I don't get it, why not just commoditize SCSI and make it cheaper? Nice features like power and data in the same cable can be done that way too.
Why then hard drive makers wouldn't be able to have both high-profit and low-profit items that are basically the same, would they? (FYI there has been a serial SCSI working group for a long while, they even produced working samples of controllers, I think maybe 5 years ago!)
Or less cynically (and less realistically) SCSI has a lot of gunk in it, starting over with a new spec gives them a chance to purge it all...oh, wait, starting with the ATA spec gives us all that ATA baggage, including SCSI over ATA...
Are there good technical reasons for having both? Or just marketing reasons to do with charging more for SCSI drives, and keeping ATA for the low-end?
Don't forget FireWire, which does at least all the big things serial ATA does, has been around a while, and is already in the market on many Sony PCs, and all Apples for the last few years. No, on the other hand, lets forget FireWire... (yeah, I know this is at least partly Apple's fault for it's patent stance, giving a reason for not using FireWire in some places and an excuse in many more).
Maybe the iPod ships with sample tunes already. Are there any iPod owners out there who can comment?
It didn't when I got mine (a monthish after the release). However it wouldn't be hard for Apple to do it since I'm pretty sure they put the OS on the drive (not FLASH), so adding some music to the image wouldn't be impossible.
What I found interesting in the FAQ, was the copyright info. Here in Canada I can legally make a copy of a CD I do not own, as long as it's for personal use. What other kind of use would there be?
I think it wouldn't be "personal use" to burn CD-Rs and sell them on ebay (or just out of the back of your car). Maybe even giving them away free wouldn't be "personal use", but I don't know.
So technically, there is nothing illegal about me downloading MP3s and burning them to CDs.
As long as there was nothing illegal about downloading the MP3 in the first place.
I, for one think that judges should be personally liable when they err, particularly when it causes suffering to parties wrongly convicted and those that depend on them (for income, etc.). Just what the punishment for judicial error should be is a matter for debate, of course, and honest mistakes should not be treated as harshly as gross negligence, but the idea that judges are somehow not answerable to the law, or not answerable enough bothers me.
They should be punished for honest mistakes? Why? What good would that do? wouldn't it make (at least some of them) attempt to hide any mistakes that they might later realize?
Oh, and do you know anyone that never makes any mistakes at their job?
I'm ok with punishing people for abuse of power, or for gross incompetence, or fraud, but an honest mistake? Everyone makes those, and it strikes me as a bad idea to heap additional punishments on top of whatever damage the mistake did.
The idea is interesting, though: rechargeable batteries are bulky, heavy and expensive (ever tried to buy a replacement battery for an old laptop?). Price is only one factor, you can build a lighter system and/or one with and additional spindle.
Apple has already done it...sort of. The old PowerBooks (before the G4 Ti PowerBooks) had two bays, one normally held a drive of some sort (CD, hard drive, DVD), one normally held the battery. Apple shipped a "weight saving device" which was just a hollow plastic rectangle that fit in the slot. Replacing the drive (DVD in my case) saved a little weight, replacing the battery saved a noticeable amount of weight. Still not like half the weight. You could also use two batteries which was one way to survive a long flight.
Apple's way didn't save any money since the shipped a battery (list price $120, which one a PowerBook priced laptop is a whole lot less money then the drive, or that I spent on RAM...). I'm not sure the price savings is really all valuable. I don't use my laptop unplugged all that much, but I do like being able to move it without shutting down, and with "instant on" when I power it up again....hmmmm...and "not all that much" is about twice a week, so yeah, I would really miss it.
As for space, the battery in the new PowerBook is pretty small, not large enough to get a CD-ROM, but probably big enough for another laptop drive.
Now PowerPC CPUs (so far) use a lot less power then modern x86 CPUs, so you might save more weight/money/space on a x86 this way...
E-mail has reciept notification. In this case the sender of an e-mail recieves an e-mail telling when the sent e-mail was recieved.
Optional, and I think seldom supported. Definitely not on by default in sendmail. Just as importantly the receipt could be forged, so it isn't real useful.
If the reciever of the e-mail edited the mail the date and time at which the file was last edited will be different than the time and date it was recieved
Many (not all) systems use one large file for each mail folder. The one I used that didn't (MH) still marked up the file and lost the original time stamp (plus one can use "touch" to alter that as well).
[editing the mail]
is now, just as illegal as editing a contract without the other partys' consent
Yes it is illegal, and immoral, but it is very hard to prove which party did it! If the two of us are in dispute, how could the court know which of is has the invalid document? In this country they will not just jail us both, nor will they pick at random. You need a lot stronger case then the one that proves at least one of us, but not which one of us forged the mail!
