SQL functions which return rowsets rather than a single value have been possible for a long time. We've used this functionality in the OpenACS project for about a year. The functionality wasn't well-advertised but it's been there.
PG 7.3 makes it easier and PL/pgSQL also allows the return of rowsets, I do believe.
Not getting the negatives is the norm for wedding photography contracts. You may be surprised but the author of the article has no excuse because, unlike you, at some point he or his future spouse had the contract in front of them and could read this with their own eyes.
Uh, no, she's not like a weaver making a tapestry designed by someone else. Have you ever taken a photograph that any sane person wouldn't just flush down the nearest toilet? If you had, you'd understand the absolute idiocy of your words.
The difference between the $5 8x10 of your photo and the $50 8x10 of the studio's photo is that most likely your photos, for the most part suck while the studio's don't, and the studio will almost certainly be farming out the print to a professional lab that will color balance and otherwise tweak the raw image file before dumping it to paper. In other words their wholesale price will most likely be higher than the retail price at your local supermarket photo department.
And if you're willing to use a $5 8x10 supermarket print as a promo in your portfolio then you must be a low-rent actor, indeed...
Uh... you're DEAD WRONG, not dead simple (unless you meant "minded").
The pricing model followed in the wedding industry today has been around for decades. It lowers initial costs.
If negatives are given as part of the contract, along with the release that will let you legally print them (don't forget that, kiddies!), then the person who ends up ordering 1000 prints from a lab (not the shooter) will pay the same as the person who orders 100 prints. The photographer will have to charge an average price that will result in the person ordering 100 prints paying more than under the existing system, while the person ordering 1000 prints will get a bargain.
In essence, the current way of doing things scales the cost to the number of prints ordered, which makes a lot of sense to me. It means the couple that only wants a modest number of prints pays less.
Unless, of course, the goal is to turn a business which for most provides a very modest living into a profession which offers so little reward that few will enter it.
Well, no you didn't. You didn't read your contract.
Now, if you can find a wedding photographer willing to work under those terms, more power to you. Start by combing your local homeless shelter for talent if you expect to get far with this approach.
It's nearly impossible to make a living as a photographer. I know, I get $200/hr writing software and might average $200/photo selling to the national magazine and book market. My total investment in computer hardware is a few $K, in photography $30K. When I shoot something, I pay film and processing expenses; when I type a line of code I pay nothing because my hardware stores it for free (digital is slowly getting there for photography but a majority of non-news publishers still require chromes).
Actually there are many contractual forms that are legally interpreted as implicitly falling into the "work for hire" category, without explicitly mentioning the transfer of copyright.
Anyone taking your advice at face value might be rudely shocked in the future.
Fine if you're satisfied with the quality. Note, though, that the traditional medium photographic equipment used by traditional wedding shooters absolutely kicks ass when it comes to large prints.
You're saying you'd be satisified with scans of prints if you couldn't get the original files. Again, if you're satisfied with that quality, no problem.
But the fact is that the medium format shooter provides a higher quality product (from a technological point of view, her shooting skills may be better, worse, or identical to your 1D shooter) and for those who want large enlargements of the wall-hanging variety the difference is easily detectable.
A Cessna 172R specs claim a range of 580 NM. 100 NM's not that bad. Fuel cells will greatly extend the range and make it practical and that's the technology they're really targetting, as the article points out.
Its called Freedom of speech. Perhaps you've heard of it.
Yes, I have. It does not grant you the right to spray paint grafitti on my fence, to scratch grafitti on my windows, or to fill my computer's hard drive with unsolicited e-mail.
Actually, England did give a shit during the Revolutionary War. However she was at war with France at the time and France also gave a shit. Without the French Fleet the outcome would've been quite different.
Then there are places like Oregon where all votes are of the mail in variety (which obviously discriminates against the homeless & disorginised).
You have to provide an address to register to vote in Oregon anyway, this was true before vote by mail, so it is no more discriminatory against the homeless than the traditional system.
Why is an address required? Because many votes are regional in nature, in other words I can only vote for Congressional candidates in my Congressional District, and your stated home address is used to determine your precinct voting station, Congressional District, state office districts, etc.
