No, it's actually somewhat different than with google services, and the agreement for sublicensing is a real problem, in two distinct ways, as I see it.
First, the IP licensing issues Mark mentions above^^ and I am 100% in agreement. There's plenty that's I won't put up there.
Second, excepting for 'anonymous coward,' who by now certainly has attained public personality status (jk) most of us are NOT public figures, we are private citizens, and have come to expect a certain right to privacy associated with that. There's good arguments that this sort of content falls under the right to privacy, something the US courts have upheld for private citizens against the mainstream press plenty often. If fb lets it stand as written, they're going to pay pretty dearly for not changing it, because they don't HAVE to do it that way.
If you look at the ToS for blogger (google) or flickr (yahoo), you don't see the same blatant rights grabbing.
Both are pretty clear that they need sufficient rights to your IP to be able to display it to your audience, and to back up on tape, not for other purposes, i.e. "just 'cause you're enabling us to post something to share something with your friends and family doesn't mean we can turn around and sell it to someone ELSE."
Additionally, Google points out that should you place your work under a creative commons license, then you allow others *including them* to use your work under that license. But it's explicit. You have to set each image up that way, it's not the default.
It all depends on what you already have access to, and how much it does or doesn't cost you, now, doesn't it?
Whether I'm good or bad at what I do has little to do with the medium I do it in, anyway. I can afford to be patient. I will just jump in when the cost has come down a ways.
> Analog photography is a trinity: Camera - Film - Paper. Digital photography drops that down to two elements, the camera and the film.
> It might be a matter of perception. Canon, Nikon and Olympus got it. They realized that digital photography is all about the camera.
Well, there's a third element that I take into consideration (you may care less if you're in the tourist point-and-shoot set, or maybe not) which is the optics. Optics are in some way keeping me in film. Like you, I shoot in film and then scan a lot of stuff in to work with.
I have a (for me) significant investment in lenses. No matter how fine your film grain, no matter how many MPixels, you're still limited by the quality of your lens. The thought of pitching all that hardware is, for me, painful. I'm waiting for the D-100 body to come down in price enough for me to use the lenses I already have. Quality optics are not cheap, and whatever camera I have, I will want the ability to make decently large prints. 8x10 is a minimum, I'd prefer 11x14 or larger. I realize most people want a 5x7 that they can crop and put in a scrapbook, and that's where most of the market is going, but I'm going to be realistic about where I am, as well.
Producing prints in analog is expensive. A scanner that can do several thousand dpi is cheaper and more versatile than a good quality enlarger. I can use the scanner for other things, and it takes up a lot less space. (Not to mention, I can have sunlight in my office when I use the gimp!) I still have to use a darkroom to get bigger prints, although I drool at the larger inkjets every time I go to Microcenter.
With the B&W market, Kodak still has a good solid foot in the door. And B&W will probably be the last up against the wall for the digital revolution. IMO, It's hard to beat their TMAX either at 400 or 3200. I shoot mostly Kodak B&W. It's financially tractable for me to process B&W in my basement, walk the negatives over, and scan them. That will give me an outlet till I save up for the digital that talks to my already existing hardware.
> What part of digital photography finally makes its way to prints anyway? I've never had a photo printed, just share all of them among friends via the net.
I like having the odd print hanging up around the house, or to give hardcopy to $SIBLING to display. We're not quite to the point where we can all have fancy LCD frames in the living room alternating between displaying Magritte paintings and my best digital prints. (:
> Hell, even when I'm taking photos on film, I develop and scan. And of course, I'm shooting on Fuji.
For color, I also shoot Fujifilm, but Kodak has already lost most color customers to digital anyway. They can't be counting on color film at this point for much of anything. They've brought out that C-41 B&W film to try and get people to buy film, but I won't use it. It's the same price as color, and has the same orange tinting to the negatives as color film, an added pain when I'm scanning them in. I'd be really suprised if it gets them anywhere.
True- they're out of print. But much of the still useful content from those books are still on the FreeBSD CD-ROMs. There's good reason that the original books went out of print- there's only two papers from the SMM (which still sits on my shelf by my FBSD box at home, I was someone who paid full cover for them!) that I can think of off the top of my head that is still really that useful- 1) How to build a BSD kernel, and 2) the paper explaining why 8-character passwords are better than 5 or 6. The Amd docs in the book are woefully out of date, and have been for years. They still have the original sendmail paper, and who finds that useful besides for historical interest? Most of that stuff can go next to my "Managing UUCP and Usenet" book that talks about B-news.
The reason the books were so great at the time were that they had papers that were (a) timely and (b) useful. Many of them were from Usenix conferences as 4.3, 4.4 was being developed.
Remember, it was Usenix that first put out those manual sets, not O'Reilly, and made them available to members, not all of whom would have access to conference procedings. A newer printing of the texts would, I would hope, have more recent papers on various File Systems and administration tools from more recent USENIX/LISA/Whatever conferences. That's really interesting stuff going on!!
