where? How many people could there possibly be out there whose computers are being run by various exploits?
EVERYWHERE.
See, most people have no cognitive construct of "how it's supposed to work". Even people whose job it is to accomplish tasks on the computer (like writing documents or CAD drafting), often just think the machine is PHYSICALLY BROKEN when things go wrong.
I cleaned horrendous amounts of spy/adware off an occasional client's laptop recently, and he mentioned the machine had been "acting funny" for SIX MONTHS.
I had been called in because "when more than one client is on our network, the [windows] server crashes, and nobody can get on the net". It was the [also] Blaster-infected laptop causing the RPC shutdown behavior on the server, and saturating their pipe with outgoing spam. In January '05!
Now, there's nothing stupid about these people - they are using computers as devices for running applications, not as ends in themselves. They didn't know from patches, scans, or safe practices, and I doubt my rundown of the problem and what to do about it really sank in.
For offline rendering, it'll be great too. Granted, nVidia's Gelato , currently the only game in town, is, uh, unlikely to work with the ATI card, but perhaps we'll see a more platform-agnostic offering in the future.
Maybe they're in an environment where it's easy to screw something like that up accidentally, but nobody in their right mind would see any benefit in actively bypassing the system of drawing expiration.
Anyway, doesn't kerberos authentication of things like logins get screwed up if one of the system clocks is wildly off?
Well, pigs are forbidden by name in addition to failing the cud/cloven hooves test.
And if you want an example of going to great lengths to avoid misunderstanding that's closer to home, chicken is considered meat for the purposes of separation of meat and milk (which is derived from the specific commandment not to cook a kid in its mother's milk). Reason being that someone might think you were eating veal.
And by the way, all this is right in there with the passages denouncing homosexuality, etc., so why don't the christian fundies who love to cite that stuff keep kosher?
I'd err towards saying that it's not MS's responsibility to ensure all Windows developers make "good software", though.
Autodesk is, last I checked, the 3rd-largest software company in the world, and very, very deeply commited to Windows platform lock-in in a way that affects an entire IT-heavy industry.
It would behoove MS to encourage them to get their shit together before Microstation et al. eat their lunch. Most of the people I've talked to about the forced upgrade from 2000 to 2005 are just ripshit about it, and seriously exploring alternatives.
They are if AutoCAD is involved. Or Quickbooks. Or any number of other high profile productivity apps.
Of course, it's the application vendors' fault for failing to understand that this is a huge problem and they should probably learn to play nice with the documents and settings folder, but MS doesn't seem to be doing much screaming at them about it.
Those critera are extremely narrow, encompassing only video games, and even then only games of a certain sort. Tetris, for example, is extremely compelling, yet fails utterly at #1 and #4, and how do you even begin to evaluate Dance Dance Revolution on those terms?
For a broader look at what makes games of all sorts fun, and an examination of the difference between 'play' and 'games,' and all sorts of other cool stuff, (by people who have actually made fun, imaginative games no less) I recommend
Got a reference for that? I was under the impression the Japanese military industrial complex was pretty much a shambles across the board after Midway.
I thought it was that it's really damn steep in the Andes, and llamas aren't exactly cooperative when it comes to staying on course, making the wheel less attractive as a technology than in other topographies/ecosystems
Photoshop, prior to version 6 or 7, when they added the tool options bar at the top of the window. Lots of sub-options of tools were only available through right-click.
Actually, I think a bunch of functionality in the layers/channels/paths palette is RC-only as well, like Disable/Enable Layer mask.
When you are your own business you end up putting up money for various things, and when your incomming payments start to lag, you can end up in serious trouble.
Finance charges are the answer. Set them akin to a not-so-great credit card, and put in the contract for services that they agree to pay them AND that they agree to pay the fee for any collection agency out of their own pockets after 90 days.
Another way to go, which a guy I know uses, is to get a merchant account and accept credit cards. His rationale to the client is "You can pay for it whenever you want, but I get paid now." Plus they get miles and stuff. He even brings an old-school carbon impression machine with him, and batches it in when he gets back to the office, so there's no technology dependency on-site. This approach only makes sense if you have fairly high volume, though, since the merchant account has a monthly fee, and not everyone will want to pay by credit card.
The line's getting blurrier by the month. Granted, I hadn't looked at that screenshot before posting my comment - it looks like someone's first skinning project as applied to Media 100's horrible NLE software.
If you pay your rent doing digital content creation, you buy the top of the line (or 1 generation back, if you're cost conscious). New gear is always reviewed on high-spec machines.
Really if authors are so concerned about this, they should have these things put in their contracts. I don't think authors are stupid. I think they're capable people that can take care of themselves. If they're happy signing away so much copyright that they couldn't use their work in their portfolio then who am I to call them stupid for doing so? Let's respect freedom of contract for the most part.