Also If you send an e-mail you keep a copy of it in your sent folder. If it doesn't match what the other guy's got, then hoo hah!
Of corse it doesn't match! The problem is proving which (if any!) was unedited! Is the "contract" saying $1.86mil or $1.94mil the real one?
Nobody will be able to get away with using vi to get millions of dollars.
Nobody will get away with an obviously unreasonable price, but one can claim the price was 10% or 20% higher (or lower) then the real one. You may not get that price, but you may well be able to get out of the "contract" by claiming you agreed to something different then what the other guy has.
Maybe you need to find a marketing department that understands that product releases go much more smoothly without "crunch time".
Not a chance. Marketing doesn't pay anything for having programmers being stressed. They don't pay much for having a product being buggy (unless it is buggy enough to kill the company). They do gain something from having a new product with new features to bullet point (they also gain something from being able to specify features that will later be bullet points in ads, on boxes, or on slides).
So marketing will push hard for unrealistic schedules. Crunch time or not. The only way to avoid it is to have management (or in a small company you) pushing back hard enough to keep the schedule sane. Even if you are insanely good ("two new server products in 4 weeks? No problem") that normally buys you more insane schedules in the future (and one would hope a bonus, raise, or some now worthless stock). Of corse if you are really good, that can be fun for a while, but some day you will miss your family, other hobbies, and seeing the day star.
While I'm sure people will bring up the risk of forged email, that isn't really any more of a legal issue than forged signatures on written contracts.
Signatures are somewhat hard to forge, you need to gain a skill, risk having an expert conclude it was forged and going to jail. Using a text editor on a mail folder is normally quite easy, undetectable, and the only thing an expert can say is "there is no way anyone can tell if it was forged -- either of these documents could be the original".
Did the defendant agree that they really wrote the mail? Not only is it easy to forge email, but it is trivial to change your record of the email (the sender could edit messages in his sent folder, the receiver could edit the messages in their 'home sale' folder).
It may suck to agree to pay $1.86mil and be asked to pay $1.92mil, but it would suck just as much to ask $1.92mil and have to accept $1.86mil just because the plaintiff knows how to use vi!
I don't think email is a workable contract medium. Too trivial to alter. With a precedent that email can form a contract I don't see how anyone who wanted to weasel out of a contract would admit to "signing" the real thing rather then edit up their copy and claim that is what they "signed"!
2. Copy the Office folder into a pre-determined spot on the clients.
foreach c ($(cat/tmp/clients))
scp -r/Applications/Office $c:/Applications/Office
end
3. Create an alias on the desktop of the clients.
foreach u ($(cut -d: -f1/etc/passwd))
ln -s/Applications/Office ~$u/Desktop/Office
end
(Ok, I left out the part where you execute this on each client...or each fileserver that holds home directories...or just one system that mounts all home directories...)
P.S. I know that the *nixes have similar capability, but somehow I suspect that the Apple solution is a little friendlier.
Maybe it is just me, but I find shell scripts way simpler to write then Apple Script...maybe I just don't have a good tutorial on Apple Script, but I have a real hard time doing anything in it. Any good recommendations?
P.S. these scripts were never tested, may not work.
What I wish for is a tool that constantly downloads changes from all of the other developers' trees and highlights the lines that have changed in whatever file you're working on
Write a small wrapper for 'cvs annotate' that colors lines with a version number newer then the current, have it display the areas around changes for a few seconds then go to the next one. Run it in another window. If your editor has hooks that can be used to tell the wrapper what files to show...otherwise keep cycling.
You could do it in under a day, at least if you only care about difference relitatave to the head of the tree. Hmmmm, wonder if I have some free time...maybe if I read slashdot less...
Network bandwidth would be a total hog, but the time saved when you don't have to suddenly discover that someone else broke all of your changes
Network bandwidth would be ok on 10Mbit ethernet, maybe even a T1 for modest size projects (and you should be able to limit this to "a few files" or a directory). Maybe there is an easy way to check what the head revision is so you can skip the costly annotate if the thing has not changed. It will suck a lot for the cvs server though.
Or, just run OS X, and minimize some windows, scroll some windows, you'll peg a dual 1ghz G4 pretty dang quick.
I donno, I run OSX on my laptop, and don't notice it's fan kicking in when I minimise a bunch of windows and scroll around a lot. It is "only" a 667, and only one of 'em. Either you are exagerating, or there is some serious spin lock issues:-) (or for some reason the graphics "card" in the PB G4 is better then the one int eh G4 Towers...)