True, those papers are on the web, and all members can read them, but sometimes, one needs hard copies of those things to bring a system up. I don't need the manpages in the FreeBSD book when my computer is working, I need them when my computer is down.
And there's one thing I really, really miss from the original, Usenix manual set, believe it or not-- The permuted index! The 4.3 BSD manual set was the first Unix documentation I ever ever used- and the permuted index was one of the most wonderful things about it. Instead of having the index sorted on the first word in a string, it was sorted on a select middle word of a phrase, and had a blank column down the middle where the sorting took place. I found it incredibly useful to find things, and also found many interesting new things just browsing down that stripe.
This "ads follow the demographic" bit is very true. There are ads for "Girl Computer games." You bring up Barbie. You won't see the Barbie Camera CD advertized in the same game magazines. Where are they? Watch Fox Kids! after school! Barbie has computer games, Barbie advertizes computer games, but not to the boys, and not where mostly boys and not the girls they want to suck in are watching. The demographic of afternoon TV is much more mixed, and the ads there reflect that. There are even ads for girl toys during the Batman cartoons! Most girls and boys at the younger ages, where computers are going to stick or not, are not interested in the other gender's stuff. (Boys got cooties!) Effective advertising for girls is not going to be in the mags marketed to boys, where they won't see it, it'll be in Young Miss Magazine, and on Pokemon on WB! I think Pokemon is a very good example, actually, of both-gendered marketing. The initial game that Game Freak designed for gameboy was mostly uglies. They put in Jigglypuff (ig) and others to make it attractive to girls, and it works! The girls AND the boys in the under-12 set at my church all play Pokemon Red and Blue on their Game Boys. They discuss strategy. Pokemon is like Doom in that it wants to be nethack when it grows up, but Pokemon is not packaged with all the ketchup. Heck, I prefer pokemon to doom! (And Descent to both- likewise: No Ketchup splatting all over my screen!)
I don't see Apple NOT doing them in bright colors, even if we first only have a choice of "blueberry." Look at what's happened to pagers over the past few years. Now I can get a Mickey Mouse plate for my cell phone, for goodness sakes. Already having the Macs that you could potentially color-coordinate with would probably even sell a few more!
And not only that, the strip he points to as "funny" does just that! Instead of picking on a user who needs their "cup holder" repaired, he points to a strip that makes fun of corporate America. And, just LIKE Userfriendly, which exaggerates the stupidity for laughs, helpdesk exaggerates corporate America. His is falling dangerously close to the category of "79% of Americans Missing the Point Entirely" [1]
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's actually somewhat different than with google services, and the agreement for sublicensing is a real problem, in two distinct ways, as I see it.
First, the IP licensing issues Mark mentions above^^ and I am 100% in agreement. There's plenty that's I won't put up there.
Second, excepting for 'anonymous coward,' who by now certainly has attained public personality status (jk) most of us are NOT public figures, we are private citizens, and have come to expect a certain right to privacy associated with that. There's good arguments that this sort of content falls under the right to privacy, something the US courts have upheld for private citizens against the mainstream press plenty often.
If fb lets it stand as written, they're going to pay pretty dearly for not changing it, because they don't HAVE to do it that way.
If you look at the ToS for blogger (google) or flickr (yahoo), you don't see the same blatant rights grabbing.
Both are pretty clear that they need sufficient rights to your IP to be able to display it to your audience, and to back up on tape, not for other purposes, i.e. "just 'cause you're enabling us to post something to share something with your friends and family doesn't mean we can turn around and sell it to someone ELSE."
Additionally, Google points out that should you place your work under a creative commons license, then you allow others *including them* to use your work under that license. But it's explicit. You have to set each image up that way, it's not the default.
It all depends on what you already have access to, and how much it does or doesn't cost you, now, doesn't it?
Whether I'm good or bad at what I do has little to do with the medium I do it in, anyway. I can afford to be patient. I will just jump in when the cost has come down a ways.
> Analog photography is a trinity: Camera - Film - Paper. Digital photography drops that down to two elements, the camera and the film.
> It might be a matter of perception. Canon, Nikon and Olympus got it. They realized that digital photography is all about the camera.
Well, there's a third element that I take into consideration (you may care less if you're in the tourist point-and-shoot set, or maybe not) which is the optics. Optics are in some way keeping me in film. Like you, I shoot in film and then scan a lot of stuff in to work with.
I have a (for me) significant investment in lenses. No matter how fine your film grain, no matter how many MPixels, you're still limited by the quality of your lens. The thought of pitching all that hardware is, for me, painful. I'm waiting for the D-100 body to come down in price enough for me to use the lenses I already have. Quality optics are not cheap, and whatever camera
I have, I will want the ability to make decently large prints. 8x10 is a minimum, I'd prefer 11x14 or larger. I realize most people want a 5x7 that they can crop and put in a scrapbook, and that's where most of the market is going, but I'm going to be realistic about where I am, as well.
