A lot of folks are saying this, but the only thing it would really do is create grounds for an FTC investigation into anti-competitive practices by Google.
What do we actually gain by forcing people to read something? I'd rather see a class where high school students learn about different methods of writing, worldbuilding, character development, etc., through the course of the semester, and apply that toward a short story that they write.
You could provide suggested reading and encourage students to read it by saying, "This is how award-winning authors have used these tools." But don't make it mandatory, because that's just going to turn people off to it.
If i had my way, I would never see an advertisement.
I listen to NPR or CDs when I'm driving. I don't have television service at home, and when I'm online, I use FireFox + AdBlock whenever possible. I'm not at the "never" stage, because there's nothing I can do about billboards on the side of the road, but it's pretty damn close.
While the public messages get all the press, people who don't use twitter may not realize that you can send direct messages on twitter, which are private. That's what this system is using.
As a photojournalist -- and I don't mean this to be insulting -- you are obviously completely unaware of the publishing side of the equation, especially as it pertains to things like fashion magazines.
Not completely so -- I'm aware of different requirements in terms of adjusting color levels, etc., for different print media. I know that you want to use different black levels in CMYK profiles for magazine products versus newspapers, for instance. But there's a difference between "retouching" a photo and altering it.
It could be as simple as adjusting the color balance, or removing undesirable elements like cold sores, blemishes, logos or objects (from uncontrolled locations), to taking the body/pose from one shot and adding it to a "better" head angle/facial expression from another one. (It's not unlike what they do in the movies if there are TV antennas in a shot of an 18th century cityscape.)
Movies are fiction. If you "remove undesirable elements" from photos or clip and paste, etc., your photo is now also fiction. That's fine if you want to do that, but advertise it as such -- it's unethical (at least from my perspective as a photojournalist) to do that and then represent it as a true image of the original subject.
All of the photos are post-processed. I have never in all my years seen a raw photo make it into a publication. YOu have to adjust color levels based on the print media, light correction, cropping, resizing, dpi adjustment, etc.
And in my experience, all of this is okay, n no small part because you could do it all in the old film darkrooms.
Airbrushing is standard even in most high school yearbooks to clear up acne or remove a bruise.
This is probably fine for yearbook photos, but in photojournalism it's a strict no-no because you've changed the story at that point.
As a photojournalist, I think it would be interesting to see just how many photos in fashion magazines are airbrushed or otherwise manipulated after the fact. In terms of ethics, I was taught and have come to believe that there are a few "ethical" manipulations -- cropping, limited use of burning and dodging, etc., that you can use while still maintaining the integrity of the original photo. But once you change what was actually there -- whether it's airbrushing the blemishes off a model's face or using the clone stamp tool to take a few pounds off her hips -- you've crossed into photomanipulation. And it's only fair for people to know when this is taking place, IMO.
I have a hard time feeling bad, frankly. If you don't want your work to be public, don't publish it. Copyright is still defined by the U.S. Constitution to be of limited duration, even if "limited" is effectively forever thanks to the knob-polishers in Congress.
If a reporter comes to ask you about your research, and comes away printing something totally inaccurate or just completely wrong then that is your fault.
I've worked with a few reporters in my time. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a reporter, judging by how full of shit your statement is.
In point of fact, a lot of reporters aren't engineer-smart. They're writer-smart, but that's a completely different type of intelligence and doesn't help them at all when it comes to reporting on a scientific, technical, engineering or mechanical field. There are some journalists who are smart enough in both categories that they can pull it off, but most journalists don't match this description. But that's okay; the problem is that they'll run a story without asking their subject matter experts for clarification. Deadlines come first, facts come second, and giving people an accurate picture of what's going on... well, it's a nice bonus.
And then you have the general public, which doesn't give two shits unless some technological advance actually affects their day-to-day lives -- so reporters can afford to be lazy because the only people who'll call them on it are those ivory-tower academics.
Update your virus defs... it was a false positive and has been fixed, according to commenters at DSLReports.com. I verified it just a few minutes ago by browsing to the site in Firefox/AdBlock Plus with no problems.
In the past, if I sat on my toilet with the door locked, that was private. If I went out and spoke to some friends in a bar, that was semi-private (what I said might get around the village, but not much more), and public was pretty much impossible unless I became a politician or a journalist.
Now, however, it's very difficult to work out which state you are in at any one time, and what's worse, you often don't know what's public, which is a state that for the vast majority of humans, is totally new.
What about when I post to Facebook while sitting on my toilet with the door locked?
Oh, c'mon... laptops and wireless technology were invented for blogging from the crapper!
Let's have a moment of silence for the Science Fiction genre. It was killed off by bad writing and pimply-faced kids who don't care about a story as long as the alien chick gets naked.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of folks are saying this, but the only thing it would really do is create grounds for an FTC investigation into anti-competitive practices by Google.
Rupert Murdoch: Today's worst person ... in the wooooorld!
At least they didn't miss!
Even if a first generation move to the moon, their kids won't put up with a 1.2+ second ping in halo, and will move back to earth when they are 16.
They'll finally be off my damn "lawn"!
Two L's. :)
What do we actually gain by forcing people to read something? I'd rather see a class where high school students learn about different methods of writing, worldbuilding, character development, etc., through the course of the semester, and apply that toward a short story that they write.
