I am not as nervous about a monopoly in the Linux world, it isn't as if the source is closed. If Novell shut down, and RH decided to raise fees by 300%, it isn't like you don't have choices. CentOS in the short run (I use it on production servers anyway), and tons of other choices. It wasn't that long ago that Ubuntu was just an idea, and thanks to Debian at the core, it became a reality in a relatively short time.
Most Linux shops aren't paying/using RH anyway, and if there is a void, then someone could come in and fill it rather quickly. Even IBM could pick a flavor and be supporting it in short order, and they wrote the book on software support. If they thought it was easy money (ie: RH only in the marketplace) they would be a lot less likely to be distro agnostic and more likely to sell support contracts.
Oracle is another company that could enter the field rather quickly, particularly after their purchase of Sun, as they understand software support as well.
Golf carts work in the same way, there is no "key start" mechanism. You turn the key to ON or OFF. If it is ON, then when you press the gas pedal, it automatically starts and moves forward. You take your foot off the accelerator for a second to brake and the engine dies until you press the gas again. It is quite seamless and comfortable without being jerky. I believe uses a belt driven starter. Doing it with a car is a bit more complicated, but if the car was light enough to not need power steering and brakes, it would likely be very doable in a purely mechanical way.
Seriously, gaming is one area that OSS does not seem to do well in.
This is because of the cost to produce very high quality games for any platform. This is also what has been a deal killer for Linux on the desktop, but Steam will soon be ported to Linux (just anounced the Mac port) and a bunch of games will be released for Linux, mainly older ports but still. (The source engine's dedicated server has been Linux forever).
As a side note, the original Half Life, TFC, Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, and other mods made on the original HL engine would easily run on the Pandora, although some rewriting would be needed for the interface, as the text would be too small to read. True, this is NOT OSS games, but it is games that run on OSS platforms like Pandora, and there are generally enough similarities between Mac, Linux and Android to make some ports financially worthwhile for the lower number of users it would draw.
Personally, I don't require every piece of software I use to be OSS, although I would strongly prefer that the underlying operating system and security system be. I would be very happy to see a mix of software license types, as long as they are running on an open system.
No, I was aware of them not using booms correctly before the big publicity stunt. It is common fucking sense that you can't just corral oil forever, you have to remove it or it overflows and defeats the booms. They are finally pumping at the well head to limit the outflow, but this isn't the first time we have deployed booms, it is just the least effective.
No one expects booms to be 100% effective. The current system is 0% effective, but no oil has been removed and will still hit the shores, if a week later.
I am starting to wonder if the MPAA is behind the PACT act. I just had to order 10 rolls of snus because in a month, it will be illegal to send it through the mail, and UPS is voluntarily complying. Normally I order direct from Sweden (obviously) but now my "drug" of choice, that got me to FINALLY quit smoking after 30 years, is illegal to transport, under the guise of protecting children....
Like many others, I use CentOS on my servers, where I would rather have something older but more stable, but it isn't the best desktop distro. I still haven't found a desktop/laptop distro that I "love" yet, and Ubuntu (like most other Linux distros or Windows) is too bloated without major configuration. If I have to do that much configuration, I might as well just install Debian instead, and config from a blank slate instead of a full plate.
But what they are doing, they are doing incorrectly, and they know this. Running a circle of booms doesn't make the oil go away, it just builds up and goes over and under the boom. You have to pump it. The booms are just corrals, yet they are just making circles out of the too few booms they have, which look great for the news, but they don't actually do anything except insure the coast gets coated with oil one week later.
Give it time. They are in no way near the level of *average* economic security that we enjoy in the West. They are already getting inflation, which will push up the cost of the goods they produce, but increase the average salary. They are going very far, very fast, but they still have a ways to catch up with the US and Europe in the way of average income.
And once they get to an economic level that is closer to what the rest of us enjoy in the Western world, they will start caring. When you are hungry, you only want bread. When you are homeless, you only want shelter. When you have plenty to eat and a decent place to live, you want freedom.
