Why "fix" what isn't broken? Part of the problem with the new OO.o is (according to many), the reliance on Java for the DB-functionality.
Java still has licencing issues which makes Java code (in practice) less portable than C++.
Also, technically, what you're suggesting is using Java as a layer on top of C++, just to make calls back out into native code (GTK and friends). Without starting a flamewar about bloat, this just seems extremely expensive for something that just doesn't provide all that much functionality. JNI is fairly slow, and adding two layers of it "just because" doesn't make much sense to me.
Dude, he's a newcomer. Why do you expect newcomers to understand this, when it's really quite counter intuitive? As a newcomer, how do you know that running GNOME and KDE apps side by side isn't as crazy as running Mac OS X-apps next to Windows XP apps?
As you quote in the subject line, it seems apparent that he believes they cannot run side by side.
Just tell him in a friendly way (not including newsflashes).;)
you're right, of course, if that's what's in the contract. you're always paid to do a described job.
by default all images are copyrighted by the photographer, anything else would be crazy. by default means "if there is no contract covering copyrights". any other default is (to me) meaningless.
professional photographers doing vogue (or similar) front-pages keep the copyrights to their photographs most of the time and licence it to the magazine. the images then go into the photographer's stock.
your analogy with the house makes no sense what-so-ever. on the architect's drawings, perhaps. it wouldn't surprise me if the default copyright of the drawing for the house still belongs to the architect even after the building is erected, but i have no knowledge of this.
absolutely, i totally agree. prices are coming down on the equipment, and a lot of the educational material is freely available on the net. and to boot, many professional (and hobbyists capable of making professional results) photographers on the net are really nice to newcomers and very helpful.
i recently got myself a canon dslr, and have been frequently visiting http://www.fredmiranda.com/ and http://photography-on-the.net/, both excellent resources for people wanting to take their photographic skills to the next level.
wal-mart will definitely be shooting themselves repeatedly in the foot not wanting to develop pictures for a better equipped and possibly more educated generation.
the flaw in your logic is easy to spot: obviously you create your own wedding, but you don't create the pictures.
if your idea of good wedding pictures is something to "document" that something happened, might as well get anyone with a recent cellphone to do the job. "look, ma', i got married. here's me, here's the church."
a good photographer doesn't just take photos, he makes photos.
you'll see this the clearest during the formals. he'll take the happy couple to a place with a pleasant background. he'll make sure the sun isn't in their face, because he knows that sunlight isn't high quality light. he'll use a flash to lift facial shadows, often with a light modifier. he'll bring reflectors if needed to make sure there is enough light, possibly portable power with monoblocks, big ol' honkin' softboxes.
and you probably won't end up with pictures where the happy couple is squinting, the sweat on there face pouring with overwhelming distracting backgrounds.
a good photographer will do a lot to candids; chances are he knows how to spot them in a way people that don't care as much for photography as he does. maybe you won't be irritated that someone's arm is partially blocking a face. small stuff, but enough to make yourself go "that's a good picture".
so first of all, your logic is flawed in that the photographs aren't the photographers creation.
your developer analogy is valid. a developer goes into contract, just like you say. and so will most photographers, as this thread indicates. you can find photographers that will give you the copyright of the images. it all boils down to revenue model. everything has its price, and photography, like every other profession, has representatives that are overpriced.
but you do not want a document on your mantlepiece, like the NBC-broadcast of that fourth touchdown. you want a piece of art. a creation, not a mere documentation.
a photographer always owns the right to his work unless he is in a contract that implies otherwise. i would consider it a given that a studio-hired photographer would sign a contract giving the copyrights to the studio if that's what they're asking. if he can get a better deal doing what he loves elsewhere, i'm sure he'll take it. it's also normal that a photographer hires studio space that he shares with other independent photographers, in which case the photographer (or "artist") keeps his copyright.
actually capitalizing off photographs one has taken often requires a model release. so although the photographer owns the copyright to the image, he cannot go and use it for any commercial purpose he sees fit; the model needs to be compensated.
to indicate that it's unfair that a photographer doesn't own the copyright to the images produces is (to me) absurd. photography is a profession, and countless hours of studying and practical experience goes into the final product.
the photographer is "the man" unless he signs a document that indicates anything else. if you feel that $20 a print (or whatever is being charged) is to steep, have your friend take the photos at your wedding. but remember that these are the pictures that will be on your wall in 50 years, when you celebrate your anniversary.
photographers need to make a living too, and in these days, when virtually everyone is packing megapixel-cameras in their cellphones and the market is swamped with cheap dslr's, it's crowded.
just trying to see this discussion from the other point of view.
