Technically, Oxford's lexicographic philosophy is more descriptivist than prescriptivist. Their stated intent is to document, record and communicate the language they find through actual usage. Thus, Oxford, while the gold standard of English lexicography (more so British usage than American, but it's pretty strong in either case) is not to be confused with an "ANSI standard." It's an entirely different thing, a better analogy might be the SIbley Guide.
"It just seems that now adays everything is completely overblown. I think that a huge majority of men in this country aren't sexist or racist, I think they just want to get to the end of the work day."
That's a false dichotomy. Not all sexist (racist, homophobic, etc.) acts and comments are matters of premeditated intent.
As long as you give the museum the right to make backup copies and export/transform, there's NOTHING else you have to do to make sure the work will be preserved for the generations - at that point, it is the responsibility of the curators to preserve it.
Not quite. I agree with the latter, but you're wrong, I believe, about the first part of your statement.
Poster has already stated that, to some extent, it's clear the museum in question does not at present have that much of a clue about how they're dealing with this. On the other hand, digital media will, I expect, become a larger part of that museum's ownership over the next couple decades, if the museum is going to survive, it will, probably, eventually, get a clue. Picking a decently archival medium, delivering multiple copies, and using a decently archival (read: popular) file format or two, might actually help the data survive the period of incompetence.
*shrug* Be more interesting with bigger versions of the images, I have no beef with you if you disagree--just think that actually providing the data is interesting.
Indeed, it really isn't. I'm a photographer and, yeah, it does happen that stuff gets separated from it's owner, EXIF should be a pretty good solution but sometimes, even often, people strip it out along.
There are a few steps being taken toward "search the web by image content, approximately", the best example I know of so far is the TinEye search engine (www.tineye.com). It's pretty cool, even found a musical group that was using one of my images as their front cover with it.
There are 13 million iPhones. iPhones don't support Flash. 13 million is larger than the difference between the reported number of network devices and Flash-enabled devices reported.
Thus, one of the assumptions above must be incorrect.
I know I'd prefer to be able to pay $5/month to have my simple website hosted than have to pay $50/month to cover the ISP's insurance in case someone posts a pop song on their personal site.
You got any reason to believe that that's the actual economics of it? I'm paying a lot closer to the $5/month figure, and my ISP is hosted in the US, so answer carefully.
Why is the DMCA, which makes ISP liability contingent on responses such as "terminating repeat offenders" and taking down content without any proof of copyright infringement a good thing?
Having ISPs and other service providers involved as part of the chain of this process is important in part because of the multinational nature of the net. A quick example--I'm a nature photographer, I have no employees, my gross sales last year were a tiny fraction of my salary when I was in technology, but earlier this year I found that a band based in Europe had issued an album using one of my images on the cover of their CD, they'd sold thousands of copies.
Now, even if everyone had been in the US, I would have had zero practical recourse for this theft. They have big lawyers, US copyright law would require me to file any lawsuit for the few hundred bucks in "damages" at an expense of tens of thousands of dollars, I'd be essentially helpless. There is no federal "small claims court."
The situation here was worse, the band members and record label wouldn't return my emails or phone calls when I attempted to reach them over a period of two weeks to resolve the matter.
I'll tell you what worked, though.
I realized, two weeks into this fuss, that they were selling their album on Amazon.com. They were using an image of my work to sell their product on Amazon.com, a US-based provider.
I DMCA'd the image of their album on the internet, your "no proof of violation" belied by the fact that I provided, as required, links to examples of the infringed image elsewhere on the net to Amazon. Amazon removed the product from the site, and within a couple hours I was contacted by both the record company, the band, and the graphic designer who'd taken the image to resolve the conflict. We worked out a license fee, they paid it, and I went to some trouble to contact Amazon and let them know that the problem had been resolved.
The DMCA's power, as much as it can be abused by large corporation's power against individuals, is also the only tool that allowed me to get paid in this situation.
