If only there was another billion dollar organisation funding medical research into diseases in the poorer areas of the world... Oh wait: http://google.org/predict.html
England could do with some of those guys in their rugby team, assuming they don't mind playing without helmets and body armour - oh, and multi-million pound/dollar sponsorship deals...
It's basically a Wiki nuke detector (but without human intervention). Can you trust the data? No. Could terrorists get 100 cell phones and fake a nuke being transported? Yes. Could they then generate enough fake data so that the gubmint ignores the real nuke heading towards the White House? Yes. (Have TPTB not seen 'How To Steal A Million' - or like me were they too busy gawping at Audrey Hepburn?)
If the detectors are that cheap and small that they can squeeze them into cellphones, just stick them into street lights and then (assuming the terrorists dont have access to cranes and ladders) you have a bit more trust in your data.
Sensor networks are a great idea for some things, but maybe not this one...
Surely if you throw it *down* it'll then have a velocity component in the earthward direction, and since Isaac Newton is in the pilot's seat, it'll carry on downwards...
Heh. I'm sorry you got modded troll, this was about the only reply to my message that made me laugh!
Actually, the size of Wales is interesting - you can get souvenirs from tacky Welsh souvenir shops that proudly claim 'If Wales was flattened out it would be bigger than England!'. Because of the mountains, you see. I doubt it's true unless you go into fractal dimensions....
I think this is his whole point. Going back to the original article, I think he tries to make the point that the reason for CC licensing is to encourage free re-use. If you have to go to the bother of getting an email from the supplier in order to safeguard yourself then that's a barrier to re-use.
You may as well just not bother with CC-licenses, but tell people if they want to use your images then to ask permission, and then you give it (if you want). CC licenses with redistribution allowed clauses complicate things a bit though.
I don't see his argument only applies to images though - audio recordings could have performers who haven't cleared their performance for redistribution, and you can also do the switcheroo and sue trick of licenses. Although I think it's fairly well-proved that Prince gave away his last album free with a newspaper...
Correct, but if the distributor then *removes* the logo, how can you *prove* the logo was ever there?
Google cache? Google will remove things from their archive and cache if asked nicely.
Archive.org? Doesn't archive everything - and robots.txt can keep them out.
Screenshot? Easily fakeable, probably wouldn't stand up in court.
Simple answer: you can't prove it ('beyond reasonable doubt'). I imagine if enough people independently whinged that someone was switching licenses after the event then that could constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The referenced article mentioned a CC registration service, where you could register your use of a Flickr CC-licensed image. That way, if challenged, the registration service was supposed to be an independent trusted record that the image was licensed under CC at that time. However, it charged a fee of $5, and flickrites complained and it stopped trading.
Yeah, but the plan hinges on them not being able to *prove* they got it under CC-licensing. And just saying "Well, your honour, when I downloaded it there was a pretty copy-left sign on the page" probably won't cut it.
So, if you use a CC-licensed image, get a signed copy of the license from the supplier.
1. Register your images with the Copyright Office (think this is a US thing) 2. Stick your images on a web site with something like a CC-attribution license. 3. Wait for people to use your images. 4. Remove your images from the web site. 5. Pretend they were never CC-licensed. 6. The old 'switcheroo'. Produce a commercial license and a nice payment chart. 7. Sue users.
The problem is that the burden of proof is on the users to show they got it legally, and if you wipe all traces of your CC licensing from the internet then they can't prove it, and you win. So, he concludes, people shouldn't use other people's CC-licensed images because you can't trust them to not commit what looks to me like fraud.
It's not a problem if you pay for an image because then you have a paper trail for the payment, and maybe even a written, signed license. I guess if you get a signed CC license from the supplier then that's one way out of this.
His other argument is that CC-licensed photos might have images of people who haven't given permission for certain usages of their image. In copyright-speak that's 'provided a model release'. He gives a concrete example of where this actually happened. So, he concludes, don't use other people's CC-licensed images unless you've sorted out model clearance. But even then, you've got the switcheroo problem I've just outlined.