Go watch this and it will make more sense. They are not, have not, and seemingly, WILL NOT use the booms properly. Booming without capture is useless, you are only slowing down the disaster, not reducing it.
Best reply so far. The biggest point you make should be the most obvious: We aren't doing what we have already have proven to work, boom and capture. This only reduces environmental damage, but it has to be captured one way or another, either before it hits land, or after. It is as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, and there is NO meaningful leadership going on.
So you're engaging in what sounds like a pro bono copyright enforcement effort, getting people to take down your work, and getting paid zip for the effort. How is this a good idea? And how many infringements have you missed?
The place where your money comes from is getting people to *pay* you for your work, not getting people to *stop using* your work. This latter part is a cost center, not a profit center.
Not exactly. Using our images can cause confusion in the industry to the customer, and can cost us sales. The *average* person might not remember the name of the website, but they remember the photo when they see it. Part of my salary is based on our sales increases, so yes, in perhaps an indirect way, policing our copyrights *does* affect my personal wallet. Ir is also because it is my job, which I draw my base salary upon, so I am getting paid to do it. I've been there a couple of decades, they pay me just fine, so it is worth my time to protect my/their interests.
As for missing infringement, I spend half a day doing searches about 3 times a year, including google/yahoo images and known competitors, then if I find a few infringing images, I simply wget -m -p h++p://URL the site, whereby I can easily grep through the images. Over half the time, I find nothing. Sometimes I find one or two items that are mine, but have been so completely reworked, it isn't worth complaining, since it doesn't cause confusion anymore, even if they are technically in the wrong. Do I catch all infringement? Probably not, but I do find all the infringers that are potential competitors (ie: who we might be financially affected by) and that is all I am worried about. The goal is not to prove a point, it is to protect our investment from direct competitors. We aren't unique in this, many, many companies do the exact same thing, perhaps in different ways.
And as to making it a profit center, I made a change about 6 months ago on the main corporate website, offering to let others lease our images for a fee (a very high fee I might add), although I don't really expect anyone to really request a lease. This is an insurance policy of sorts, in case someone wants to not comply, as it gives a pre-established value to the artwork. If I ever HAD to sue someone for infringement, it might come in handy. For the most part, I just want to do my *real* job, and just get offenders to quit offending as rapidly as possible.
As a side note, colleges (students) are the worst offenders, claiming "fair use" of the images in situations where fair use wouldn't apply, and many college students think they are law experts, when in fact they know nothing. That's one reason I quit trying to enforce non-commercial use years ago, it isn't really hurting anything and isn't worth my time and hassle.
IMO, that would require a complete change of copyright laws, making it so a copyright is not automatically granted, and put an undue burden on existing images. That would basically be saying that the default for content creation is to put it in the public domain, and I just don't ever see that happening. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I just don't see that kind of system as viable.
Again, Google has already developed a system that works, and I believe anyone can copy that system.
Also, keep in mind that most professional images aren't uploaded direct from a camera, but are worked up in either Photoshop or to a lesser degree, Gimp, before publishing. Snapshots are not, but that isn't a reasonable method to determine if it should be protected or not either. All these methods would simply put too much a burden on people to protect their copyrights, which in turn, would result in less work being created.
No offense, man, but the universe doesn't owe you copyright.....
I'm not saying it's just, or right, or good, but that's how it is. If somebody makes a shitload of money off a picture you took, sue *them*. Don't waste your time on small-time stuff.
No thanks. And while the universe doesn't owe me, I comply with the law and ask others to do the same, mainly when it comes to COMMERCE. They weren't selling my photos, they were using them to show products that both companies sell, except my photos were created in my studio, and not in the manufacturer's studio, thus we own the copyright on THAT photo.
Every single letter I have sent has resulted in the business taking the photos down. MOST of the time, it was because they hired some $12 an hour webmaster who just lifted the photos where they could, and the owners didn't know. A couple of times, the other business owners just didn't realize it was wrong or didn't care. (these are small businesses, 15 employees or less) But in every case, they took the photos down within a week. Some of them didn't like it, some were complete asshats, but most were very nice about it and didn't realize they were infringing our copyrights. Typically, they have one or two dozen of our images, and I can point to watermarks (our company initials that are hidden in the image), which makes it easy to demonstrate ownership.
