But surely the photographers DO maintain the copyright, they just license the image freely. If they have a problem with 'freedom', they should just say that instead. "We photographers don't like freedom". There, I restated the problem, clearly.
If some celeb has a problem with their picture, they can just pay for one to be CCd. Don't tell me in a world of millions of photographers, they're all asshats?
In over 10 years in the web design industry, working closely with probably 20+ commercial photographers, I have yet to find one that doesn't insist on retaining control of the rights to reproduce the photos they take for you. They want to charge you for taking the photo, then they want to charge you again if you want to use the photo in a different way to how you used it the first time.
Mr Avenaim also just doesn't understand how copyright works. Of course he retains copyright; he merely grants a license to the version of the picture he uploads.
There is nothing stopping him from uploading a reduced resolution image; he can then continue use the full resolution version in whatever way he wants, including licensing it to people who want something suitable for print purposes for insane sums of money, if he chooses.
finding other people to interact with to do anything takes time. and its dependent on other people's will.
It's not just that it takes time. It takes a commitment of time.
I recently gave up on an MMO that I'd been playing for a while. I was a guild leader, albeit of a small guild, and had built up quite a good character. But I found that actually _doing_ anything with that character required organising with other members of my guild when we'd be logged in to do things, and actually committing to doing that was something I can't really justify. My life changes a lot, often without notice. I'm self employed. I have to be willing to jump at any time and start working, and that frequently meant letting my guild down. The two were incompatible, so the game had to go.
Why whenever we observe speciation people make such a big deal about it.
Because there's a pervasive myth, believed by IIRC about 80% of people, that we never have. So, we have to make as much noise as possible about what we have seen.
Or maybe most web programmers don't want to spend a lot of time and money supporting the 1% of users out there that don't have or disable JavaScript.
Last I checked the figure was more like 3%, and included all standard desktop users at a number of very large and important companies, mainly in the financial sector. Admittedly that was a couple of years ago.
Also, if users without javascript can't navigate your site, neither can googlebot et al.
So wait a second. Who certified these election results then? Something smells a little fishy here.
*Whoosh*.
(And that's the first time I've had cause to say that in response to a top level response... things are getting bad when the ACs are missing the point of the entire story, rather than just somebody's comment on it.)
He can sue for false advertising. If the guy had made this offer in court, or as part of a contractual obligation, it would be a different story.
Bullshit. See 'unilateral contract' and the Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd case, which has been accepted as precedent by US courts despite being a UK case. This isn't advertising, it's an offer to form a contract which was accepted when somebody performed the task he was asking for.
Ha ha, who wouldn't laugh at a trial of a man accused of four murders! Oh, those long nights must fly by with such hilarity!
Everyone jokes about their work. Lawyers on murder cases are no different. Example: a few years ago I worked with a guy whose brother was a barrister, doing defence work on high profile cases. What he used to do, practically all the time, was he and the other barristers who worked at his chambers had a notice board, and every day somebody would post a 'word of the day' on it. They each had to work that word into the trials they were working on at some point during the day. Bonus points for doing it in innovative ways.
I wrote: But they're still spammers, as far as I'm concerned, and should therefore be preparing themselves for whichever circle of hell is reserved for their kind.
Answering my own sort-of question: it is, of course, the fifth ditch of the eighth circle of hell, in which unscrupulous businessmen are forced to stand in boiling pitch.
The entire premise of this article depends on the definition of "spam." One could mark a legitimate business' unsolicited email as spam, but that doesn't mean that purchasing a product because of the material in one of those emails is newsworthy.
Nigerian princes in peril are another matter, though.
If we definte spam as excluding legitimate businesses, who gets to define what's legitimate and what isn't? OK, so 419 scammers aren't legitimate, but they make up a small minority of the spam I get. And I'll grant that those "OEM" software sellers who apparently sell software cheaper than the manufacturers' OEM prices are somewhat dubious, too. But are the viagra retailers legitimate? They're (AFAICT) offering a real product that they are legally allowed to sell to you. What about the acai berry products sellers? Or the online casinos? Or the fake rolex people? All of these are real legal businesses who make their money by sending unsolicited emails. But they're still spammers, as far as I'm concerned, and should therefore be preparing themselves for whichever circle of hell is reserved for their kind.
There's an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure you know, but if you were taking reasonable steps but still don't know, as long as you can provide some good reason for that to have happened, you're in the clear.