Who needs a fan when you can buy a new Imac from apple thats so quiet and flow-efficent ya dunt even need a stinking loud fan or a quiter one!!
Er, the new iMac does have a fan. It has no CPU fan (it does have a big heat sink), but it does have a case fan. It sounds like it has no fan mostly because the G4 sucks way less power then the P3/P4/K7, and partly because Apple is very big into variable speed fans. Get PhotoShop up on the iMac and crank through some complex filters on big images and you will hear the fan.
Apple does make nice machines, but I don't think they currently make any fan less ones (er, unless the CRT iMacs they still make are sans fans...).
On the other hand PSX2 Linux will work well on the TV, might be quiet, and probably makes a dandy MP3 player for your TV room (which is where my good stereo is).
Re:Wireless is great!
on
Wireless Mania
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well hopefully RFC 3118 (Authentication in DHCP) will be implemented soon, meaning less unathorized addresses passed out.
Ugh, what a stunningly bad idea. Now rather then having people stumble across your network and use it without getting in your way they come over have to run tcpdump, guess your netblock and DNS server, and pick an "unused looking" address. If they guess wrong one of your machines could be inaccessable.
As I see it people using your DHCP server is doing you a huge favor, they don't get in your way, and they get logged with the IP address assigned, so you can later figure out what happened. Now all you will know is some mac address wanted a DHCP lease and was denied, lord only knows what IP address they picked out after that!
I would suggest looking for a Cisco home base station. Although they were EOL'd a few months ago they are based on a similar platform to their enterprise AP's. They cost more than the Linksys or SMC units but you get what you pay for. I have never had mine lock up =)
Mine never locked up either, not even after it broke. It just started dropping about 30% of the traffic. Cisco wanted $750 to fix it (which is more then I payed for it). Apparently that's more then they sell for right no too.
I bought a new Apple base station, which seems to have less range then the Cisco, but it is prettier.
So, if I understand your argument correctly, you're saying access to the discarded photos devalue the best shot because the discards (regardless of number) are sufficiently close to the best shot. You fear this means in 10 years people won't want to pay for the good shot when they can get a 'close enough' discard for much less money.
Yes, the "best" discards end up being slightly different angles, slightly warmer or cooler shots, or slightly darker or more exposed, or have just a little too much or little too little motion blur. In many cases the discards could be almost as good as the chosen shot to a different photo editor, and to most of the public at large they are all good shots. Think of it this way, you are shooting a white church steeple in golden light on slide film. You shoot two rolls (72 frames) to reduce the chance of bad film or processing wrecking your work (you only get two chances at shooting in golden light, the 15 to 30 min around sunrise, and the 15 to 30 around sunset so you don't want to let the lab waste it!). Now how many different useful ways are they to shoot the thing? Not 72, I've tried.
You end up with near duplicates because there are only so many ways to do it. They are not true duplicates because you have things like trees used as framing elements that are in slightly different places, so it can be proved which is the published image and which is the "abandoned" image.
Assuming I have that correctly (a shortcoming of discussing something in this fashion, I'm not trying to railroad you into defending against my incorrect interpretation) I can think of an easy way to allay your fears: don't publish the discards until the copyright term on the published shot (and thus its exclusive market) has expired.
How does that improve things? It still has been unavialble to the public, still abandoned. The only thing that changes is who can get it. Your lab can. Your photo assistants can. Your cleaning staff can (and in any of these cases I'm not talking about theft, you can use a slide duplicator). If use a digital camera (or scan your slides) you also have to worry about the old backups (say when you copy over the CD-Rs once a year because you don't want to be stuck with a bad one...three years worth is safe, 10 years worth is a lot of extra bulk!), or if you send the CDs out to be copied because someone else has a dup'er that takes stacks of CDs which is a lot cheaper then paying your assistant $6.75 an hour to swap them by hand...
That doesn't even get to the issue of the photo editors that want to see your "10 best" so they can pick the "one best" (not uncommon, since the final selection really is a matter of taste...and sometimes a matter of what headlines they want to fit in and where they fit on your photo!). They are going to buy and publish one image, but they tend to want exclusive rights on the whole set, plus anything that is "too similar" (you don't see Antoine Verglas selling a picture of Molly Sims in a red bikini on white fur to FHM and the same pose of Molly but in a pink bikini to Maxim do you?).
Speaking of Molly Sims (well, not her, more like the unknown models) it is common for small time models to take prints as part or all of their payment. They have restricted use of them (normally they can only be used in a portfolio which they use to get more work). You normally show them a few good images and let them pick which they like. Those may not be the same shots of the model that the magazine wants to buy, so in ten years the copyright would revert and not only does your model have the images, any other photographer that she tried to model for may have made a copy! Here copyright is not only protecting you, but her!
