I use Gallery, an open source PHP one, because I've not been motivated to find one that fits my needs more perfectly. It's not terrible, though finding specific pictures is hard. If I had infinite time, money, and motivation to spend my time on maintaining pictures (which, arguably, is a better expenditure of my time than a lot of my hobbies), these are the features I would want:
Web access
Automatic thumbnail / "small size" generation, so that I can easily upload them to Facebook, link them on forums, or show them to coworkers without saturating my upload bandwidth
Able to set tags on batches of images (e.g., "Disneyland 2010", or "$KID"), with multiple tags able to be applied, both at upload and from a multi-selection screen. Re-tagging pictures individually (or after you upload them) is a royal pain.
Facebook's name-tagging feature is rather neat, and I'd want that too.
Searchable tags. This way, it's easy to search for, say, "$KID computer" to find the pictures of my kid playing on the computer, or search for all vacation, or beach, or formal pictures.
Able to apply ratings to pictures, and view stats like unique visitors and so on.
Able to manage the storage of pictures on multiple volumes, so that my gallery can live on an array of drives without me needing to set up RAID.
Most importantly, the ability for an image to show up in more than one "album". You might want a Christmas album, and then also one for 2010 pictures of your child, and then one for vacation highlights -- all of which might overlap in their image choices -- without needing to duplicate (or re-tag) images. This could probably be easily implemented on top of the tagging feature.
Why should "non-notable" articles be removed? What's wrong with being able to look up plot summary information for every movie ever made (even ones that got poor ratings or which sold poorly, such as The 13th Floor)? Is there a problem with extending that level of detail to episodes of Firefly, Sailor Moon, or an exhaustive description of historical steam trains?
As long as someone is willing to put the time into writing it (and referencing it, and formatting it well, etc), it seems like it only adds value to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.
I imagine it would be very odd to see a smartphone with a completely stock srt of data on it: no calls made or received, no texts sent, etc. That would make me VERY suspecious if I were looking at someone's phone.
They'd accept that deal in a heartbeat: they'd rather destroy him and keep a victory that lets them deploy more DRM-friendly stances in the future. I can't see a class action suit in this case as being anything more than a slap on the wrist.
Kudos for telling them why, though. It sounds like the president won't see how uncompetitive they are until it's too late, which is sad, but at least he'll have been warned. With luck, he'll realize that sooner than later.
Your response is the pessimistic one: private stock can be assumed to be worthless. I see your point about the lottery ticket -- especially in the situation described by the OP where it might be stock options on a sinking ship. If it's an established company that's growing, though, I think I'd be inclined to be more optimistic. (Yet still cautious.)
Loom Weaver's and Surt's responses were also handy -- I appreciate all of your responses. Unfortunately, I don't think I have a way to value my company. They don't tell us how many stocks are out there. Surt's estimates of market value is interesting, though.
The way to help your employees in this case is to somehow leak how much stock is outstanding. If your employees are too dumb to guess what the stock is actually worth once they have this information, they may not deserve extra compensation.
For those of us who don't know a lot about how to value stock, would you (or anyone) be willing in detail to explain this? I think I am not the only one who would like to learn how not to get screwed. Moreover, if the total stock count is secret, how are we to know it? (And how can we verify that we're not being lied to about how many shares there are?)
It's hard to have a job if there's no job that you're allowed to travel to. Perhaps for already-affluent-and-knowledgeable convicts. I agree, though, it's nice to have the option of exile rather than execution, but both are pretty bad options.
It would be really interesting to write an Iphone or Andriod map (or perhaps an app that leverages Google Maps?) which allows anyone to view their maps with known exclusion zones marked. This would be a service to parolees/ex-convicts looking to move somewhere ("Where are the schools/groceries/jobs at?"), as well as to people looking to lobby for change. ("This law effectively banishes anyone from Town X. Is this legal/moral?"). It would also be really interesting for those who are idly curious.
It may be that children are inherently a more vulnerable target. They can't carry arms, they're generally not strong enough to fend off (or escape) ANY attacker, and they're often gullible. I imagine they're less likely to report it, because they might not even know (why) it's wrong, and often it's perpetrated by someone they see already as an authority figure.
I agree with you that both are terrible crimes -- but I think the public tends to sympathize with children more, partly because we're parents and worry about our own kids more than we worry about ourselves (or each other).
