I agree completely. This is just a matter of contract law. It may be that there is a social expectation that in contracting with a photographer you assign the copyright to him/her. But this is totally up to the client -- just make sure the contract does not say that the photographer will own the copyrights.
The problem isn't as much as the idea that the photographer has a copyright on the images, but rather that they are performing a work for hire.
This is what a contract is for. When you decide to hire the photographer, you sign a contract. It is up to you and the photographer to negotiate on who owns the copyright etc. Why is there any issue here? It's just contract law.
Duplicate prints aren't where a photographer should make their money today.
Where is this written? There is no should -- a person can make money in any manner as long as it is legal.
I am in fact a photographer, and I'm also a hacker. The code I write on my time is free; just like the photographs I take of events etc. However, there is code I write for my employer, just like photographs I take on commission for someone else. For this "work for hire" it is up to the person paying to decide what the copyright on the work is. (I might try to convince them to go the free route, but ultimately it is their choice.
Art is like like source -- copyright is copyright, and you have to respect it.
Just like with source code -- it is up to to the producer of the source/photograph to decide what copyright terms to attach to the product. You don't like the terms, go elsewhere. Once this gets off the ground there will be photographers (or artists in general) making "Open Art", and there will be the ones making "Closed Art." You can't get on a high-horse and say that "Art Wants To Be Free" or anything like that.
People try to debunk it as much as possible, but in truth, it's becoming more of a reality. Think stem cells.
OK, now think massive and total cell rupture. The next you enjoy a refreshing cold drink notice that ice -- which is what you get when you freeze water -- floats on your drink, which is mostly water. Why does it do that, you ask. (Well, you probably don't ask, which is the problem.) It's because when water freezes, it expands. If you live in a climate that gets occasional freezes, you might remember that some people have problems because their pipes burst. For another experiment, take a glass bottle with a tight cap. Fill the bottle all the way with water, and close it tightly. Place in freezer. Come back in a couple of hours and inspect the freezer. What do you think you're going to find?
This is not a question of a little minor damage that can be "patched up." This is like putting the corpse in a blender. On high speed. Sure, there are chemicals that can prevent this, like those frogs have... except that humans don't have those chemicals in our cells! No, not even Walt Disney's head.
It doesn't matter how cool stem cell research is. If every single one of those cells has been ruptured, and you wait a thousand years... well, it's more likely that you'll get hit by lightning and an asteroid simultaneously.
Dr. Brown (Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, a discipline not noted for its rigorous requirements in evolutionary or for that matter any biology)
Notwithstanding the level of biological rigor in mechanical engineering -- it always bugs me when people use their degrees as a sort of "believe my bullshit" trump card. No decent and ethical person does that. Most of the people I know have PhD's (not surprising, since I have one, and it wasn't so long ago that I was in grad school and all the people I knew either had them or were working towards them) -- and on the rare occasions that the degree gets used it's always in the context that the degree is in. If I were on TV to talk about the ramifications of models of expression evaluation and their applications to state-space searches (yeah, right! I know that's going to happen any day now!) I'd expect to be introduced as "Dr." If I were on TV arguing that creationism is a cargo cult of bullshit cunningly disguised by heaping more shit on top, I'd expect to be treated as a regular Joe Shmoe.
In any case, I don't just have a Ph.D.; I also am a Doctor of Divinity! Go visit the Universal Life Church -- for a mere $25 you could be one too! (It's free to become a regular "Reverend" -- and you can become one on the web site.)
How can something be moving, when there is nothing stationary to measure it against?... If you've got a star moving away from you, the light should be moving slower, right? If its coming towards you, faster moving light.
The whole point is that there is no special stationary place. Any non-accelerated frame of reference will do; measure the speed of light in a vacuum and you always get the same value. This is what's so cool!
The standard thought-experiment is the railway car with photocell-controlled doors at each end and a lamp in the middle. The light is turned on, and photons travel from it to the photocells, causing the doors to open. Since the lamp is exactly in the middle, an observer inside the train sees the doors open simultaneously. An observer standing standing outside while the train zooms past will see that the rear door opened before the front door (since in the time it takes for the photons to get from the lamp to the photocells, the rear door has moved closer and the front door has moved away). It's time that changes. In other words, the notion of "simultaneous events" is not one that can apply universally.
You should read Dr. Brown's 20 questions for evolutionists
I did. Quite a few of them are addressed in standard text-books, and others are unrelated to evolution.