Oh, on to the nudes...
Then don't get them developed at a place you can't trust to honor your wishes. Self-developing film is a great way to accomplish this. This scenario doesn't strike me as a copyright issue because people who make these kinds of photos (hello Laura Schlessinger!) don't want them published at all regardless of when the copyright on them expires.
You can barely trust the places that are out there now with copyright to help you, without it you have a huge problem (Ok "barely" is taring Descrite Color Labs with the same brush that Walmart so richly deserves).
Self-developing would be fine, if we all liked B&W film and had a decent light tight changing bag and another $100 worth of crap. Some of us don't (or lose the film spool when we try to hook it onto the tank's leads). More over most people would far rather have color, and frankly home processing color sucks, is hard, and probably causes cancer. I only know one person that does it and I know a lot of photographers! (this guy is a former chemist, or at least that was a former hobby)
But there are ways to address both copyright and privacy concerns: use a film you control completely: digital cameras are quickly entering the norm, self-developing physical film like the older "Big Swinger" camera film or more modern color Polaroid camera film have decades of acceptability behind them.
So because we strip copyright from non-published works (well after ten years) you either have low res images (most digitals don't look so hot at 8x10, let alone the 16x20 good film on a tripod with a good lens can do), cheap ameaturish infinite depth of field (until you get to the $1400 to $2500 EOS-D30 or Fuji S1 the CCDs on digi cams are too physically small to do selective focus), or you have to pay a ton of money (for the Canon or Fuji DSLR) which may not take your lenses (if you shoot Leica, Contax, Pentax, Minolta, Oly, rangefinders, medium or large format cameras...). Oh, or you are limited to the relitavly poor res and bad color pallettes of Polaroid or Fuji instant films?
This abandonment provision may have problems but I don't think the particular counterarguments you've raised convince me that abandonment provisions are a bad idea.
You didn't cover game balance issues in things like Magic.
I didn't cover items that are delibratly produced in limited quantities in order to keep them profitable, like photos from most photographers that only go for $200 to $300 nicely framed in limited editions of 100 or 1000. Make them unlimited and they probably only go for $10-30 over the cost of the frame, and trust me these people just don't sell enough as it is.
This abandonment provision may have problems but I don't think the particular counterarguments you've raised convince me that abandonment provisions are a bad idea.
Oh, I think they are a great idea, if we can identify all the holes and fix them without making it too complex, and too easy to bypass.
For example if we made abandonment apply only to non-limited run mass market items to get around it new books would be in "limited runs" of 500 million or other numbers above their possible sales run. It is hard to make the rules simple (to reduce unexpected loopholes), fair, and hard to avoid.
I admit I like the abandonment idea because I wouldn't want to deprive the public of works the publisher has chosen to let 'go out of print' (or go out of publication, regardless of medium).
I'm with you. I want to be able to buy Kadge Baker's out of print stories (of corse she seems to be a fictonwise author, so I probably will be able to sooner or later, even so there are other authors I like that aren't. I want to buy CDs from bands that are gone. I want legal copies of my beloved childhood video games for MAME. I would love to examine the source for MacOS 1.0 just as closely as I have seen V6 Unix's (with the help of Jim Lions)...
...I just don't want to destroy collectable card games, small time art photographers, small to medium time stock and freelance PJ shooters, and a host of other creative artists that I don't know squat about!
It's not uncommon to have less then one "keeper" in a roll of film
Gaahh, all that verbiage, and I forgot to give my one hard number:-) At least one national geographic photographer shoots about 300 rolls of film (10,800 frames) for an article. I don't know exactly how many images are in the average geographic article, but I would be surprised if it were more then about 20. Of corse geographic has about the highest standards, plus the money for 300 rolls of film (even expensive pro slide film like Provia 400F) doesn't cost much compared to sending someone across the world and all...
(note there is some argument that Playboy might have higher standards since they use medium format and all, but I still think geographic is more demanding, not that I have published pics in either...and I know which would be more fun to shoot, not to mention less dangerous!)
Yeah, they should be just like everybody else! I'm sure YOUR boss would jump at the chance to continue paying your wages to your wife after you die.
Yeah, but my boss pays me as I do the work. The folks in question produce the music/book/software/dance then after the fact get the money. If I die my wife is out at most two weeks of my wages (and really they actually legally have to pay through the last day I worked), if a jazz musision dies and you cancel the copyright his wife is out for everything he recorded that hasn't made it's money back yet!
RazzleFrog is right on the money. That argument is simply ridiculous. The notion of a copyright was never intended to provide financial support for a writer/artist's survivors. You can bet Disney, et al, don't give a damn about those people; they have other obvious motives for purchasing copyright extensions.