In some cases, it sounds like it goes Incarceration -> [Parole?] -> Pariah-hood. No one wants to live near a felon or sex offender, no one wants to let them in the clergy, pump their gas, fix their fence, or be a crossing guard. No one wants to employ them, because it's a liability magnet. We seem, as a society, to have gravitated towards the punishment angle, rather than rehabilitation.
Indeed. Consider also that many 'sex offenders' are people who got drunk and peed in public. Some are even people who, while teens, sent pictures of themselves to their girlfriend or boyfriend. That doesn't really seem like a threat to me. Some (perhaps many) are rapists or pedophiles, but not all. I'd be surprised if most were, even.
That, and I also believe that we should be compassionate to others. Condemning someone to a life of homelessness, by way of exclusionary zones that overlap to prevent just about any meaningful way to become a part of society again, sounds both cruel and counterproductive. I'd even go so far as to call it unethical.
Mcgrew's account of his things-stuck-in-the-eye adventures are horrifying. For added fun, go read Larry Wall's diary about his cataract surgery./shudder. Thank you both for writing those, as it really helped educate me, both about the pain involved and the benefits later.
I can imagine being willing to do exactly that (make unpopular decisions) if it was for the good of the state. That's the proper role of a public servant, after all. If he doesn't think that he WILL run again, then re-election chances mean little. (In reality, I'm sure he'll be concerned about it.)
Interestingly, when I was listening to a debate while commuting once (the only one I listened to, sadly), I felt like Brown was just confused or evasive, while Whitman tried to really promote her agenda. I didn't have a clear idea what Brown wanted to do (or felt he COULD do). Whitman certainly had her share of BS-ing, and I'm sure more than I noticed, but the impression I had was that she was prepared, had a plan, etc.
It doesn't really matter now -- Brown won, after all, so all I can do is sincerely hope he does a good job of turning our state's budget problems around.
A company that wants to have continued business from a large customer like that would probably be willing to waive the fee, rather than see them hop ship to a competitor.
Listening to him debate Meg Whitman, I was relieved that I felt both candidates would take the job seriously. I didn't think either would do a poor job, though there were some platform stances that I liked less from Jerry Brown. It was refreshing to feel that both candidates would be both driven and competent.
I'm pretty sure that every American who supports the idea of an armed populace (with backing by the second amendment) is quite aware and honest with the reason for it. That said, it's quite valid that many people who want to own guns have no intention of using them on other humans, but rather for recreation.
Slashdot Mirror
Best of all, your photos will be tagged for you by volunteers!
I use Gallery, an open source PHP one, because I've not been motivated to find one that fits my needs more perfectly. It's not terrible, though finding specific pictures is hard. If I had infinite time, money, and motivation to spend my time on maintaining pictures (which, arguably, is a better expenditure of my time than a lot of my hobbies), these are the features I would want:
Why should "non-notable" articles be removed? What's wrong with being able to look up plot summary information for every movie ever made (even ones that got poor ratings or which sold poorly, such as The 13th Floor)? Is there a problem with extending that level of detail to episodes of Firefly, Sailor Moon, or an exhaustive description of historical steam trains?
As long as someone is willing to put the time into writing it (and referencing it, and formatting it well, etc), it seems like it only adds value to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.
I imagine it would be very odd to see a smartphone with a completely stock srt of data on it: no calls made or received, no texts sent, etc. That would make me VERY suspecious if I were looking at someone's phone.
If one were to buy a PS3 to hack on, and never connected it to the internet, how would one be bound by a terms of service?
They'd accept that deal in a heartbeat: they'd rather destroy him and keep a victory that lets them deploy more DRM-friendly stances in the future. I can't see a class action suit in this case as being anything more than a slap on the wrist.
Republics are still forms of democracy.
Sounds like both of you won, then. :-)
Kudos for telling them why, though. It sounds like the president won't see how uncompetitive they are until it's too late, which is sad, but at least he'll have been warned. With luck, he'll realize that sooner than later.
He might be a non-english speaker whose native language capitalizes nouns.
Thanks.
Your response is the pessimistic one: private stock can be assumed to be worthless. I see your point about the lottery ticket -- especially in the situation described by the OP where it might be stock options on a sinking ship. If it's an established company that's growing, though, I think I'd be inclined to be more optimistic. (Yet still cautious.)
