If you are already running VMWare, then I would recommend downloading a pre-configured virtual appliance.
They are ready-to-go VM W/X/LAMP installs that sometimes even offer a slimmed down version for minimal footprint; pick one that resembles the target production environment and you are ready to go.
Fair enough. They may just add watermarks to the albums for the purposes you describe (and not to individual songs? - seems odd, but heck, very doable)
Oh, and it may not be that simple but that has never tried to stop people (or Big Corps.) from trying before;)
I guess, I am just trying to say that, as long as it nothing more than a download 'helper', it is OK (just like installing iTunes software to purchase songs from their store). But since the downloader is only needed for albums, I wonder if something else is at play here.
But my preferences may very well go beyond the stuff I purchase (which, as you stated correctly, I need to login for) and the stuff I 'browse' (as AC or w/o logging into the site). Hence why I thought it could become spyware!
You're absolutely right. We Canadians merely have to pay thousands of dollars every year whether or not we walk into a hospital. Great deal. I haven't had to use the health care system for 15 years but I've already paid the equivalent two major surgeries.
That is no different than paying health insurance in any other country. If you don't need it, it seems like a waste. If you need it (or should I say WHEN you need it), you WILL be glad it is there. Truly, the system is heavily subsidized (from what you pay, and the services provided for the monies paid), it does not have a limit (as opposed to some insurance companies who impose lifetime maximums on certain items in their policies), and currently it is a right to every citizen and resident of the country. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
And Canada's health care system is fabulous...so fabulous that not one nation on the planet has adopted it. Oh, and we're one of three nations on the planet -- North Korea and Cuba being the others -- that has banned private health care. Fuck profits! Yeahhh!
I guess you missed the part about other countries' "health care system where the lives of citizens are but a minor consideration in a money-making enterprise." I think not many countries have the balls to stand up to those corporate bullies nor the wealth to absorb the costs of such heavy subsidies if a switch to public health care were to take place.
You also neglect to mention the benefits of Canada's Health Care System: how about life expectancy? how about infant mortality rates?
"In 2001 Canadians paid $2,163 per capita versus $4,887 U.S., according to the Los Angeles Times[...] According to Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health at the University of Washington in Seattle, Canadians do better by every health care measure. According to a World Health Organization report published in 2003, life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years, versus 77.3 in the U.S[18]." *
But more relevant to the topic, I will say: "yes, fuck profits by the big corporations preying on the ill, the person in need, or even the average person when they are down to their last resource (their health)"
The Java IDE used to develop Java applications? Sorry, it doesn't count; it's just a Java tool to make more Java. It doesn't make Java useful.
Ok. Fair enough let's not look at Eclipse as a Java IDE to develop more Java applications as it does not count according to you (it may count for others but that's another story)
Let's, then, look at Eclipse as the framework that it is to build almost anything you could want. From the eclipse website (and I quote):
Eclipse projects provide tools and frameworks that span the entire software development lifecycle, including modeling, development, deployment tools, reporting, data manipulation, testing and profiling. The tools and frameworks are primarily focused on building JEE, web services and web applications. Eclipse also provides support for other languages, such as C/C++, PHP, and others.
Again, Eclipse is used for many things including Enterprise Software Development, used as a Rich Client Platform, for development of embedded systems, and most famously for its Language (not just Java) IDEs.
Azureus (a Java BitTorrent client) is a good example of something an end-user might use that is based on Eclipse as well. A longer list of applications (of all types) is here (for the RCP aspect of Eclipse)
Your comment leads me to believe that you are either trolling or do not know much about web-development.
Let's either bite, or pretend you don't know.
For all the hype surrounding it, I have still to see any functional Java-based application, in the browser or otherwise.
Ever heard of eclipse?
BTW, Java on the brower has *nothing* to do with regular HTML-based forms. You are comparing Applets and Oranges (sorry, couldn't resist
The truth is,struts (arguably java's most popular web-development framework) works with with JSPs (which in turn spew out HTML to the browser) and Servlets (java's server-side executables) in the back end.
The notion of having a java CMS mainly relates to the server-side of the equation that would grab the 'stuff' entered in the HTML forms and manage it using Java to either store it into a db for later retrival and display(to name a few examples).
While applets (and Java on the browser) can do this as well, it does not have to be (in fact, it is not even recommended).
Yes. The creator of the picture owns it, initially.
As mentioned before, final ownership has to be spelled out in the contract. My original argument was that, as far as I am concerned, I am paying the photographer to be there. Similar to a patron who hires a painter to do a portrait (back two centuries ago, for example). The final work of art (a portrait of me) belongs to the patron who commissioned it. The author is of course the painter. Ownership vs Authorship.