In Australia, are you allowed to simply walk into any polling venue in the country and vote? Are you not asked for identification? (identification, such as a driver's license or non-driver's ID card, requires an address here in Oregon, too). If you don't have to provide ID and address, what is to prevent you from voting several times in several different polling stations?
Vote by mail is a great convenience for folks like my father, who is elderly and a semi-invalid, yet still bright. The convenience of being able to sit in your own living room, studying ballot measures and candidates, the arguments for and against published in the voters guide (which often runs in excess of 100 pages), is a great convenience for folkd like my elderly father.
Vote by mail is a smash hit here in Oregon. None of the predicted problems have materialized. Among other things it would seem to fit your KISS criteria exceptionally well. And it requires a paper ballot, you should like that as well.
Why not read the article? Then you'll see why the author thinks rsynch is a better tool for network-based backups. You may not agree with the author but if you actually took the time to read the article you'd see that he is fully aware of the existence of dump
All eBay has done for me is make sure that I am not getting price gouged.
They have? Given that it's easy to find used camera equipment being sold on eBay at prices higher than outfits like B&H offer for the same thing brand-new, I'd say eBay doesn't do this at all.
Or Cuba? Or Mexico? Or the Dominican Republic? Europeans might be surprised by the number of Major League players who weren't born in the US. Nowadays on a team like the US Dodgers you'll hear Japanese, Spanish and American English being spoken.
Use of another's photos in comps of ads for clients can be subject to fees and transgressing as you describe can, and has, caused the transgressor to be spanked in court on more than one occasion.
Because, as you point out, it is "swiping" (more formally known as "stealing") another's work.
The pricing guide I use for sales specifically lists "presenation to client when artwork is not used in the final product" as a billable event...
It's been a few years since I've done any home color work (I use a professional-quality rental lab nowadays) but Kodak itself offered two-step (developer/bleach-fix) chemistry as recently as a few years ago that had a high tolerance for temperature variation.
If Kodak bought them out perhaps they learned something from the experience?
This is for negative print or film materials. Conventional reversal materials (slides) require a third reversal step, done nowadays chemically rather than by re-exposure of the media.
RSTS/E was DEC's 16-bit BASIC operating system. You're probably thinking about RT-11. You could run an RT-11 emulator as an alternative to the BASIC interpreter under RSTS/E, thanks to a group of us in Oregon who made this available in the early 1970s. Perhaps you had the opportunity to do so. But RSTS/E out of the box announced itself as being "Ready", just like any other BASIC interpreter environment at the time (like the one I wrote for the PDP-8). RSTS/E had a relatively modern design, though, with the kernel and shell (if you will) fully separated. This design is what made it possible to dispense with the BASIC interpreter ("shell" in Unix terminology) and replace it with an RT-11 one. It also supported shared read-only executable segments in 8KB chunks (matching the memory mapping hardware of the PDP-11) so one copy of the RT-11 or RSTS/E BASIC "shell" was shared by all users. Not bad for 1970 technology on a 16-bit mini-computer.
All of these owe the basic structure of the CLI and file naming conventions (forward slash for parameters, 3-letter file extensions, etc) to the older PDP-10 operating system which dates back to the 1960s. The same basic CLI and file naming conventions were also supported by OS/8, DEC's PDP-8 operating system written mostly by Richie Lary.
OS/8's sources named it the "*bleep*" operating system, otherwise known as the First Upward Compatible Keyboard Monitor, or FUCK'M, operating system for the PDP-8. When Richie first proposed writing a PDP-8 operating system that was command-level compatible with the 36-bit PDP-10 timesharing operating system (thus the "upward compatible keyboard monitor" moniker), he was told "no" so wrote the first version of OS/8 on the sly. The acronym described his personal feelings towards management at the time, and later it became the standard single-user PDP-8 operating system.
Personally I think all of Dave Cutler's OS's more or less sucked, starting with RSX-11M and still true today with NT.
Re:The Constitution doesn't need amending
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
What it means today is that states were admitted to the Union after writing Constitutions acceptable to Congress.
For instance, my state constitution has the following clause:
Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.
My guess is yours has similar wording, too.
Note that my state's constitution explicitly mentions freedom of expression as well as freedom of speech. It was written in 1857 (I live in Oregon). In answer to a previous poster my guess is that the notion that the US Constitution's concept of "freedom of speech" applies to expression as well most likely predates the writing of my state's constitution.
