So? Most public-posting sites have a policy similar to this. Without it, it's legally dubious if and how they can actually display your posts, and it keeps them from having to get permission for later uses. I'd be concerned if it said "exclusive", meaning you couldn't use it yourself, but this sort of thing is pretty par.
That's all well and good if you're in a place that has the means and the motivation to recognize a person for a job well done. There are jobs, however, where good work goes unrewarded by spite, process and bureaucracy, or the fact that there's no real way to reward or promote (I was in one of these once-- a set pay-rate, a simple job, and a unique skill set in the company that meant there was no real advancement path. Luckily everyone knew that, so the job was rather casual, and I could come in and talk candidly with my boss about job interviews I'd had trying to get out of that job.)
I think you've hit it about as close to my feeling as you can without just calling it useless. I see the "WebOS" as a solution floundering for a problem. Right now, the technology and methods are still in the "wow" stage, and people aren't doing much more than using new tools to make copies of existing applications that end up straining to wedge themselves into relevance in areas where they're not needed. Eventually, someone will come up with the niche that rich Web applications do fill-- uniquely and adeptly-- as for now it's just tech-demos and flexing muscles.
I think that it was a serious, albeit overemphasized, considerable reaction to being treated as a simple device. Now, I'll personally say that a job that becomes this antagonistic isn't one worth keeping, but in such an environment, where you're being treated as a nothing more than a work machine, what motivation or obligation should you have to act as more?
It's still not worth the cost. Server and webspace configuration is all about controlling what you are willing to give to whom. A person's inability to deal gracefully with a spike in demand should not mean that the rest of the world has to tiptoe around one of the cornerstones of the Internet.
I won't say that things shouldn't be made easier, or that people shouldn't be welcomed into the fold, but between things like this and the court cases from people who can't turn on their WiFi security, I'm starting to get annoyed with the entangling legal decisions to shield people from knowing and doing what should be basic technical procedures, defenses, and solutions. Unfortunately, the quick buck to be made by "simple black box" equipment and service vendors from signing on anyone with a gasping pulse leads to obscuring even the basic technical concepts behind widely-used technology, and the ignorant whine and run to the courts when they find that the way they think things should work isn't the way things have ever worked.
The thing that I found funny about that is that if you're taking a picture of it from an angle where there is no perimeter visible, most of the light and detail is actually reflected from around it, as a byproduct, not the content, of the sculpture. Of all the sculptures to try to protect with this rationale...
True. It is prohibitively expensive to bring proof, and that cost has to be passed on to the sued, while people who aren't worth it are having no problems at all. It's too bad nobody came to a "piano roll" decision and made some manner of compulsory licensing scheme. It would take freedom away from creators, but it would probably "sane down" the system to some extent.
So it's like this. Suppose there are some kids, from your neighborhood. They're always on your damn lawn. No one of them is doing anything significantly malicious, but taken as a whole, they're starting to wear a path and beat it down. Unfortunately, the only thing you own is a tank. No, you don't have a house, you just live in the tank, parked on the lawn. Now, as it stands, you've got two choices: Let the kids trample the lawn to a muddy mess, or shoot them, with the tank. Unfortunately, every time you explode one of the offensive little twerps into a misty pink cloud, invariably mothers' groups and angry citizens will harrumph and criticize, saying you went too far, and that the young child-who-is-now-a-crater didn't deserve such treatment. But, if you hold off on your right to evaporate the malicious darlings, you'll find that your well-cultivated lawn starts looking like more of a post-Woodstock mud-pit.
What the law needs to do is give this fictional property owner a beatin' stick, so they can give the kids a wailin' they'll never forget, but not obliterate them into bite-size morsels. I think casual infringement is a problem, for artists' rights if not for profits, but the common response is so heavy-handed that more sympathy gets shown to the infringers. Copyright law needs to have some manner of punishment for casual infringement that is well above the market value of the work (as it should be a discouragement, not just a payoff), but not so high that families are bankrupted just thinking about it. Unfortunately, it seems the homeowner (tankowner?) may have started to enjoy exploding small children.
What I'm saying is not a value judgement on any particular media outlet, but I'm just saying that the reason why a television presence remains more "valuable" than an Internet presence is that the small number of choices available to a large range of people means that each individual station has more popularity, stature, and influence, by simply existing in the small pond of television.
It could work, although there's a likelyhood they'd end up diluting things like game quality, value to potential subscribers (look at the recent talk about Second Life's high, but volatile user base), or even the perceived value to their ad clients, if then end up becoming the "Daily Shopper" of games.
