These things are now some of the smallest known biological systems. They're still too big to give us sufficient hints to the origin of life. It is hard to believe that there are not smaller biological systems out there waiting to be found. It has been suggested that Mars may still have some life on it deep underground and these may be more likely to be "closer" to the origin of life.. but maybe not. If not, that might imply that life didn't originate in our solar system and both Mars and Earth were seeded by extra-solar asteroids.
Why is this so hard to understand? So long as Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, the US will be thinking about how to invade them. The Iranians are not thinking of invading the US and won't ever be. As such, the greatest threat to the life of Americans is when Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are a fantastic peace maker in the hands of responsible government. Your fear is of Iran, not nuclear weapons, and has more to do with the "they're different to us" Arab stereotyping than it does to any element of fact.
Ya, that's sorta the point of democracy. You have to have enough faith in the system to tolerate peaceful protest, otherwise you're just a military dictatorship pretending to be a democracy. But most democracies are.....
Do you work for Apple? Cause if your attitude is in any way related to theirs, I'll skip using their software thanks. "I can run anything on your harddrive" is trivial to leverage to "I can execute anything I want". Even the dumbest hacker can figure it out. Clearly you're dumber.
It doesn't go like that. The photographer sells his shot to a stock image company. They sell it to the publisher. The publisher uses the shot without bothering to see if it was on the "model releases available" CD or not.
... this is like the 3rd post where I've had to explain to someone that a photographer is not required to get model releases.. the publisher is required to get model releases.
If you had actually READ the page you linked to you would have seen where it specifically said you *can* sell your pictures to stock image agencies without a model release form. It is entirely the responsibility of the publisher to obtain model releases. Sheesh.
Ya, you don't need a model release to sell pics. It's the publisher's responsibility. Of course, many publishers won't buy pics without an attached model release, but there's nothing illegal about it.
The vast majority of people don't understand copyright. If I take a picture of you, I own the copyright on the image, not you. Even if you pay me. For some reason the "work for hire" system never got applied to photographers. This is probably because photographers are typically hired on contract, not on retainer. This is clearly as a case of a photographer selling his portfolio to a stock image reseller. It's not unusual and the people in the picture are not entitled to anything.
Your competitor releases a product, you analyse it. That simple.
When I worked at VMware we analysed every VirtualPC release both before and after Microsoft acquired it. There was a checklist of VMware "innovations" which we had metrics to measure how well VirtualPC didn't stack up against.
If you don't do this, you don't know why your product is better than your competitor's, and so you don't know how to compete with them. Unless, of course, you're like Microsoft and think "compete" means "lie".
So, for example, if you take the day off work to go to a baseball game and your boss knows someone with access to the face-recognition generated "list of attendees", that's ok?
You mean other than the fact that they're like 100x more expensive than nuclear?
I'm an Australian.. we have one experimental nuclear reactor, 20 MW. It uses about 30 kg of uranium a year. It's used for research.. but not into power reactors. The majority of Australians are afraid of nuclear power. If you ask people on the street why they don't want nuclear power, they'll all say the same, we don't want to have to deal with the nuclear waste. Of course, this doesn't stop us from selling shitloads of uranium. The international community has threatened to prohibit the sale of Australian uranium because we don't store the spent rods, but we do reprocess them. This has non-proliferation consequences. That threat prompted the National Repository/Store Project.. but in 2004 Scrooge McJohnny Howard killed that as he did to every other infrastructure project.
Nuclear is the only option for affordable and ecological responsible power.
You mean this? http://www.quantumg.net/tcpsafe/ No, I wouldn't have any problem with that.. being that I licensed it under the GPL v3 and all. And before you ask, yeah, go ahead and sell it without source code, I don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
These things are now some of the smallest known biological systems. They're still too big to give us sufficient hints to the origin of life. It is hard to believe that there are not smaller biological systems out there waiting to be found. It has been suggested that Mars may still have some life on it deep underground and these may be more likely to be "closer" to the origin of life.. but maybe not. If not, that might imply that life didn't originate in our solar system and both Mars and Earth were seeded by extra-solar asteroids.