The fact that I have to pay twice to get rights to the same pictures I 'commissioned' him to take is what I am discussing here (and failing miserably at);).
Agree with you completely... A contract is needed to specify/clarify ownership of IP... sign those rights away and it's tough luck for you (either the photographer or the client)...
For me, the photographer needs to include those rights in the price or I am not hiring him/her to do the job. If the photographer wants to make money of his/her images of me, then he/she can pay me for those rights (obviously, he can take all the pictures he wants in a public place but to make money of those pictures, he needs my consent, if I understand correctly)
When you hire a professional photographer they are not considered "work for hire"
and why is this? (just curious)
And what about free-lance contractors / web-developers / Business Analysts, etc?. I see a lot of similarities between these job types and freelance photographers.
Yes, obviously you need to negotiate who owns the IP created in either case but somehow I don't think I will be developing a website for a client and telling them:
"btw, I will own your website' and anytime you want to allow someone else to use it (or benefit from its existence) you need to contact me and I will add them to the list of users and I will charge you a fee for this addition"
I don't think this will fly well with clients.
This is also different than me wanting to use a photo already created by the photographer. I would have to pay for the use of a copyrighted material. No question about it. The photographer was not commissioned by me to take such photo. In other words, he has not being paid by me already. He took such photo, he owns it, he can sell its rights to anyone he/she wishes.
imo, of course
I may not understand either... but obviously you missed this
It's up to the photographer to set the fee according to his/her skills (and what the market is willing to pay).
Of course it's a matter of trying to make money (up front or down the road). And that fees will vary depending on how the photographer intends to make money (one time fee VS subscriptions). It's just a matter of seeing what the market will be willing to pay for either option.
I, personally, would not hire a photographer that would insist on keeping copyrights of material I am paying him/her to document. Specially if I am the creator of what he is documenting.
If anything, I would want the photographer to pay me for documenting my creation and then trying to make a dollar of it.;)
That may be so (the way I explained it in my brief post)
However, the principle is there. Photographers are no more the 'creators' of the products than NBC airing a game on their network. NBC *purchases* the rights to broadcast the game (and make money by selling ads). NBC owns the rights to their broadcast (because they paid for it) but does not own the game itself (the product). The league owns the products.
I figured is about the same here. I own everything I create (including my wedding, which I pay for and participate it, and create). The photographer does not 'own' the broadcast of this product (because he has not paid for its rights). I am paying him to document it, but it's not his creation.
A developer gets hired to do a piece of code. Most of the companies have a 'contract' indicating everything I create while under their salary belongs to them. I sign the contract, I get paid, they get to 'own' everything they contracted me to create for them. This is not to say I cannot use my professional experience while with them and use it to my advantage to find another contract, but I cannot take the product itself. That belongs to the client who paid for it.
Maybe you can clarify where my logic fails (and maybe I will understand the laws better)
I'd have to agree with you. I am sorry but if you are 'commissioning' a photographer to work for you, you should have, at least, ownership of all work and its copyrights.
I mean, you are *paying* for it already. You are paying for the labour of this professional and the results of his/her labour. It's up to the photographer to set the fee according to his/her skills (and what the market is willing to pay).
This is similar to a developer getting paid for the code he/she produces. The code (product, application, etc) belongs to the company paying the salary and not the developer.
And you completely ignore the last 10 years of history in Venezuela where Chavez himself was the one leading the coup against the President of the time.
The failed 'recall' has been as rumoured to be rigged and fraudulent as the involvement of Bush in the coup you mention. Which of course, nobody can fully prove. So, which conspiracy group should I believe then? yours? others?
You say people hate the right wing so much down there as if you knew exactly what they think (then again, maybe you do). So do you mind explaining exactly what makes you think that people hate the right wing so much? Do you know anyone there? or are you getting the news from an Irish crew video/documentary?
Nothing personal, I am just curious for the sake of discussion....
I will tell you stories of people voting in the same municipalities for nearly 20 years. Last referendum? They were not allowed to vote in the same place. Why? Their names were 'registered' in a different municipality, IN A DIFFERENT CITY and STATE. So you would have to get on a plane to go there and stand in line for HOURS to vote. If you had no money or time to do this, you would not be allowed to vote. period.
Most people I have heard of in this situation (personally, and I am not talking about CNN as the other AC suggested) were NO voters. Have not heard of a YES voter with the same problems.
How about Cubans sworn in as citizens as long as they voted for him?
There are other signs of rigged elections but I cannot personally confirm those so I will leave them out for the sake of discussion as I cannot rely on more than rumours (some more confirmed than others).
born there, lived there 'til recently...
rest of the family still there...
I, for one, get my info from my family directly...