You could provide suggested reading and encourage students to read it by saying, "This is how award-winning authors have used these tools." But don't make it mandatory, because that's just going to turn people off to it.
If i had my way, I would never see an advertisement.
I listen to NPR or CDs when I'm driving. I don't have television service at home, and when I'm online, I use FireFox + AdBlock whenever possible. I'm not at the "never" stage, because there's nothing I can do about billboards on the side of the road, but it's pretty damn close.
Do you do banking by e-mail or text message? I don't.
While the public messages get all the press, people who don't use twitter may not realize that you can send direct messages on twitter, which are private. That's what this system is using.
Private? Yes. Encrypted? Not so much.
As a photojournalist -- and I don't mean this to be insulting -- you are obviously completely unaware of the publishing side of the equation, especially as it pertains to things like fashion magazines.
Not completely so -- I'm aware of different requirements in terms of adjusting color levels, etc., for different print media. I know that you want to use different black levels in CMYK profiles for magazine products versus newspapers, for instance. But there's a difference between "retouching" a photo and altering it.
It could be as simple as adjusting the color balance, or removing undesirable elements like cold sores, blemishes, logos or objects (from uncontrolled locations), to taking the body/pose from one shot and adding it to a "better" head angle/facial expression from another one. (It's not unlike what they do in the movies if there are TV antennas in a shot of an 18th century cityscape.)
Movies are fiction. If you "remove undesirable elements" from photos or clip and paste, etc., your photo is now also fiction. That's fine if you want to do that, but advertise it as such -- it's unethical (at least from my perspective as a photojournalist) to do that and then represent it as a true image of the original subject.
All of the photos are post-processed. I have never in all my years seen a raw photo make it into a publication. YOu have to adjust color levels based on the print media, light correction, cropping, resizing, dpi adjustment, etc.
And in my experience, all of this is okay, n no small part because you could do it all in the old film darkrooms.
Airbrushing is standard even in most high school yearbooks to clear up acne or remove a bruise.
This is probably fine for yearbook photos, but in photojournalism it's a strict no-no because you've changed the story at that point.
As a photojournalist, I think it would be interesting to see just how many photos in fashion magazines are airbrushed or otherwise manipulated after the fact. In terms of ethics, I was taught and have come to believe that there are a few "ethical" manipulations -- cropping, limited use of burning and dodging, etc., that you can use while still maintaining the integrity of the original photo. But once you change what was actually there -- whether it's airbrushing the blemishes off a model's face or using the clone stamp tool to take a few pounds off her hips -- you've crossed into photomanipulation. And it's only fair for people to know when this is taking place, IMO.
Don't waste your time RTFA.
You're on slashdot. This advice is redundant by definition.
Buying hosting in a few countries without this particular silly law isn't difficult. Why waste time with the government?
So they can get a crack at replacing Internet Explorer as the browser of choice for U.S. Government computer systems?
Only if you do it right. :)
I have a hard time feeling bad, frankly. If you don't want your work to be public, don't publish it. Copyright is still defined by the U.S. Constitution to be of limited duration, even if "limited" is effectively forever thanks to the knob-polishers in Congress.
If a reporter comes to ask you about your research, and comes away printing something totally inaccurate or just completely wrong then that is your fault.
I've worked with a few reporters in my time. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a reporter, judging by how full of shit your statement is.
In point of fact, a lot of reporters aren't engineer-smart. They're writer-smart, but that's a completely different type of intelligence and doesn't help them at all when it comes to reporting on a scientific, technical, engineering or mechanical field. There are some journalists who are smart enough in both categories that they can pull it off, but most journalists don't match this description. But that's okay; the problem is that they'll run a story without asking their subject matter experts for clarification. Deadlines come first, facts come second, and giving people an accurate picture of what's going on ... well, it's a nice bonus.
And then you have the general public, which doesn't give two shits unless some technological advance actually affects their day-to-day lives -- so reporters can afford to be lazy because the only people who'll call them on it are those ivory-tower academics.
You bleeped out "fucking" but spelled out "fucked." You know, I'm pretty sure you're allowed to say "fucking" here, too. :)
Tekwar - a detective solving crimes in ~2020
You realize you just admitted to liking novels written by William Shatner. :)
These would be especially useful for cellphones made out of kryptonite.
This was announced at Comic-Con more than a month ago.
Just make sure choice politicians are on board.
I'd rather wait until we start sending manned ships to establish a colony on the Sun and put the politicians on that.
Update your virus defs ... it was a false positive and has been fixed, according to commenters at DSLReports.com. I verified it just a few minutes ago by browsing to the site in Firefox/AdBlock Plus with no problems.
In the past, if I sat on my toilet with the door locked, that was private. If I went out and spoke to some friends in a bar, that was semi-private (what I said might get around the village, but not much more), and public was pretty much impossible unless I became a politician or a journalist.
Now, however, it's very difficult to work out which state you are in at any one time, and what's worse, you often don't know what's public, which is a state that for the vast majority of humans, is totally new.
What about when I post to Facebook while sitting on my toilet with the door locked?
Oh, c'mon ... laptops and wireless technology were invented for blogging from the crapper!
Let's have a moment of silence for the Science Fiction genre. It was killed off by bad writing and pimply-faced kids who don't care about a story as long as the alien chick gets naked.
I.e., television studio execs.