Had I made this up, all the band/record company would have had to do to have their record restored would be to send Amazon a counter-notification. I write off the idea that this is such a big effin deal as hysteria.
IANAL, but I believe that it doesn't actually require it to be your home address or phone number, if you (say) have a lawyer I believe that representative's contact information is sufficient, the intent is to allow copyright holders to actually be able to carry out a lawsuit.
Not that most folks, myself included, have a lawyer.
I am all the more concerned about this because on top of carrying a dSLR, I am also an immigrant and my skin color differs from the locals. That's one of the mains reasons I never got into public photography.
I'm sorry, I get some of this myself, but with the pasty white skin I know I'm getting more slack that I would otherwise. It's just insane out there.
But, I am curious... what do you do about the other risks I identify? (E.g., non-local mail passes through other uncontrolled servers? I presume you're concerned about those as well, and I'd like the benefit of the solutions you've worked out.)
If you're saying, and perhaps you are, that you never access your mail from a machine you don't control, then perhaps I can see your point. But I don't see that grabbing a password (presuming one has a little caution about seeing who is looking over your shoulder, and is smart enough not to hit save password on a machine one doesn't control) isn't that much harder for an IMAP client than it is for a web browser--if it's on a computer you don't already control.
Perhaps you find it possible to avoid working from computers you don't control. Pretty much, I don't find that possible, my work requires lots of unusual travel. Internet access in parts of Greenland can be a challenge. While I try and exercise caution over which systems I do access my email from, and often am able to do so from my Treo (via web browser, since basic Gmail has better keyboard behavior than snappermail et all manage), it's simply not practical for me to never access my email from controlled systems.
I'm sorry "So what?" came off as dismissive as it did, but I don't see that an SSL password from a laptop I control, when I can see who is looking over my shoulder, materially increases my existing risk over storing it in Eurora. And I don't see, if I'm using a computer I don't control, that entering a password there in an IMAP client is that much more secure than entering a password in a web browser.
The first post I replied to said nothing about "reliability", but I'll address that too, since you said it's a requirement for you. GMail has been more reliable than any corporate-managed email server I worked on in my technology years (err, decades). I could probably cons together a server at home with hot-swappable RAID drives that delivered additional 9s of reliability, but I haven't found any simple solution that gives me those 9s.
Still, these days I'm a photographer, and artist, I'm not a doctor, spy, or lawyer. If a photograph of mine gets delivered a little late, well, it'll hurt but nobody's kid is dying, nobody is going to the gas chamber, y'know? Your mileage may vary.
It is trivial for a third party to see your password when you login from your browser, more so if you're a dunce who stores them in the browser. So what? The risk of having a password hacked (by looking over the shoulder or by hacked browsers) is a relatively small additional risk to the risks already present in email. Nearly every piece of email I have, sent or received, and perhaps yours as well, has traversed systems I don't control sans encryption. There's nothing in my email that isn't something I'm aware of the possible publicness of.
You don't need my email account password to spoof email from me pretty well, either, this happens to me already now and again, e.g. from spammers.
So... y'know, it's not like I *want* my email hacked. But a relatively small probability of password hacking (for who I am and what I'm doing) to avoid risks that are already present? Yawn.
Perhaps the only real differential risk here is losing data--and well, for that, there are backups.
So.. I'm back to... aren't you exaggerating the risk and danger here?
I was pretty surprised by how much I liked the GMail web interface, but it only took a couple days to discover that I preferred it. The combination of the "all on one server" thing (which, yes, by itself you could do with IMAP) in addition to not having to muss with IMAP setup on my phone, my girlfriend's Mac, the PC in the cafe near Mt. Whitney or the Mac in the back of the store east of Glacier National Park, plus a decent search engine? (Dude, I love regexps as much as the next guy, but Google search is actually a better tool for digging things out of my mail than egrep is.)
Indeed, we're all going to see performance and features of Photoshop through the lens of whatever work we do with it. You'd be surprised how much time a "small" feature like the healing and spot healing brush have saved me, not to mention lots of the improvements to what one can do with layers and smart filters, but... that's me, that doesn't make my experience any more valid than your own.
