Shhh.. you're not supposed to make "Friends" references on/. (unless it's to say how lame the show was.) Someone might ask you to turn in your Geek card.
As someone who has done photography as well as drawing, painting, graphic design, and sculpture, I feel I must respond. You have some good points, but are also under some misconceptions.
Photography is NOT hard.
You are correct - photography is not hard. However good photography can be hard for those without natural talent.
I know people can go on and on about skill and knowledge and blah blah blah. It's taking pictures. There's just not as much work involved as there is with ANY other type of "creative work."
I disagree here. For some people, it's harder, for others, it's not. As a creative type person, I find photography more difficult than painting or graphic design. Taking a good photograph involves just as much creative effort as painting a good picture. (Believe me, I've done both, and for me, photography is harder.) With a painting, you have complete control over the finished product - if an object would look better if it was larger or smaller, or in a different location, or even removed altogether, it's trivial to change a painting. With a photograph, you have no such leeway. You must take everything in the frame as-is.
My wife is no professional photographer. She has a background in publishing and design, so perhaps that does better enable her "eye" as it were
The same person with a better tool will return better results, but a good photographer with a crappy camera will beat a poor photographer with a great camera every single time.
I hate photographers and their over-blown, baseless egos.
On this, I agree 100%. Maybe it's just me, but every professional photographer I know tends to be completely over the top when it comes to copyright. The level of vitriol is worse than Apple fanboys. I don't know why that is, but it's damned annoying, and gives all photographers a bad name.
Republicans endorse it, Democrats endorse it, and third parties are barely even a sideshow. As far as I know, there's no group of "stop sending our military to kill browns" that I can give money to.
<sarcasm> How dare you not support our troops! Those guys are heroes, boldy putting their life on the line while you sit at home! By questioning anything that happens in Iraq or Afghanistan, you are being an unpatriotic traitor to the US and should be hanged!
The fact that more and more phones run Android is no more a sign of success than the fact that the Ipad is sold out. Initial high sales indicates little more than successful marketing
Sorry, but contradicting yourself in the middle of a paragraph is generally an indication that you don't know what you're talking about.
To wit: if more an more phones run Android, then this is not (by definition) "initial high sales", this is "some sales, followed by even more and more sales." Which is (again, by definition) "success."
And yet the schools in the rest of the developed world, which (pretty much universally) have better-educated students, seem to have bypassed these problems.
While it may hold true for quick-change artists, it won't stop true sociopaths like Darl McBride.
Scammers like McBride believe that everyone is as evil as they are, and that if someone else failed, that they just weren't smart enough. Their rationale goes something like "I can see what they did wrong, so therefore I'm smarter than they are, so *my* scam will succeed!"
Just like career criminals - fines, prison sentences etc. don't act as a deterrent - they do it because they don't believe they'll be caught.
To this day, Darl believes that IBM is guilty of *something* - and that he only failed because IBM played dirty (see this troll for the "dirty tricks" that IBM used.) The dirty tricks that Darl himself used? (Lies, threats, the entire lawsuit) He believes they were justified because he needed something to fight IBM with.
There is nothing that will stop a sociopath from being a sociopath. If there was, they wouldn't be sociopaths.
Cultures/religions are against homosexuality for cultural evolution reasons, more or less the same reason why Catholics are against birth control: it is to the advantage of the culture/religious group to have more children (and therefore out-breed competitors)
This is case were there is no evidence that the plaintiff's claims or medical affliction have any basis in reality.
No, SCO had *no* evidence. They were given *everything* they asked for, every single benefit of every doubt, and they came up with no more that this guy's case - basically Darl's claim that "we *must* own the copyrights!"
The only difference is the this guy probably honestly believes he's being affected, whereas SCO knew that they had no case.
Well, that depends on how you define useful. Just because you don't find something to be useful doesn't mean somebody else won't.
No. Sometimes (such as is the case with Bob), use can be objective.
As an example, Bob allowed you to protect your valuable files by requiring a user to type a login password.
But being as it was supposed to be helpful and user-friendly, when logging in, if you typed the password incorrectly three times it assumed you had forgotten it and helpfully offered to change it for you.
It's not about smaller cameras - when your pixels are smaller than individual photos (as is the case now), making them smaller only increases the "noise" part of the s/n ratio.
Why? Did your SO put you in a crate or something? -- Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time...
As you are someone who has a Monty Python quote in their sig, all I can say is EPIC FAIL.
