How so? In my experience, K5 does a MUCH better job of hiding it's trolls than/. does, plus the whole "vote for stories" things means everybody gets to be an editor. it's brilliant! My only complaint is that there isn't anywhere near as much content as on/.
Actually, I meant it more as a figure of speech. Or did you think that I actually meant that the people would physically transform into lemmings and promptly march off the nearest cliff?
Ah, I think I understand. So you were injected with a needle-less gun, some people were cut pretty bad. Were you sliced open with a bayonet so they could pour the "injected" liquids over your wounds?
Well the explanation that I've always heard is that microkernels are *hard* to debug because it's freaking hard to get all these little stupid daemons communicating asynchronously. Whereas the linux kernel is "easy" in comparison, because it's totally monolithic in design. That's why linux has come so far so quickly, and HURD is struggling so badly.
I mean, come on, 15 years of development and it's just NOW been able to run a program? I was going to make some kind of joke about people insisting it be called "Debian/GNU/Hurd/L4", but we won't have to worry about that until the sequel to Duke Nukem Forever is out.
Jesus Christ, it's 2005. I don't remember the last time I saw a floppy drive, much less a floppy disk. I think it's fair to say that any computer that has a floppy but no CDROM is too old to run openoffice anyway.
Know your target audience...
Re:My problem with Mensa's standards...
on
MSN Sponsors Mensa
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The implicit assumption is that the vast majority of humanity is incapable of civil discourse and intelligent discussion (at least on the level that they would like), but I see no reason why this should be the case.
Obviously you've never worked in any sort of call center (tech support or otherwise).
And on the Unix side, we didn't even have KDE or GNOME ten years ago.
Not to mention that these days, KDE and GNOME releases are generally faster & lighter than their predecessors, which is always great (means i can put off the hardware upgrades even longer...;)
You have to realize though, what if somebody does this to your bank? And some unsuspecting user googles for their bank, and then gets redirected to a phishing site? Pretty scary.
Now multiply that by about a thousand times. How in the hell is anyone going to be able to track down every person (including you) who contributed to that creation so they can do something commercial with it?
Ideally, you would ask. Ask the person you are copying from, and they will say, "oh, I got this from Fez, you'll have to ask him". I'm not saying I'm controlling my content with an iron fist, if you're running a small-time operation and you just want to publish my photo in a small newspaper or something, and you're supported by advertisements, I might very well grant permission to do that for free, since it gets my name out there (eg, instead of viewing it as somebody stealing my work, I view it as free advertising for me).
Also, you forget, my license requires attribution, so your big remix/collage type work will have to have a list of the original sources in it ANYWAY. Use that to track down the copyright holders to ask their permission for commercial uses.
Basically, as of right now, the only place that I'm aware of that you can get my photos from is my website. My name is displayed, it's easy to find my email address. So if you see a photo you like on my website and you say "wow, that would be perfect for this collage I'm making!", so as per the CC license, you take that photo, put it in your collage, and then you attach a note that says (among other things) "photo of ___ taken by Fez". Then you release your collage, and somebody else comes along and says "wow, I want to publish that in my zine!", so that person reads the copyright notice that clearly says it's a by-nc-sa license, and shows the names of all the original copyright holders. then we can all easily be contacted for permission.
And I know that sounds contrived. You might respond "yeah, but people AREN'T mentioning the names of the original copyright holders when they make these remixes/collages". Well, too bad for you then, because they're in violation of my license, which clearly states I require attribution. And if you think this all sounds like I'm placing hefty restrictions on my work, just remember, I never had to put it on the web for free in the first place. I could just as easily set up a website that requires you to pay just to look at them. Of course, that would defeat the purpose of my website, which is to advertise my (mediocre? you decide) skill as an (amateur) photographer.
Frankly, this is how it is: The purpose of my website is to be a portfolio of my work. As a portfolio, it's job is to advertise me. If somebody takes my photo, makes it into a collage, and publishes it in some book and makes a lot of money, and my name isn't associated with that original photo, then my website has failed in it's purpose. It's nice if a photo of mine gets famous, but really only if my name gets famous along with that photo.