After doing this so many times, I have developed a way to get it down with an average of one start letter, one follow up letter, one call, then one follow up email for almost every case. It is still a pain in the butt, but you obviously haven't actually sued anyone for this before, as your costs will end up exceeding any tiny settlement you could get. I also think it is unethical to sue someone if you can settle it with a few letters instead, but that is just me.
As for my personal photos under CC, I've seen them used a couple of times without attribution and I have just let it slide, as none of the instances warranted getting my panties in a wad.
To be honest, I had not thought of it as you present it: NASA set the spec for 90 days, and the engineers simply over-delivered. And obviously, we had some good luck for a change with the solar panels staying cleaner than anticipated. Of course, that wouldn't have mattered if the rest of the craft had not been built so incredibly well.
The only issue I have with your perspective is that to judge what is "art", "commercial art" and "just some snapshot" is rather subjective. Technically, they are all equally protected under the law, which I think is a good thing. I CHOOSE to release most of my personal, non-commercial photos under a very permissive license (I have put up over one hundred on Wikipedia, for example), but it is my choice to make.
My understanding that if you take a snapshot and publish it in the U.S., then it is copyright protected once you create or publish it, regardless of quality. We really can't have a search engine that decides what is art, what is commercial art, and what is more of a "disposable snapshot". That is why attribution is absolutely necessary. Coincidently, it is also quite easy to do, and Google does a good job of it while only storing a thumbnail of the original (fair use) and leaving the original to be viewed in its original context. I'm not sure that wholesale copying and indexing full size photos, even with attribution, is legal in the U.S. without written permission. While I'm not likely to file a lawsuit over it, I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea either.
Can we just make a rule that any image you post on the internet doesn't belong to you anymore? Anyone with any sense already figured that out a decade ago anyway.
Perhaps we can do that with text, too, since there really is no difference in text and photos in this context. Of course, that means that all worthwhile content will disappear, such as news websites, individual blogs, Google Earth, Maps, etc.
The complaint isn't about getting paid, it is about attribution. I release most of my personal photography under CC with attribution. I have also written many nasty letters to competitors who lift our images from our website to use on competing websites. (we shoot everything, even stuff I can get manufacturer's photos of, to insure we have a unique look). The reason I do this is not only because I don't like working for free for other companies, but it dilutes our efforts to maintain a unique look. That and I don't need someone competing with me unless they are willing to spend the same amount of resources into photography that we have. ie: I don't want to subsidize my own competition.
So, no, I think I should be able to keep the copyright on stuff I create.
I tried to reroute their encryptions by directly typing http://www.imagelogr.com/images into the address bar, but it just gave me a 404 error. Maybe they already baleeted all the images.
Feats like the Mars Rovers show us that our space-engineering prowess is not only continuing to mature, but indeed getting quite robust.
I don't doubt we are getting better at building equipment that can stand the rigors of space or Mars (better alloys, better lubricants, better electronics, simple design) but this also says something about our ability (or lack thereof) to estimate the durability of the things we build. Lasting twice as long as we expect is a great thing, lasting 25x as long means they were afraid to give a real estimate.
Kind of like how Scotty says "It will take 8 hours to get it fixed, Captain!", to which Kirk says "You have 2 hours", and yet it still gets fixed. The engineers are likely underestimating the "average" time to cover their own butts. This actually makes it *harder* to get some science done, as you are scrambling to create new tasks with the extra time you weren't expecting, never knowing when it will give up the ghost.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not as nervous about a monopoly in the Linux world, it isn't as if the source is closed. If Novell shut down, and RH decided to raise fees by 300%, it isn't like you don't have choices. CentOS in the short run (I use it on production servers anyway), and tons of other choices. It wasn't that long ago that Ubuntu was just an idea, and thanks to Debian at the core, it became a reality in a relatively short time.