As an example, a company I worked at owned a car that was caught by a speed camera. We had a policy that each employee should sign the car out before using it, which was almost always done. However, on the day in question, whoever took it didn't sign it out. None of us could remember with any certainty who had had it that day. The court accepted that for a small company (we had 3 employees) we had taken adequate steps, and dismissed the ticket.
that's LOLCAT; a derivative of texting language, itself a derivative of common IRC abbreviations
Lolcat didn't derive from text language. AIUI, it sprung up as a grammatical variation of standard english with rather irregular conjugation of verbs, combined with instant messaging / chat room slang, often misspelled for "cute" effect. Certainly, Mark Liberman associated it with leet rather than texting.
1337-5p34| was developed to make the text hard to read/index and was "cool" for the hip 90's h4X0rz generation.
Leet is both a method of encoding using alternative characters and a set of slang words; either can be used with or without the other. Many of those slang words have entered the instant messaging slang; words like "pwn", "noob" or "pron" are common with people who would never otherwise use leet.
Yep. As a newbie a couple of years back I played around with both Altera and Xilinx's software, and found Altera's much more friendly, so I'm now an Altera-all-the-way kind of guy.
That said, Altera development boards can be a bit pricier than their Xilinx equivalents, mainly because they're harder to find (I don't know why, but perhaps Altera attracts a more advanced designer who doesn't need starter kits, etc, while Xilinx tends to attract the newbies?). That said, this board for around half the poster's budget limit boasts a last-gen (65nm) FPGA with about 20K logic elements, which will implement moderately complex designs, including a wide variety of microprocessor designs (the smallest I've seen uses less than 300LEs, so theoretically you could get about 70 of them on there...!), many of which can be run at ~50MHz on this hardware.
Yes, the intelligence Bush got was faulty about the WMDs in Iraq
There's practically incontrivertible documentaryevidence that Bush knew WMDs would not be found and wanted to provoke the war on any grounds he could. (In case you want to talk about political bias and slanting in my sources there, The Guardian is a left-leaning paper, but The Times is a right-leaning paper owned by News Corporation, the same people who own Fox News.)
Really, it started with Clinton and Clinton's desire to have every American own a home. Sure, its a noble idea but it went way to far. For example, a person who would ordinarily qualify for a $150,000 loan would be bumped up to getting a $1750,000 loan... So then eventually they couldn't pay it back because they borrowed more than they could afford.
It's amazing how Clinton even managed to cause excessive lending and a property price crash in the UK, where he had no legislative power at all.
Or perhaps these have nothing to do with governments and everything to do with banks who were too greedy and got their hands burned when the inevitable property price slide (which should have come as no surprise, as financial experts have been predicting it since about 2005) started to happen. Here's news for you: an extra 15% on top of people's loans makes little difference when prices fall by over 30%. Most people who bought close to the top were still in serious financial trouble because of it. And there was no obligation on the banks to take that funding -- if they believed the customer wouldn't be able to repay, they were obligated under various codes of practice (let alone plain and simple commercial sense) not to offer the loan.
The banks thought they could make loans that they knew had a good chance of never being repaid, bundle them up into financial instruments and sell them for more than they were actually likely to get back. And for a while the scheme worked. But of course, in the end, it failed.
Obama's plan seems to be lets spend our way out of an economic collapse!
It's a good plan, to be honest. Government spending has a way of finding its way back to the government via taxes, so isn't as expensive to the economy as it at first appears. And it does get people spending money, which is the whole problem.
Mixed with tons of regulations.
Yes. The financial services industry has shown itself to be too irresponsible to be able to manage the significant chunk of the economy it currently does manage. Something needs to be done to tighten that up.
For example, I have a good friend who runs a home building business, he has been in business since 1982 and hasn't defaulted on a single loan and hasn't been late on any of his bills in the past 20 years. Today, he can't get a loan to build another house because Obama's administration says that he is "too big of a risk" WTF!?!
This has nothing to do with Obama or any regulations. This is just banks' typical overreaction to any property price crash. The same thing happened in the UK in the late 80s. Banks lose a whole string of money on property development projects that suddenly find themselves in negative equity, so decide not to invest in property development because the entire industry has a huge risk rating associated with it in any statistical analysis. Quite simple, really.
Just post indexing info and excerpts for free, and put the rest behind a pay-wall.
The problem there is they want the search engines to index based on the full content of the article, but don't want them to quote chunks out of that content. This can't be achieved without a fundamental change in how search engines work, which is what they want legislated. They ignore, of course, the last 50 years of "fair use" legal history and the fact that even countries that don't currently have a fair use exemption (e.g. the UK) are leaning towards introducing one in the near future.