Re:I don't have health insurance.
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
most of the time I pay CASH (about $200 a year), which means I deal *directly* with my doctor.
I live in a country that has government-run universal insurance, and I deal *directly* with my doctor, too. I'm not sure why you believe this isn't possible.
Partially correct. It is legal to download music for your own private use. If you are downloading it for someone else, then you need the copyright holder's permission.
It is, however, illegal to upload.
Also correct, but irrelevant, because nobody is talking about uploading. They are running software with files available, which is not illegal. When someone else downloads from them, the person with the original files does nothing to initiate the connection, so therefore is not uploading.
So in a very real way, P2P clients are illegal here.
Absolutely wrong.
It's legal for someone to come over to your house, use your computer and blanks to burn copies of music CDs you own, as long as they're doing it for their own private use. It is *not* legal for you to use your own equipment and blanks to burn those same CDs for them - they must do it themselves.
Using P2P software is exactly the same - as it's the recipient making the copy, no laws are being broken.
If a P2P software existed that required you to acknowledge the transfer before it began, then using it would probably be illegal (again, unless you had the copyright owner's permission.)
a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting."
So the solution is to have their own children branded as sex offenders after they've committed the act?!?!?!
Another way to look at it is that iPhone provides a solid single platform that developers can concentrate on features rather than UI and input differences.
Slashdot Mirror
We can pretty much get away with anything without losing geek cred.
Jacob or Edward?
And why?
/me ducks
Shhh.. you're not supposed to make "Friends" references on /. (unless it's to say how lame the show was.) Someone might ask you to turn in your Geek card.
As someone who has done photography as well as drawing, painting, graphic design, and sculpture, I feel I must respond. You have some good points, but are also under some misconceptions.
Photography is NOT hard.
You are correct - photography is not hard. However good photography can be hard for those without natural talent.
I know people can go on and on about skill and knowledge and blah blah blah. It's taking pictures. There's just not as much work involved as there is with ANY other type of "creative work."
I disagree here. For some people, it's harder, for others, it's not. As a creative type person, I find photography more difficult than painting or graphic design. Taking a good photograph involves just as much creative effort as painting a good picture. (Believe me, I've done both, and for me, photography is harder.) With a painting, you have complete control over the finished product - if an object would look better if it was larger or smaller, or in a different location, or even removed altogether, it's trivial to change a painting. With a photograph, you have no such leeway. You must take everything in the frame as-is.
My wife is no professional photographer. She has a background in publishing and design, so perhaps that does better enable her "eye" as it were
The same person with a better tool will return better results, but a good photographer with a crappy camera will beat a poor photographer with a great camera every single time.
I hate photographers and their over-blown, baseless egos.
On this, I agree 100%. Maybe it's just me, but every professional photographer I know tends to be completely over the top when it comes to copyright. The level of vitriol is worse than Apple fanboys. I don't know why that is, but it's damned annoying, and gives all photographers a bad name.
Banning debuggers as copyright infringement technology probably won't happen, since most people don't know how to use them
Umm, most people not knowing how to use them is exactly the reason they'd be banned.
"Only evil content pirates who want to steal our precious IP use debuggers - they should be banned!"
Practically, no one believes that the government should just be obeyed and never questioned, at least in the US.
That statement is only true if you redefine "practically" to mean "in theory" and "no one" to mean "US Judiciary, including appeals courts.
You're not the only one. :)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100309181019AAw5YZ9
Republicans endorse it, Democrats endorse it, and third parties are barely even a sideshow. As far as I know, there's no group of "stop sending our military to kill browns" that I can give money to.
<sarcasm>
How dare you not support our troops! Those guys are heroes, boldy putting their life on the line while you sit at home! By questioning anything that happens in Iraq or Afghanistan, you are being an unpatriotic traitor to the US and should be hanged!
Where is your patriotism, citizen?!?!!
</sarcasm>
what would happen is everyone would host their websites offshore in nations with looser copyright laws
No. Even if you're using an offshore host, you'd still be breaking the law.
You'd have to move yourself offshore, not just your content.
Umm... WHAT!?!?!
The fact that more and more phones run Android is no more a sign of success than the fact that the Ipad is sold out. Initial high sales indicates little more than successful marketing
Sorry, but contradicting yourself in the middle of a paragraph is generally an indication that you don't know what you're talking about.
To wit: if more an more phones run Android, then this is not (by definition) "initial high sales", this is "some sales, followed by even more and more sales." Which is (again, by definition) "success."