Most Linux shops aren't paying/using RH anyway, and if there is a void, then someone could come in and fill it rather quickly. Even IBM could pick a flavor and be supporting it in short order, and they wrote the book on software support. If they thought it was easy money (ie: RH only in the marketplace) they would be a lot less likely to be distro agnostic and more likely to sell support contracts.
Oracle is another company that could enter the field rather quickly, particularly after their purchase of Sun, as they understand software support as well.
There was only one problem, while the Toyota robot performed quite well, they couldn't get him to stop....
Golf carts work in the same way, there is no "key start" mechanism. You turn the key to ON or OFF. If it is ON, then when you press the gas pedal, it automatically starts and moves forward. You take your foot off the accelerator for a second to brake and the engine dies until you press the gas again. It is quite seamless and comfortable without being jerky. I believe uses a belt driven starter. Doing it with a car is a bit more complicated, but if the car was light enough to not need power steering and brakes, it would likely be very doable in a purely mechanical way.
Seriously, gaming is one area that OSS does not seem to do well in.
This is because of the cost to produce very high quality games for any platform. This is also what has been a deal killer for Linux on the desktop, but Steam will soon be ported to Linux (just anounced the Mac port) and a bunch of games will be released for Linux, mainly older ports but still. (The source engine's dedicated server has been Linux forever).
As a side note, the original Half Life, TFC, Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, and other mods made on the original HL engine would easily run on the Pandora, although some rewriting would be needed for the interface, as the text would be too small to read. True, this is NOT OSS games, but it is games that run on OSS platforms like Pandora, and there are generally enough similarities between Mac, Linux and Android to make some ports financially worthwhile for the lower number of users it would draw.
Personally, I don't require every piece of software I use to be OSS, although I would strongly prefer that the underlying operating system and security system be. I would be very happy to see a mix of software license types, as long as they are running on an open system.
No, I was aware of them not using booms correctly before the big publicity stunt. It is common fucking sense that you can't just corral oil forever, you have to remove it or it overflows and defeats the booms. They are finally pumping at the well head to limit the outflow, but this isn't the first time we have deployed booms, it is just the least effective.
No one expects booms to be 100% effective. The current system is 0% effective, but no oil has been removed and will still hit the shores, if a week later.
I am starting to wonder if the MPAA is behind the PACT act. I just had to order 10 rolls of snus because in a month, it will be illegal to send it through the mail, and UPS is voluntarily complying. Normally I order direct from Sweden (obviously) but now my "drug" of choice, that got me to FINALLY quit smoking after 30 years, is illegal to transport, under the guise of protecting children....
Like many others, I use CentOS on my servers, where I would rather have something older but more stable, but it isn't the best desktop distro. I still haven't found a desktop/laptop distro that I "love" yet, and Ubuntu (like most other Linux distros or Windows) is too bloated without major configuration. If I have to do that much configuration, I might as well just install Debian instead, and config from a blank slate instead of a full plate.
The idea of any organism is to multiply and spread to new areas, whether we are talking about humans, viruses, bison or trees.
But what they are doing, they are doing incorrectly, and they know this. Running a circle of booms doesn't make the oil go away, it just builds up and goes over and under the boom. You have to pump it. The booms are just corrals, yet they are just making circles out of the too few booms they have, which look great for the news, but they don't actually do anything except insure the coast gets coated with oil one week later.
Give it time. They are in no way near the level of *average* economic security that we enjoy in the West. They are already getting inflation, which will push up the cost of the goods they produce, but increase the average salary. They are going very far, very fast, but they still have a ways to catch up with the US and Europe in the way of average income.
They stole the idea from Star Trek.
And once they get to an economic level that is closer to what the rest of us enjoy in the Western world, they will start caring. When you are hungry, you only want bread. When you are homeless, you only want shelter. When you have plenty to eat and a decent place to live, you want freedom.
Unfortunately, what they transmitted was an email for Vi4gra, using an open wifi connection at a Starbucks 10 miles down the road.