Loom Weaver's and Surt's responses were also handy -- I appreciate all of your responses. Unfortunately, I don't think I have a way to value my company. They don't tell us how many stocks are out there. Surt's estimates of market value is interesting, though.
The way to help your employees in this case is to somehow leak how much stock is outstanding. If your employees are too dumb to guess what the stock is actually worth once they have this information, they may not deserve extra compensation.
For those of us who don't know a lot about how to value stock, would you (or anyone) be willing in detail to explain this? I think I am not the only one who would like to learn how not to get screwed. Moreover, if the total stock count is secret, how are we to know it? (And how can we verify that we're not being lied to about how many shares there are?)
It's hard to have a job if there's no job that you're allowed to travel to. Perhaps for already-affluent-and-knowledgeable convicts. I agree, though, it's nice to have the option of exile rather than execution, but both are pretty bad options.
It would be really interesting to write an Iphone or Andriod map (or perhaps an app that leverages Google Maps?) which allows anyone to view their maps with known exclusion zones marked. This would be a service to parolees/ex-convicts looking to move somewhere ("Where are the schools/groceries/jobs at?"), as well as to people looking to lobby for change. ("This law effectively banishes anyone from Town X. Is this legal/moral?"). It would also be really interesting for those who are idly curious.
It may be that children are inherently a more vulnerable target. They can't carry arms, they're generally not strong enough to fend off (or escape) ANY attacker, and they're often gullible. I imagine they're less likely to report it, because they might not even know (why) it's wrong, and often it's perpetrated by someone they see already as an authority figure.
I agree with you that both are terrible crimes -- but I think the public tends to sympathize with children more, partly because we're parents and worry about our own kids more than we worry about ourselves (or each other).
In some cases, it sounds like it goes Incarceration -> [Parole?] -> Pariah-hood. No one wants to live near a felon or sex offender, no one wants to let them in the clergy, pump their gas, fix their fence, or be a crossing guard. No one wants to employ them, because it's a liability magnet. We seem, as a society, to have gravitated towards the punishment angle, rather than rehabilitation.
Indeed. Consider also that many 'sex offenders' are people who got drunk and peed in public. Some are even people who, while teens, sent pictures of themselves to their girlfriend or boyfriend. That doesn't really seem like a threat to me. Some (perhaps many) are rapists or pedophiles, but not all. I'd be surprised if most were, even.
That, and I also believe that we should be compassionate to others. Condemning someone to a life of homelessness, by way of exclusionary zones that overlap to prevent just about any meaningful way to become a part of society again, sounds both cruel and counterproductive. I'd even go so far as to call it unethical.
Mcgrew's account of his things-stuck-in-the-eye adventures are horrifying. For added fun, go read Larry Wall's diary about his cataract surgery. /shudder. Thank you both for writing those, as it really helped educate me, both about the pain involved and the benefits later.
I can imagine being willing to do exactly that (make unpopular decisions) if it was for the good of the state. That's the proper role of a public servant, after all. If he doesn't think that he WILL run again, then re-election chances mean little. (In reality, I'm sure he'll be concerned about it.)
Interestingly, when I was listening to a debate while commuting once (the only one I listened to, sadly), I felt like Brown was just confused or evasive, while Whitman tried to really promote her agenda. I didn't have a clear idea what Brown wanted to do (or felt he COULD do). Whitman certainly had her share of BS-ing, and I'm sure more than I noticed, but the impression I had was that she was prepared, had a plan, etc.
It doesn't really matter now -- Brown won, after all, so all I can do is sincerely hope he does a good job of turning our state's budget problems around.
A company that wants to have continued business from a large customer like that would probably be willing to waive the fee, rather than see them hop ship to a competitor.
Listening to him debate Meg Whitman, I was relieved that I felt both candidates would take the job seriously. I didn't think either would do a poor job, though there were some platform stances that I liked less from Jerry Brown. It was refreshing to feel that both candidates would be both driven and competent.
I wish I could mod you informative.
There will always be SOME people willing to be bleeding-edge customers. They sometimes subsidize their upgrades by selling their older kit on ebay.
Somehow, I am both intrigued and frightened at the prospect of Klingon dialects of Perl.
I'm pretty sure that every American who supports the idea of an armed populace (with backing by the second amendment) is quite aware and honest with the reason for it. That said, it's quite valid that many people who want to own guns have no intention of using them on other humans, but rather for recreation.