One begins to wonder if the scientists doth protest too much.
Not at all. The battleground isn't science, it is the science classroom in tax-funded schools in the United States.
"Creation Science" was invented to get the story of Creation as told in the Bible into our public schools. It can't be taught as religon due to Supreme Court rulings that hold that the doctrine of separation of Church and State in the Constitution prevent it in tax-funded schools (you can do what you want in private schools).
Thus "Creation Science". The argument is that, as a "real" science, the doctrine of separation of Church and State does not apply. On the heels of this follows the argument that evolutionary science is "junk science" and should be replaced by so-called "Creation Science", or that the latter should at least be given equal footing. Not simply in schools, but in the science classroom, i.e. the Biblical Creation story should be taught as science.
See... because it's not really religion but science.
If a similar movement were to arise in opposition to theories in modern physics you'd see the same sort of reaction among scientists as you do today with evolution vs. so-called Creation Science.
It is far too rare to see a discussion on evolution that admits much room for alternatives between "10000 year Earth" and "Science has disproven the existence of God."
Which just goes to show you don't understand the position of science. Science only considers the natural world and can say nothing about the existence or non-existence of any supernatural being.
Science does tell us that evolution is a fact, because it is an observed phenomena. Science can't tell us if evolution is driven by a supernatural being or not. However science has developed a very strong theory about evolution that explains it in terms entirely consistent with the natural world.
So the strongest statement science can make is that you need not invoke God to explain evolution as observed in the fossil record or in living ecosystems.
But the fact that such an explanation exists does not deny the existence of God.
This is why so many scientists have no problem reconciling their belief in God with science. Faith and science operate in different realms, as someone mentioned in a previous post. Of course many scientists don't believe in God, and many who do believe in God aren't Christian, not surprising given the fact that science is a world-wide profession.
By all means check out dotLRN. The guest password on the MIT server has been changed, however. This is their production server and not only is it being used for real work at the moment, it's a temporary server. The site will be moved to more capacious hardware in a month or so, but the current server is unlikely to take kindly to a great increase in load in addition to the current production load..
So for obvious reasons, I hope, MIT didn't feel like watching this box get slashdotted by a ton of guest users.
Slashdot Mirror
SQL functions which return rowsets rather than a single value have been possible for a long time. We've used this functionality in the OpenACS project for about a year. The functionality wasn't well-advertised but it's been there.
PG 7.3 makes it easier and PL/pgSQL also allows the return of rowsets, I do believe.
Not getting the negatives is the norm for wedding photography contracts. You may be surprised but the author of the article has no excuse because, unlike you, at some point he or his future spouse had the contract in front of them and could read this with their own eyes.
Uh, no, she's not like a weaver making a tapestry designed by someone else. Have you ever taken a photograph that any sane person wouldn't just flush down the nearest toilet? If you had, you'd understand the absolute idiocy of your words.
The difference between the $5 8x10 of your photo and the $50 8x10 of the studio's photo is that most likely your photos, for the most part suck while the studio's don't, and the studio will almost certainly be farming out the print to a professional lab that will color balance and otherwise tweak the raw image file before dumping it to paper. In other words their wholesale price will most likely be higher than the retail price at your local supermarket photo department.
...
And if you're willing to use a $5 8x10 supermarket print as a promo in your portfolio then you must be a low-rent actor, indeed
Uh ... you're DEAD WRONG, not dead simple (unless you meant "minded").
The pricing model followed in the wedding industry today has been around for decades. It lowers initial costs.
If negatives are given as part of the contract, along with the release that will let you legally print them (don't forget that, kiddies!), then the person who ends up ordering 1000 prints from a lab (not the shooter) will pay the same as the person who orders 100 prints. The photographer will have to charge an average price that will result in the person ordering 100 prints paying more than under the existing system, while the person ordering 1000 prints will get a bargain.
In essence, the current way of doing things scales the cost to the number of prints ordered, which makes a lot of sense to me. It means the couple that only wants a modest number of prints pays less.
Unless, of course, the goal is to turn a business which for most provides a very modest living into a profession which offers so little reward that few will enter it.
Well, no you didn't. You didn't read your contract.
Now, if you can find a wedding photographer willing to work under those terms, more power to you. Start by combing your local homeless shelter for talent if you expect to get far with this approach.