In a world where Playboy vs. Dumas happened (contract terms on the back of a check handing over cartoons as work-for-hire), I think you're attributing an awful lot of power to creators that they don't always have.
[If it's a work for hire], it still doesn't matter to simply state the fact that you created the work for the author.
Oh, yes it does. The whole concept of work-for-hire exists only to get around moral rights. This is fine for actual full-time employees, and for truly collaborative works like movies or video games, but is abused to no end in photography, illustration, and other fields where the relationship is between a large commercial entity and a single creative professional.
Regarding portfolios, I have no idea where you're getting that from... It's nevertheless likely a fair use, so okay already.
How can that possibly be a fair use absent moral rights? You're showing someone else's copyrighted work with an expectation of profit.
Your ideas generally don't [harm copyright holders], however, they don't seem to track moral rights as some places have set forth to date. The moral rights we actually see in legislation do, however.
Can you give some examples? I'm a full-time freelance illustrator, not a lawyer, so I'm most aware of issues that directly affect my field. As a lawyer, you have a different vantage point, and I'd love to learn more.
What moral rights are so problematic in practice? My copy of the GAG Handbook of Pricing and Ethical Guidelines lists these as moral rights:
The right to protect the integrity of their work to prevent any modification, distortion, or mutilation that would be prejudicial to their honor or reputation
The right of attribution (or paternity), to insist that their authorship be acknowledged properly and prevent the use of their name on works they did not create
The right of disclosure to decide if,when, and how a work is presented to the public
The right of recall to withdraw, destroy, or disavow a work if it is changed or no longer represents their views.
The first of those is easily worked around by assigning the right to make derivative works.
The second we both agree is fine.
For the third, an assignment of rights seems to be in itself a consent to disclose the work - I'm not really clear on how this would come into play in a practical sense.
And the last one is what I alluded to as of significance only for fine artists - I just can't see how that would even work in terms of a mass-produced copyrighted work.
Moral rights are fairly tangential to copyright, though. They have mainly to do with being recognized as the author of a work no matter who owns the rights. Significantly, this allows working artists to show works in their portfolio in order to get more commissions without obtaining permission from the copyright holder, even if the work was executed under an all-rights contract.
I fail to see how this prevents copyright holders from using works as they see fit. I see it as trying to make authorship a natural right rather than copyright. Works in the public domain are still attributed to their authors.
The other aspects of moral rights having to do with removing a work from circulation or taking one's name of it are, I agree, a bit anachronistic (although less so for fine artists than other types of creators, e.g. when Calder took his name off a large sculpture that was repainted in a different color scheme by its owner).
Slashdot Mirror
EVERYWHERE.
See, most people have no cognitive construct of "how it's supposed to work". Even people whose job it is to accomplish tasks on the computer (like writing documents or CAD drafting), often just think the machine is PHYSICALLY BROKEN when things go wrong.
I cleaned horrendous amounts of spy/adware off an occasional client's laptop recently, and he mentioned the machine had been "acting funny" for SIX MONTHS.
I had been called in because "when more than one client is on our network, the [windows] server crashes, and nobody can get on the net". It was the [also] Blaster-infected laptop causing the RPC shutdown behavior on the server, and saturating their pipe with outgoing spam. In January '05!
Now, there's nothing stupid about these people - they are using computers as devices for running applications, not as ends in themselves. They didn't know from patches, scans, or safe practices, and I doubt my rundown of the problem and what to do about it really sank in.
For offline rendering, it'll be great too. Granted, nVidia's Gelato , currently the only game in town, is, uh, unlikely to work with the ATI card, but perhaps we'll see a more platform-agnostic offering in the future.
Maybe they're in an environment where it's easy to screw something like that up accidentally, but nobody in their right mind would see any benefit in actively bypassing the system of drawing expiration. Anyway, doesn't kerberos authentication of things like logins get screwed up if one of the system clocks is wildly off?
Throw 'im in the brig! Yaaaaaaar.
And if you want an example of going to great lengths to avoid misunderstanding that's closer to home, chicken is considered meat for the purposes of separation of meat and milk (which is derived from the specific commandment not to cook a kid in its mother's milk). Reason being that someone might think you were eating veal.
And by the way, all this is right in there with the passages denouncing homosexuality, etc., so why don't the christian fundies who love to cite that stuff keep kosher?
I always figured the wording of that warning gives YOU permission to tape the call, too :).
Unless your relatives are visitng and you fold out the sofabed...
Autodesk is, last I checked, the 3rd-largest software company in the world, and very, very deeply commited to Windows platform lock-in in a way that affects an entire IT-heavy industry.
It would behoove MS to encourage them to get their shit together before Microstation et al. eat their lunch. Most of the people I've talked to about the forced upgrade from 2000 to 2005 are just ripshit about it, and seriously exploring alternatives.