See where I'm going with this? The goal of my website is not to let you do whatever you want with my work, it's to promote me. I don't care if you find my restrictions unreasonable, those are my terms and you can take them or leave them (or maybe ask me nicely and we'll negotiate some different terms). Give me something I want, and then we'll see about giving you something you want. It's my work after all, and if you don't like it, make your own damn stuff and release it under whatever license you like.
It means that only people who contact you directly can use your icon set. That's hardly freedom.
Well, obviously! The creative commons licenses are just that, licenses. They are a set of restrictions that you place on your work in exchange for granting many freedoms that would otherwise not be there with normal copyright. The only way to grant "freedom" to your creative works is to unleash them into the public domain.
Personally, I love the non-commercial restriction. I release all my photos with the by-nc-sa license. What it means is, "feel free to email this to your friends, remix it, etc. go wild. but I don't want you getting rich on my work. so if you want to do something commercial with this, contact me, offer me a cut of the profits, and we'll talk."
It's not about freedom for the created works. They're inanimate objects, they don't care about freedom. What it's about is that I'm graciously giving you access, but it's on my terms. You have to play by my rules, or I'll take my toys home and nobody can play with them.
Slashdot Mirror
How so? In my experience, K5 does a MUCH better job of hiding it's trolls than /. does, plus the whole "vote for stories" things means everybody gets to be an editor. it's brilliant! My only complaint is that there isn't anywhere near as much content as on /.
Actually, I meant it more as a figure of speech. Or did you think that I actually meant that the people would physically transform into lemmings and promptly march off the nearest cliff?
Why would they give up copyright? They could have patents on everything, AND copyrights too, and be totally fucking hypocritical!
If it works for pizza delivery it should work for money transfers.
Only so far as you can trust the pizza delivery boy with an envelope full of money...
Ah, I think I understand. So you were injected with a needle-less gun, some people were cut pretty bad. Were you sliced open with a bayonet so they could pour the "injected" liquids over your wounds?
Boiling frogs in water? I'd say it's more like lemmings marching off a cliff.
Wow, did he actually spell it "enjouyed" in the original? I don't know how many times I've read that, never noticed that typo before.
Well the explanation that I've always heard is that microkernels are *hard* to debug because it's freaking hard to get all these little stupid daemons communicating asynchronously. Whereas the linux kernel is "easy" in comparison, because it's totally monolithic in design. That's why linux has come so far so quickly, and HURD is struggling so badly.
I mean, come on, 15 years of development and it's just NOW been able to run a program? I was going to make some kind of joke about people insisting it be called "Debian/GNU/Hurd/L4", but we won't have to worry about that until the sequel to Duke Nukem Forever is out.
Oh yes, they're both quite amusing.
Really, it is corporate socialism--socialism for the big corporations and their billionaires;
Corporate socialism? Isn't that just a silly way of saying fascism?
Jesus Christ, it's 2005. I don't remember the last time I saw a floppy drive, much less a floppy disk. I think it's fair to say that any computer that has a floppy but no CDROM is too old to run openoffice anyway.
Know your target audience...
The implicit assumption is that the vast majority of humanity is incapable of civil discourse and intelligent discussion (at least on the level that they would like), but I see no reason why this should be the case.
;)
Obviously you've never worked in any sort of call center (tech support or otherwise).
(kidding!
And on the Unix side, we didn't even have KDE or GNOME ten years ago.
;)
Not to mention that these days, KDE and GNOME releases are generally faster & lighter than their predecessors, which is always great (means i can put off the hardware upgrades even longer...
It's like cows grazing on a field. The more cows there are, the faster the grass grows, right? ... right? ;)
I'm sure we'll convert to 64bit counters by then anyway.
;)
Isn't that the kind of thinking that got us into the Y2K mess in the first place? hmmmmm?
sure glad I took the troll mod on that one, what with the "j/k" and the smiley. Stupid mods.