It's nearly impossible to make a living as a photographer. I know, I get $200/hr writing software and might average $200/photo selling to the national magazine and book market. My total investment in computer hardware is a few $K, in photography $30K. When I shoot something, I pay film and processing expenses; when I type a line of code I pay nothing because my hardware stores it for free (digital is slowly getting there for photography but a majority of non-news publishers still require chromes).
Actually there are many contractual forms that are legally interpreted as implicitly falling into the "work for hire" category, without explicitly mentioning the transfer of copyright.
Anyone taking your advice at face value might be rudely shocked in the future.
There are plenty of BSD-licensed counterexamples to that fine theory ...
Fine if you're satisfied with the quality. Note, though, that the traditional medium photographic equipment used by traditional wedding shooters absolutely kicks ass when it comes to large prints.
You're saying you'd be satisified with scans of prints if you couldn't get the original files. Again, if you're satisfied with that quality, no problem.
But the fact is that the medium format shooter provides a higher quality product (from a technological point of view, her shooting skills may be better, worse, or identical to your 1D shooter) and for those who want large enlargements of the wall-hanging variety the difference is easily detectable.
Not to mention that a simple eletric motor ought to be inherently more reliable than a piston engine.
A Cessna 172R specs claim a range of 580 NM. 100 NM's not that bad. Fuel cells will greatly extend the range and make it practical and that's the technology they're really targetting, as the article points out.
Yes, I have. It does not grant you the right to spray paint grafitti on my fence, to scratch grafitti on my windows, or to fill my computer's hard drive with unsolicited e-mail.
Actually, England did give a shit during the Revolutionary War. However she was at war with France at the time and France also gave a shit. Without the French Fleet the outcome would've been quite different.
You have to provide an address to register to vote in Oregon anyway, this was true before vote by mail, so it is no more discriminatory against the homeless than the traditional system.
Why is an address required? Because many votes are regional in nature, in other words I can only vote for Congressional candidates in my Congressional District, and your stated home address is used to determine your precinct voting station, Congressional District, state office districts, etc.
In Australia, are you allowed to simply walk into any polling venue in the country and vote? Are you not asked for identification? (identification, such as a driver's license or non-driver's ID card, requires an address here in Oregon, too). If you don't have to provide ID and address, what is to prevent you from voting several times in several different polling stations?
Vote by mail is a great convenience for folks like my father, who is elderly and a semi-invalid, yet still bright. The convenience of being able to sit in your own living room, studying ballot measures and candidates, the arguments for and against published in the voters guide (which often runs in excess of 100 pages), is a great convenience for folkd like my elderly father.
Vote by mail is a smash hit here in Oregon. None of the predicted problems have materialized. Among other things it would seem to fit your KISS criteria exceptionally well. And it requires a paper ballot, you should like that as well.
Why not read the article? Then you'll see why the author thinks rsynch is a better tool for network-based backups. You may not agree with the author but if you actually took the time to read the article you'd see that he is fully aware of the existence of dump
All eBay has done for me is make sure that I am not getting price gouged.
They have? Given that it's easy to find used camera equipment being sold on eBay at prices higher than outfits like B&H offer for the same thing brand-new, I'd say eBay doesn't do this at all.
joystick controls for airplanes go much, much further back than high-acceleration jet fighter aircraft.
Or Cuba? Or Mexico? Or the Dominican Republic? Europeans might be surprised by the number of Major League players who weren't born in the US. Nowadays on a team like the US Dodgers you'll hear Japanese, Spanish and American English being spoken.
Use of another's photos in comps of ads for clients can be subject to fees and transgressing as you describe can, and has, caused the transgressor to be spanked in court on more than one occasion.
...
Because, as you point out, it is "swiping" (more formally known as "stealing") another's work.
The pricing guide I use for sales specifically lists "presenation to client when artwork is not used in the final product" as a billable event
It's been a few years since I've done any home color work (I use a professional-quality rental lab nowadays) but Kodak itself offered two-step (developer/bleach-fix) chemistry as recently as a few years ago that had a high tolerance for temperature variation.
If Kodak bought them out perhaps they learned something from the experience?
This is for negative print or film materials. Conventional reversal materials (slides) require a third reversal step, done nowadays chemically rather than by re-exposure of the media.