And yet the schools in the rest of the developed world, which (pretty much universally) have better-educated students, seem to have bypassed these problems.
I wonder why that is?
Squeals are getting a lot better.
Eeeeeeeek!!!!
While it may hold true for quick-change artists, it won't stop true sociopaths like Darl McBride.
Scammers like McBride believe that everyone is as evil as they are, and that if someone else failed, that they just weren't smart enough. Their rationale goes something like "I can see what they did wrong, so therefore I'm smarter than they are, so *my* scam will succeed!"
Just like career criminals - fines, prison sentences etc. don't act as a deterrent - they do it because they don't believe they'll be caught.
To this day, Darl believes that IBM is guilty of *something* - and that he only failed because IBM played dirty (see this troll for the "dirty tricks" that IBM used.) The dirty tricks that Darl himself used? (Lies, threats, the entire lawsuit) He believes they were justified because he needed something to fight IBM with.
There is nothing that will stop a sociopath from being a sociopath. If there was, they wouldn't be sociopaths.
Cultures/religions are against homosexuality for cultural evolution reasons, more or less the same reason why Catholics are against birth control: it is to the advantage of the culture/religious group to have more children (and therefore out-breed competitors)
OK, tell that to the Samoans.
This is case were there is no evidence that the plaintiff's claims or medical affliction have any basis in reality.
No, SCO had *no* evidence. They were given *everything* they asked for, every single benefit of every doubt, and they came up with no more that this guy's case - basically Darl's claim that "we *must* own the copyrights!"
The only difference is the this guy probably honestly believes he's being affected, whereas SCO knew that they had no case.
Well, that depends on how you define useful. Just because you don't find something to be useful doesn't mean somebody else won't.
No. Sometimes (such as is the case with Bob), use can be objective.
As an example, Bob allowed you to protect your valuable files by requiring a user to type a login password.
But being as it was supposed to be helpful and user-friendly, when logging in, if you typed the password incorrectly three times it assumed you had forgotten it and helpfully offered to change it for you.
If we, as Americans, had a lick of sense, we would stop buying things made in China
That would be sensible if we weren't in the worst recession since the great depression.
So the solution to the recession is to send what money you do have to another country?
You don't see any market for smaller cameras?
It's not about smaller cameras - when your pixels are smaller than individual photos (as is the case now), making them smaller only increases the "noise" part of the s/n ratio.
Why? Did your SO put you in a crate or something? ...
--
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time
As you are someone who has a Monty Python quote in their sig, all I can say is EPIC FAIL.
most of the time I pay CASH (about $200 a year), which means I deal *directly* with my doctor.
I live in a country that has government-run universal insurance, and I deal *directly* with my doctor, too. I'm not sure why you believe this isn't possible.
First, it is not illegal to download music.
Partially correct. It is legal to download music for your own private use. If you are downloading it for someone else, then you need the copyright holder's permission.
It is, however, illegal to upload.
Also correct, but irrelevant, because nobody is talking about uploading. They are running software with files available, which is not illegal. When someone else downloads from them, the person with the original files does nothing to initiate the connection, so therefore is not uploading.
So in a very real way, P2P clients are illegal here.
Absolutely wrong.
It's legal for someone to come over to your house, use your computer and blanks to burn copies of music CDs you own, as long as they're doing it for their own private use. It is *not* legal for you to use your own equipment and blanks to burn those same CDs for them - they must do it themselves.
Using P2P software is exactly the same - as it's the recipient making the copy, no laws are being broken.
If a P2P software existed that required you to acknowledge the transfer before it began, then using it would probably be illegal (again, unless you had the copyright owner's permission.)
a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting."
So the solution is to have their own children branded as sex offenders after they've committed the act?!?!?!
Yeah, you've thought that out well.
Don't forget that before the 20th century, most people only lived to 32!
I don't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all.
Who said anything about "piracy"? If you read the summary (not even the article) you'll see this:
With superfast streaming and downloading, indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online
There needs to be one version of andriod with a consistent hard specs
And you believe that without censorship, "one version" of android is impossible?
What colour is the sky in your world?
Another way to look at it is that iPhone provides a solid single platform that developers can concentrate on features rather than UI and input differences.
Yes, because if Apple allowed pictures of women in bikinis, uncensored dictionaries or mentioning the name of a competitor on the iPhone, the "solid single platform" would fragment into a dozen incompatible versions, right?