Still, I wouldn't entirely judge Adobe's "sitting on it's laurels" based only on Photoshop itself. I think of Lightroom as a reinvention of a lot of what Photoshop that I need to do, plus a lot of stuff that I would have used another application for in the past. It's not "enough" to replace Photoshop at version 1.3.1 for most of my work, but 2.0 (now in Beta) appears to correct the single biggest deficiency (more local adjustments) while holding to a much cleaner (and far less resource-hungry) paradigm for non-destructive editing, many things I'd do in PS with a full (non-adjustment) layer (100+ MB of memory usage) can be accomplished in both an easier to use and less memory-intensive manner. Moreover, Lightroom moves photographic work from a file-based to a database-based storage paradigm, which is quite a leap as well. I suspect even in 2.x most of my images will "see" Photoshop at some point during the process, but I'll be able to ditch a huge amount of the disk and RAM resource bloatage imposed by the layer-based "master file" paradigm.
Cheers...
... Adobe has been playing safety defense for 10 years.
That's at least a bit glib, at least with respect to Photoshop and competing products. I find that most of the last few releases of Photoshop have improved enough to make it worth the price of upgrade, moreover, Thomas Knoll's work on ACR and the introduction Lightroom represents a significant rethinking of the photographic workflow.
That having been said, the attempts at competition in the broad marketplace have been weak, Adobe does have a pretty entrenched "moat" around PS. I just don't see that translating them getting away with selling inferior products--if there were better products, I'd likely switch--it'd be a lot easier than switching, say, operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, Oxford's lexicographic philosophy is more descriptivist than prescriptivist. Their stated intent is to document, record and communicate the language they find through actual usage. Thus, Oxford, while the gold standard of English lexicography (more so British usage than American, but it's pretty strong in either case) is not to be confused with an "ANSI standard." It's an entirely different thing, a better analogy might be the SIbley Guide.
Remember that they all have to apply.
No, they don't. Only one independent claim (i.e., 1, 2 or 9) has to apply (at least it's like that in Europe)
Same in the US. To violate the patent you only need to violate one claim.
"It just seems that now adays everything is completely overblown. I think that a huge majority of men in this country aren't sexist or racist, I think they just want to get to the end of the work day."
That's a false dichotomy. Not all sexist (racist, homophobic, etc.) acts and comments are matters of premeditated intent.
--Joe
As long as you give the museum the right to make backup copies and export/transform, there's NOTHING else you have to do to make sure the work will be preserved for the generations - at that point, it is the responsibility of the curators to preserve it.
Not quite. I agree with the latter, but you're wrong, I believe, about the first part of your statement.
Poster has already stated that, to some extent, it's clear the museum in question does not at present have that much of a clue about how they're dealing with this. On the other hand, digital media will, I expect, become a larger part of that museum's ownership over the next couple decades, if the museum is going to survive, it will, probably, eventually, get a clue. Picking a decently archival medium, delivering multiple copies, and using a decently archival (read: popular) file format or two, might actually help the data survive the period of incompetence.
(otherwise, I totally agree with your points.)
I didn't read where the poster said that, I think you may have misread the article.
Don't throw out accusations of tracing without even taking the short time needed to test your theory.
Looks like more or less a tracing to me, as per the rollover image at the bottom of this post.
http://blog.ideeinc.com/2009/01/23/will-the-real-obama-hope-photograph-stand-up/ And I don't see what you're talking about with respect to the ear symmetry.
*shrug* Be more interesting with bigger versions of the images, I have no beef with you if you disagree--just think that actually providing the data is interesting.
--Joe
It's not as easy as you think to find the author
Indeed, it really isn't. I'm a photographer and, yeah, it does happen that stuff gets separated from it's owner, EXIF should be a pretty good solution but sometimes, even often, people strip it out along.