Technological: Get rid of old modulation systems and come up with a digital system that makes it easy to broadcast without stepping on anyone else. The TV becomes more like the Internet.
I don't really know what this would solve. The only reason TV remains superior to the Internet, especially in the days of simple rich-media ability in the hands of most anyone, is that the high barrier to entry and the limited spectrum available makes fewer overwhelming choices for the viewer, and presents distinct definitive sources for information. Television already has become "like the Internet"-- in that people are putting broadcast-style media on the Internet already. However, there's still the MP3.com-style problem of an overwhelming crapflood, and no real central definitive "channels". In television, the small selection creates a social byproduct, as well, as the limited choice forces a common cultural ground of "what was on TV."
The most compelling argument I could see them giving is that people could start considering Autodesk's products inferior for their inability to open subtly malformed (but supposedly "genuine") files correctly. It's kind of like Apple only legally allowing their software on their own hardware so they can limit the possible configurations and better manage the user experience (not that I agree with either stance, but it's where they're coming from, I imagine).
There was a faint electrical hum in one corner of a room on the opposite side, and that was enough that my mind automatically reoriented me, even though that sound was undoubtedly bounding off of all sorts of surfaces to get to me.
It still would work as an orientation device, as long as it never changed its position.
If the crimes they committed were against you or someone you knew would you be so quick to invoke Amnesty International or would you be wanting them euthanized and turned off forever?
If someone did something against me or someone I loved, I would hope others would take my reaction with the skepticism and understanding of the situation to realize that I would probably not be the most logical, fair, or reasonable person to suggest a punishment, and that I should probably be politely disregarded.
Otherwise, let's publicly hang the bastard that stole my car stereo, and put their family on a permanent watch-list! If it didn't happen to you, you just don't understand.
Slashdot Mirror
So? Most public-posting sites have a policy similar to this. Without it, it's legally dubious if and how they can actually display your posts, and it keeps them from having to get permission for later uses. I'd be concerned if it said "exclusive", meaning you couldn't use it yourself, but this sort of thing is pretty par.
That's all well and good if you're in a place that has the means and the motivation to recognize a person for a job well done. There are jobs, however, where good work goes unrewarded by spite, process and bureaucracy, or the fact that there's no real way to reward or promote (I was in one of these once-- a set pay-rate, a simple job, and a unique skill set in the company that meant there was no real advancement path. Luckily everyone knew that, so the job was rather casual, and I could come in and talk candidly with my boss about job interviews I'd had trying to get out of that job.)
I think you've hit it about as close to my feeling as you can without just calling it useless. I see the "WebOS" as a solution floundering for a problem. Right now, the technology and methods are still in the "wow" stage, and people aren't doing much more than using new tools to make copies of existing applications that end up straining to wedge themselves into relevance in areas where they're not needed. Eventually, someone will come up with the niche that rich Web applications do fill-- uniquely and adeptly-- as for now it's just tech-demos and flexing muscles.
Yep. It's all about replaceable parts. Unfortunately, the parts also realized they could replace themselves.
I think that it was a serious, albeit overemphasized, considerable reaction to being treated as a simple device. Now, I'll personally say that a job that becomes this antagonistic isn't one worth keeping, but in such an environment, where you're being treated as a nothing more than a work machine, what motivation or obligation should you have to act as more?
"Usually" doesn't necessarily imply "selectively". Relatives may just be closer and easier.
Good point. I wasn't thinking about false-positives.
It's still not worth the cost. Server and webspace configuration is all about controlling what you are willing to give to whom. A person's inability to deal gracefully with a spike in demand should not mean that the rest of the world has to tiptoe around one of the cornerstones of the Internet.
I won't say that things shouldn't be made easier, or that people shouldn't be welcomed into the fold, but between things like this and the court cases from people who can't turn on their WiFi security, I'm starting to get annoyed with the entangling legal decisions to shield people from knowing and doing what should be basic technical procedures, defenses, and solutions. Unfortunately, the quick buck to be made by "simple black box" equipment and service vendors from signing on anyone with a gasping pulse leads to obscuring even the basic technical concepts behind widely-used technology, and the ignorant whine and run to the courts when they find that the way they think things should work isn't the way things have ever worked.
The thing that I found funny about that is that if you're taking a picture of it from an angle where there is no perimeter visible, most of the light and detail is actually reflected from around it, as a byproduct, not the content, of the sculpture. Of all the sculptures to try to protect with this rationale...
Please, be my lawyer.
