Easy way to wind up an audiophile... tell them they're too fat/thin and that this is affecting the quality of the sound in the same room. Tell them that they need to gain or lose weight.
In Europe, the big internet hype didn't take off until the millenium, so people are less used to constant lockups and bluescreens, they went onto the computer with Win2k, which is by heaps more stable than the whole Win9x line. What constitutes "Europe" to you? I live in the UK, and we certainly had the Internet hype at around the same time as the U.S. (first rose to public consciousness circa 1994, ramped up to dotcom hysteria by the late 1990s).
And Win2k- how many consumers used that?- it wasn't oriented towards that market, and I don't recall many people using it. If nothing else, games and other software of that ilk were more likely to run on the consumer 9x versions of Windows (including M.E.) around at that time.
Welcome to Slashdot:) Now, Will somebody ban this riff raff for reading the article. Thanks, My apologies; I had you down as the stereotypical self-important, not-as-smart-as-he-thinks-he-is geek on the basis of your original comment.
Having seen this "witticism" (which you already posted in similar form elsewhere in this thread), I checked your comment history and realised that you're actually closer to the "moron who posts inane comments under the mistaken impression that they're funny".
The irony is that you probably dashed off the original message without reading the article in a vain attempt to get an "insightful" first post... all it shows is that you lack any insight whatsoever.
Compared to Vista, it's not so bad. I mean, it was way more buggy, but like you said, it was only a stopgap OS, Vista is supposed to be their core operating system That doesn't make Windows ME suck any less, it just makes the fact that it sucks less important in the overall scheme of things.
They shall now be treated as DISHONEST. Lets hope their unnamed big customer can afford to keep PGP in business as they lost mine. They can pay for my business PGP lost. Lets hope they are actually big enough. From everything that's been said, it seems that the worst that PGP can be accused of is not making clear the security implications of a feature that should have been better documented. And that's arguably quite bad- the worst case is a clueless user turning it on and feeling more protected than they should.
However, the feature isn't enabled by default. It requires cryptographic access *and* knowledge of its existence to turn it on. And if you already have cryptographic access, then the whole issue is academic.
You pompously declaring it "DISHONEST" in capital letters smacks of the typical random-geek's kneejerk first post on a messageboard thread. And FWIW, I don't know how much your oh-so-important business with them is worth anyway; I suspect that the other client probably *was* worth more. (Of course, it's quite plausible that the views of *many* smaller clients who disliked the feature would be a serious counterweight. However, if you're going to act like your *individual* view carries so much weight, expect scepticism).
I honestly thought Sony would wake up to the demand for an unlocked PSP and/or at least public dev tools. No way. Then, with respect, you were naive.
I'm sure Sony were always aware that there was a certain market segment who'd be more likely to buy a PSP if it weren't locked down. And I'm also sure that they balanced this against their dream of being able to wring extra money from the (far larger number of) ordinary users for every little bit of content and extra functionality.
You made the common/. mistake of forgetting that your views were probably only representative of a niche user-base versus the mass market that Sony intended.
Of course, it didn't pan out as well as Sony would have liked (films on UMD, for example), and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. However, it probably made sense at the time, and I don't expect to see them changing their minds soon.
It's worth nothing to me, because I don't want to listen to their whiny music. If only there were some way I could actively keep them from staying afloat so that they all had to wind up broke and poor and scrounging for change in the streets. That is something I would participate in. You're a creep... you're a weirdo.
What the hell are you doing here? You don't belong here.
rename the Centrino Pro as Intel Centrino with vPro Technology Much better.... Shades of the People's Front of Judea. Or was that the Judean People's Front? I forget...
Second of all, those digital squares are a bit large; while you could manage to perhaps create a fuzzy, oddly greyish looking bit of genetalia, it would lack any realistic detail. Yes, but in case of video/film, you have multiple frames, and if something is moving linearly (but not deforming or rotating) in a given direction- or alternately if the camera is panning in the opposite direction- then if the block coordinates are fixed relative to the screen, you should theoretically be able to get higher resolution in the direction of motion using some maths.
For example, in frame 1, block (0,0) is made up from object coordinates (0,0), (1,0), (2,0), (3,0) and block (1,0) from coords (4,0), (5,0), (6,0), (7,0).
In frame 2, block (0,0) is made up from object coordinates (1,0), (2,0), (3,0), (4,0) and block (1,0) from coords (5,0), (6,0), (7,0), (8,0).
In frame 3, block (0,0) is made up from object coordinates (2,0), (3,0), (4,0), (5,0) and block (1,0) from coords (6,0), (7,0), (8,0) and (9,0).