RSTS/E was DEC's 16-bit BASIC operating system. You're probably thinking about RT-11. You could run an RT-11 emulator as an alternative to the BASIC interpreter under RSTS/E, thanks to a group of us in Oregon who made this available in the early 1970s. Perhaps you had the opportunity to do so. But RSTS/E out of the box announced itself as being "Ready", just like any other BASIC interpreter environment at the time (like the one I wrote for the PDP-8). RSTS/E had a relatively modern design, though, with the kernel and shell (if you will) fully separated. This design is what made it possible to dispense with the BASIC interpreter ("shell" in Unix terminology) and replace it with an RT-11 one. It also supported shared read-only executable segments in 8KB chunks (matching the memory mapping hardware of the PDP-11) so one copy of the RT-11 or RSTS/E BASIC "shell" was shared by all users. Not bad for 1970 technology on a 16-bit mini-computer.
All of these owe the basic structure of the CLI and file naming conventions (forward slash for parameters, 3-letter file extensions, etc) to the older PDP-10 operating system which dates back to the 1960s. The same basic CLI and file naming conventions were also supported by OS/8, DEC's PDP-8 operating system written mostly by Richie Lary.
OS/8's sources named it the "*bleep*" operating system, otherwise known as the First Upward Compatible Keyboard Monitor, or FUCK'M, operating system for the PDP-8. When Richie first proposed writing a PDP-8 operating system that was command-level compatible with the 36-bit PDP-10 timesharing operating system (thus the "upward compatible keyboard monitor" moniker), he was told "no" so wrote the first version of OS/8 on the sly. The acronym described his personal feelings towards management at the time, and later it became the standard single-user PDP-8 operating system.
Personally I think all of Dave Cutler's OS's more or less sucked, starting with RSX-11M and still true today with NT.
For instance, my state constitution has the following clause:
Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.
My guess is yours has similar wording, too.
Note that my state's constitution explicitly mentions freedom of expression as well as freedom of speech. It was written in 1857 (I live in Oregon). In answer to a previous poster my guess is that the notion that the US Constitution's concept of "freedom of speech" applies to expression as well most likely predates the writing of my state's constitution.
Not at all. The battleground isn't science, it is the science classroom in tax-funded schools in the United States.
"Creation Science" was invented to get the story of Creation as told in the Bible into our public schools. It can't be taught as religon due to Supreme Court rulings that hold that the doctrine of separation of Church and State in the Constitution prevent it in tax-funded schools (you can do what you want in private schools).
Thus "Creation Science". The argument is that, as a "real" science, the doctrine of separation of Church and State does not apply. On the heels of this follows the argument that evolutionary science is "junk science" and should be replaced by so-called "Creation Science", or that the latter should at least be given equal footing. Not simply in schools, but in the science classroom, i.e. the Biblical Creation story should be taught as science .
See ... because it's not really religion but science.
If a similar movement were to arise in opposition to theories in modern physics you'd see the same sort of reaction among scientists as you do today with evolution vs. so-called Creation Science.
Which just goes to show you don't understand the position of science. Science only considers the natural world and can say nothing about the existence or non-existence of any supernatural being
Science does tell us that evolution is a fact, because it is an observed phenomena. Science can't tell us if evolution is driven by a supernatural being or not. However science has developed a very strong theory about evolution that explains it in terms entirely consistent with the natural world.
So the strongest statement science can make is that you need not invoke God to explain evolution as observed in the fossil record or in living ecosystems.
But the fact that such an explanation exists does not deny the existence of God.
This is why so many scientists have no problem reconciling their belief in God with science. Faith and science operate in different realms, as someone mentioned in a previous post. Of course many scientists don't believe in God, and many who do believe in God aren't Christian, not surprising given the fact that science is a world-wide profession.
By all means check out dotLRN. The guest password on the MIT server has been changed, however. This is their production server and not only is it being used for real work at the moment, it's a temporary server. The site will be moved to more capacious hardware in a month or so, but the current server is unlikely to take kindly to a great increase in load in addition to the current production load..
So for obvious reasons, I hope, MIT didn't feel like watching this box get slashdotted by a ton of guest users.
Not his talks so much as his farts and belches. Get your greenhouse gas priorities straight :)