CNN? no thanks... What about you?
no, no, YOU are funny
Slashdot Mirror
If you are already running VMWare, then I would recommend downloading a pre-configured virtual appliance. They are ready-to-go VM W/X/LAMP installs that sometimes even offer a slimmed down version for minimal footprint; pick one that resembles the target production environment and you are ready to go.
Thank you.
It is because of comments like yours that I keep coming back to this site.
Fair enough. They may just add watermarks to the albums for the purposes you describe (and not to individual songs? - seems odd, but heck, very doable)
;)
Oh, and it may not be that simple but that has never tried to stop people (or Big Corps.) from trying before
I guess, I am just trying to say that, as long as it nothing more than a download 'helper', it is OK (just like installing iTunes software to purchase songs from their store). But since the downloader is only needed for albums, I wonder if something else is at play here.
But then again, maybe not!
True that!
But my preferences may very well go beyond the stuff I purchase (which, as you stated correctly, I need to login for) and the stuff I 'browse' (as AC or w/o logging into the site). Hence why I thought it could become spyware!
Hmmm, is this going to become another spyware for me?
Will it be telling Amazon about my 'preferences' in order to 'suggest' more songs. which is not too bad if private info is kept, you know, private.
But are they going to sell this information (along with personal data) to 'marketers'?
I realize this is for albums only but still. A the cheaper price than iTunes, there is got to be a catch here (me thinks).
That is no different than paying health insurance in any other country. If you don't need it, it seems like a waste. If you need it (or should I say WHEN you need it), you WILL be glad it is there. Truly, the system is heavily subsidized (from what you pay, and the services provided for the monies paid), it does not have a limit (as opposed to some insurance companies who impose lifetime maximums on certain items in their policies), and currently it is a right to every citizen and resident of the country. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
I guess you missed the part about other countries' "health care system where the lives of citizens are but a minor consideration in a money-making enterprise." I think not many countries have the balls to stand up to those corporate bullies nor the wealth to absorb the costs of such heavy subsidies if a switch to public health care were to take place.
You also neglect to mention the benefits of Canada's Health Care System: how about life expectancy? how about infant mortality rates?
"In 2001 Canadians paid $2,163 per capita versus $4,887 U.S., according to the Los Angeles Times[...] According to Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health at the University of Washington in Seattle, Canadians do better by every health care measure. According to a World Health Organization report published in 2003, life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years, versus 77.3 in the U.S[18]." *But more relevant to the topic, I will say: "yes, fuck profits by the big corporations preying on the ill, the person in need, or even the average person when they are down to their last resource (their health)"
*source
The way I see it is: ;o)
:)
a) He gets the lady, becomes one more happy Linux user
b) He doesn't but she likes Ubuntu, becomes one more happy Linux user
Either way, the community has one more happy member.
We all win
PS
You can't blame a guy for trying can you?
Ok. Fair enough let's not look at Eclipse as a Java IDE to develop more Java applications as it does not count according to you (it may count for others but that's another story)
Let's, then, look at Eclipse as the framework that it is to build almost anything you could want. From the eclipse website (and I quote):
Again, Eclipse is used for many things including Enterprise Software Development, used as a Rich Client Platform, for development of embedded systems, and most famously for its Language (not just Java) IDEs.
Azureus (a Java BitTorrent client) is a good example of something an end-user might use that is based on Eclipse as well. A longer list of applications (of all types) is here (for the RCP aspect of Eclipse)
Let's either bite, or pretend you don't know.
Ever heard of eclipse?
BTW, Java on the brower has *nothing* to do with regular HTML-based forms. You are comparing Applets and Oranges (sorry, couldn't resist
The truth is,struts (arguably java's most popular web-development framework) works with with JSPs (which in turn spew out HTML to the browser) and Servlets (java's server-side executables) in the back end.
The notion of having a java CMS mainly relates to the server-side of the equation that would grab the 'stuff' entered in the HTML forms and manage it using Java to either store it into a db for later retrival and display(to name a few examples).
While applets (and Java on the browser) can do this as well, it does not have to be (in fact, it is not even recommended).
amen to that
Have a look at MonolithMC
Be ready to have your inbox slashdotted with resumes :o)
Hahaha, me too
only to realize the joke onMouseUp()... (e.g. immediately after clicking on it)
good one
Yes. The creator of the picture owns it, initially. As mentioned before, final ownership has to be spelled out in the contract. My original argument was that, as far as I am concerned, I am paying the photographer to be there. Similar to a patron who hires a painter to do a portrait (back two centuries ago, for example). The final work of art (a portrait of me) belongs to the patron who commissioned it. The author is of course the painter. Ownership vs Authorship. The fact that I have to pay twice to get rights to the same pictures I 'commissioned' him to take is what I am discussing here (and failing miserably at) ;).
that's right...