Clearly I didn't make myself clear, when I quoted this:
Maybe this will mean copyrights will no longer be enforced after authors are dead
I did so because to me that implies "you die, your copyright ends", which is rather unfair to people who just finished a work shortly before they passed away! I'm happy with a fixed period of protection (10, 20, 30 years after creation), or a not absurdly long time after death. I'm not happy with "you die, it's over". How would you like to be an old writer with a great book idea, but your publisher won't pay you for it because you might die before they manage to sell any? Worse yet if you not only want to write the book but need the money for something, eh?
I think that copyright should be for a fixed term regardless of the creator's lifespan - maybe 30 years or so. After that, if you weren't smart enough to save your money like everybody else, then it is time to get another job or create another work.
I'm not opposed to that, just the notion that because an artist is dead there is no interest in protecting their work. 30 years is fine so long as it includes whatever part of that is past the end of their life. Otherwise whatever work they happen to do close to the end of their life will be reduced in (monetary) value.
You'll note the message I replied to implied no period of copyright after death was useful. A fixed period after creation sounds fair to me, in many ways more so then a fixed number of years after death (which I'm not opposed to either so long as the period isn't absurdly small -- like zero, or absurdly large -- like 70 years!).
I'll never understand this argument. Why should artists be different than everybody else? When I die my wife will get insurance money and have access to my savings. Is it my fault that the artist didn't save his money while he was alive or buy into an insurance plan?
It is different mostly in that artists tend to do their work, and after wards get the money, most people get the money as they go. So I think it is important not to cancel their copyright just because they die.
Is their contribution to society so great that their decendants should benefit from their work?
It isn't different, but your decedents should also benefit from your work. Since you tend to get payed as you do the work you can see to it by saving some of that money away. If you get pay after the fact then it is pretty important that it not just vanish when you die.
Of course, in Be's case, what really is the point of filing now? Is someone going to do this work pro bono hoping (hah!) that they can afford to battle Microsoft in court and win?
There are three ways of getting a lawyer. Pro Bono, which is where they work for free because they think the cause is just and worth their time, or because they think they can make a big name for themselves and the "free" advertising is worth the time. Paying them outright (you might get a better price if they believe int he cause or want publicity though). Contingency, which is where they take a percentage of the winnings (if any), which is where they may or may not believe in the cause, may or may not think the PR is worth it, but sure do think they have decent odds of winning!
Slashdot Mirror
Why then hard drive makers wouldn't be able to have both high-profit and low-profit items that are basically the same, would they? (FYI there has been a serial SCSI working group for a long while, they even produced working samples of controllers, I think maybe 5 years ago!)
Or less cynically (and less realistically) SCSI has a lot of gunk in it, starting over with a new spec gives them a chance to purge it all...oh, wait, starting with the ATA spec gives us all that ATA baggage, including SCSI over ATA...
Don't forget FireWire, which does at least all the big things serial ATA does, has been around a while, and is already in the market on many Sony PCs, and all Apples for the last few years. No, on the other hand, lets forget FireWire... (yeah, I know this is at least partly Apple's fault for it's patent stance, giving a reason for not using FireWire in some places and an excuse in many more).
It didn't when I got mine (a monthish after the release). However it wouldn't be hard for Apple to do it since I'm pretty sure they put the OS on the drive (not FLASH), so adding some music to the image wouldn't be impossible.
I think it wouldn't be "personal use" to burn CD-Rs and sell them on ebay (or just out of the back of your car). Maybe even giving them away free wouldn't be "personal use", but I don't know.
As long as there was nothing illegal about downloading the MP3 in the first place.
They should be punished for honest mistakes? Why? What good would that do? wouldn't it make (at least some of them) attempt to hide any mistakes that they might later realize?
Oh, and do you know anyone that never makes any mistakes at their job?
I'm ok with punishing people for abuse of power, or for gross incompetence, or fraud, but an honest mistake? Everyone makes those, and it strikes me as a bad idea to heap additional punishments on top of whatever damage the mistake did.
Apple has already done it...sort of. The old PowerBooks (before the G4 Ti PowerBooks) had two bays, one normally held a drive of some sort (CD, hard drive, DVD), one normally held the battery. Apple shipped a "weight saving device" which was just a hollow plastic rectangle that fit in the slot. Replacing the drive (DVD in my case) saved a little weight, replacing the battery saved a noticeable amount of weight. Still not like half the weight. You could also use two batteries which was one way to survive a long flight.