Why is this so hard to understand? So long as Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, the US will be thinking about how to invade them. The Iranians are not thinking of invading the US and won't ever be. As such, the greatest threat to the life of Americans is when Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
Yeah, "Axis of Evil" is much kinder.
Nuclear weapons are a fantastic peace maker in the hands of responsible government. Your fear is of Iran, not nuclear weapons, and has more to do with the "they're different to us" Arab stereotyping than it does to any element of fact.
Ya, that's sorta the point of democracy. You have to have enough faith in the system to tolerate peaceful protest, otherwise you're just a military dictatorship pretending to be a democracy. But most democracies are.....
If by "people" you mean "javascript programmers", yes, it will.
But Flash is popular because artist types can do it.
If graphics artist types can't make the kind of pointless crap that they do now with Flash, we won't see uptake of HTML 5.
Joke 1: That, and some non-Apple/Adobe applications eh?
Joke 2: Yeah, so are the Amiga users.
Do you work for Apple? Cause if your attitude is in any way related to theirs, I'll skip using their software thanks. "I can run anything on your harddrive" is trivial to leverage to "I can execute anything I want". Even the dumbest hacker can figure it out. Clearly you're dumber.
Yes, they believe their own press.
It doesn't go like that. The photographer sells his shot to a stock image company. They sell it to the publisher. The publisher uses the shot without bothering to see if it was on the "model releases available" CD or not.
... this is like the 3rd post where I've had to explain to someone that a photographer is not required to get model releases.. the publisher is required to get model releases.
If you had actually READ the page you linked to you would have seen where it specifically said you *can* sell your pictures to stock image agencies without a model release form. It is entirely the responsibility of the publisher to obtain model releases. Sheesh.
Ya, you don't need a model release to sell pics. It's the publisher's responsibility. Of course, many publishers won't buy pics without an attached model release, but there's nothing illegal about it.
What "culprit"? He's the photographer.. he owns the shot.
The vast majority of people don't understand copyright. If I take a picture of you, I own the copyright on the image, not you. Even if you pay me. For some reason the "work for hire" system never got applied to photographers. This is probably because photographers are typically hired on contract, not on retainer. This is clearly as a case of a photographer selling his portfolio to a stock image reseller. It's not unusual and the people in the picture are not entitled to anything.
There can be only one.
Just reading your question makes my fingers hurt. Doing what I do every day is clearly destroying my hands but its easier to just not think about it.
posh. A tiny vocal minority does not a majority make.
WHOOOSH.
Your competitor releases a product, you analyse it. That simple.
When I worked at VMware we analysed every VirtualPC release both before and after Microsoft acquired it. There was a checklist of VMware "innovations" which we had metrics to measure how well VirtualPC didn't stack up against.
If you don't do this, you don't know why your product is better than your competitor's, and so you don't know how to compete with them. Unless, of course, you're like Microsoft and think "compete" means "lie".
So, for example, if you take the day off work to go to a baseball game and your boss knows someone with access to the face-recognition generated "list of attendees", that's ok?
You mean other than the fact that they're like 100x more expensive than nuclear?
I'm an Australian.. we have one experimental nuclear reactor, 20 MW. It uses about 30 kg of uranium a year. It's used for research.. but not into power reactors. The majority of Australians are afraid of nuclear power. If you ask people on the street why they don't want nuclear power, they'll all say the same, we don't want to have to deal with the nuclear waste. Of course, this doesn't stop us from selling shitloads of uranium. The international community has threatened to prohibit the sale of Australian uranium because we don't store the spent rods, but we do reprocess them. This has non-proliferation consequences. That threat prompted the National Repository/Store Project.. but in 2004 Scrooge McJohnny Howard killed that as he did to every other infrastructure project.
Nuclear is the only option for affordable and ecological responsible power.
I believe that creative works flourish much more when the creators right to control the work is protected.
Care you share your reasoning? Or is this "belief" in the religious sense?
You mean this? http://www.quantumg.net/tcpsafe/ No, I wouldn't have any problem with that.. being that I licensed it under the GPL v3 and all. And before you ask, yeah, go ahead and sell it without source code, I don't care.