I won't add anything here that would take the discussion even more off-topic. I'll just say that "Dr." Brown can do his own research and supplement his questions with reasons to not believe the standard models. And that for a bunch of people who are constantly and stridently screaming about the "lack of evidence" for evolution -- not one creationist has ever demonstrated even the smallest miracle yet. At least we scientists have a track record of developing our crazy theories into goodies like TVs and Tang for you.
[Creationists] have been correct about a number of things, many of which are still to be discovered.
The truth about things yet to be discovered! Wonderful! Exactly the sort of zero-knowledge hand-waving mumbo-jumbo crap that creationists spout! Please also tell us how the UFOs have been feeding us all this technology, and that's why astrology works.
Besides, we know that anything that tacks on "science" to its name is the farthest from being one -- cf. creation science, political science, and (ba-da-bing!) computer science.
Consider whether you what to be the one defending the status quo.
Hmm.... decisions, decisions.... defend the status quo? Or become a blithering moron?
...they determined that an increase in electric charge would break the second law of thermodynamics, which says energy can only flow from hot spots to cold spots.
"That's illegal. It would be like a cup of coffee sitting on your desk getting hotter," Lineweaver says.
Bah! If I have the choice between a changing e or breaking the 2nd Law, that's dead easy. The Laws of Thermodynamics are statistical. It is extremely unlikely that the atmosphere will transfer heat to Lineweaver's cup of coffee but not impossible. That's what makes real systems non-time-symmetric. However particle physics is time-symmetric.
Wrong. NP is the class of "non-deterministic polynomial-time" algorithms.
Another way to think about it is: can a proposed solution to the problem be checked (deterministically, of course) in polynomial time?
an NP-complete problem is one that can be solved, but takes about 8*age_of_universe time to solve
Wrong again. If you have a class C, the class "C-complete" represents something like the kernel of class C -- roughly, if you can solve a problem in C-complete defined under some restrictions, then you can solve any problem in C under those restrictions. Example: if you can solve a problem in NP-complete -- say 3-SAT -- in P time, then you can solve any problem in NP in P time.
a polynomial-time problem is one that can be solved within our lifetimes
Not encessarily. An n^{large-number} is not realistic to use for any non-trivial n. Anything above a cubic is not really usable.
Everyone: just because you start out by writing "I'm no mathematician, but..." doesn't means you can pull crap right out of your ass. Words mean things, and when you talk about math, words mean things exactly. Please don't misuse them.
It's the Sieve of Eratosthenes. A number n is of size log(n). This is a deterministic algorithm; why bring up NP? What is the time complexity of division? And here's a hint: you start with n-digit (n=100) numbers and present an algorithm that runs in time 10^n. This is in P?
Has anyone actually read the paper? The algorithm is outlined, with a complexity analysis. Don't forget, P-time doesn't mean usable.
Seriously, where is a license thats mostly-GPL, mostly-open-soruce, but disallows certain things like spyware/adware, or marketing of a competitive product
Why do we want to add Yet Another Free License when the GPL works just fine?
This NeoNapster thing is under GPL. If they added spyware or whatever, all you need to do is get their source, rip out the objectionable parts and distribute NiceNeoNapster. Maybe you could call it NeoNapsterNoSpyware so it will show up on all searches right next to NeoNapster.
Now if NeoNapster did rip out all copyright notices from CDex, that is illegal. Under the terms of the GPL, if you violate the terms of the GPL, you lose the right to use the code. This is what would make NeoNapster illegal.
There's nothing wrong with repackaging GPL software and adding spywares, this is called "fair use".
The first part is true; but this is not "fair use." This is something that is explicitly allowed by the license. Fair Use allows you to copy in a limited way where copying is not normally allowed. For instance, if I quote something from a book in a review, it comes under "fair use" because the license terms ordinarily do not allow any copying.
Gliders cannot fly.... In a pure glider (i.e., a plane with no engines), you can pretty much just slow down your descent, and maneuver a little bit on the way down.
Funny. Glider pilots (including me) just hallucinate, I suppose? They've stopped counting max endurance among glider records because in good wave conditions there is no limit to how long you can stay up.
Simple explanation: there are vertical currents in the atmosphere, just like there are horizontal ones (we call those winds). All a glider pilot has to do is to stay out of sink, and find lift. The lift can be thermal (warm air rises), slope (wind blowing against a ridge goes up) or wave (stronger winds across long mountain ranges generate standing waves on their lee side extending upwards to many times the height of the mountain).