Still, it would make it somewhere between spotty and completely ineffective to deep-link to a site that did referer filtering.
Are you kidding me!?!?
Yes, in fact. How very observant!
True. It is prohibitively expensive to bring proof, and that cost has to be passed on to the sued, while people who aren't worth it are having no problems at all. It's too bad nobody came to a "piano roll" decision and made some manner of compulsory licensing scheme. It would take freedom away from creators, but it would probably "sane down" the system to some extent.
So the best thing to do is start rumors about things you have no interest in whatsoever, to have no chance or intent of competing with your own hype.
So, Google Automotive-- what's the word?
So it's like this. Suppose there are some kids, from your neighborhood. They're always on your damn lawn. No one of them is doing anything significantly malicious, but taken as a whole, they're starting to wear a path and beat it down. Unfortunately, the only thing you own is a tank. No, you don't have a house, you just live in the tank, parked on the lawn. Now, as it stands, you've got two choices: Let the kids trample the lawn to a muddy mess, or shoot them, with the tank. Unfortunately, every time you explode one of the offensive little twerps into a misty pink cloud, invariably mothers' groups and angry citizens will harrumph and criticize, saying you went too far, and that the young child-who-is-now-a-crater didn't deserve such treatment. But, if you hold off on your right to evaporate the malicious darlings, you'll find that your well-cultivated lawn starts looking like more of a post-Woodstock mud-pit.
What the law needs to do is give this fictional property owner a beatin' stick, so they can give the kids a wailin' they'll never forget, but not obliterate them into bite-size morsels. I think casual infringement is a problem, for artists' rights if not for profits, but the common response is so heavy-handed that more sympathy gets shown to the infringers. Copyright law needs to have some manner of punishment for casual infringement that is well above the market value of the work (as it should be a discouragement, not just a payoff), but not so high that families are bankrupted just thinking about it. Unfortunately, it seems the homeowner (tankowner?) may have started to enjoy exploding small children.
What I'm saying is not a value judgement on any particular media outlet, but I'm just saying that the reason why a television presence remains more "valuable" than an Internet presence is that the small number of choices available to a large range of people means that each individual station has more popularity, stature, and influence, by simply existing in the small pond of television.
s/then/they/
It could work, although there's a likelyhood they'd end up diluting things like game quality, value to potential subscribers (look at the recent talk about Second Life's high, but volatile user base), or even the perceived value to their ad clients, if then end up becoming the "Daily Shopper" of games.
Well put, but I disagree with this as a solution:
Technological: Get rid of old modulation systems and come up with a digital system that makes it easy to broadcast without stepping on anyone else. The TV becomes more like the Internet.
I don't really know what this would solve. The only reason TV remains superior to the Internet, especially in the days of simple rich-media ability in the hands of most anyone, is that the high barrier to entry and the limited spectrum available makes fewer overwhelming choices for the viewer, and presents distinct definitive sources for information. Television already has become "like the Internet"-- in that people are putting broadcast-style media on the Internet already. However, there's still the MP3.com-style problem of an overwhelming crapflood, and no real central definitive "channels". In television, the small selection creates a social byproduct, as well, as the limited choice forces a common cultural ground of "what was on TV."
How about Post-Its? I use a Post-it.
The most compelling argument I could see them giving is that people could start considering Autodesk's products inferior for their inability to open subtly malformed (but supposedly "genuine") files correctly. It's kind of like Apple only legally allowing their software on their own hardware so they can limit the possible configurations and better manage the user experience (not that I agree with either stance, but it's where they're coming from, I imagine).
There was a faint electrical hum in one corner of a room on the opposite side, and that was enough that my mind automatically reoriented me, even though that sound was undoubtedly bounding off of all sorts of surfaces to get to me.
It still would work as an orientation device, as long as it never changed its position.
Damned if I didn't walk out the door five minutes after this post and find my car window busted and my stereo stolen... again.
Death penalty!
Just an aside about this argument, in general:
If the crimes they committed were against you or someone you knew would you be so quick to invoke Amnesty International or would you be wanting them euthanized and turned off forever?
If someone did something against me or someone I loved, I would hope others would take my reaction with the skepticism and understanding of the situation to realize that I would probably not be the most logical, fair, or reasonable person to suggest a punishment, and that I should probably be politely disregarded.
Otherwise, let's publicly hang the bastard that stole my car stereo, and put their family on a permanent watch-list! If it didn't happen to you, you just don't understand.
That'll work for a lot of things, but not for a bootable disc.