Of course, it's the application vendors' fault for failing to understand that this is a huge problem and they should probably learn to play nice with the documents and settings folder, but MS doesn't seem to be doing much screaming at them about it.
*AHEM!*
All clams who are not happy, please raise your hands.
Thank you.
What the hell was the lend-lease program, then? Why did we tolerate tens of thousands of tons of our shipping being sunk on the way to England?
For a broader look at what makes games of all sorts fun, and an examination of the difference between 'play' and 'games,' and all sorts of other cool stuff, (by people who have actually made fun, imaginative games no less) I recommend
Salen & Zimmerman , Rules of Play, MIT Press 2004
Got a reference for that? I was under the impression the Japanese military industrial complex was pretty much a shambles across the board after Midway.
I thought it was that it's really damn steep in the Andes, and llamas aren't exactly cooperative when it comes to staying on course, making the wheel less attractive as a technology than in other topographies/ecosystems
I doubt you'll see a significant rate of armed robbery of the president, no matter what time period you examine.
Also, buying mailing lists and doing postcard/brochure shots.
And sticking things under the door of other businesses in the same building as your clients.
And taking tiny jobs (like setting up the wireless router in somone's office) when you can, because that's how you get referrals.
And asking relevant businesses (like independent office supply stores) to put a holder with your business cards on it at the register
OK, then, the list of layers under the move tool cursor when you right click it.
Actually, I think a bunch of functionality in the layers/channels/paths palette is RC-only as well, like Disable/Enable Layer mask.
Good stuff, all of it.
Finance charges are the answer. Set them akin to a not-so-great credit card, and put in the contract for services that they agree to pay them AND that they agree to pay the fee for any collection agency out of their own pockets after 90 days.
Another way to go, which a guy I know uses, is to get a merchant account and accept credit cards. His rationale to the client is "You can pay for it whenever you want, but I get paid now." Plus they get miles and stuff. He even brings an old-school carbon impression machine with him, and batches it in when he gets back to the office, so there's no technology dependency on-site. This approach only makes sense if you have fairly high volume, though, since the merchant account has a monthly fee, and not everyone will want to pay by credit card.
Or are you suggesting that stock images are actually free and music clearances are unnecessary?
The line's getting blurrier by the month. Granted, I hadn't looked at that screenshot before posting my comment - it looks like someone's first skinning project as applied to Media 100's horrible NLE software.
If you pay your rent doing digital content creation, you buy the top of the line (or 1 generation back, if you're cost conscious). New gear is always reviewed on high-spec machines.
In a world where Playboy vs. Dumas happened (contract terms on the back of a check handing over cartoons as work-for-hire), I think you're attributing an awful lot of power to creators that they don't always have.
[If it's a work for hire], it still doesn't matter to simply state the fact that you created the work for the author.
Oh, yes it does. The whole concept of work-for-hire exists only to get around moral rights. This is fine for actual full-time employees, and for truly collaborative works like movies or video games, but is abused to no end in photography, illustration, and other fields where the relationship is between a large commercial entity and a single creative professional.
Regarding portfolios, I have no idea where you're getting that from... It's nevertheless likely a fair use, so okay already.
How can that possibly be a fair use absent moral rights? You're showing someone else's copyrighted work with an expectation of profit.
Your ideas generally don't [harm copyright holders], however, they don't seem to track moral rights as some places have set forth to date. The moral rights we actually see in legislation do, however.
Can you give some examples? I'm a full-time freelance illustrator, not a lawyer, so I'm most aware of issues that directly affect my field. As a lawyer, you have a different vantage point, and I'd love to learn more.
What moral rights are so problematic in practice? My copy of the GAG Handbook of Pricing and Ethical Guidelines lists these as moral rights:
The right to protect the integrity of their work to prevent any modification, distortion, or mutilation that would be prejudicial to their honor or reputation
The right of attribution (or paternity), to insist that their authorship be acknowledged properly and prevent the use of their name on works they did not create
The right of disclosure to decide if,when, and how a work is presented to the public
The right of recall to withdraw, destroy, or disavow a work if it is changed or no longer represents their views.
The first of those is easily worked around by assigning the right to make derivative works.
The second we both agree is fine.
For the third, an assignment of rights seems to be in itself a consent to disclose the work - I'm not really clear on how this would come into play in a practical sense.
And the last one is what I alluded to as of significance only for fine artists - I just can't see how that would even work in terms of a mass-produced copyrighted work.
I fail to see how this prevents copyright holders from using works as they see fit. I see it as trying to make authorship a natural right rather than copyright. Works in the public domain are still attributed to their authors.
The other aspects of moral rights having to do with removing a work from circulation or taking one's name of it are, I agree, a bit anachronistic (although less so for fine artists than other types of creators, e.g. when Calder took his name off a large sculpture that was repainted in a different color scheme by its owner).