People have a winamp and an open folder because your friend hasn't currently finished his jukebox. I hope he has the heart to keep you in his vast flock of friends when fame hits him in the face, you behind-the-back-talker.
To indicate that attempting to improve on a market leading concept is stupid, is stupid.
Winamp + open folder is hardly the Perfect Solution.
No, the problem is that I've never seen anyone here go to great lengths to rationalize and justify this type of copyright infringement.
If you think that's a problem, do it yourself. It's obvious that noone in their right mind would try to justify this type of copyright infringement, but I guess you might just fit that bill and should give it a shot.
There's a big difference in the types of infringement.
When stealing music you're basically keeping popstars alive by not letting them afford personal jets and coke for the pilot. This is obvioulsy fairly simple to justify.
When stealing GPL'ed software and packaging it as your own, you're robbing a volunteer worker who out of the goodness of his heart gives something to everyone for free. This is obviously just plain evil, and should be dealt with swiftly and efficiently.
Here's a test for you: Does not giving you the choice between desktop environments make a better distribution? Does not letting you choose between emacs and vi make a distro better?
Only an idiot would whine about there being many text editors available. How many would you like to see? One? Notepad? Then stick with Windows.
Either you are saying that people shouldn't write software or that distros shouldn't package it.
To indicate that there are too many distros is just stupid. Should we all be running Fedora? If that's what you're saying, I'd rather stick to Windows XP, thank you very much. I recently discovered Ubuntu, which made me totally wipe Windows from this machine. The fact that Linux gives me a choice between distributions is what makes it strong. Linux at its current "messy" state is Darwinism at work.
If the "general public" everybody seems so eager to please would be better off by just having one text editor, make another distro. Which has only one text editor. Watch it get a user base of 1.
I don't understand why everybody is talking about the general public and "marketing" at all. Screw the general public. Linux provides a system that caters to me. If you take that away by limiting choice, I'll be pissed.
The reason why is, of course, the 40 (or 60) GB hard drive. This unit is intended for photographers needing a place to store image files, which are often sized 7-9MB a picture (on my 20D, more on cameras with more pixels). So while the zaurus might have the same specs, the hard drive is really key.
For photographers, of course. Maybe not for doom-players.
His analogy, while "overcomplicated" is quite accurate and interesting. If the passenger of the car is inclined to buy pirated software from a store, the sentence "Look at that store. The owner is knowingly selling pirated software" is facilitating copyright infringement the exact same way.
You are supporting his argument. The question is whether facilitating is indeed illegal, to what extent and how it should be enforced.
Shaped like a Competition Pro joystick. I used to like this stick, but I wonder how it holds up now, having played extensively with the XBOX-controller.
This is a feature I've been wanting for some time. Implement a breath analyzer and allow you to put people you want to shield from raging alcoholic outbursts into special groups which are unavailable until the light is green.
I have the habit of deleting certain numbers before I start drinking, but even my old drunken mind has started involuntarily memorizing some of the numbers. I need parenting in my pocket.
Also, I'd like a phone that has the sense to timestamp when you enter new names into the phonebook. Don't you sometimes go through the list and wonder "who the hell are all these people?!". If it could also tag the entry with location, that would be excellent. "Lisa, 2004-11-10 02:00, The Roxbury". Aww, she's a dawg.
If the phone was also smart enough to trick you into paying bills while drunk, that would totally rock. It just doesn't hurt that much when done drunk. It would be nice to wake up one sunday, not remembering what the hell I did last night, and have it turn out I actually did good.
Oh, and also, could you position the camera so it's more useful for doing upskirt shots?
The argument about operator overloading introducing overwhelming uncertainty is getting worn. The "somebody" that made operator^ play the star spangled banner would probably, in the context of most projects, be someone you could reach out and slap, if not yourself. Incredible amounts of sense is delivered in a slap. This person would not do this again.
Someone could easily make a "void clearscreen()" play the same song. They would deserve to be slapped too.
Any decent C++-coder will know when operator^ is called. If not, they will find out when the song starts.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, let it go. For the majority of us, unwilling expansion of most orifices will always be funny. As long as it happens to someone else.
Why "fix" what isn't broken? Part of the problem with the new OO.o is (according to many), the reliance on Java for the DB-functionality.
Java still has licencing issues which makes Java code (in practice) less portable than C++.
Also, technically, what you're suggesting is using Java as a layer on top of C++, just to make calls back out into native code (GTK and friends). Without starting a flamewar about bloat, this just seems extremely expensive for something that just doesn't provide all that much functionality. JNI is fairly slow, and adding two layers of it "just because" doesn't make much sense to me.