How do you think the current glider altitude record of 50,000 feet was achieved?
I have been out of work for over a year because I cannot find a single job. In part this problem has been caused by H1B's taking the jobs that I am going for
If you've been out of work for a year, blame the ones who made the economy what it is today. When executives at companies like Enron and Worldcom feel free to fuck everyone over for personal gain, what do you expect? Where is the regulatory oversight? Let's start by taking away their golden parachutes and book deals. Let's put them in jail instead of people like Sklyarov.
I've been a manager, and let me tell you, hiring an H-1B person was discouraged (albeit mildly), because of the delay in starting at the job, and the legal costs. We couldn't pay H-1Bs any less than citizens or permanent residents (green-card holders). As a manager I preferred to hire smart and outspoken people, not meek and obedient serfs as some here have implied managers want. The best people make waves, and you don't have to be born and raised in this country to do so.
Is the US economy better off for the H-1B program? Absolutely. Can there be too many foreign workers? Of course. I don't claim to know what the right number is, or even if the present numbers are too high or too low. The point is that individual experience cannot tell you that, only a detailed and unbiased study can. As individuals we should not extrapolate from our bitterness. As you long as people look for scapegoats among the powerless instead of considering the powerful ones actually responsible, there will always be this kind of crap bandied about.
Linux is still inferior to Windows in functionality and ease of use.
It would be more helpful (and a better comment) if you could tell us the areas Linux is inferior to Windows.
I can tell you that for my purposes -- development (cvs, gcc, emacs), remote administration (ssh, X11), graphics (GIMP), audio/video (MP3 players, Quicktime [with Dreamweavers Crossover], MPEG) -- it works just fine. It supports all my hardware -- a TV card, Wacom Intuos tablet, Turtle Beach soundcard, USB Canon G1 digital camera, USB IBM webcam, Yamaha CD burner, Matrox G200 video -- with no problems.
In addition, it never crashes, handles NFS and NIS, is not vulnerable to the Bug Of The Day, and handles my web sites and mailing lists.
Official rules as to what constitutes a flight which is a real circumnavigation are on the site, it has to be between the two 30 degree meridiens basically...
Meridians run from pole to pole. Hence the Greenwich Meridian. Those horizontal thingies are circles of latitude.
Bored rich guy is more like it. I have my eye on a few FAI records and if I had some money I'd be breaking those.
For people not involved with FAI records: there are several classes based on aircraft type, engine type, task etc. A record would look something like "production single-engine land monoplane, less than 200 HP, fastest flight over a distance of 500 miles."
... they don't like to use freeware, but only consider industry proven and supported software.
If a person this clueless is in charge of security, it's not a good sign for the company.
You cannot find anything commercial that is more proven or better supported than OpenSSH. There may be commercial packages that are as good -- although I don't know of any -- but there can be none that are better. Support from commercial companies is, too often, a joke.
Case in point: very recently a bug was discovered in OpenSSH: if you used a certain form of challenge-response authentication, a remote compromise may be possible. Within days of the bug being announced, there was a workaround; and versions post-3.3 are not affected since they UsePrivilegeSeparation by default. This is the only significant bug I can remember off-hand.
In any case, SSH is a commercial product and is done by Tatu Ylonen, who was the original SSH guy; OpenSSH is the free version that the OpenBSD guys forked when SSH went commercial.
"Why and when would anyone ever want to divide something by an altitude?"
Maybe there is an emergency situation and they need to do some aerodynamic calculations. For that they will need the density of the air.
density = pressure / (accel due to gravity * height)
You're not suggesting that the ATC computer needs to do this, I hope.
The only person that might ever need to worry about aerodynamics of this sort is the pilot. Or rather, something like an air-data computer in the airplane. Not ATC.
There's so many powerful things that could be done; the least of which, of course, is detecting deviations from course within seconds and relaying that information simultaneously to ATC as well as to NORAD so that F16s can be scrambled
Hey! Let's maintain some perspective here! First: most VFR traffic may not even be visible to ATC (sectors can turn off 1200 replies); and IFR traffic, how many times have you heard on frequency: "Cessna 1234, verify RIGHT turn heading 310" or "say altitude" -- that usually means the pilot turned the wrong way or went past the assigned altitude. Scrambling F-16s is expensive!