If they sue him in the US, it'll get tossed out on the basis that the US does not recognize these works as having copright (or any "slavish" reproductions thereof, according to Corel v. Bridgeman); if they sue him in the UK, he can ignore the lawsuit, have a default judgement entered against him, and good luck to them in pursuing it.
If I were him, I'd turn up in person to any UK lawsuit and represent myself, thus keeping cost to a minimum. There are two grounds on which this can be challenged:
* UK jurisdiction on copyright issues requires copying to have occurred in the UK, or for the defendant to have imported copied material into the UK. He can quite easily claim that he did neither; he was licensed by the sites terms and conditions to download them to the US. Any copying that occurred after that was under US jurisdiction. Wikimedia is more likely to be responsible for any user attempts to import copies back into the UK, and even that's tenuous.
* Copyright in the UK does not provide statutory damages; the gallery will have to prove _actual damages_. I see no real way the inclusion of low resolution copies of the photographs in Wikipedia can possibly cause actual damage to the gallery, so requiring them to prove this will almost certainly result in them failing. This would probably end up with a nominal judgement in favour of the gallery (say £1 per image copied) with the gallery required to pay the uploaders costs, depending on how many images are involved probably roughly cancelling each other out.
IANAL, but do have experience with UK courts and a good knowledge of copyright law.
And Quayle's spelling of potato isn't the most common, but is technically a valid alternative. (Although the potato incident was dumb for other reasons.)
[citation needed]
My usual dictionary certainly doesn't have an entry for that spelling. I think you've picked the exception to your rule here.
Slashdot Mirror
But surely the photographers DO maintain the copyright, they just license the image freely. If they have a problem with 'freedom', they should just say that instead. "We photographers don't like freedom". There, I restated the problem, clearly.
If some celeb has a problem with their picture, they can just pay for one to be CCd. Don't tell me in a world of millions of photographers, they're all asshats?
In over 10 years in the web design industry, working closely with probably 20+ commercial photographers, I have yet to find one that doesn't insist on retaining control of the rights to reproduce the photos they take for you. They want to charge you for taking the photo, then they want to charge you again if you want to use the photo in a different way to how you used it the first time.
Mr Avenaim also just doesn't understand how copyright works. Of course he retains copyright; he merely grants a license to the version of the picture he uploads.
There is nothing stopping him from uploading a reduced resolution image; he can then continue use the full resolution version in whatever way he wants, including licensing it to people who want something suitable for print purposes for insane sums of money, if he chooses.
Try using CSS for a while, and you'll see that its creators left out some frankly baffling features, such as the ability to center an element.
You mean, like margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;? Or text-align: center?
I agree that CSS has some startling issues, but this isn't one of them.
I can't speak for its current state since I don't play anymore, but AC was very solo friendly.
This could have something to do with the lead engineer / designer preferring to solo almost exclusively.
finding other people to interact with to do anything takes time. and its dependent on other people's will.
It's not just that it takes time. It takes a commitment of time.
I recently gave up on an MMO that I'd been playing for a while. I was a guild leader, albeit of a small guild, and had built up quite a good character. But I found that actually _doing_ anything with that character required organising with other members of my guild when we'd be logged in to do things, and actually committing to doing that was something I can't really justify. My life changes a lot, often without notice. I'm self employed. I have to be willing to jump at any time and start working, and that frequently meant letting my guild down. The two were incompatible, so the game had to go.
Why whenever we observe speciation people make such a big deal about it.
Because there's a pervasive myth, believed by IIRC about 80% of people, that we never have. So, we have to make as much noise as possible about what we have seen.
Or maybe most web programmers don't want to spend a lot of time and money supporting the 1% of users out there that don't have or disable JavaScript.
Last I checked the figure was more like 3%, and included all standard desktop users at a number of very large and important companies, mainly in the financial sector. Admittedly that was a couple of years ago.
Also, if users without javascript can't navigate your site, neither can googlebot et al.
So wait a second. Who certified these election results then? Something smells a little fishy here.
*Whoosh*.
(And that's the first time I've had cause to say that in response to a top level response... things are getting bad when the ACs are missing the point of the entire story, rather than just somebody's comment on it.)
He can sue for false advertising. If the guy had made this offer in court, or as part of a contractual obligation, it would be a different story.
Bullshit. See 'unilateral contract' and the Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd case, which has been accepted as precedent by US courts despite being a UK case. This isn't advertising, it's an offer to form a contract which was accepted when somebody performed the task he was asking for.