One day a week for personal projects? I'd call that R&R.
Dude, he's a newcomer. Why do you expect newcomers to understand this, when it's really quite counter intuitive? As a newcomer, how do you know that running GNOME and KDE apps side by side isn't as crazy as running Mac OS X-apps next to Windows XP apps?
;)
As you quote in the subject line, it seems apparent that he believes they cannot run side by side.
Just tell him in a friendly way (not including newsflashes).
The joke was pretty good, tho.
you're right, of course, if that's what's in the contract. you're always paid to do a described job.
by default all images are copyrighted by the photographer, anything else would be crazy. by default means "if there is no contract covering copyrights". any other default is (to me) meaningless.
professional photographers doing vogue (or similar) front-pages keep the copyrights to their photographs most of the time and licence it to the magazine. the images then go into the photographer's stock.
your analogy with the house makes no sense what-so-ever. on the architect's drawings, perhaps. it wouldn't surprise me if the default copyright of the drawing for the house still belongs to the architect even after the building is erected, but i have no knowledge of this.
absolutely, i totally agree. prices are coming down on the equipment, and a lot of the educational material is freely available on the net. and to boot, many professional (and hobbyists capable of making professional results) photographers on the net are really nice to newcomers and very helpful.
i recently got myself a canon dslr, and have been frequently visiting http://www.fredmiranda.com/ and http://photography-on-the.net/, both excellent resources for people wanting to take their photographic skills to the next level.
wal-mart will definitely be shooting themselves repeatedly in the foot not wanting to develop pictures for a better equipped and possibly more educated generation.
the flaw in your logic is easy to spot: obviously you create your own wedding, but you don't create the pictures.
if your idea of good wedding pictures is something to "document" that something happened, might as well get anyone with a recent cellphone to do the job. "look, ma', i got married. here's me, here's the church."
a good photographer doesn't just take photos, he makes photos.
you'll see this the clearest during the formals. he'll take the happy couple to a place with a pleasant background. he'll make sure the sun isn't in their face, because he knows that sunlight isn't high quality light. he'll use a flash to lift facial shadows, often with a light modifier. he'll bring reflectors if needed to make sure there is enough light, possibly portable power with monoblocks, big ol' honkin' softboxes.
and you probably won't end up with pictures where the happy couple is squinting, the sweat on there face pouring with overwhelming distracting backgrounds.
a good photographer will do a lot to candids; chances are he knows how to spot them in a way people that don't care as much for photography as he does. maybe you won't be irritated that someone's arm is partially blocking a face. small stuff, but enough to make yourself go "that's a good picture".
so first of all, your logic is flawed in that the photographs aren't the photographers creation.
your developer analogy is valid. a developer goes into contract, just like you say. and so will most photographers, as this thread indicates. you can find photographers that will give you the copyright of the images. it all boils down to revenue model. everything has its price, and photography, like every other profession, has representatives that are overpriced.
but you do not want a document on your mantlepiece, like the NBC-broadcast of that fourth touchdown. you want a piece of art. a creation, not a mere documentation.
a photographer always owns the right to his work unless he is in a contract that implies otherwise. i would consider it a given that a studio-hired photographer would sign a contract giving the copyrights to the studio if that's what they're asking. if he can get a better deal doing what he loves elsewhere, i'm sure he'll take it. it's also normal that a photographer hires studio space that he shares with other independent photographers, in which case the photographer (or "artist") keeps his copyright.
actually capitalizing off photographs one has taken often requires a model release. so although the photographer owns the copyright to the image, he cannot go and use it for any commercial purpose he sees fit; the model needs to be compensated.
to indicate that it's unfair that a photographer doesn't own the copyright to the images produces is (to me) absurd. photography is a profession, and countless hours of studying and practical experience goes into the final product.
the photographer is "the man" unless he signs a document that indicates anything else. if you feel that $20 a print (or whatever is being charged) is to steep, have your friend take the photos at your wedding. but remember that these are the pictures that will be on your wall in 50 years, when you celebrate your anniversary.
photographers need to make a living too, and in these days, when virtually everyone is packing megapixel-cameras in their cellphones and the market is swamped with cheap dslr's, it's crowded.
just trying to see this discussion from the other point of view.
Hey, that's "Nookoolar", pal.
People have a winamp and an open folder because your friend hasn't currently finished his jukebox. I hope he has the heart to keep you in his vast flock of friends when fame hits him in the face, you behind-the-back-talker.