Producing prints in analog is expensive. A scanner that can do several thousand dpi is cheaper and more versatile than a good quality enlarger. I can use the scanner for other things, and it takes up a lot less space. (Not to mention, I can have sunlight in my office when I use the gimp!) I still have to use a darkroom to get bigger prints, although I drool at the larger inkjets every time I go to Microcenter.
With the B&W market, Kodak still has a good solid foot in the door. And B&W will probably be the last up against the wall for the digital revolution. IMO, It's hard to beat their TMAX either at 400 or 3200. I shoot mostly Kodak B&W. It's financially tractable for me to process B&W in my basement, walk the negatives over, and scan them. That will give me an outlet till I save up for the digital that talks to my already existing hardware.
> What part of digital photography finally makes its way to prints anyway? I've never had a photo printed, just share all of them among friends via the net.
I like having the odd print hanging up around the house, or to give hardcopy to $SIBLING to display. We're not quite to the point where we can all have fancy LCD frames in the living room alternating between displaying Magritte paintings and my best digital prints. (:
> Hell, even when I'm taking photos on film, I develop and scan. And of course, I'm shooting on Fuji.
For color, I also shoot Fujifilm, but Kodak has already lost most color customers to digital anyway. They can't be counting on color film at this point for much of anything. They've brought out that C-41 B&W film to try and get people to buy film, but I won't use it. It's the same price as color, and has the same orange tinting to the negatives as color film, an added pain when I'm scanning them in. I'd be really suprised if it gets them anywhere.
Nah, it just means that the fourth planet is really a giant, pickled beet.
The reason the books were so great at the time were that they had papers that were (a) timely and (b) useful. Many of them were from Usenix conferences as 4.3, 4.4 was being developed.
Remember, it was Usenix that first put out those manual sets, not O'Reilly, and made them available to members, not all of whom would have access to conference procedings. A newer printing of the texts would, I would hope, have more recent papers on various File Systems and administration tools from more recent USENIX/LISA/Whatever conferences. That's really interesting stuff going on!!
True, those papers are on the web, and all members can read them, but sometimes, one needs hard copies of those things to bring a system up. I don't need the manpages in the FreeBSD book when my computer is working, I need them when my computer is down.
And there's one thing I really, really miss from the original, Usenix manual set, believe it or not-- The permuted index! The 4.3 BSD manual set was the first Unix documentation I ever ever used- and the permuted index was one of the most wonderful things about it. Instead of having the index sorted on the first word in a string, it was sorted on a select middle word of a phrase, and had a blank column down the middle where the sorting took place. I found it incredibly useful to find things, and also found many interesting new things just browsing down that stripe.
--
This "ads follow the demographic" bit is very true. There are ads for "Girl Computer games." You bring up Barbie. You won't see the Barbie Camera CD advertized in the same game magazines. Where are they? Watch Fox Kids! after school! Barbie has computer games, Barbie advertizes computer games, but not to the boys, and not where mostly boys and not the girls they want to suck in are watching. The demographic of afternoon TV is much more mixed, and the ads there reflect that. There are even ads for girl toys during the Batman cartoons! Most girls and boys at the younger ages, where computers are going to stick or not, are not interested in the other gender's stuff. (Boys got cooties!) Effective advertising for girls is not going to be in the mags marketed to boys, where they won't see it, it'll be in Young Miss Magazine, and on Pokemon on WB! I think Pokemon is a very good example, actually, of both-gendered marketing. The initial game that Game Freak designed for gameboy was mostly uglies. They put in Jigglypuff (ig) and others to make it attractive to girls, and it works! The girls AND the boys in the under-12 set at my church all play Pokemon Red and Blue on their Game Boys. They discuss strategy. Pokemon is like Doom in that it wants to be nethack when it grows up, but Pokemon is not packaged with all the ketchup. Heck, I prefer pokemon to doom! (And Descent to both- likewise: No Ketchup splatting all over my screen!)
I don't see Apple NOT doing them in bright colors, even if we first only have a choice of "blueberry." Look at what's happened to pagers over the past few years. Now I can get a Mickey Mouse plate for my cell phone, for goodness sakes. Already having the Macs that you could potentially color-coordinate with would probably even sell a few more!
And not only that, the strip he points to as "funny" does just that! Instead of picking on a user who needs their "cup holder" repaired, he points to a strip that makes fun of corporate America. And, just LIKE Userfriendly, which exaggerates the stupidity for laughs, helpdesk exaggerates corporate America. His is falling dangerously close to the category of "79% of Americans Missing the Point Entirely" [1]