Ha ha, who wouldn't laugh at a trial of a man accused of four murders! Oh, those long nights must fly by with such hilarity!
Everyone jokes about their work. Lawyers on murder cases are no different. Example: a few years ago I worked with a guy whose brother was a barrister, doing defence work on high profile cases. What he used to do, practically all the time, was he and the other barristers who worked at his chambers had a notice board, and every day somebody would post a 'word of the day' on it. They each had to work that word into the trials they were working on at some point during the day. Bonus points for doing it in innovative ways.
Will I have to sew buttons to my monitors?
For example, I received this yesterday:
Forge your huge love sword
and that was it. No link, no pictures
This is because many spammers are totally incompetent. Other symptoms:
* Messages with subject line '$SUBJECT'.
* Sender names made up from non-name words joined together 'Vivacious F. Baking'
How else are they going to win the Nigerian lottery? You can't win if you don't enter.
Of course you can. I got an email just last week telling me I had won, and I've never entered it...
I wrote: But they're still spammers, as far as I'm concerned, and should therefore be preparing themselves for whichever circle of hell is reserved for their kind.
Answering my own sort-of question: it is, of course, the fifth ditch of the eighth circle of hell, in which unscrupulous businessmen are forced to stand in boiling pitch.
The entire premise of this article depends on the definition of "spam." One could mark a legitimate business' unsolicited email as spam, but that doesn't mean that purchasing a product because of the material in one of those emails is newsworthy.
Nigerian princes in peril are another matter, though.
If we definte spam as excluding legitimate businesses, who gets to define what's legitimate and what isn't? OK, so 419 scammers aren't legitimate, but they make up a small minority of the spam I get. And I'll grant that those "OEM" software sellers who apparently sell software cheaper than the manufacturers' OEM prices are somewhat dubious, too. But are the viagra retailers legitimate? They're (AFAICT) offering a real product that they are legally allowed to sell to you. What about the acai berry products sellers? Or the online casinos? Or the fake rolex people? All of these are real legal businesses who make their money by sending unsolicited emails. But they're still spammers, as far as I'm concerned, and should therefore be preparing themselves for whichever circle of hell is reserved for their kind.
what's left has a half life of decades instead of centuries
A half life of decades just means centuries until it's safe, rather than millenia. It's still an expensive problem to deal with.
There's an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure you know, but if you were taking reasonable steps but still don't know, as long as you can provide some good reason for that to have happened, you're in the clear.
As an example, a company I worked at owned a car that was caught by a speed camera. We had a policy that each employee should sign the car out before using it, which was almost always done. However, on the day in question, whoever took it didn't sign it out. None of us could remember with any certainty who had had it that day. The court accepted that for a small company (we had 3 employees) we had taken adequate steps, and dismissed the ticket.
You mean like this one?
that's LOLCAT; a derivative of texting language, itself a derivative of common IRC abbreviations
Lolcat didn't derive from text language. AIUI, it sprung up as a grammatical variation of standard english with rather irregular conjugation of verbs, combined with instant messaging / chat room slang, often misspelled for "cute" effect. Certainly, Mark Liberman associated it with leet rather than texting.
1337-5p34| was developed to make the text hard to read/index and was "cool" for the hip 90's h4X0rz generation.
Leet is both a method of encoding using alternative characters and a set of slang words; either can be used with or without the other. Many of those slang words have entered the instant messaging slang; words like "pwn", "noob" or "pron" are common with people who would never otherwise use leet.
Yep. As a newbie a couple of years back I played around with both Altera and Xilinx's software, and found Altera's much more friendly, so I'm now an Altera-all-the-way kind of guy.
That said, Altera development boards can be a bit pricier than their Xilinx equivalents, mainly because they're harder to find (I don't know why, but perhaps Altera attracts a more advanced designer who doesn't need starter kits, etc, while Xilinx tends to attract the newbies?). That said, this board for around half the poster's budget limit boasts a last-gen (65nm) FPGA with about 20K logic elements, which will implement moderately complex designs, including a wide variety of microprocessor designs (the smallest I've seen uses less than 300LEs, so theoretically you could get about 70 of them on there...!), many of which can be run at ~50MHz on this hardware.
Yes, the intelligence Bush got was faulty about the WMDs in Iraq
There's practically incontrivertible documentary evidence that Bush knew WMDs would not be found and wanted to provoke the war on any grounds he could. (In case you want to talk about political bias and slanting in my sources there, The Guardian is a left-leaning paper, but The Times is a right-leaning paper owned by News Corporation, the same people who own Fox News.)