Go watch this and it will make more sense. They are not, have not, and seemingly, WILL NOT use the booms properly. Booming without capture is useless, you are only slowing down the disaster, not reducing it.
Best reply so far. The biggest point you make should be the most obvious: We aren't doing what we have already have proven to work, boom and capture. This only reduces environmental damage, but it has to be captured one way or another, either before it hits land, or after. It is as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, and there is NO meaningful leadership going on.
So you're engaging in what sounds like a pro bono copyright enforcement effort, getting people to take down your work, and getting paid zip for the effort. How is this a good idea? And how many infringements have you missed?
The place where your money comes from is getting people to *pay* you for your work, not getting people to *stop using* your work. This latter part is a cost center, not a profit center.
Not exactly. Using our images can cause confusion in the industry to the customer, and can cost us sales. The *average* person might not remember the name of the website, but they remember the photo when they see it. Part of my salary is based on our sales increases, so yes, in perhaps an indirect way, policing our copyrights *does* affect my personal wallet. Ir is also because it is my job, which I draw my base salary upon, so I am getting paid to do it. I've been there a couple of decades, they pay me just fine, so it is worth my time to protect my/their interests.
As for missing infringement, I spend half a day doing searches about 3 times a year, including google/yahoo images and known competitors, then if I find a few infringing images, I simply wget -m -p h++p://URL the site, whereby I can easily grep through the images. Over half the time, I find nothing. Sometimes I find one or two items that are mine, but have been so completely reworked, it isn't worth complaining, since it doesn't cause confusion anymore, even if they are technically in the wrong. Do I catch all infringement? Probably not, but I do find all the infringers that are potential competitors (ie: who we might be financially affected by) and that is all I am worried about. The goal is not to prove a point, it is to protect our investment from direct competitors. We aren't unique in this, many, many companies do the exact same thing, perhaps in different ways.
And as to making it a profit center, I made a change about 6 months ago on the main corporate website, offering to let others lease our images for a fee (a very high fee I might add), although I don't really expect anyone to really request a lease. This is an insurance policy of sorts, in case someone wants to not comply, as it gives a pre-established value to the artwork. If I ever HAD to sue someone for infringement, it might come in handy. For the most part, I just want to do my *real* job, and just get offenders to quit offending as rapidly as possible.
As a side note, colleges (students) are the worst offenders, claiming "fair use" of the images in situations where fair use wouldn't apply, and many college students think they are law experts, when in fact they know nothing. That's one reason I quit trying to enforce non-commercial use years ago, it isn't really hurting anything and isn't worth my time and hassle.
IMO, that would require a complete change of copyright laws, making it so a copyright is not automatically granted, and put an undue burden on existing images. That would basically be saying that the default for content creation is to put it in the public domain, and I just don't ever see that happening. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I just don't see that kind of system as viable.
Again, Google has already developed a system that works, and I believe anyone can copy that system.
Also, keep in mind that most professional images aren't uploaded direct from a camera, but are worked up in either Photoshop or to a lesser degree, Gimp, before publishing. Snapshots are not, but that isn't a reasonable method to determine if it should be protected or not either. All these methods would simply put too much a burden on people to protect their copyrights, which in turn, would result in less work being created.
No offense, man, but the universe doesn't owe you copyright.....
I'm not saying it's just, or right, or good, but that's how it is. If somebody makes a shitload of money off a picture you took, sue *them*. Don't waste your time on small-time stuff.
No thanks. And while the universe doesn't owe me, I comply with the law and ask others to do the same, mainly when it comes to COMMERCE. They weren't selling my photos, they were using them to show products that both companies sell, except my photos were created in my studio, and not in the manufacturer's studio, thus we own the copyright on THAT photo.
Every single letter I have sent has resulted in the business taking the photos down. MOST of the time, it was because they hired some $12 an hour webmaster who just lifted the photos where they could, and the owners didn't know. A couple of times, the other business owners just didn't realize it was wrong or didn't care. (these are small businesses, 15 employees or less) But in every case, they took the photos down within a week. Some of them didn't like it, some were complete asshats, but most were very nice about it and didn't realize they were infringing our copyrights. Typically, they have one or two dozen of our images, and I can point to watermarks (our company initials that are hidden in the image), which makes it easy to demonstrate ownership.
