos using whatever tools integrate with Flickr.
I imagine it'll be a while before it lets you remix multiple Youtube videos into something like what Kutiman did. Nevertheless, at the very least it's a very nice tech demo.
Hmmm, indeed. Maybe they need to rework that feature so that if it passes Y!Slow and similar, it's considered as quick as it's going to get. Otherwise you'll indeed see sites that have no recourse penalised. You make an excellent point.
One would think only if the Google Bot happens to be indexing your site at that exact moment; one would additionally think they'll revisit to see if it's structural or not?
Maybe they could hook up LLVM to JIT compile for currently unsupported platforms, making it at least run and possibly run well enough. Then over time it could be replaced on a platform by platform basis with an optimised version.
Who knows, maybe they intend to let it discover un(der)-patented areas, to then fill them up with prior art to preclude patent trolls later on cashing in on obvious ideas.
Meaning that just because you haven't had a problem yet, doesn't mean that its solution can't be straightforward when you do run into it, particularly since a lot of ideas build on previous ideas. It'd be a shame to find out that once you do, someone else pseudo-randomly generated a patent purporting to cover your implementation.
I can think of a use for it: debugging something running in a virtual machine. Or if you have two mutually trusted VMs they could use it as an IPC mechanism that might outperform IP-based communications.
If you don't need it, don't provision the VM in question with a virtual firewire adapter.
That said, I have no idea what GGP wanted with 1394 support.
Exactly my idea. Their gear powers a sizeable chunk of the internet, so of course some people (Pointy-haired Bosses?) will say "That probably shows they know what they're talking about." Problem is, do you know if it's their engineering or marketing guys that are doing the talking? I'll give 'em this, it's a brilliant sales strategy. Now all they have to do is make sure the death of the internet isn't imminent too often, since it failing to die too often is going to get noticed at some point.
More times than I care to count. I suspect it's to do with "We've got the solution to this imminent catastrophe, and will sell it to you for 1 billion dollars."
He did slam CVS indeed, SVN likewise. In Linux talk at Google about Git[video] he mentions SVN and their credo at on time being something along the line of "CVS done right", commenting that "there is no way to do CVS right."
The article linked here is light on details concerning SCM, though.
Slashdot Mirror
“The man who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself.”
Google will be no an exception.
You're suggesting Google will inevitably start trafficking in sex workers and organs?
There's a beta version of Angry Birds on the Android Market right now. I've just downloaded it.
All the cool programmers drink at the Foo Bar
Whatev, static void. The #- is where it's at.
I went there last Friday, and it was rather empty.
Thanks, but I already knew Latin wasn't my strong suit.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Well indeed, the latter part of the tag would have to be kept to a pre-canned list with carefully explained meanings, or you'd effectively be promoting contract disputes.
I suggested the noads one because I can see people not wanting their likeness abused for whatever type of product advertisement they find to be most annoying.
Why it was implemented as all-or-nothing, I'm inclined to go with your second suggestion. This idea I outlined wasn't particularly hard to arrive at.
If what they effectively want to say to downstream clients who would buy a license via Getty is, 'You only have to deal with one party: us', that still doesn't explain why they're not allowing an artist to specify a minimum fee, or indeed what images are released this way.
Technology wise it's hardly that much more work to adding just images with a certain tag to Getty's pool vs. adding a user's entire cache of images. One would imagine this to be trivial, in fact.
Why don't they just introduce a new tag, 'gettylicense', with everything after the colon being the minimum amount owed.
e.g. 'gettylicense:$5.00'
And maybe another colon for specifiers: 'gettylicense:$5.00:noads' for something that can be licensed for $5.00, isn't available to be used in ads.
Put a set of standard tags together like this, link to them on an FAQ page about the whole scheme, and let people decide on a per photo basis whether or not they want to allow commercial reuse like this.
Doing this with tags instead of something new and separate would expose the ability to upload these permissions along with the photos using whatever tools integrate with Flickr.
I imagine it'll be a while before it lets you remix multiple Youtube videos into something like what Kutiman did. Nevertheless, at the very least it's a very nice tech demo.
Next time spend more tin on the foil.
Compared to the original On2 codec? It has. Who says the same same can't be replicated with VP8?
Hmmm, indeed. Maybe they need to rework that feature so that if it passes Y!Slow and similar, it's considered as quick as it's going to get. Otherwise you'll indeed see sites that have no recourse penalised. You make an excellent point.
One would think only if the Google Bot happens to be indexing your site at that exact moment; one would additionally think they'll revisit to see if it's structural or not?
Or 640 Kelvin?
On the bright side, it will finally be the year of the (Red Flag) Linux Desktop. ;)
Or be required to change their surname to indicate their sponsor. Speaker: "We will now hear from Pete Microsoft."
I'm trying to wrap my head around what would then be an offshoot of that: gang dueling. At best it's an oxymoron, at worst it's an Erol Flynn movie.
Drive-by dueling, would that then be akin to jousting?
Combine both ideas by lining the chimney with photovoltaics
???
Profit!
Maybe they could hook up LLVM to JIT compile for currently unsupported platforms, making it at least run and possibly run well enough. Then over time it could be replaced on a platform by platform basis with an optimised version.
Who knows, maybe they intend to let it discover un(der)-patented areas, to then fill them up with prior art to preclude patent trolls later on cashing in on obvious ideas.
Meaning that just because you haven't had a problem yet, doesn't mean that its solution can't be straightforward when you do run into it, particularly since a lot of ideas build on previous ideas. It'd be a shame to find out that once you do, someone else pseudo-randomly generated a patent purporting to cover your implementation.
I can think of a use for it: debugging something running in a virtual machine. Or if you have two mutually trusted VMs they could use it as an IPC mechanism that might outperform IP-based communications.
If you don't need it, don't provision the VM in question with a virtual firewire adapter.
That said, I have no idea what GGP wanted with 1394 support.
Looks like they've neglected to apply the appropriate rules from Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveller's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations as well.
Windows Input Method Editor is what the GPP was probably talking about.
Exactly my idea. Their gear powers a sizeable chunk of the internet, so of course some people (Pointy-haired Bosses?) will say "That probably shows they know what they're talking about." Problem is, do you know if it's their engineering or marketing guys that are doing the talking? I'll give 'em this, it's a brilliant sales strategy. Now all they have to do is make sure the death of the internet isn't imminent too often, since it failing to die too often is going to get noticed at some point.
More times than I care to count. I suspect it's to do with "We've got the solution to this imminent catastrophe, and will sell it to you for 1 billion dollars."
He did slam CVS indeed, SVN likewise. In Linux talk at Google about Git[video] he mentions SVN and their credo at on time being something along the line of "CVS done right", commenting that "there is no way to do CVS right."
The article linked here is light on details concerning SCM, though.