It should be mathematically possible to figure these out *or* by following the moving object and averaging multiple frames (effectively, the "blocks" are moving) you get the original hi-res object back. (In fact, I suspect that the human eye would do this if the object was moving fast enough).
This is of course theoretical (although it's still practical if a dangerous regime wants to find out which dissident is hiding behind some blocks), and would require some artificial intelligence to track stuff, estimate the quality of the data and re-interpolate these pseudo-static images back into moving objects. But it seems possible to me.
Very funny, I'm sure. The imposter account above ("Miguel de Icaza (660439)") has taken the real Miguel's words from this post and swapped the account name round.
Is that not what businesses and consumers do, search for the best deal? Obviously; however, *you* (not me) were the one who said that Apple were doing it for nobler reasons. I pointed out that this was highly unlikely, and that they were doing this purely for the money. So please don't try to turn the argument around like that.
Whether Apple are generally "evil" (silly word in this context, but you know what I mean) is open to debate. What annoys me is when Apple fans try to paint the company's moneygrabbing actions as anything more than that.
Apple is no a charitable organization, but a business to make money, like any other. Do you fault them for that? Of course Apple have the right to make money- and as I said, people have the right to criticise them for how they go about it. Particularly when presented with ludicrous defences of the company's behaviour.
For the same reason they don't want OSX as multi-hardware, for a more consistent and reliable experience for the users. Don't make me laugh; given the benefit of the doubt, that justification may have had some plausibility when applied to the Mac. However, applied to the very different situation of the iPhone lock-in, it's risible and smacks of the worst tendency of fanboys to justify anything Apple do.
There aren't that many networks. If Apple spoke to each of them, it wouldn't be that big a deal to find out how they varied and to tweak things accordingly. The hassle would certainly be outweighed by the increased usefulness and flexibility of the iPhone.
It's quite laughable to suggest that Apple locked it to one network for the consumer's own good, or even to save themselves vast sums of money on support. They locked it because they knew they could get more money out of the winning network that way.
I agree with you that no-one is forced to buy an iPhone at gunpoint though. Anyone considering buying one should be well aware of the issues surrounding it. Personally I wouldn't consider it for the same reason I wouldn't consider buying a PSP- potentially nice hardware that's much poorer value-for-money once the lock in is taken into account.
Fixed that for you. Might or might not have been a troll, but it's certainly true that Japan's rapid post-War development, modernisation and resultant prosperity was the result of it being almost destroyed and rebuilt from scratch (with help from the Americans).
Then why don't they bring back the vinyl? Seriously, I'd love for them to go back to producing records. There's something nastolgic about them. Is "nastolgia" something you'd rather forget about?;-)
"Buying gold" is not the same as saving in a bank account, however. When you save in a bank account, the bank can use your money to invest (which indeed it does); so in a way, you're indirectly investing.
I read this and end up believing that my next radio will be delivered to me as a software printout on a sheet of paper. Typing in program listings? I thought that had pretty much died out by the end of the 1980s, and thank God for that. It was a PITA back then, can you imagine how long it would take you to type in software nowadays? If we generously assume that one can fit a 16KB BASIC listing onto one A4/legal-sized page, a 16MB program (pretty small by today's standards) would require 1000 pages!
(Meanwhile, a double-layer DVD's worth of data would need roughly half a million pages, so you'd need a small truck to deliver 500 or so Yellow Pages-sized volumes to your house. And I wouldn't want to be the one typing all that data in. Particularly not if I had to save it to cassette...)
Anyway, your idea is silly. In truth, your next radio will come in the form of a CD-ROM;-)
Assuming, as seems likely, Virgin and their ad agency never contacted the photographer to ask about a model release, and the photographer never made any claims that he had a model release, why should the photographer be on the hook? He didn't do anything wrong. But hadn't the photographer already indicated that model release permissions had been obtained, or *implied* it with the usage license?
Of course, the wording may have been such that he may not have realised that he was granting permissions that weren't his to grant (see my post above). The ad agency should have considered this rather obvious possibility- I believe that this would be considered a failure of due diligence on their part.
However, I can't believe that the agency would have used the image if there was no model release (or implication of such) in the license. If (and only if) this is the case, then the agency was grossly negligent and it wasn't the photographer's fault nor responsibility.
You see, that's an American law you're basing that on. Virgin Australia's lawyers are probably, well, Australian, and probably didn't know that American law prohibits this when it is perfectly legal under Australian law. I did acknowledge that my understanding was based on English law- though the reference to the footnote was lost through careless editing on my part.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you, but are you saying that someone can take a photo of (say) Brad Pitt, and use his likeness to advertise a product without further permission?