There are a few steps being taken toward "search the web by image content, approximately", the best example I know of so far is the TinEye search engine (www.tineye.com). It's pretty cool, even found a musical group that was using one of my images as their front cover with it.
--Joe
*snicker* ;)
( but http://www.mersenne.org/ )
At least forty-six. :)
There are 13 million iPhones. iPhones don't support Flash. 13 million is larger than the difference between the reported number of network devices and Flash-enabled devices reported.
Thus, one of the assumptions above must be incorrect.
QED.
Are they really that stupid or are all the promises of big savings not likely to pan out?
It'd make quarterly earnings numbers look bad. Short-s
Mmmm, you're right, I misread the grandparent post. D'oh. :(
I know I'd prefer to be able to pay $5/month to have my simple website hosted than have to pay $50/month to cover the ISP's insurance in case someone posts a pop song on their personal site.
You got any reason to believe that that's the actual economics of it? I'm paying a lot closer to the $5/month figure, and my ISP is hosted in the US, so answer carefully.
Why is the DMCA, which makes ISP liability contingent on responses such as "terminating repeat offenders" and taking down content without any proof of copyright infringement a good thing?
Having ISPs and other service providers involved as part of the chain of this process is important in part because of the multinational nature of the net. A quick example--I'm a nature photographer, I have no employees, my gross sales last year were a tiny fraction of my salary when I was in technology, but earlier this year I found that a band based in Europe had issued an album using one of my images on the cover of their CD, they'd sold thousands of copies.
Now, even if everyone had been in the US, I would have had zero practical recourse for this theft. They have big lawyers, US copyright law would require me to file any lawsuit for the few hundred bucks in "damages" at an expense of tens of thousands of dollars, I'd be essentially helpless. There is no federal "small claims court."
The situation here was worse, the band members and record label wouldn't return my emails or phone calls when I attempted to reach them over a period of two weeks to resolve the matter.
I'll tell you what worked, though.
I realized, two weeks into this fuss, that they were selling their album on Amazon.com. They were using an image of my work to sell their product on Amazon.com, a US-based provider.
I DMCA'd the image of their album on the internet, your "no proof of violation" belied by the fact that I provided, as required, links to examples of the infringed image elsewhere on the net to Amazon. Amazon removed the product from the site, and within a couple hours I was contacted by both the record company, the band, and the graphic designer who'd taken the image to resolve the conflict. We worked out a license fee, they paid it, and I went to some trouble to contact Amazon and let them know that the problem had been resolved.
The DMCA's power, as much as it can be abused by large corporation's power against individuals, is also the only tool that allowed me to get paid in this situation.
Had I made this up, all the band/record company would have had to do to have their record restored would be to send Amazon a counter-notification. I write off the idea that this is such a big effin deal as hysteria.
IANAL, but I believe that it doesn't actually require it to be your home address or phone number, if you (say) have a lawyer I believe that representative's contact information is sufficient, the intent is to allow copyright holders to actually be able to carry out a lawsuit.
Not that most folks, myself included, have a lawyer.
Sorry, that was me, I didn't mean to post AC.
Don't laminate them, wrap them in something archival, at least for standard (silver chemistry) prints on, say, Fuji Crystal Archive.
I am all the more concerned about this because on top of carrying a dSLR, I am also an immigrant and my skin color differs from the locals. That's one of the mains reasons I never got into public photography.
I'm sorry, I get some of this myself, but with the pasty white skin I know I'm getting more slack that I would otherwise. It's just insane out there.
Fascinating TED Talk on a similar (the same?) project? As I recall, some of video was a bit unpleasant to watch, but (IMHO) very worthwhile.
Indeed it's true that our needs may be different.
... what do you do about the other risks I identify? (E.g., non-local mail passes through other uncontrolled servers? I presume you're concerned about those as well, and I'd like the benefit of the solutions you've worked out.)