Not sure why he takes a few thousand words and half a dozen blog posts to explain all that, but there ya go.
Barry
IANALBIDOOARHCLB
[I am not a lawyer but I dated one once and read her contract law books]
Good job you didn't buy Sony. One of our staff wanted a Sony laptop, we got it, it had Vista on it, half the software the user wanted doesn't run on Vista, so we stick XP on it.
Ummmm. No graphics driver? No sound? No support? After much googling and forum-digging our techie managed to hack together some older Sony drivers and a.inf file that got most things working. Took a while though.
Then over Xmas we think the laptop got bounced and now the CD drive doesn't work. If it goes back it'll either come back with the 'You put another OS on this, it's not under warranty' stupidity, or it'll come back with Vista (but we'll take a disk image beforehand).
Why is everyone referring to PBF as an 'online' comic? I first read it as a printed version in the UK Guardian newspaper.
Comics in The Guardian are always high quality. There's currently Steve Bell's 'If' strip and Doonesbury, plus PBF, and in the past they've re-run Krazy Kat.
Unlike US newspapers, UK papers don't generally have an eight page comic section to fill - perhaps that is the reason for the perceived decrease in quality.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah it's the pr0n sites' fault. Now, google search for the article by Randy Bush.....
If only there was another billion dollar organisation funding medical research into diseases in the poorer areas of the world... Oh wait: http://google.org/predict.html
England could do with some of those guys in their rugby team, assuming they don't mind playing without helmets and body armour - oh, and multi-million pound/dollar sponsorship deals...
So no chance then.
You forgot "Sympathy For The Devil".
He shoulda just said "I have every record the Osmonds ever made"...
Actually, he says that his iPod has those clean-living, drug-free, god-fearing Mormon boys, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.
oh wait...
It's basically a Wiki nuke detector (but without human intervention). Can you trust the data? No. Could terrorists get 100 cell phones and fake a nuke being transported? Yes. Could they then generate enough fake data so that the gubmint ignores the real nuke heading towards the White House? Yes. (Have TPTB not seen 'How To Steal A Million' - or like me were they too busy gawping at Audrey Hepburn?)
If the detectors are that cheap and small that they can squeeze them into cellphones, just stick them into street lights and then (assuming the terrorists dont have access to cranes and ladders) you have a bit more trust in your data.
Sensor networks are a great idea for some things, but maybe not this one...
Surely if you throw it *down* it'll then have a velocity component in the earthward direction, and since Isaac Newton is in the pilot's seat, it'll carry on downwards...
Heh. I'm sorry you got modded troll, this was about the only reply to my message that made me laugh!
Actually, the size of Wales is interesting - you can get souvenirs from tacky Welsh souvenir shops that proudly claim 'If Wales was flattened out it would be bigger than England!'. Because of the mountains, you see. I doubt it's true unless you go into fractal dimensions....
For those on the other side of the pond, the area of Wales is about that of New Jersey.
Actually, given that they've located an area of possibly steaming ash and dust, maybe they just found New Jersey by accident.
Okay then, let him have his artificial legs, I'll line up on the starting line with... a motorbike.
This black is blacker than that. Your tee would have to have something like: '#0000000000000'
He had a man keep taking a different hat out of a box and ask for a ticket, with the caption "BBC Economy Crowd Scene". No CGI required :)
Wow. Looks like we'll have to go back to chucking bricks at monitors to turn them off...
Yeah, or presenters sticking electrical tape over the remote sensors on the displays.
..remember that California is HOT. The thermostats referred to are connected to air conditioning, not, as I first thought, heating systems!
I think this is his whole point. Going back to the original article, I think he tries to make the point that the reason for CC licensing is to encourage free re-use. If you have to go to the bother of getting an email from the supplier in order to safeguard yourself then that's a barrier to re-use.
You may as well just not bother with CC-licenses, but tell people if they want to use your images then to ask permission, and then you give it (if you want). CC licenses with redistribution allowed clauses complicate things a bit though.
