The entire article was rather subdued. It's about the rather uncontroversial fact that the nuance of white skin was more important to most photography, and that now there's more innovation than there once was.
Did you actually read the article?
Firstly, your entire comment is fundamentally flawed with the claim that film is designed to capture an accurate colour spectrum.
It isn't. It's designed to capture a colour spectrum we find visually appealing. So it's not about film, an inanimate object, being magically racist (that's stupid to even suggest some one else would try to claim) it's about how our choice of films and lighting, and which technologies we chose to innovate with, being primarily designed to bring out beauty and nuance in light complexions rather than in dark complexions.
I'm sorry the subtlety of the issue was lost on you.
This whole thing smacks of someone bitter they aren't getting enough employment, whether or not they deserve more employment.
The "convenience" that has dominated music for ages has been the control of the airwaves and other methods of delivery by the major labels. That's the convenience that matters to listeners, not whether the music was produced in a professional studio or in someone's basement with a laptop. If production was something you could skimp on and still keep the attention of the semi-captive mainstream audience, we all know labels would be doing it already.
All it would take is one segue from a well produced track to a poorly produced track for people to get a sour impression from the crappy one. You'd need to completely lower the quality across the entire spectrum of their listening experience, which is a lot harder than it used to be.
It could very easily be read that "over" means "during the span of". Thus "during the span of two millennia we have degenerated", rather than "in the more than two millennia". I'm not a fan of 3 millennia either, but the original was either ambiguously worded or equally wrong.
You're a fool if you think even universal automation would translate to universal welfare if people don't relinquish, by will or by force, the power they hold by artificially creating scarcity. That process has to start first, and it should start now.
Who are you to say I'm not standing behind something because I haven't provided my real name?
Who are you to say what my real name is?
Who are you to tell a gay man in the closet or a rape victim that their opinion is worth less because they use a pseudonym because they fear for their safety?
This is a terrible policy, and a harmful one at that.
1) Real name policies are arrogant: My identity is mine, not yours, you don't define me or get any say in how I identify myself. This pseudonym is old enough to drive, and it's a part of my identity.
2) Real name policies are harmful: They further marginalize already vulnerable groups like LGBT people, rape victims, and the like, who require anonymity for safety and emotional comfort. They also prevent people who require anonymity because they live or operate in jurisdictions with authoritarian governments. To require real names is to exclude all these people and prevent them from having any voice in the service in question. Do you think Arianna INTENDS to say "Gay people in the closet should go elsewhere."?
3) Real name policies are a lie: They can't work, because there's no effective way to ensure people are using their real name. In truth, they're simply real-name-like policies. If your name is plausible, no one will look twice. It's all about appearances.
So the benefit is unproven and their implementation ineffective, they're harmful and overstep their bounds. So why is it you like them again? A warm fuzzy feeling?
Reminds me of the military prosecution lawyer who's now trying to empty Guantanamo, but was perfectly happy getting a man who was a 15 year old kid at the time convicted of terrorist acts despite him being considered a child soldier by a substantial number or organisations.
I'm glad he's come around, but it's too little, too late, for complete absolution.
THE HAAAAND!
THE INVISIBLE HAND!
(Thanks, Slashdot, I'm familiar with the meaning of works being entirely in capital letters. Yes, it is like yelling. That would be my goal.)
If we had a 100% sure-fire way to tell if someone was seriously too stupid to know better, then yes, I would argue diminished capacity and thus diminished culpability. Ignorance WOULD be a defence if it wasn't something people could easily fake.
Funny, I got the impression humans had technology on their side, and had the option of eating whatever the hell they can invent.
Actually, you know what, that IS the case, so it seems pretty debatable to me.
You have absolutely no idea when this person starts work. You're also perhaps forgetting that there's a difference between whether DST actually means light in the morning in the north of the US (it doesn't). It does, however, mean that it gets darker earlier. I used to deliver my papers after school and it would be dark by the time I got home. (I'm in Canada but I'm south of the 49th) That's not an idiosyncrasy.
There are all sorts of external factors that are taken into account during prosecutions. Prosecutors use judgement to decide if they're going to cut someone a break or throw the book at them. Or are you advocating absolutely no consideration of aggravating or mitigating circumstances?
It certainly is reason enough to me. IP which is not being used as has absolutely zero value to society and should not be protected. I would absolutely support law forcing the licensing of any IP if the IP holder refuses to put it to work. I would indeed put a burden (perhaps not heavy, but certainly not absent) on IP holders to justify withholding or delaying access to their properties.
I speed. I jaywalk (carefully). I throw organic garbage out in public sometimes (apple cores through my car window in wooded areas). All against the law. Do you do anything like this? Think hard. Where do YOU disregard the law because you think it's safe or reasonable?
Slashdot Mirror
The entire article was rather subdued. It's about the rather uncontroversial fact that the nuance of white skin was more important to most photography, and that now there's more innovation than there once was.