I forgot about editorial stuff.
Agree with you completely...
A contract is needed to specify/clarify ownership of IP... sign those rights away and it's tough luck for you (either the photographer or the client)...
For me, the photographer needs to include those rights in the price or I am not hiring him/her to do the job. If the photographer wants to make money of his/her images of me, then he/she can pay me for those rights (obviously, he can take all the pictures he wants in a public place but to make money of those pictures, he needs my consent, if I understand correctly)
Agree completely...
Of course, there is contract laws. If you signed your rights away, well... tough luck.
And what about free-lance contractors / web-developers / Business Analysts, etc?. I see a lot of similarities between these job types and freelance photographers.
Yes, obviously you need to negotiate who owns the IP created in either case but somehow I don't think I will be developing a website for a client and telling them:
"btw, I will own your website' and anytime you want to allow someone else to use it (or benefit from its existence) you need to contact me and I will add them to the list of users and I will charge you a fee for this addition"
I don't think this will fly well with clients.
This is also different than me wanting to use a photo already created by the photographer. I would have to pay for the use of a copyrighted material. No question about it. The photographer was not commissioned by me to take such photo. In other words, he has not being paid by me already. He took such photo, he owns it, he can sell its rights to anyone he/she wishes. imo, of course
I may not understand either... but obviously you missed this
Of course it's a matter of trying to make money (up front or down the road). And that fees will vary depending on how the photographer intends to make money (one time fee VS subscriptions). It's just a matter of seeing what the market will be willing to pay for either option.I, personally, would not hire a photographer that would insist on keeping copyrights of material I am paying him/her to document. Specially if I am the creator of what he is documenting.
If anything, I would want the photographer to pay me for documenting my creation and then trying to make a dollar of it. ;)
but, hey... what do I know?
That may be so (the way I explained it in my brief post)
However, the principle is there. Photographers are no more the 'creators' of the products than NBC airing a game on their network. NBC *purchases* the rights to broadcast the game (and make money by selling ads). NBC owns the rights to their broadcast (because they paid for it) but does not own the game itself (the product). The league owns the products.
I figured is about the same here. I own everything I create (including my wedding, which I pay for and participate it, and create). The photographer does not 'own' the broadcast of this product (because he has not paid for its rights). I am paying him to document it, but it's not his creation.
A developer gets hired to do a piece of code. Most of the companies have a 'contract' indicating everything I create while under their salary belongs to them. I sign the contract, I get paid, they get to 'own' everything they contracted me to create for them. This is not to say I cannot use my professional experience while with them and use it to my advantage to find another contract, but I cannot take the product itself. That belongs to the client who paid for it.
Maybe you can clarify where my logic fails (and maybe I will understand the laws better)
Regards,
+1 insightful
I'd have to agree with you. I am sorry but if you are 'commissioning' a photographer to work for you, you should have, at least, ownership of all work and its copyrights.
I mean, you are *paying* for it already. You are paying for the labour of this professional and the results of his/her labour. It's up to the photographer to set the fee according to his/her skills (and what the market is willing to pay).
This is similar to a developer getting paid for the code he/she produces. The code (product, application, etc) belongs to the company paying the salary and not the developer.
Just my two cents.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, I guess.
And you completely ignore the last 10 years of history in Venezuela where Chavez himself was the one leading the coup against the President of the time.
The failed 'recall' has been as rumoured to be rigged and fraudulent as the involvement of Bush in the coup you mention. Which of course, nobody can fully prove. So, which conspiracy group should I believe then? yours? others?
You say people hate the right wing so much down there as if you knew exactly what they think (then again, maybe you do). So do you mind explaining exactly what makes you think that people hate the right wing so much? Do you know anyone there? or are you getting the news from an Irish crew video/documentary?
Nothing personal, I am just curious for the sake of discussion....
ever heard of corruption?
I will tell you stories of people voting in the same municipalities for nearly 20 years. Last referendum? They were not allowed to vote in the same place. Why? Their names were 'registered' in a different municipality, IN A DIFFERENT CITY and STATE. So you would have to get on a plane to go there and stand in line for HOURS to vote. If you had no money or time to do this, you would not be allowed to vote. period.
Most people I have heard of in this situation (personally, and I am not talking about CNN as the other AC suggested) were NO voters. Have not heard of a YES voter with the same problems.
How about Cubans sworn in as citizens as long as they voted for him?
There are other signs of rigged elections but I cannot personally confirm those so I will leave them out for the sake of discussion as I cannot rely on more than rumours (some more confirmed than others).
born there, lived there 'til recently... rest of the family still there... I, for one, get my info from my family directly... CNN? no thanks... What about you? no, no, YOU are funny