For the record, I used to work for several media companies dealing specifically with stock photography issues. I'm very sceptical of this claim, given your AC status. Along with the abusive tone, this makes me suspect that you're trolling.
So, what you're saying is that the ad agency should be responsible for psychically knowing someone's ignorance? No, I'm saying that the ad agency should know that Joe Publics are often legally ignorant (or don't care too much about this stuff) and shouldn't be taken at their word.
You can argue that they *should* know (which I already acknowledged), but as I explained, this doesn't change the fact that many people *won't*. Like it or not.
The photographer didn't get proper clearance and he licensed it anyway. It's the photographer's fault and, even if he didn't realise what he was doing, ignorance is no excuse. I agree. My post was not a justification of such photographers' actions, nor was it saying they should be exempt from responsibility for messing up.
So, no, photographers are responsible for the clearing of pictures / subjects - this photographer didn't, he is at fault. Yes, he is. Nevertheless, this does not shield Virgin from legal action- and I suspect that courts would be less lenient in a case where Virgin could- and should- have known that the uploader (i.e. Joe Public) was not a legal/rights expert, yet failed to double-check.
Of course, Virgin can take the photographer to court later on; it would be a lot more sensible (and professional) just to double-check the details in the first place, however.
To expect the agency to know which of the millions of photos and photographers on flickr are properly cleared or not is not only illogical, unworkable, That's a poor argument; they don't need to care about millions of photos, only the ones they're interested in using. Since they're being used for a major ad campaign, having someone contact the guy and possibly the girl to double-check the details (and possibly sign some forms) should be a minor detail in the scheme of things.
and flies in the face of decades of legal responsibility, but is also really stupid What "decades of legal responsibility"? You can't compare Flickr to a professional photo library for this purpose (I already explained why).
and fuck you for suggesting it. You sure you're actually making a serious point here, or just trolling?
What you are suggesting, in principle, would be no different from using stock photo libraries and having to make sure each photo was cleared. Flickr is not the same as a professional stock photo library, for reasons that I already explained and don't intend repeating.
The very fact that the flickr photo in question has a license implies that the photographer has gotten the relevant permissions from his subject to make a licensable work. Again, I have already explained why (rightly or wrongly) this may not be the case.
If the subject never gave their permission for this license, then the license is invalid and the photographer is perpetrating a fraud and is open to be sued by the licensor. Absolutely; I didn't say that they weren't. For reasons I already gave above and in the previous post, this does not absolve Virgin of responsibility.
I went to the moon without leaving Earth, and it didn't require any permit. I think it did require some papers, though. Official: Excuse me sir, but did you know that you need a permit to land on the moon?
Astronaut: Thanks for the advice, but I think I'd be better off using a rocket.
WTF?! Listen, there's a site out there that says "here, please take this picture and use it in your commercial projects". Why on Earth should they feel obligated NOT to do so? They had been given explicit permission to use the picture if they followed the rules, which they did. Bearing in mind that Virgin (or rather, their ad agency) are professionals, a bit of real-world common-sense would show why your comment is *not* "insightful".
I think we all accept that owning the copyright to an image does not grant you the automatic right to (e.g.) use a person's likeness for advertising (and so on). If the permissions had no model release, Virgin were extremely negligent. Period.
But to get to your point, even if the details indicated a model release, or similar permissions, common sense dictates that Virgin (or their ad company) should not have taken this at face value. Flickr is not a "professional" photo library where it could reasonably be expected that the photographer (or someone involved) is aware of the legal issues. Flickr is a site where Joe Public can upload his photos. Rightly or wrongly, it doesn't take a genius to figure that a proportion of those uploaders will either:-
Not understand the concept of model releases at all and mistakenly overlook what they are saying people can do with the photo; or
Not really care about the concept (or think it's not really important and won't come back to bite them) and tick the box anyway- whether or not they understand the implications; or
Think that they have the right to do something that they don't, either because of some vague conversation of comment they had with the person in the photo, or more likely because they think "it's my photo, I can do what I like with it!" (see first point)
You could argue that the uploaders *should* be aware of what permissions they have the right to pass on to others, and so on. But like it or not, many won't, and the ad company should have realised this. It's their job, and they (or their legal team) should be well aware of legal issues surrounding photo rights. The issues I covered about should have been obvious to anyone with experience in the area
(*1) Probably related to English law; and while we're on the subject, bear in mind that this situation is complicated by straddling two countries.