Apple's way didn't save any money since the shipped a battery (list price $120, which one a PowerBook priced laptop is a whole lot less money then the drive, or that I spent on RAM...). I'm not sure the price savings is really all valuable. I don't use my laptop unplugged all that much, but I do like being able to move it without shutting down, and with "instant on" when I power it up again....hmmmm...and "not all that much" is about twice a week, so yeah, I would really miss it.
As for space, the battery in the new PowerBook is pretty small, not large enough to get a CD-ROM, but probably big enough for another laptop drive.
Now PowerPC CPUs (so far) use a lot less power then modern x86 CPUs, so you might save more weight/money/space on a x86 this way...
Optional, and I think seldom supported. Definitely not on by default in sendmail. Just as importantly the receipt could be forged, so it isn't real useful.
Many (not all) systems use one large file for each mail folder. The one I used that didn't (MH) still marked up the file and lost the original time stamp (plus one can use "touch" to alter that as well).
Yes it is illegal, and immoral, but it is very hard to prove which party did it! If the two of us are in dispute, how could the court know which of is has the invalid document? In this country they will not just jail us both, nor will they pick at random. You need a lot stronger case then the one that proves at least one of us, but not which one of us forged the mail!
Of corse it doesn't match! The problem is proving which (if any!) was unedited! Is the "contract" saying $1.86mil or $1.94mil the real one?
Nobody will get away with an obviously unreasonable price, but one can claim the price was 10% or 20% higher (or lower) then the real one. You may not get that price, but you may well be able to get out of the "contract" by claiming you agreed to something different then what the other guy has.
Not a chance. Marketing doesn't pay anything for having programmers being stressed. They don't pay much for having a product being buggy (unless it is buggy enough to kill the company). They do gain something from having a new product with new features to bullet point (they also gain something from being able to specify features that will later be bullet points in ads, on boxes, or on slides).
So marketing will push hard for unrealistic schedules. Crunch time or not. The only way to avoid it is to have management (or in a small company you) pushing back hard enough to keep the schedule sane. Even if you are insanely good ("two new server products in 4 weeks? No problem") that normally buys you more insane schedules in the future (and one would hope a bonus, raise, or some now worthless stock). Of corse if you are really good, that can be fun for a while, but some day you will miss your family, other hobbies, and seeing the day star.
Signatures are somewhat hard to forge, you need to gain a skill, risk having an expert conclude it was forged and going to jail. Using a text editor on a mail folder is normally quite easy, undetectable, and the only thing an expert can say is "there is no way anyone can tell if it was forged -- either of these documents could be the original".
Did the defendant agree that they really wrote the mail? Not only is it easy to forge email, but it is trivial to change your record of the email (the sender could edit messages in his sent folder, the receiver could edit the messages in their 'home sale' folder).
It may suck to agree to pay $1.86mil and be asked to pay $1.92mil, but it would suck just as much to ask $1.92mil and have to accept $1.86mil just because the plaintiff knows how to use vi!
I don't think email is a workable contract medium. Too trivial to alter. With a precedent that email can form a contract I don't see how anyone who wanted to weasel out of a contract would admit to "signing" the real thing rather then edit up their copy and claim that is what they "signed"!
vi /tmp/clients (scribble scribble)
foreach c ($(cat /tmp/clients))
/Applications/Office $c:/Applications/Office
scp -r
end
foreach u ($(cut -d: -f1 /etc/passwd))
/Applications/Office ~$u/Desktop/Office
ln -s
end
(Ok, I left out the part where you execute this on each client...or each fileserver that holds home directories...or just one system that mounts all home directories...)
Maybe it is just me, but I find shell scripts way simpler to write then Apple Script...maybe I just don't have a good tutorial on Apple Script, but I have a real hard time doing anything in it. Any good recommendations?
P.S. these scripts were never tested, may not work.
I have seen at least three, two as downloads (I can't remember if they were free or shareware) from Apple's web site.
Write a small wrapper for 'cvs annotate' that colors lines with a version number newer then the current, have it display the areas around changes for a few seconds then go to the next one. Run it in another window. If your editor has hooks that can be used to tell the wrapper what files to show...otherwise keep cycling.
You could do it in under a day, at least if you only care about difference relitatave to the head of the tree. Hmmmm, wonder if I have some free time...maybe if I read slashdot less...
Network bandwidth would be ok on 10Mbit ethernet, maybe even a T1 for modest size projects (and you should be able to limit this to "a few files" or a directory). Maybe there is an easy way to check what the head revision is so you can skip the costly annotate if the thing has not changed. It will suck a lot for the cvs server though.