After doing this so many times, I have developed a way to get it down with an average of one start letter, one follow up letter, one call, then one follow up email for almost every case. It is still a pain in the butt, but you obviously haven't actually sued anyone for this before, as your costs will end up exceeding any tiny settlement you could get. I also think it is unethical to sue someone if you can settle it with a few letters instead, but that is just me.
As for my personal photos under CC, I've seen them used a couple of times without attribution and I have just let it slide, as none of the instances warranted getting my panties in a wad.
To be honest, I had not thought of it as you present it: NASA set the spec for 90 days, and the engineers simply over-delivered. And obviously, we had some good luck for a change with the solar panels staying cleaner than anticipated. Of course, that wouldn't have mattered if the rest of the craft had not been built so incredibly well.
My bad. I stand corrected.
The only issue I have with your perspective is that to judge what is "art", "commercial art" and "just some snapshot" is rather subjective. Technically, they are all equally protected under the law, which I think is a good thing. I CHOOSE to release most of my personal, non-commercial photos under a very permissive license (I have put up over one hundred on Wikipedia, for example), but it is my choice to make.
My understanding that if you take a snapshot and publish it in the U.S., then it is copyright protected once you create or publish it, regardless of quality. We really can't have a search engine that decides what is art, what is commercial art, and what is more of a "disposable snapshot". That is why attribution is absolutely necessary. Coincidently, it is also quite easy to do, and Google does a good job of it while only storing a thumbnail of the original (fair use) and leaving the original to be viewed in its original context. I'm not sure that wholesale copying and indexing full size photos, even with attribution, is legal in the U.S. without written permission. While I'm not likely to file a lawsuit over it, I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea either.
Can we just make a rule that any image you post on the internet doesn't belong to you anymore? Anyone with any sense already figured that out a decade ago anyway.
Perhaps we can do that with text, too, since there really is no difference in text and photos in this context. Of course, that means that all worthwhile content will disappear, such as news websites, individual blogs, Google Earth, Maps, etc.
The complaint isn't about getting paid, it is about attribution. I release most of my personal photography under CC with attribution. I have also written many nasty letters to competitors who lift our images from our website to use on competing websites. (we shoot everything, even stuff I can get manufacturer's photos of, to insure we have a unique look). The reason I do this is not only because I don't like working for free for other companies, but it dilutes our efforts to maintain a unique look. That and I don't need someone competing with me unless they are willing to spend the same amount of resources into photography that we have. ie: I don't want to subsidize my own competition.
So, no, I think I should be able to keep the copyright on stuff I create.
I tried to reroute their encryptions by directly typing http://www.imagelogr.com/images into the address bar, but it just gave me a 404 error. Maybe they already baleeted all the images.
Feats like the Mars Rovers show us that our space-engineering prowess is not only continuing to mature, but indeed getting quite robust.
I don't doubt we are getting better at building equipment that can stand the rigors of space or Mars (better alloys, better lubricants, better electronics, simple design) but this also says something about our ability (or lack thereof) to estimate the durability of the things we build. Lasting twice as long as we expect is a great thing, lasting 25x as long means they were afraid to give a real estimate.
Kind of like how Scotty says "It will take 8 hours to get it fixed, Captain!", to which Kirk says "You have 2 hours", and yet it still gets fixed. The engineers are likely underestimating the "average" time to cover their own butts. This actually makes it *harder* to get some science done, as you are scrambling to create new tasks with the extra time you weren't expecting, never knowing when it will give up the ghost.
How low are the specs for these missions are set if it's been operating for 25x longer than it was designed to?
The problem is that the original specs were for U.S. standard time, and we now use metric time.
Don't worry, they've dealt with this. Tesla just announced they'll be sourcing batteries from Sony.
And Toyota is supplying the software and braking system. 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds. 60 to 0? Thats a whole other story...