I can save everybody the trouble right now.
;)
KDE is crap, GNOME is awesome!
j/k
It's small minded people like you that make the world a terrible place. I dream that some day, GIFs everywhere will have equal rights! Free the GIFs!
You have to realize though, what if somebody does this to your bank? And some unsuspecting user googles for their bank, and then gets redirected to a phishing site? Pretty scary.
Funny, all this time I thought it was the Bengali Students Association
Now multiply that by about a thousand times. How in the hell is anyone going to be able to track down every person (including you) who contributed to that creation so they can do something commercial with it?
Ideally, you would ask. Ask the person you are copying from, and they will say, "oh, I got this from Fez, you'll have to ask him". I'm not saying I'm controlling my content with an iron fist, if you're running a small-time operation and you just want to publish my photo in a small newspaper or something, and you're supported by advertisements, I might very well grant permission to do that for free, since it gets my name out there (eg, instead of viewing it as somebody stealing my work, I view it as free advertising for me).
Also, you forget, my license requires attribution, so your big remix/collage type work will have to have a list of the original sources in it ANYWAY. Use that to track down the copyright holders to ask their permission for commercial uses.
Basically, as of right now, the only place that I'm aware of that you can get my photos from is my website. My name is displayed, it's easy to find my email address. So if you see a photo you like on my website and you say "wow, that would be perfect for this collage I'm making!", so as per the CC license, you take that photo, put it in your collage, and then you attach a note that says (among other things) "photo of ___ taken by Fez". Then you release your collage, and somebody else comes along and says "wow, I want to publish that in my zine!", so that person reads the copyright notice that clearly says it's a by-nc-sa license, and shows the names of all the original copyright holders. then we can all easily be contacted for permission.
And I know that sounds contrived. You might respond "yeah, but people AREN'T mentioning the names of the original copyright holders when they make these remixes/collages". Well, too bad for you then, because they're in violation of my license, which clearly states I require attribution. And if you think this all sounds like I'm placing hefty restrictions on my work, just remember, I never had to put it on the web for free in the first place. I could just as easily set up a website that requires you to pay just to look at them. Of course, that would defeat the purpose of my website, which is to advertise my (mediocre? you decide) skill as an (amateur) photographer.
Frankly, this is how it is: The purpose of my website is to be a portfolio of my work. As a portfolio, it's job is to advertise me. If somebody takes my photo, makes it into a collage, and publishes it in some book and makes a lot of money, and my name isn't associated with that original photo, then my website has failed in it's purpose. It's nice if a photo of mine gets famous, but really only if my name gets famous along with that photo.
See where I'm going with this? The goal of my website is not to let you do whatever you want with my work, it's to promote me. I don't care if you find my restrictions unreasonable, those are my terms and you can take them or leave them (or maybe ask me nicely and we'll negotiate some different terms). Give me something I want, and then we'll see about giving you something you want. It's my work after all, and if you don't like it, make your own damn stuff and release it under whatever license you like.
This is the funniest thing I've read on /. all week.
It means that only people who contact you directly can use your icon set. That's hardly freedom.
Well, obviously! The creative commons licenses are just that, licenses. They are a set of restrictions that you place on your work in exchange for granting many freedoms that would otherwise not be there with normal copyright. The only way to grant "freedom" to your creative works is to unleash them into the public domain.
Personally, I love the non-commercial restriction. I release all my photos with the by-nc-sa license. What it means is, "feel free to email this to your friends, remix it, etc. go wild. but I don't want you getting rich on my work. so if you want to do something commercial with this, contact me, offer me a cut of the profits, and we'll talk."
It's not about freedom for the created works. They're inanimate objects, they don't care about freedom. What it's about is that I'm graciously giving you access, but it's on my terms. You have to play by my rules, or I'll take my toys home and nobody can play with them.
That's the best name ever! Named in the same fashion as slashdot itself ;)
Why is this such a big deal? Wake me up when Bill Gates announces his main computer is a G5.