I donno, I run OSX on my laptop, and don't notice it's fan kicking in when I minimise a bunch of windows and scroll around a lot. It is "only" a 667, and only one of 'em. Either you are exagerating, or there is some serious spin lock issues :-) (or for some reason the graphics "card" in the PB G4 is better then the one int eh G4 Towers...)
Er, the new iMac does have a fan. It has no CPU fan (it does have a big heat sink), but it does have a case fan. It sounds like it has no fan mostly because the G4 sucks way less power then the P3/P4/K7, and partly because Apple is very big into variable speed fans. Get PhotoShop up on the iMac and crank through some complex filters on big images and you will hear the fan.
Apple does make nice machines, but I don't think they currently make any fan less ones (er, unless the CRT iMacs they still make are sans fans...).
He has $500K worth of computer stuff mostly through research grants, not his own personal wealth (which as a University prof I doubt he has much of).
On the other hand PSX2 Linux will work well on the TV, might be quiet, and probably makes a dandy MP3 player for your TV room (which is where my good stereo is).
Good chance I'll get one just to run w3juke on.
Ugh, what a stunningly bad idea. Now rather then having people stumble across your network and use it without getting in your way they come over have to run tcpdump, guess your netblock and DNS server, and pick an "unused looking" address. If they guess wrong one of your machines could be inaccessable.
As I see it people using your DHCP server is doing you a huge favor, they don't get in your way, and they get logged with the IP address assigned, so you can later figure out what happened. Now all you will know is some mac address wanted a DHCP lease and was denied, lord only knows what IP address they picked out after that!
Mine never locked up either, not even after it broke. It just started dropping about 30% of the traffic. Cisco wanted $750 to fix it (which is more then I payed for it). Apparently that's more then they sell for right no too.
I bought a new Apple base station, which seems to have less range then the Cisco, but it is prettier.
Thanks, never noticed that before. I wonder why it was put in, and even more why it was never used.
Yes, the "best" discards end up being slightly different angles, slightly warmer or cooler shots, or slightly darker or more exposed, or have just a little too much or little too little motion blur. In many cases the discards could be almost as good as the chosen shot to a different photo editor, and to most of the public at large they are all good shots. Think of it this way, you are shooting a white church steeple in golden light on slide film. You shoot two rolls (72 frames) to reduce the chance of bad film or processing wrecking your work (you only get two chances at shooting in golden light, the 15 to 30 min around sunrise, and the 15 to 30 around sunset so you don't want to let the lab waste it!). Now how many different useful ways are they to shoot the thing? Not 72, I've tried.
You end up with near duplicates because there are only so many ways to do it. They are not true duplicates because you have things like trees used as framing elements that are in slightly different places, so it can be proved which is the published image and which is the "abandoned" image.
How does that improve things? It still has been unavialble to the public, still abandoned. The only thing that changes is who can get it. Your lab can. Your photo assistants can. Your cleaning staff can (and in any of these cases I'm not talking about theft, you can use a slide duplicator). If use a digital camera (or scan your slides) you also have to worry about the old backups (say when you copy over the CD-Rs once a year because you don't want to be stuck with a bad one...three years worth is safe, 10 years worth is a lot of extra bulk!), or if you send the CDs out to be copied because someone else has a dup'er that takes stacks of CDs which is a lot cheaper then paying your assistant $6.75 an hour to swap them by hand...
That doesn't even get to the issue of the photo editors that want to see your "10 best" so they can pick the "one best" (not uncommon, since the final selection really is a matter of taste...and sometimes a matter of what headlines they want to fit in and where they fit on your photo!). They are going to buy and publish one image, but they tend to want exclusive rights on the whole set, plus anything that is "too similar" (you don't see Antoine Verglas selling a picture of Molly Sims in a red bikini on white fur to FHM and the same pose of Molly but in a pink bikini to Maxim do you?).
Speaking of Molly Sims (well, not her, more like the unknown models) it is common for small time models to take prints as part or all of their payment. They have restricted use of them (normally they can only be used in a portfolio which they use to get more work). You normally show them a few good images and let them pick which they like. Those may not be the same shots of the model that the magazine wants to buy, so in ten years the copyright would revert and not only does your model have the images, any other photographer that she tried to model for may have made a copy! Here copyright is not only protecting you, but her!
Oh, on to the nudes...
You can barely trust the places that are out there now with copyright to help you, without it you have a huge problem (Ok "barely" is taring Descrite Color Labs with the same brush that Walmart so richly deserves).