I wish the FAA would spend a little brainpower on things like making equipment certification (e.g. IFR GPS installations) for Part 91 ops easier instead of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. It always amuses me that I'm legal shooting an NDB approach with a 50 year old Narco receiver, but illegal with a "VFR only" panel-mount moving-map GPS. I also wish they'd pay controllers real money and upgrade ATC radar instead of crap like more "security" at tiny airports. And some real weather reporting and briefing instead of closing every FSS in sight.
if it's an IFR day, when lotsa people are in the clouds, a confused or malevolant controller could have two planes shooting the same approach at the same time.
If I'm cleared for the "Podunk ILS 29R" and I hear the controller tell another airlpane "Cessna 1234, turn left heading 320, maintain 3000 till established, cleared for the ILS 29R approach" -- I'll be squawking!
Hmmm... I guess the controller could start out with "Cessna 1234, switch to my frequency 121.35" before clearing him for the approach.... But think like a controller. Is it worth having a "deal" on your hands just for a small chance you might get two piston singles to collide? Big sky little airplane.
Jesus Christ Almighty! I recommend every pilot here go read that article. He talks about non-radar and a couple of "deals" that had me sweating.
everything I have heard from the pilot's side (particularly GA pilots) is that the FAA is, well, not doing too well these days. And that the front-line controllers are probably more right on these issues than their bosses.
I'm a GA pilot, instrument rated so I get to deal with controllers a lot. I will take the controllers word over the FAAs any day. Controllers have saved my ass more times and more ways than I care to remember. The FAA has only thrown all kinds of bullshit paperwork around. (However, the FAA, just like any other giant government agency, has good parts and bad. The enforcement people just suck, whereas FSDO people are usually good.)
The AvWeb article cited above (which is written by Don Brown,
Facility Safety Representative at ZTL) also talks about FAA wanting to do away with primary radar altogether. Fucking morons. There are still plenty of airplanes flying around with no electrical systems, which means no transponders.
Slashdot Mirror
Art is like like source -- copyright is copyright, and you have to respect it.
Just like with source code -- it is up to to the producer of the source/photograph to decide what copyright terms to attach to the product. You don't like the terms, go elsewhere. Once this gets off the ground there will be photographers (or artists in general) making "Open Art", and there will be the ones making "Closed Art." You can't get on a high-horse and say that "Art Wants To Be Free" or anything like that.
This is not a question of a little minor damage that can be "patched up." This is like putting the corpse in a blender. On high speed. Sure, there are chemicals that can prevent this, like those frogs have... except that humans don't have those chemicals in our cells! No, not even Walt Disney's head. It doesn't matter how cool stem cell research is. If every single one of those cells has been ruptured, and you wait a thousand years... well, it's more likely that you'll get hit by lightning and an asteroid simultaneously.
In any case, I don't just have a Ph.D.; I also am a Doctor of Divinity! Go visit the Universal Life Church -- for a mere $25 you could be one too! (It's free to become a regular "Reverend" -- and you can become one on the web site.)
The standard thought-experiment is the railway car with photocell-controlled doors at each end and a lamp in the middle. The light is turned on, and photons travel from it to the photocells, causing the doors to open. Since the lamp is exactly in the middle, an observer inside the train sees the doors open simultaneously. An observer standing standing outside while the train zooms past will see that the rear door opened before the front door (since in the time it takes for the photons to get from the lamp to the photocells, the rear door has moved closer and the front door has moved away). It's time that changes. In other words, the notion of "simultaneous events" is not one that can apply universally.
Besides, we know that anything that tacks on "science" to its name is the farthest from being one -- cf. creation science, political science, and (ba-da-bing!) computer science.
Hmm.... decisions, decisions.... defend the status quo? Or become a blithering moron?Another way to think about it is: can a proposed solution to the problem be checked (deterministically, of course) in polynomial time?
Wrong again. If you have a class C, the class "C-complete" represents something like the kernel of class C -- roughly, if you can solve a problem in C-complete defined under some restrictions, then you can solve any problem in C under those restrictions. Example: if you can solve a problem in NP-complete -- say 3-SAT -- in P time, then you can solve any problem in NP in P time. Not encessarily. An n^{large-number} is not realistic to use for any non-trivial n. Anything above a cubic is not really usable.It's the Sieve of Eratosthenes. A number n is of size log(n). This is a deterministic algorithm; why bring up NP? What is the time complexity of division? And here's a hint: you start with n-digit (n=100) numbers and present an algorithm that runs in time 10^n. This is in P?