To indicate that attempting to improve on a market leading concept is stupid, is stupid.
Winamp + open folder is hardly the Perfect Solution.
Maybe if MS Outlook worked better, your subscription mail to the MS bashing list would be delivered successfully.
I was always partial to the "Get 'em young"-series.
It's amazing that your post even ended up on slashdot.org and not website.com.
The original inventor of the algorithm?
Someone steals your bycicle, adds a toot horn to it and then sells it for a profit. Someone steals your bycicle and just rides around in it.
Amazing. Well done!
No, the problem is that I've never seen anyone here go to great lengths to rationalize and justify this type of copyright infringement.
If you think that's a problem, do it yourself. It's obvious that noone in their right mind would try to justify this type of copyright infringement, but I guess you might just fit that bill and should give it a shot.
There's a big difference in the types of infringement.
When stealing music you're basically keeping popstars alive by not letting them afford personal jets and coke for the pilot. This is obvioulsy fairly simple to justify.
When stealing GPL'ed software and packaging it as your own, you're robbing a volunteer worker who out of the goodness of his heart gives something to everyone for free. This is obviously just plain evil, and should be dealt with swiftly and efficiently.
Here's a test for you: Does not giving you the choice between desktop environments make a better distribution? Does not letting you choose between emacs and vi make a distro better?
Only an idiot would whine about there being many text editors available. How many would you like to see? One? Notepad? Then stick with Windows.
Either you are saying that people shouldn't write software or that distros shouldn't package it.
To indicate that there are too many distros is just stupid. Should we all be running Fedora? If that's what you're saying, I'd rather stick to Windows XP, thank you very much. I recently discovered Ubuntu, which made me totally wipe Windows from this machine. The fact that Linux gives me a choice between distributions is what makes it strong. Linux at its current "messy" state is Darwinism at work.
If the "general public" everybody seems so eager to please would be better off by just having one text editor, make another distro. Which has only one text editor. Watch it get a user base of 1.
I don't understand why everybody is talking about the general public and "marketing" at all. Screw the general public. Linux provides a system that caters to me. If you take that away by limiting choice, I'll be pissed.
The reason why is, of course, the 40 (or 60) GB hard drive. This unit is intended for photographers needing a place to store image files, which are often sized 7-9MB a picture (on my 20D, more on cameras with more pixels). So while the zaurus might have the same specs, the hard drive is really key.
For photographers, of course. Maybe not for doom-players.
Taste and smell are the same thing only when you eat with your whole face. Food should go in the larger, lower hole.
I though it was something you dudes did to sell more records. But you mean thurr is hactually a system to it?
Really.
His analogy, while "overcomplicated" is quite accurate and interesting. If the passenger of the car is inclined to buy pirated software from a store, the sentence "Look at that store. The owner is knowingly selling pirated software" is facilitating copyright infringement the exact same way.
You are supporting his argument. The question is whether facilitating is indeed illegal, to what extent and how it should be enforced.
Should've included Alley Cat and Gribbly's Day Out. But I guess Uridium and Paradroid makes it go a long way.
Shaped like a Competition Pro joystick. I used to like this stick, but I wonder how it holds up now, having played extensively with the XBOX-controller.
This is a feature I've been wanting for some time. Implement a breath analyzer and allow you to put people you want to shield from raging alcoholic outbursts into special groups which are unavailable until the light is green.
I have the habit of deleting certain numbers before I start drinking, but even my old drunken mind has started involuntarily memorizing some of the numbers. I need parenting in my pocket.
Also, I'd like a phone that has the sense to timestamp when you enter new names into the phonebook. Don't you sometimes go through the list and wonder "who the hell are all these people?!". If it could also tag the entry with location, that would be excellent. "Lisa, 2004-11-10 02:00, The Roxbury". Aww, she's a dawg.
If the phone was also smart enough to trick you into paying bills while drunk, that would totally rock. It just doesn't hurt that much when done drunk. It would be nice to wake up one sunday, not remembering what the hell I did last night, and have it turn out I actually did good.
Oh, and also, could you position the camera so it's more useful for doing upskirt shots?
The argument about operator overloading introducing overwhelming uncertainty is getting worn. The "somebody" that made operator^ play the star spangled banner would probably, in the context of most projects, be someone you could reach out and slap, if not yourself. Incredible amounts of sense is delivered in a slap. This person would not do this again.
Someone could easily make a "void clearscreen()" play the same song. They would deserve to be slapped too.
Any decent C++-coder will know when operator^ is called. If not, they will find out when the song starts.