But, I am curious
If you're saying, and perhaps you are, that you never access your mail from a machine you don't control, then perhaps I can see your point. But I don't see that grabbing a password (presuming one has a little caution about seeing who is looking over your shoulder, and is smart enough not to hit save password on a machine one doesn't control) isn't that much harder for an IMAP client than it is for a web browser--if it's on a computer you don't already control.
Perhaps you find it possible to avoid working from computers you don't control. Pretty much, I don't find that possible, my work requires lots of unusual travel. Internet access in parts of Greenland can be a challenge. While I try and exercise caution over which systems I do access my email from, and often am able to do so from my Treo (via web browser, since basic Gmail has better keyboard behavior than snappermail et all manage), it's simply not practical for me to never access my email from controlled systems.
I'm sorry "So what?" came off as dismissive as it did, but I don't see that an SSL password from a laptop I control, when I can see who is looking over my shoulder, materially increases my existing risk over storing it in Eurora. And I don't see, if I'm using a computer I don't control, that entering a password there in an IMAP client is that much more secure than entering a password in a web browser.
The first post I replied to said nothing about "reliability", but I'll address that too, since you said it's a requirement for you. GMail has been more reliable than any corporate-managed email server I worked on in my technology years (err, decades). I could probably cons together a server at home with hot-swappable RAID drives that delivered additional 9s of reliability, but I haven't found any simple solution that gives me those 9s.
Still, these days I'm a photographer, and artist, I'm not a doctor, spy, or lawyer. If a photograph of mine gets delivered a little late, well, it'll hurt but nobody's kid is dying, nobody is going to the gas chamber, y'know? Your mileage may vary.
You don't need my email account password to spoof email from me pretty well, either, this happens to me already now and again, e.g. from spammers.
So... y'know, it's not like I *want* my email hacked. But a relatively small probability of password hacking (for who I am and what I'm doing) to avoid risks that are already present? Yawn.
Perhaps the only real differential risk here is losing data--and well, for that, there are backups.
So
I was pretty surprised by how much I liked the GMail web interface, but it only took a couple days to discover that I preferred it. The combination of the "all on one server" thing (which, yes, by itself you could do with IMAP) in addition to not having to muss with IMAP setup on my phone, my girlfriend's Mac, the PC in the cafe near Mt. Whitney or the Mac in the back of the store east of Glacier National Park, plus a decent search engine? (Dude, I love regexps as much as the next guy, but Google search is actually a better tool for digging things out of my mail than egrep is.)
Still, I wouldn't entirely judge Adobe's "sitting on it's laurels" based only on Photoshop itself. I think of Lightroom as a reinvention of a lot of what Photoshop that I need to do, plus a lot of stuff that I would have used another application for in the past. It's not "enough" to replace Photoshop at version 1.3.1 for most of my work, but 2.0 (now in Beta) appears to correct the single biggest deficiency (more local adjustments) while holding to a much cleaner (and far less resource-hungry) paradigm for non-destructive editing, many things I'd do in PS with a full (non-adjustment) layer (100+ MB of memory usage) can be accomplished in both an easier to use and less memory-intensive manner. Moreover, Lightroom moves photographic work from a file-based to a database-based storage paradigm, which is quite a leap as well. I suspect even in 2.x most of my images will "see" Photoshop at some point during the process, but I'll be able to ditch a huge amount of the disk and RAM resource bloatage imposed by the layer-based "master file" paradigm. Cheers...
... Adobe has been playing safety defense for 10 years. That's at least a bit glib, at least with respect to Photoshop and competing products. I find that most of the last few releases of Photoshop have improved enough to make it worth the price of upgrade, moreover, Thomas Knoll's work on ACR and the introduction Lightroom represents a significant rethinking of the photographic workflow. That having been said, the attempts at competition in the broad marketplace have been weak, Adobe does have a pretty entrenched "moat" around PS. I just don't see that translating them getting away with selling inferior products--if there were better products, I'd likely switch--it'd be a lot easier than switching, say, operating systems.
Looks like Adobe is already planning to revise the license.