Has anyone actually read the paper? The algorithm is outlined, with a complexity analysis. Don't forget, P-time doesn't mean usable.
This NeoNapster thing is under GPL. If they added spyware or whatever, all you need to do is get their source, rip out the objectionable parts and distribute NiceNeoNapster. Maybe you could call it NeoNapsterNoSpyware so it will show up on all searches right next to NeoNapster.
Now if NeoNapster did rip out all copyright notices from CDex, that is illegal. Under the terms of the GPL, if you violate the terms of the GPL, you lose the right to use the code. This is what would make NeoNapster illegal.
Simple explanation: there are vertical currents in the atmosphere, just like there are horizontal ones (we call those winds). All a glider pilot has to do is to stay out of sink, and find lift. The lift can be thermal (warm air rises), slope (wind blowing against a ridge goes up) or wave (stronger winds across long mountain ranges generate standing waves on their lee side extending upwards to many times the height of the mountain).
How do you think the current glider altitude record of 50,000 feet was achieved?
I've been a manager, and let me tell you, hiring an H-1B person was discouraged (albeit mildly), because of the delay in starting at the job, and the legal costs. We couldn't pay H-1Bs any less than citizens or permanent residents (green-card holders). As a manager I preferred to hire smart and outspoken people, not meek and obedient serfs as some here have implied managers want. The best people make waves, and you don't have to be born and raised in this country to do so.
Is the US economy better off for the H-1B program? Absolutely. Can there be too many foreign workers? Of course. I don't claim to know what the right number is, or even if the present numbers are too high or too low. The point is that individual experience cannot tell you that, only a detailed and unbiased study can. As individuals we should not extrapolate from our bitterness. As you long as people look for scapegoats among the powerless instead of considering the powerful ones actually responsible, there will always be this kind of crap bandied about.
I can tell you that for my purposes -- development (cvs, gcc, emacs), remote administration (ssh, X11), graphics (GIMP), audio/video (MP3 players, Quicktime [with Dreamweavers Crossover], MPEG) -- it works just fine. It supports all my hardware -- a TV card, Wacom Intuos tablet, Turtle Beach soundcard, USB Canon G1 digital camera, USB IBM webcam, Yamaha CD burner, Matrox G200 video -- with no problems.
In addition, it never crashes, handles NFS and NIS, is not vulnerable to the Bug Of The Day, and handles my web sites and mailing lists.
Oh, and it's free.
For people not involved with FAI records: there are several classes based on aircraft type, engine type, task etc. A record would look something like "production single-engine land monoplane, less than 200 HP, fastest flight over a distance of 500 miles."
You cannot find anything commercial that is more proven or better supported than OpenSSH. There may be commercial packages that are as good -- although I don't know of any -- but there can be none that are better. Support from commercial companies is, too often, a joke.
Case in point: very recently a bug was discovered in OpenSSH: if you used a certain form of challenge-response authentication, a remote compromise may be possible. Within days of the bug being announced, there was a workaround; and versions post-3.3 are not affected since they UsePrivilegeSeparation by default. This is the only significant bug I can remember off-hand.
In any case, SSH is a commercial product and is done by Tatu Ylonen, who was the original SSH guy; OpenSSH is the free version that the OpenBSD guys forked when SSH went commercial.
The only person that might ever need to worry about aerodynamics of this sort is the pilot. Or rather, something like an air-data computer in the airplane. Not ATC.
I wish the FAA would spend a little brainpower on things like making equipment certification (e.g. IFR GPS installations) for Part 91 ops easier instead of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. It always amuses me that I'm legal shooting an NDB approach with a 50 year old Narco receiver, but illegal with a "VFR only" panel-mount moving-map GPS. I also wish they'd pay controllers real money and upgrade ATC radar instead of crap like more "security" at tiny airports. And some real weather reporting and briefing instead of closing every FSS in sight.
Hmmm... I guess the controller could start out with "Cessna 1234, switch to my frequency 121.35" before clearing him for the approach.... But think like a controller. Is it worth having a "deal" on your hands just for a small chance you might get two piston singles to collide? Big sky little airplane.
(I'm an instrument rated pilot.)
The AvWeb article cited above (which is written by Don Brown, Facility Safety Representative at ZTL) also talks about FAA wanting to do away with primary radar altogether. Fucking morons. There are still plenty of airplanes flying around with no electrical systems, which means no transponders.