Did you actually read the article? Firstly, your entire comment is fundamentally flawed with the claim that film is designed to capture an accurate colour spectrum. It isn't. It's designed to capture a colour spectrum we find visually appealing. So it's not about film, an inanimate object, being magically racist (that's stupid to even suggest some one else would try to claim) it's about how our choice of films and lighting, and which technologies we chose to innovate with, being primarily designed to bring out beauty and nuance in light complexions rather than in dark complexions. I'm sorry the subtlety of the issue was lost on you.
I'd like to bury design.
(Did they not see Digg crash and burn?)
Why is there
so much?
This whole thing smacks of someone bitter they aren't getting enough employment, whether or not they deserve more employment. The "convenience" that has dominated music for ages has been the control of the airwaves and other methods of delivery by the major labels. That's the convenience that matters to listeners, not whether the music was produced in a professional studio or in someone's basement with a laptop. If production was something you could skimp on and still keep the attention of the semi-captive mainstream audience, we all know labels would be doing it already. All it would take is one segue from a well produced track to a poorly produced track for people to get a sour impression from the crappy one. You'd need to completely lower the quality across the entire spectrum of their listening experience, which is a lot harder than it used to be.
It could very easily be read that "over" means "during the span of". Thus "during the span of two millennia we have degenerated", rather than "in the more than two millennia". I'm not a fan of 3 millennia either, but the original was either ambiguously worded or equally wrong.
You're a fool if you think even universal automation would translate to universal welfare if people don't relinquish, by will or by force, the power they hold by artificially creating scarcity. That process has to start first, and it should start now.
You're lucky you don't have a legitimate reason to keep a secret, like being in the closet, or a dissident in Burma.
If they don't ask for ID then it's a lie. There's no proof it's a real name. It's all fake.
Who are you to say I'm not standing behind something because I haven't provided my real name? Who are you to say what my real name is? Who are you to tell a gay man in the closet or a rape victim that their opinion is worth less because they use a pseudonym because they fear for their safety?
This is a terrible policy, and a harmful one at that. 1) Real name policies are arrogant: My identity is mine, not yours, you don't define me or get any say in how I identify myself. This pseudonym is old enough to drive, and it's a part of my identity. 2) Real name policies are harmful: They further marginalize already vulnerable groups like LGBT people, rape victims, and the like, who require anonymity for safety and emotional comfort. They also prevent people who require anonymity because they live or operate in jurisdictions with authoritarian governments. To require real names is to exclude all these people and prevent them from having any voice in the service in question. Do you think Arianna INTENDS to say "Gay people in the closet should go elsewhere."? 3) Real name policies are a lie: They can't work, because there's no effective way to ensure people are using their real name. In truth, they're simply real-name-like policies. If your name is plausible, no one will look twice. It's all about appearances. So the benefit is unproven and their implementation ineffective, they're harmful and overstep their bounds. So why is it you like them again? A warm fuzzy feeling?
Reminds me of the military prosecution lawyer who's now trying to empty Guantanamo, but was perfectly happy getting a man who was a 15 year old kid at the time convicted of terrorist acts despite him being considered a child soldier by a substantial number or organisations. I'm glad he's come around, but it's too little, too late, for complete absolution.
And the average Canadian deserves to have their emails, chats and files examined why, exactly?
THE HAAAAND! THE INVISIBLE HAND! (Thanks, Slashdot, I'm familiar with the meaning of works being entirely in capital letters. Yes, it is like yelling. That would be my goal.)
If we had a 100% sure-fire way to tell if someone was seriously too stupid to know better, then yes, I would argue diminished capacity and thus diminished culpability. Ignorance WOULD be a defence if it wasn't something people could easily fake.
Funny, I got the impression humans had technology on their side, and had the option of eating whatever the hell they can invent. Actually, you know what, that IS the case, so it seems pretty debatable to me.
You have absolutely no idea when this person starts work. You're also perhaps forgetting that there's a difference between whether DST actually means light in the morning in the north of the US (it doesn't). It does, however, mean that it gets darker earlier. I used to deliver my papers after school and it would be dark by the time I got home. (I'm in Canada but I'm south of the 49th) That's not an idiosyncrasy.
There are all sorts of external factors that are taken into account during prosecutions. Prosecutors use judgement to decide if they're going to cut someone a break or throw the book at them. Or are you advocating absolutely no consideration of aggravating or mitigating circumstances?
...so WTF have them been doing with all those service fees for the past couple decade?
I'm assuming dividends.
Well I know what'd be the best thing that could happen to this thread!
It certainly is reason enough to me. IP which is not being used as has absolutely zero value to society and should not be protected. I would absolutely support law forcing the licensing of any IP if the IP holder refuses to put it to work. I would indeed put a burden (perhaps not heavy, but certainly not absent) on IP holders to justify withholding or delaying access to their properties.
I speed. I jaywalk (carefully). I throw organic garbage out in public sometimes (apple cores through my car window in wooded areas). All against the law. Do you do anything like this? Think hard. Where do YOU disregard the law because you think it's safe or reasonable?