Self-developing would be fine, if we all liked B&W film and had a decent light tight changing bag and another $100 worth of crap. Some of us don't (or lose the film spool when we try to hook it onto the tank's leads). More over most people would far rather have color, and frankly home processing color sucks, is hard, and probably causes cancer. I only know one person that does it and I know a lot of photographers! (this guy is a former chemist, or at least that was a former hobby)
So because we strip copyright from non-published works (well after ten years) you either have low res images (most digitals don't look so hot at 8x10, let alone the 16x20 good film on a tripod with a good lens can do), cheap ameaturish infinite depth of field (until you get to the $1400 to $2500 EOS-D30 or Fuji S1 the CCDs on digi cams are too physically small to do selective focus), or you have to pay a ton of money (for the Canon or Fuji DSLR) which may not take your lenses (if you shoot Leica, Contax, Pentax, Minolta, Oly, rangefinders, medium or large format cameras...). Oh, or you are limited to the relitavly poor res and bad color pallettes of Polaroid or Fuji instant films?
You didn't cover game balance issues in things like Magic.
I didn't cover items that are delibratly produced in limited quantities in order to keep them profitable, like photos from most photographers that only go for $200 to $300 nicely framed in limited editions of 100 or 1000. Make them unlimited and they probably only go for $10-30 over the cost of the frame, and trust me these people just don't sell enough as it is.
Oh, I think they are a great idea, if we can identify all the holes and fix them without making it too complex, and too easy to bypass.
For example if we made abandonment apply only to non-limited run mass market items to get around it new books would be in "limited runs" of 500 million or other numbers above their possible sales run. It is hard to make the rules simple (to reduce unexpected loopholes), fair, and hard to avoid.
I'm with you. I want to be able to buy Kadge Baker's out of print stories (of corse she seems to be a fictonwise author, so I probably will be able to sooner or later, even so there are other authors I like that aren't. I want to buy CDs from bands that are gone. I want legal copies of my beloved childhood video games for MAME. I would love to examine the source for MacOS 1.0 just as closely as I have seen V6 Unix's (with the help of Jim Lions)...
...I just don't want to destroy collectable card games, small time art photographers, small to medium time stock and freelance PJ shooters, and a host of other creative artists that I don't know squat about!
Gaahh, all that verbiage, and I forgot to give my one hard number :-) At least one national geographic photographer shoots about 300 rolls of film (10,800 frames) for an article. I don't know exactly how many images are in the average geographic article, but I would be surprised if it were more then about 20. Of corse geographic has about the highest standards, plus the money for 300 rolls of film (even expensive pro slide film like Provia 400F) doesn't cost much compared to sending someone across the world and all...
(note there is some argument that Playboy might have higher standards since they use medium format and all, but I still think geographic is more demanding, not that I have published pics in either...and I know which would be more fun to shoot, not to mention less dangerous!)
Yeah, but my boss pays me as I do the work. The folks in question produce the music/book/software/dance then after the fact get the money. If I die my wife is out at most two weeks of my wages (and really they actually legally have to pay through the last day I worked), if a jazz musision dies and you cancel the copyright his wife is out for everything he recorded that hasn't made it's money back yet!
Clearly I didn't make myself clear, when I quoted this:
I did so because to me that implies "you die, your copyright ends", which is rather unfair to people who just finished a work shortly before they passed away! I'm happy with a fixed period of protection (10, 20, 30 years after creation), or a not absurdly long time after death. I'm not happy with "you die, it's over". How would you like to be an old writer with a great book idea, but your publisher won't pay you for it because you might die before they manage to sell any? Worse yet if you not only want to write the book but need the money for something, eh?
I'm not opposed to that, just the notion that because an artist is dead there is no interest in protecting their work. 30 years is fine so long as it includes whatever part of that is past the end of their life. Otherwise whatever work they happen to do close to the end of their life will be reduced in (monetary) value.
You'll note the message I replied to implied no period of copyright after death was useful. A fixed period after creation sounds fair to me, in many ways more so then a fixed number of years after death (which I'm not opposed to either so long as the period isn't absurdly small -- like zero, or absurdly large -- like 70 years!).
It is different mostly in that artists tend to do their work, and after wards get the money, most people get the money as they go. So I think it is important not to cancel their copyright just because they die.
It isn't different, but your decedents should also benefit from your work. Since you tend to get payed as you do the work you can see to it by saving some of that money away. If you get pay after the fact then it is pretty important that it not just vanish when you die.
There are three ways of getting a lawyer. Pro Bono, which is where they work for free because they think the cause is just and worth their time, or because they think they can make a big name for themselves and the "free" advertising is worth the time. Paying them outright (you might get a better price if they believe int he cause or want publicity though). Contingency, which is where they take a percentage of the winnings (if any), which is where they may or may not believe in the cause, may or may not think the PR is worth it, but sure do think they have decent odds of winning!