I don't see his argument only applies to images though - audio recordings could have performers who haven't cleared their performance for redistribution, and you can also do the switcheroo and sue trick of licenses. Although I think it's fairly well-proved that Prince gave away his last album free with a newspaper...
Correct, but if the distributor then *removes* the logo, how can you *prove* the logo was ever there?
Google cache? Google will remove things from their archive and cache if asked nicely.
Archive.org? Doesn't archive everything - and robots.txt can keep them out.
Screenshot? Easily fakeable, probably wouldn't stand up in court.
Simple answer: you can't prove it ('beyond reasonable doubt'). I imagine if enough people independently whinged that someone was switching licenses after the event then that could constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The referenced article mentioned a CC registration service, where you could register your use of a Flickr CC-licensed image. That way, if challenged, the registration service was supposed to be an independent trusted record that the image was licensed under CC at that time. However, it charged a fee of $5, and flickrites complained and it stopped trading.
Yeah, but the plan hinges on them not being able to *prove* they got it under CC-licensing. And just saying "Well, your honour, when I downloaded it there was a pretty copy-left sign on the page" probably won't cut it.
So, if you use a CC-licensed image, get a signed copy of the license from the supplier.
Here's his make-money-fast scheme:
1. Register your images with the Copyright Office (think this is a US thing)
2. Stick your images on a web site with something like a CC-attribution license.
3. Wait for people to use your images.
4. Remove your images from the web site.
5. Pretend they were never CC-licensed.
6. The old 'switcheroo'. Produce a commercial license and a nice payment chart.
7. Sue users.
The problem is that the burden of proof is on the users to show they got it legally, and if you wipe all traces of your CC licensing from the internet then they can't prove it, and you win. So, he concludes, people shouldn't use other people's CC-licensed images because you can't trust them to not commit what looks to me like fraud.
It's not a problem if you pay for an image because then you have a paper trail for the payment, and maybe even a written, signed license. I guess if you get a signed CC license from the supplier then that's one way out of this.
His other argument is that CC-licensed photos might have images of people who haven't given permission for certain usages of their image. In copyright-speak that's 'provided a model release'. He gives a concrete example of where this actually happened. So, he concludes, don't use other people's CC-licensed images unless you've sorted out model clearance. But even then, you've got the switcheroo problem I've just outlined.
Not sure why he takes a few thousand words and half a dozen blog posts to explain all that, but there ya go.
Barry
IANALBIDOOARHCLB
[I am not a lawyer but I dated one once and read her contract law books]
Good job you didn't buy Sony. One of our staff wanted a Sony laptop, we got it, it had Vista on it, half the software the user wanted doesn't run on Vista, so we stick XP on it.
.inf file that got most things working. Took a while though.
Ummmm. No graphics driver? No sound? No support? After much googling and forum-digging our techie managed to hack together some older Sony drivers and a
Then over Xmas we think the laptop got bounced and now the CD drive doesn't work. If it goes back it'll either come back with the 'You put another OS on this, it's not under warranty' stupidity, or it'll come back with Vista (but we'll take a disk image beforehand).
Why is everyone referring to PBF as an 'online' comic? I first read it as a printed version in the UK Guardian newspaper.
Comics in The Guardian are always high quality. There's currently Steve Bell's 'If' strip and Doonesbury, plus PBF, and in the past they've re-run Krazy Kat.
Unlike US newspapers, UK papers don't generally have an eight page comic section to fill - perhaps that is the reason for the perceived decrease in quality.
She may have just been a little tense...
It's all explained here.
You like it so much you can't spell it? Scrivener. With an 'e'.
It does look most shiny though. Wonder if anyone's working on an OpenSource version?
Yeah. Now I explain the joke, thus rendering it not-funny.
It was a dig at slashdotters being male and not having girlfriends. Ask a woman about her connection to the lunar cycle.
Yes, it's a stereotype and all that. When they introduce backdated laws for geek discrimination come and get me.
...because 95% of slashdot-reading geeks have no connection to the Lunar cycle. :)