Really, it started with Clinton and Clinton's desire to have every American own a home. Sure, its a noble idea but it went way to far. For example, a person who would ordinarily qualify for a $150,000 loan would be bumped up to getting a $1750,000 loan... So then eventually they couldn't pay it back because they borrowed more than they could afford.
It's amazing how Clinton even managed to cause excessive lending and a property price crash in the UK, where he had no legislative power at all.
Or perhaps these have nothing to do with governments and everything to do with banks who were too greedy and got their hands burned when the inevitable property price slide (which should have come as no surprise, as financial experts have been predicting it since about 2005) started to happen. Here's news for you: an extra 15% on top of people's loans makes little difference when prices fall by over 30%. Most people who bought close to the top were still in serious financial trouble because of it. And there was no obligation on the banks to take that funding -- if they believed the customer wouldn't be able to repay, they were obligated under various codes of practice (let alone plain and simple commercial sense) not to offer the loan.
The banks thought they could make loans that they knew had a good chance of never being repaid, bundle them up into financial instruments and sell them for more than they were actually likely to get back. And for a while the scheme worked. But of course, in the end, it failed.
Obama's plan seems to be lets spend our way out of an economic collapse!
It's a good plan, to be honest. Government spending has a way of finding its way back to the government via taxes, so isn't as expensive to the economy as it at first appears. And it does get people spending money, which is the whole problem.
Mixed with tons of regulations.
Yes. The financial services industry has shown itself to be too irresponsible to be able to manage the significant chunk of the economy it currently does manage. Something needs to be done to tighten that up.
For example, I have a good friend who runs a home building business, he has been in business since 1982 and hasn't defaulted on a single loan and hasn't been late on any of his bills in the past 20 years. Today, he can't get a loan to build another house because Obama's administration says that he is "too big of a risk" WTF!?!
This has nothing to do with Obama or any regulations. This is just banks' typical overreaction to any property price crash. The same thing happened in the UK in the late 80s. Banks lose a whole string of money on property development projects that suddenly find themselves in negative equity, so decide not to invest in property development because the entire industry has a huge risk rating associated with it in any statistical analysis. Quite simple, really.
Not sure why they can't do this.
Just post indexing info and excerpts for free, and put the rest behind a pay-wall.
The problem there is they want the search engines to index based on the full content of the article, but don't want them to quote chunks out of that content. This can't be achieved without a fundamental change in how search engines work, which is what they want legislated. They ignore, of course, the last 50 years of "fair use" legal history and the fact that even countries that don't currently have a fair use exemption (e.g. the UK) are leaning towards introducing one in the near future.
If they sue him in the US, it'll get tossed out on the basis that the US does not recognize these works as having copright (or any "slavish" reproductions thereof, according to Corel v. Bridgeman); if they sue him in the UK, he can ignore the lawsuit, have a default judgement entered against him, and good luck to them in pursuing it.
If I were him, I'd turn up in person to any UK lawsuit and represent myself, thus keeping cost to a minimum. There are two grounds on which this can be challenged:
* UK jurisdiction on copyright issues requires copying to have occurred in the UK, or for the defendant to have imported copied material into the UK. He can quite easily claim that he did neither; he was licensed by the sites terms and conditions to download them to the US. Any copying that occurred after that was under US jurisdiction. Wikimedia is more likely to be responsible for any user attempts to import copies back into the UK, and even that's tenuous.
* Copyright in the UK does not provide statutory damages; the gallery will have to prove _actual damages_. I see no real way the inclusion of low resolution copies of the photographs in Wikipedia can possibly cause actual damage to the gallery, so requiring them to prove this will almost certainly result in them failing. This would probably end up with a nominal judgement in favour of the gallery (say £1 per image copied) with the gallery required to pay the uploaders costs, depending on how many images are involved probably roughly cancelling each other out.
IANAL, but do have experience with UK courts and a good knowledge of copyright law.
Personally, I'm more impressed with the 13 foot monitor. I'm assuming its some sort of front projection device. Wonder what the resolution is? :)
320x240. That's 2.5 dots per inch, or one dot per centimeter.
And Quayle's spelling of potato isn't the most common, but is technically a valid alternative. (Although the potato incident was dumb for other reasons.)
[citation needed]
My usual dictionary certainly doesn't have an entry for that spelling. I think you've picked the exception to your rule here.