(*2) I'm not disputing that the guy owns the image copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy way to wind up an audiophile... tell them they're too fat/thin and that this is affecting the quality of the sound in the same room. Tell them that they need to gain or lose weight.
Then see if they actually do it.
And Win2k- how many consumers used that?- it wasn't oriented towards that market, and I don't recall many people using it. If nothing else, games and other software of that ilk were more likely to run on the consumer 9x versions of Windows (including M.E.) around at that time.
Having seen this "witticism" (which you already posted in similar form elsewhere in this thread), I checked your comment history and realised that you're actually closer to the "moron who posts inane comments under the mistaken impression that they're funny".
The irony is that you probably dashed off the original message without reading the article in a vain attempt to get an "insightful" first post... all it shows is that you lack any insight whatsoever.
However, the feature isn't enabled by default. It requires cryptographic access *and* knowledge of its existence to turn it on. And if you already have cryptographic access, then the whole issue is academic.
You pompously declaring it "DISHONEST" in capital letters smacks of the typical random-geek's kneejerk first post on a messageboard thread. And FWIW, I don't know how much your oh-so-important business with them is worth anyway; I suspect that the other client probably *was* worth more. (Of course, it's quite plausible that the views of *many* smaller clients who disliked the feature would be a serious counterweight. However, if you're going to act like your *individual* view carries so much weight, expect scepticism).
I'm sure Sony were always aware that there was a certain market segment who'd be more likely to buy a PSP if it weren't locked down. And I'm also sure that they balanced this against their dream of being able to wring extra money from the (far larger number of) ordinary users for every little bit of content and extra functionality.
You made the common
Of course, it didn't pan out as well as Sony would have liked (films on UMD, for example), and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. However, it probably made sense at the time, and I don't expect to see them changing their minds soon.
What the hell are you doing here? You don't belong here.
For example, in frame 1, block (0,0) is made up from object coordinates (0,0), (1,0), (2,0), (3,0) and block (1,0) from coords (4,0), (5,0), (6,0), (7,0).
In frame 2, block (0,0) is made up from object coordinates (1,0), (2,0), (3,0), (4,0) and block (1,0) from coords (5,0), (6,0), (7,0), (8,0).
In frame 3, block (0,0) is made up from object coordinates (2,0), (3,0), (4,0), (5,0) and block (1,0) from coords (6,0), (7,0), (8,0) and (9,0).
It should be mathematically possible to figure these out *or* by following the moving object and averaging multiple frames (effectively, the "blocks" are moving) you get the original hi-res object back. (In fact, I suspect that the human eye would do this if the object was moving fast enough).
This is of course theoretical (although it's still practical if a dangerous regime wants to find out which dissident is hiding behind some blocks), and would require some artificial intelligence to track stuff, estimate the quality of the data and re-interpolate these pseudo-static images back into moving objects. But it seems possible to me.
Very funny, I'm sure. The imposter account above ("Miguel de Icaza (660439)") has taken the real Miguel's words from this post and swapped the account name round.
Whether Apple are generally "evil" (silly word in this context, but you know what I mean) is open to debate. What annoys me is when Apple fans try to paint the company's moneygrabbing actions as anything more than that. Apple is no a charitable organization, but a business to make money, like any other. Do you fault them for that? Of course Apple have the right to make money- and as I said, people have the right to criticise them for how they go about it. Particularly when presented with ludicrous defences of the company's behaviour.
There aren't that many networks. If Apple spoke to each of them, it wouldn't be that big a deal to find out how they varied and to tweak things accordingly. The hassle would certainly be outweighed by the increased usefulness and flexibility of the iPhone.
It's quite laughable to suggest that Apple locked it to one network for the consumer's own good, or even to save themselves vast sums of money on support. They locked it because they knew they could get more money out of the winning network that way.
I agree with you that no-one is forced to buy an iPhone at gunpoint though. Anyone considering buying one should be well aware of the issues surrounding it. Personally I wouldn't consider it for the same reason I wouldn't consider buying a PSP- potentially nice hardware that's much poorer value-for-money once the lock in is taken into account.
Well in answer to the question, no. I don't know what a slide rule is for.... but I know that one and one is two.
And if this one could be with you, what a wonderful world this would be.
From the "Top 100 Best Sellers", I see that Linux users can get it for 89 cents. Nice one
But seriously, Bill Gates didn't pay $12 Million for "Start Me Up". He paid 89 cents like everyone else.
What he paid $11,999,999.11 for was the right to leave out the line "You make a grown man cry".
"Buying gold" is not the same as saving in a bank account, however. When you save in a bank account, the bank can use your money to invest (which indeed it does); so in a way, you're indirectly investing.
(Meanwhile, a double-layer DVD's worth of data would need roughly half a million pages, so you'd need a small truck to deliver 500 or so Yellow Pages-sized volumes to your house. And I wouldn't want to be the one typing all that data in. Particularly not if I had to save it to cassette...)
Anyway, your idea is silly. In truth, your next radio will come in the form of a CD-ROM
Of course, the wording may have been such that he may not have realised that he was granting permissions that weren't his to grant (see my post above). The ad agency should have considered this rather obvious possibility- I believe that this would be considered a failure of due diligence on their part.
However, I can't believe that the agency would have used the image if there was no model release (or implication of such) in the license. If (and only if) this is the case, then the agency was grossly negligent and it wasn't the photographer's fault nor responsibility.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you, but are you saying that someone can take a photo of (say) Brad Pitt, and use his likeness to advertise a product without further permission?
You can argue that they *should* know (which I already acknowledged), but as I explained, this doesn't change the fact that many people *won't*. Like it or not. The photographer didn't get proper clearance and he licensed it anyway. It's the photographer's fault and, even if he didn't realise what he was doing, ignorance is no excuse. I agree. My post was not a justification of such photographers' actions, nor was it saying they should be exempt from responsibility for messing up. So, no, photographers are responsible for the clearing of pictures / subjects - this photographer didn't, he is at fault. Yes, he is. Nevertheless, this does not shield Virgin from legal action- and I suspect that courts would be less lenient in a case where Virgin could- and should- have known that the uploader (i.e. Joe Public) was not a legal/rights expert, yet failed to double-check.
Of course, Virgin can take the photographer to court later on; it would be a lot more sensible (and professional) just to double-check the details in the first place, however. To expect the agency to know which of the millions of photos and photographers on flickr are properly cleared or not is not only illogical, unworkable, That's a poor argument; they don't need to care about millions of photos, only the ones they're interested in using. Since they're being used for a major ad campaign, having someone contact the guy and possibly the girl to double-check the details (and possibly sign some forms) should be a minor detail in the scheme of things. and flies in the face of decades of legal responsibility, but is also really stupid What "decades of legal responsibility"? You can't compare Flickr to a professional photo library for this purpose (I already explained why).
and fuck you for suggesting it. You sure you're actually making a serious point here, or just trolling? What you are suggesting, in principle, would be no different from using stock photo libraries and having to make sure each photo was cleared. Flickr is not the same as a professional stock photo library, for reasons that I already explained and don't intend repeating. The very fact that the flickr photo in question has a license implies that the photographer has gotten the relevant permissions from his subject to make a licensable work. Again, I have already explained why (rightly or wrongly) this may not be the case. If the subject never gave their permission for this license, then the license is invalid and the photographer is perpetrating a fraud and is open to be sued by the licensor. Absolutely; I didn't say that they weren't. For reasons I already gave above and in the previous post, this does not absolve Virgin of responsibility.
Astronaut: Thanks for the advice, but I think I'd be better off using a rocket.
I think we all accept that owning the copyright to an image does not grant you the automatic right to (e.g.) use a person's likeness for advertising (and so on). If the permissions had no model release, Virgin were extremely negligent. Period.
But to get to your point, even if the details indicated a model release, or similar permissions, common sense dictates that Virgin (or their ad company) should not have taken this at face value. Flickr is not a "professional" photo library where it could reasonably be expected that the photographer (or someone involved) is aware of the legal issues. Flickr is a site where Joe Public can upload his photos. Rightly or wrongly, it doesn't take a genius to figure that a proportion of those uploaders will either:-
- Not understand the concept of model releases at all and mistakenly overlook what they are saying people can do with the photo; or
- Not really care about the concept (or think it's not really important and won't come back to bite them) and tick the box anyway- whether or not they understand the implications; or
- Think that they have the right to do something that they don't, either because of some vague conversation of comment they had with the person in the photo, or more likely because they think "it's my photo, I can do what I like with it!" (see first point)
You could argue that the uploaders *should* be aware of what permissions they have the right to pass on to others, and so on. But like it or not, many won't, and the ad company should have realised this. It's their job, and they (or their legal team) should be well aware of legal issues surrounding photo rights. The issues I covered about should have been obvious to anyone with experience in the area(*1) Probably related to English law; and while we're on the subject, bear in mind that this situation is complicated by straddling two countries.
(*2) I'm not disputing that the guy owns the image copyright.